• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Benghazi Lies and The 2012 Presidential Election Cycle[W:185]

PW4000

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
319
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Let's begin the process of unraveling the Benghazi Terrorist Lie.

The reason the Benghazi story won't go away, has nothing to do with a cover-up and everything to do with an October Surprise designed to embarrass the current Administration.

The so-called October Surprise, has become synonymous with election game changing events. The "surprise" may or may not be a surprise at all, depending on your perspective which side of the political aisle you happen to be sitting on. The "surprise" could be an engineered event, or it could be a genuinely unexpected event. Typically, the "surprise" itself is not what gets all the attention. Rather, the way in which Political Operatives spin the event in an attempt to score political points, is what becomes the "headlines" of the days that follow.

Benghazi, is that kind of unexpected event where unfortunately, extremely immoral political operatives here at home in the United States, have decided that coming together as a nation to deal with a crisis, is outweighed by the need to feign outrage at the President, for not stopping and/or preventing an event that was clearly uncontrollable under the circumstances and conditions in which the event took place. The other thing about the so-called "October Surprise," is the fact that it really has nothing at all to do with the Month of "October" anymore, as it does the embarrassment that it is alleged to bring upon the political party, politician and/or Presidency at which it is pointed.

Political Operatives have used crisis on foreign soil in the past before, there is nothing new about this highly questionable behavior. Recall, the January 20th, 1981, the Iranian Hostage Crisis. President Carter, as many as four (4) months prior to and after the failed attempt to extract the hostages, began a set of negotiations that involved releasing billions of dollars in Iranian assets that had been part of the seizer process designed to put economic pressure on Iran, which is something that was very appealing to Iranian officials, given its new war with Iraq, that had just begun in September of that same year (1980). Though there was an agreement in principle with Iran, and though having the hostages come home sometime before the Presidential election in November, would have probably been enough seal the deal for Carter's re-election bid, the hostages remained in Iran, right-up to the very day that President Reagan, was being inaugurated. Ergo, the "October Surprise" is really not about October, at all.

Clearly, some kind of post-October Surprise deal had been cut. How do we know? Well, one of the key asymmetric fog horns of the Reagan Administration, was the Iran Contra Scandal on the one hand, and the assassination of the Portuguese Defense Minister, who was in possession of evidence in the form of documentation that might have proved the deal cut between Reagan's people and someone within the pre-hostage release Iranian government. Why the symmetry? Kill the Portuguese mouthpiece on his way to the United Nations with documented proof of the deal, and then support the cause of bypassing the arms embargo against Iran, using covert operations. Of course, even the best of plans go wrong when Oliver North and his Clan, got caught funneling money directly to the so-called "Freedom Fighters," who turned out to be nothing more than home-ground 'local terrorists' themselves. So much for "October" Surprises.

Ansar al-Sharia, is NOT a cohesive terrorist group, folks. That's a fact that any United States Citizen could find out on their own with just a small amount of homework. Notice the Black Flags:



Folks, you have to stop allowing Political Operative to spin you.

The actual name "Ansar al-Sharia" has none of the native linguistic, or root symmetry found in real Islamic terrorist organizations. These guys are the U.S. equivalent to Flash Mobs, with the difference being that their mobs and riots end up more deadly than those typically associated with Flash Mobs here in the United States. They tote video camera around with them to show-off their 'handiwork' on the Internet and they use the Internet stir-up fear and intimidation using these same video tactics.

These guys are like Copy Cat criminals, only slightly more sophisticated. They claim they want Sharia Law established throughout Libya, but their behavior is nothing that Sharia Law, would even uphold, for crying out-loud. These guys are extreme Islamic trouble-making thugs, whose behavior is more akin to well armed Street Gang of the 1980's in Some City USA. This is not a highly organized militant sect for goodness sakes. In one instance, they were run-out of the neighborhood in Libya, by the residents who lived there! That's not something that would happen to a hard-core terrorist group.

How many real hard-core terrorists organizations do you know about, who strut their stuff down 5th and Main, as if to be no more concerned about being spotted, than any Fan at an NFL Tailgating Party on any Sunday, right here in the U.S.? All these so-called "terrorists" were missing, was the Barbecue grill hitch:



Terrorist group? Or, a Macy's White Flower Day Parade?

Benghazi, during the attacks was a place of high turmoil and massive social unrest. We had an Embassy, that sat right in the middle of that mess and ended up getting caught in the mixture of tensions and agendas during a time when Libya, is going through its own birthing process towards (hopefully) a more democratic state. Our Embassy in Benghazi, like many other Embassies around the world, was caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to do its duty as the diplomatic arm of the United States of America, at a very difficult time in a nation's transformation.

Our Embassies around the world receive constant death threats, constant declarations of physical violence, up to and including threats of imminent acts of terrorism. This is NOT new, especially after our illegal invasion of Iraq, but even before Iraq, our foreign diplomatic footprints have always been the target of Anti-American and Anti-West hate, from a myriad of different sources.

To sit here and pretend that the President and/or anyone President's Administration, should have recklessly jumped the gun and declared something an act of "terror," as though merely stating the word "terror" somehow alters the reality of the situation on the ground, is doing nothing but playing politics with a very serious matter. Whether anyone in the Administration used the word "terror" or not, is entirely MOOT at best, when finding out what actually happened is the most important action that anyone in the Administration could take at this time.

Whether a terrorist attack or not, it DOES NOT MATTER at this time. This country has been brainwashed by the word "terror" that it no longer has the ability to think clearly in situations such as what happened in Benghazi. There are people who desperately want you to live your life in FEAR, such that you are constantly seeing "terrorists" and "terrorism," everywhere you go. Why? So, that they have a much easier time convincing you that doing things like Preemptively Attacking Iran, is somehow beneficial to U.S. interest and/or our allies. There are people who want to shape and control the destiny of places like Libya. So, keeping you living a life filled with FEAR and intimidation all the time, makes it much easier when the time comes to put U.S. boots on the grounds in places like this, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with U.S. Security.

It is long past time to wake-up people and start seeing the world as it is, not as you imagine it to be.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for certain, we can go on believing in political operative lies - being strung-out on large doses of fear and intimidation, or we can begin to educate ourselves about what's really happening on this planet and what the appropriate role of the United States of America should be, in a post-Iraq Invasion world.
 
Let's begin the process of unraveling the Benghazi Terrorist Lie.

The reason the Benghazi story won't go away, has nothing to do with a cover-up and everything to do with an October Surprise designed to embarrass the current Administration.

The so-called October Surprise, has become synonymous with election game changing events. The "surprise" may or may not be a surprise at all, depending on your perspective which side of the political aisle you happen to be sitting on. The "surprise" could be an engineered event, or it could be a genuinely unexpected event. Typically, the "surprise" itself is not what gets all the attention. Rather, the way in which Political Operatives spin the event in an attempt to score political points, is what becomes the "headlines" of the days that follow.

Benghazi, is that kind of unexpected event where unfortunately, extremely immoral political operatives here at home in the United States, have decided that coming together as a nation to deal with a crisis, is outweighed by the need to feign outrage at the President, for not stopping and/or preventing an event that was clearly uncontrollable under the circumstances and conditions in which the event took place. The other thing about the so-called "October Surprise," is the fact that it really has nothing at all to do with the Month of "October" anymore, as it does the embarrassment that it is alleged to bring upon the political party, politician and/or Presidency at which it is pointed.

Political Operatives have used crisis on foreign soil in the past before, there is nothing new about this highly questionable behavior. Recall, the January 20th, 1981, the Iranian Hostage Crisis. President Carter, as many as four (4) months prior to and after the failed attempt to extract the hostages, began a set of negotiations that involved releasing billions of dollars in Iranian assets that had been part of the seizer process designed to put economic pressure on Iran, which is something that was very appealing to Iranian officials, given its new war with Iraq, that had just begun in September of that same year (1980). Though there was an agreement in principle with Iran, and though having the hostages come home sometime before the Presidential election in November, would have probably been enough seal the deal for Carter's re-election bid, the hostages remained in Iran, right-up to the very day that President Reagan, was being inaugurated. Ergo, the "October Surprise" is really not about October, at all.

Clearly, some kind of post-October Surprise deal had been cut. How do we know? Well, one of the key asymmetric fog horns of the Reagan Administration, was the Iran Contra Scandal on the one hand, and the assassination of the Portuguese Defense Minister, who was in possession of evidence in the form of documentation that might have proved the deal cut between Reagan's people and someone within the pre-hostage release Iranian government. Why the symmetry? Kill the Portuguese mouthpiece on his way to the United Nations with documented proof of the deal, and then support the cause of bypassing the arms embargo against Iran, using covert operations. Of course, even the best of plans go wrong when Oliver North and his Clan, got caught funneling money directly to the so-called "Freedom Fighters," who turned out to be nothing more than home-ground 'local terrorists' themselves. So much for "October" Surprises.

Ansar al-Sharia, is NOT a cohesive terrorist group, folks. That's a fact that any United States Citizen could find out on their own with just a small amount of homework. Notice the Black Flags:



Folks, you have to stop allowing Political Operative to spin you.

The actual name "Ansar al-Sharia" has none of the native linguistic, or root symmetry found in real Islamic terrorist organizations. These guys are the U.S. equivalent to Flash Mobs, with the difference being that their mobs and riots end up more deadly than those typically associated with Flash Mobs here in the United States. They tote video camera around with them to show-off their 'handiwork' on the Internet and they use the Internet stir-up fear and intimidation using these same video tactics.

These guys are like Copy Cat criminals, only slightly more sophisticated. They claim they want Sharia Law established throughout Libya, but their behavior is nothing that Sharia Law, would even uphold, for crying out-loud. These guys are extreme Islamic trouble-making thugs, whose behavior is more akin to well armed Street Gang of the 1980's in Some City USA. This is not a highly organized militant sect for goodness sakes. In one instance, they were run-out of the neighborhood in Libya, by the residents who lived there! That's not something that would happen to a hard-core terrorist group.

How many real hard-core terrorists organizations do you know about, who strut their stuff down 5th and Main, as if to be no more concerned about being spotted, than any Fan at an NFL Tailgating Party on any Sunday, right here in the U.S.? All these so-called "terrorists" were missing, was the Barbecue grill hitch:



Terrorist group? Or, a Macy's White Flower Day Parade?

Benghazi, during the attacks was a place of high turmoil and massive social unrest. We had an Embassy, that sat right in the middle of that mess and ended up getting caught in the mixture of tensions and agendas during a time when Libya, is going through its own birthing process towards (hopefully) a more democratic state. Our Embassy in Benghazi, like many other Embassies around the world, was caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to do its duty as the diplomatic arm of the United States of America, at a very difficult time in a nation's transformation.

Our Embassies around the world receive constant death threats, constant declarations of physical violence, up to and including threats of imminent acts of terrorism. This is NOT new, especially after our illegal invasion of Iraq, but even before Iraq, our foreign diplomatic footprints have always been the target of Anti-American and Anti-West hate, from a myriad of different sources.

To sit here and pretend that the President and/or anyone President's Administration, should have recklessly jumped the gun and declared something an act of "terror," as though merely stating the word "terror" somehow alters the reality of the situation on the ground, is doing nothing but playing politics with a very serious matter. Whether anyone in the Administration used the word "terror" or not, is entirely MOOT at best, when finding out what actually happened is the most important action that anyone in the Administration could take at this time.

Whether a terrorist attack or not, it DOES NOT MATTER at this time. This country has been brainwashed by the word "terror" that it no longer has the ability to think clearly in situations such as what happened in Benghazi. There are people who desperately want you to live your life in FEAR, such that you are constantly seeing "terrorists" and "terrorism," everywhere you go. Why? So, that they have a much easier time convincing you that doing things like Preemptively Attacking Iran, is somehow beneficial to U.S. interest and/or our allies. There are people who want to shape and control the destiny of places like Libya. So, keeping you living a life filled with FEAR and intimidation all the time, makes it much easier when the time comes to put U.S. boots on the grounds in places like this, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with U.S. Security.

It is long past time to wake-up people and start seeing the world as it is, not as you imagine it to be.


The point, the only point, is that we were told the reason for the attacks was a YouTube video. That was not true. Everything else is irrelevant. They stood on that excuse until September 26th.

Edit: Since then, it looks even worse for the Administration since it is quite clear that the consulate asked for more security on at least two occasions and was denied same. Result: dead people.
 
The point, the only point, is that we were told the reason for the attacks was a YouTube video. That was not true. Everything else is irrelevant.

Actually that IS TRUE according to the most recent reports. Do you still agree that everything else is irrelevant?
 
Actually that IS TRUE according to the most recent reports. Do you still agree that everything else is irrelevant?

The only reports the Administration had were that the attacks were planned and organized. Now? Perhaps there is some information that somehow the YouTube video played a part. That was then. This is now. As to everything else being irrelevant? When I said that I was talking about the OP.

No, everything else is not irrelevant; and I don't know how anyone could possibly believe it is. Much worse than whatever obfuscation happened at the beginning of this incident is the fact that the consulate had requested more protection at least twice in the preceding year and was denied. Requests denied. People died. That is not irrelevant.
 
More lies spreading. This, like the bayonet and horse comments, have misquoted the President, fabricated information and just outright lied about it all to discredit the President during this election.

The Benghazi Controversy, Explained | Mother Jones

It's been such a lie, even FOX experts are calling it that

Fox Military Analyst Counters Rest Of Network, Denounces "Second Guessing" On Benghazi Attack Response

Former NATO Ambassador Adds: "Keep Politics Out Of This"

There's video.

Between the republican house outting a CIA agent and cutting funding for security at embassies and consulates all over the world, the truth of all this is that the right wing is lying,as they do, to try to discredit our black President, and in the process,are making ourselves less safe.
 
More lies spreading. This, like the bayonet and horse comments, have misquoted the President, fabricated information and just outright lied about it all to discredit the President during this election.

The Benghazi Controversy, Explained | Mother Jones

It's been such a lie, even FOX experts are calling it that

Fox Military Analyst Counters Rest Of Network, Denounces "Second Guessing" On Benghazi Attack Response



There's video.

Between the republican house outting a CIA agent and cutting funding for security at embassies and consulates all over the world, the truth of all this is that the right wing is lying,as they do, to try to discredit our black President, and in the process,are making ourselves less safe.

Oh looky, now suddenly Fox is good.
 
Oh looky, now suddenly Fox is good.

That's it? An expert FOX uses refutes these lies and all you can say is "oh, looky, now suddenly FOX is good."?

Where'd I say that? Do you disagree with the FOX news expert and the former NATO Ambassador?
 
More lies spreading. This, like the bayonet and horse comments, have misquoted the President, fabricated information and just outright lied about it all to discredit the President during this election.

The Benghazi Controversy, Explained | Mother Jones

It's been such a lie, even FOX experts are calling it that

Fox Military Analyst Counters Rest Of Network, Denounces "Second Guessing" On Benghazi Attack Response



There's video.

Between the republican house outting a CIA agent and cutting funding for security at embassies and consulates all over the world, the truth of all this is that the right wing is lying,as they do, to try to discredit our black President, and in the process,are making ourselves less safe.

You seem to be confusing the military response with the political response. What he was talking about was that the military can not be blamed, and that they reacted well in keeping with their orders.
 
That's it? An expert FOX uses refutes these lies and all you can say is "oh, looky, now suddenly FOX is good."?

Where'd I say that? Do you disagree with the FOX news expert and the former NATO Ambassador?

He didn't refute anything, other than the implication that the military didn't do it's job. Which it did do.
 
The only reports the Administration had were that the attacks were planned and organized. Now? Perhaps there is some information that somehow the YouTube video played a part. That was then. This is now. As to everything else being irrelevant? When I said that I was talking about the OP.

No, everything else is not irrelevant; and I don't know how anyone could possibly believe it is. Much worse than whatever obfuscation happened at the beginning of this incident is the fact that the consulate had requested more protection at least twice in the preceding year and was denied.
Requests denied. People died.
That is not irrelevant.

Now that is very creative and may just catch on, nice job.
 
You seem to be confusing the military response with the political response. What he was talking about was that the military can not be blamed, and that they reacted well in keeping with their orders.

It's not about a military response. It's about the FOX news expert telling the FOX lies must stop.
 
This whole thing is such a shame really....For the first time in this country's history, and American President left other Americans to die in a foreign land without even attempting to help them....He turned his back on fellow Americans, and has the gaul to go out on the trail and speak of trust?
 
This whole thing is such a shame really....For the first time in this country's history, and American President left other Americans to die in a foreign land without even attempting to help them....He turned his back on fellow Americans, and has the gaul to go out on the trail and speak of trust?

Your proof?

Krauthammer Whitewashes Bush's History To Bash Obama Over Embassy Attack | Research | Media Matters for America

. . .
But Seven U.S. Embassies And Consulates Were Attacked Under George W. Bush

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:

Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

. . .

7 Embassies were attacked when Bush was in office. Lives lost. And that's when he had a full budget for security.

The shame. 7 times the death under Bush.
 
This is about the liar Obama....Stick to the subject...How many Ambassadors died in the past 30 years, and who was President?

No, this is about the lies the right wing media is spreading about the President. You want an honest discussion, put up some honest information.

On Fox, Lars Larson Accuses Obama White House Of Watching Americans Die In Libya | Blog | Media Matters for America

Frequent Fox guest and conservative radio talk host Lars Larson accused the Obama White House of sitting by and watching a live feed of the September 11 attack at the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Larson went on to claim that the White House was aware through email alerts during the attack that terrorists were indeed responsible but made the political decision not to try to mobilize nearby U.S. forces for help.

In fact, Larson's wild claims are all based on assertions that have not only been widely discredited but are contradicted by evidence.

In an October 24 article, CBS News reported that an audio feed of the attack -- not a video feed as Larson charged -- was being monitored live by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb, not the White House. CBS added that actual video footage of the attack from security cameras around the compound wasn't recovered until 20 days later.

In a separate article on October 23, CBS described a series of three email alerts the State Department sent to a number of government agencies as the attack was unfolding. One of the emails reported that militia group Ansar al-Sharia had posted messages on Facebook and Twitter claiming responsibility for the attack. The email stated that the U.S. embassy in Tripoli reported that the Islamic group "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty [sic] for Benghazi Attack ... on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

However, the information in that email alert turned out to be inaccurate. Ansar al-Sharia, in fact, didn't post any messages on their social media accounts until the day after the attack and expressed only approval of the incident. It did not take credit for it.

. . .

Lies refuted and yet look how many people perpetuate the lies? What are the reasons for spreading lies about our Black President?
 
Did they blame the attacks on a video?


Were there videos released in the Middle East at the time? Are you more concerned with that, or the deaths Bush caused?
 
No, this is about the lies the right wing media is spreading about the President. You want an honest discussion, put up some honest information.

On Fox, Lars Larson Accuses Obama White House Of Watching Americans Die In Libya | Blog | Media Matters for America



Lies refuted and yet look how many people perpetuate the lies? What are the reasons for spreading lies about our Black President?


That you constantly come in here and bait, with laughable sourcing such as Media Matters, and call those that are having rational discussions "racist".... Yeah, I won't take your bait any longer, go troll somewhere else.
 
That you constantly come in here and bait, with laughable sourcing such as Media Matters, and call those that are having rational discussions "racist".... Yeah, I won't take your bait any longer, go troll somewhere else.

"Bait"? Is that what the right is calling the truth?

I presented what a FOX commentator said about all the lies the right is giving to the incidents at Libya.

The republicans cuts the funds for security at embassies and the Republican House outted the CIA office near the consulate.

THESE are facts. Nothing presented by the right wing is fact on the incident.
 
"Bait"? Is that what the right is calling the truth?

I presented what a FOX commentator said about all the lies the right is giving to the incidents at Libya.

The republicans cuts the funds for security at embassies and the Republican House outted the CIA office near the consulate.

THESE are facts. Nothing presented by the right wing is fact on the incident.


In a House hearing Charlene Lamb a person that knows far more than you about the financial considerations of security at embassies around the world said to a direct question about whether or not money or budget was a consideration as to why this ambassador was denied the security he requested, and she responded "No, budget was not a concern"....

So your little meme about budget cutting, is frankly sir, a lie.
 
The only reports the Administration had were that the attacks were planned and organized. Now? Perhaps there is some information that somehow the YouTube video played a part. That was then. This is now. As to everything else being irrelevant? When I said that I was talking about the OP.

No, everything else is not irrelevant; and I don't know how anyone could possibly believe it is. Much worse than whatever obfuscation happened at the beginning of this incident is the fact that the consulate had requested more protection at least twice in the preceding year and was denied. Requests denied. People died. That is not irrelevant.

Yeah, I figured everything else was only irrelevant if it fit the OBAMA BAD!! meme. Thanks for confirming.
 
This is about the liar Obama....Stick to the subject...How many Ambassadors died in the past 30 years, and who was President?

With all due respect, it's about the hypocritical political opportunists on the right trying to turn the tragic loss of American life into cheap political theater.

See, that's why the more abundant, more deadly attacks during the Bush administration are relevant. If what really concerned Republicans was embassy attacks, they would have been up in arms over the many attacks that occurred under Bush. But what we actually heard from the right about THOSE attacks was ... the sound of one hand clapping ... crickets ... tumbleweeds ... zip ... nada.

Carry on with your feigned outrage.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, it's about the hypocritical political opportunists on the right trying to turn the tragic loss of American life into cheap political theater.

See, that's why the more abundant, more deadly attacks during the Bush administration are relevant. If what really concerned Republicans was embassy attacks, they would have been up in arms over the many attacks that occurred under Bush. But what we actually heard from the right about THOSE attacks was ... the sound of one hand clapping ... crickets ... tumbleweeds ... zip ... nada.

Carry on with your feigned outrage.


Nothing feigned about it Adam. I am dismayed that not only you, but other liberal, and progressive posters here seem to care so little for the death of those 4 that they use the callous argument that you forward here. Can you imagine being in that fight, thinking that help was surely on the way, only to have those here in DC turn their backs on you? But no problem with that eh?

Gotta go to work, this is sad, real sad.
 
Nothing feigned about it Adam. I am dismayed that not only you, but other liberal, and progressive posters here seem to care so little for the death of those 4 that they use the callous argument that you forward here. Can you imagine being in that fight, thinking that help was surely on the way, only to have those here in DC turn their backs on you? But no problem with that eh?

Gotta go to work, this is sad, real sad.

I am concerned about it. That's why I would like to see a full investigation without the opportunistic political bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom