The Libya Cover Up

[Bronson]

Hillary Clinton To Obama In 2008: "The Buck Stops In The Oval Office"

 

[American]

Last I heard the libs were blaming the CIA for this.

What exactly did the CIA have to do with Benghazi?

Keep you eyes open, maybe they'll leak something at the appropriate moment. I think it's time the House consider impeachment. :lol: That would be a fine how-do-you-do for Obama. Go ahead, get re-elected. We'll impeach you ass on 21 January 2013. :lol:

 

[Rokkitsci]

What was the cover up? If you think that Obama et.al. thought they could "cover up" an attack where an ambassador was killed then yo must also think that they are pretty damn stupid.

There isn't any cover up, there is an investigation at which Issa and friends blew the CIA cover. That "safe house" was a cia station. the consulate wasn't recognized by the libyan government as such, it was apparently supposed to be temporary and the ambassador sure as hell knew it wasn't secure.

I just want one question answered. What was the ambassador doing there on sept 11, when he knew security was extremely weak?

I don't care if the government said at first it was because of the video, while intelligence was gathered. Its just not a big deal despite what fox news is trying to make of it.. It certainly doesn't warrant being the top story on fox for three weeks running. Talk about conspiracy theory pandering,

Big fail on this one.

It appears you are blaming the ambassador for not 'getting out when the getting was good' or something here.

Of course, Obama administration is at fault for the lack of security, the lack of interest, and an obvious cover-up.

And to say that the cover-up will be discovered is not an excuse to say it didn't occur. What it says is that the ONLY priority of this administration is to get re-elected. They will say and do anything at the moment to delay an real information from getting to the public prior to this election. No story is too stupid to be trotted out in the hopes it can survive for three more weeks.

They will deal with the fallout of the coverup after the election. All that matters is that Obama still be in the WH. And he has not the integrity of Nixon - Nixon resigned instead of fighting impeachment. Obama will grind this country to a halt to fight anything that involves him personally.

For the 'video' to even be mentioned by anyone in the administration is admission of a total dedication to putting "spin" on a national security matter. For the PRESIDENT himself to do it, and allow his SECRETARY OF STATE and UN AMBASSADOR to do it is unconsciousable.

UNBELIEVEABLE malfeasance and abuse of power. Worthy of impeachment in my view.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Yes, Obama and his administration is a failure, now Hillery as you say has fallen on her sward for Obama. The problem is Obama is the commander in chief, is he going to fire Hillery? No way in hell, she took one for Obama. Come November they both will loose their jobs. And good to get rid of them both and the rest of the Obama clan.

BINGO - if Obama has clean hands on this, he has no choice but to fire Hillary Clinton. IF she acted behind his back to concoct a false story that HE went forward with for weeks, then she MUST be fired.

But of course she won't be fired. Even if she was entirely and solely culpable, he needs Bill's support too badly to fire her. But the real answer is that they colluded on the 'story' to be followed for as long as possible to delay the real fallout until after the election.

But there should be an intensive effort on the part of conservatives asking the question = "Then why not FIRE her, Mr. Obama?"

 

[Rokkitsci]

Amazing. Obama should have done what exactly? How does Obama continuing on his planned agenda have anything to do with this situation?

As to your contention that there is no other explanation for their repeated attempts to "blame the video", I contend that you lack a decent imagination. I can think of a lot of way better reasons without even trying.

1. CIA wanted time to assess damage
2, Misdirection is a common tactic and using public media gives it a certain extra weight with the perps who might have gotten a tad sloppy or gotten pissed and made an annoucement taking credit
3. the ambassador was on a secret mission that may or may not have been compromised, so admit nothing.
4. CIA was screwing with some militants in a black ops and the militants wanted revenge. Can't very well say that.

Now those are way way more plausible than trying to stupidly cover up the nature of the attack for dubious political re-election purposes.

This is the first plausible defense of Obama administration's role in this debacle.

I commend you. Some of your possibilities are quite feasible.

And I will admit - openly and honestly - that the only reason I dismiss them at all is that I do not believe Obama has the best interests of the nation as his priority.

I will admit to be blinded by my belief that the only priority of Obama's is to be re-elected. Nothing I have ever observed of him directs me to any other conclusion. Every thing I am aware of in his background and in his actions as POTUS leads me to my conclusion that he cares not one whit for the success of America - especially in foreign affairs.

Your post is well reasoned and I commend you for it. For any other POTUS - dem or gop - it would be plausible.

eace

 

[AdamT]

I like how you bury your head in the sand, and call this cover up, nothing to be concerned about. Really. There are so many unanswered questions that once again Obama is keeping a lid on it is SOP. I could list 50 question which I have on this thread without no answer. Maybe you could give it a try.

The question is what intellliigence briefing did Rice get to come on the Sunday shows to say what she did.

I quote:
What intelligence briefing was Rice at? Who conducted the briefing? Was Obama or Biden at that briefing? Was anyone from the administration at the briefing? Where is the record of that briefing. Was anyone from Hillery's state department at that briefing? If Obama and Biden was not at the briefing, why were they not? Was this mater so trivial that Obama and Biden could not attend this briefing?

Now please answer some of these real easy questions, and lets determine who knew what and when. And when you answer these questions I'll give you 50 more.

Seek and ye shall find....

“In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policymakers,” Rice wrote to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

She goes on to point out that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence itself, in a Sept. 28 statement, acknowledged sharing that information with the executive branch.

“In the immediate aftermath,” the agency said, “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

Rice pushes back against GOP attacks on her Benghazi account - The Hill's Global Affairs

The incredible part of this whole thing is that Republicans are arguing it was clear from the beginning that this was not related to the video ... after Mitt Romney came out and blamed the whole thing on the video. :lamo

 

[CedarBear]

The point is self evident.

Sure is...guerilla attacks cannot be predicted. If we're going to send our diplomats into unpredictable areas, they need predictable security.

 

[Jonsa]

Big fail on this one.

It appears you are blaming the ambassador for not 'getting out when the getting was good' or something here.

No the only ones I blame are the guys with the guns and rpgs. You know the ATTACKERS.

Of course, Obama administration is at fault for the lack of security, the lack of interest, and an obvious cover-up.

And to say that the cover-up will be discovered is not an excuse to say it didn't occur. What it says is that the ONLY priority of this administration is to get re-elected. They will say and do anything at the moment to delay an real information from getting to the public prior to this election. No story is too stupid to be trotted out in the hopes it can survive for three more weeks.

What real information? what devastating information was the Obama administration trying to cover up? that an attack occurred? that there are terrorists in the world? Are you actually saying that some moron in the white house determined that an attack on an embassy that killed an ambassador shouldn't be blamed on terrorists because Obama would have lost the election if the "truth" had come out? Nah, that's not a stretch at all.

They will deal with the fallout of the coverup after the election. All that matters is that Obama still be in the WH. And he has not the integrity of Nixon - Nixon resigned instead of fighting impeachment. Obama will grind this country to a halt to fight anything that involves him personally.

Right. Nixon who resigned before being impeached for an assortment of CRIMES is compared to Obama and Obama fails because Nixon had more "integrity". I suppose you can't possibly see how stupid that premise is.

For the 'video' to even be mentioned by anyone in the administration is admission of a total dedication to putting "spin" on a national security matter. For the PRESIDENT himself to do it, and allow his SECRETARY OF STATE and UN AMBASSADOR to do it is unconsciousable.

UNBELIEVEABLE malfeasance and abuse of power. Worthy of impeachment in my view.

Yeah I guess the administration shouldn't have mentioned the video that was most definitely the excuse for the mini-riot in egypt or the riots in afghanistan and pakistan etc. Nah, that should not have been mentioned even tho the bad guys were using it to incite anti-american violence by ignorant muslims around the world who could not believe the US government had nothing to do with it nor that they didn'thave the power to get rid of it. Naaaahhhhhh, why even attempt to calm the situation down. Why even attempt to explain american values to these unwashed hoardes.

Of course why put spin on a national security matter as if it hasn't been done by every president in since ww2. Perhaps the most aggregious and costly in recent memory - WMD in Iraq. But of course that pales in comparison to not calling benghazi a terror attack in the first few days aftermath when the intell was murky.

Yep, there ain't no shame in politics.

 

[Jonsa]

This is the first plausible defense of Obama administration's role in this debacle.

I commend you. Some of your possibilities are quite feasible.

And I will admit - openly and honestly - that the only reason I dismiss them at all is that I do not believe Obama has the best interests of the nation as his priority.

I will admit to be blinded by my belief that the only priority of Obama's is to be re-elected. Nothing I have ever observed of him directs me to any other conclusion. Every thing I am aware of in his background and in his actions as POTUS leads me to my conclusion that he cares not one whit for the success of America - especially in foreign affairs.

Your post is well reasoned and I commend you for it. For any other POTUS - dem or gop - it would be plausible.

eace

I have four rules of business conduct, rule number two is "recognize your weaknesses". allow me to return the commendation.

cheers.

 

[Born Free]

Seek and ye shall find....



The incredible part of this whole thing is that Republicans are arguing it was clear from the beginning that this was not related to the video ... after Mitt Romney came out and blamed the whole thing on the video. :lamo

Quote:
“In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policymakers,” Rice wrote to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

She goes on to point out that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence itself, in a Sept. 28 statement, acknowledged sharing that information with the executive branch.

“In the immediate aftermath,” the agency said, “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

Rice pushes back against GOP attacks on her Benghazi account - The Hill's Global Affairs"

Are you telling me the intelligence was dead wrong? That Rice relied on intelligence given to her by a bunch of idiots. Who is the head of these idiots? Does this intelligence remind you of WMD's in Iraq. Did Obama and clan learn nothing from the WMD intelligence. I have to say Obama, Clinton, Rice and the rest are so stupid to not stop and question the intelligence for a few days to collaborate that intelligence. And go to the American people and say we are continuing our investigation to insure our intell is accurate. And now after this coverup they are doing just that, they all have all been duck taped to keep their mouth shut.

You see I would like to see the record of that intelligence, and what community provided what exactly. Who was present, was Obama, Biden, Hillery there? Just what exactly was said and by whom? Showing me what Rice said is her way of continuing the coverup. I could care less what Rice has to say, now that she lied to the American people. I want the people she relied on for her statement and let them come forward and testify.

 

[AdamT]

Quote:
“In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policymakers,” Rice wrote to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

She goes on to point out that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence itself, in a Sept. 28 statement, acknowledged sharing that information with the executive branch.

“In the immediate aftermath,” the agency said, “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

Rice pushes back against GOP attacks on her Benghazi account - The Hill's Global Affairs"

Are you telling me the intelligence was dead wrong? That Rice relied on intelligence given to her by a bunch of idiots. Who is the head of these idiots? Does this intelligence remind you of WMD's in Iraq. Did Obama and clan learn nothing from the WMD intelligence. I have to say Obama, Clinton, Rice and the rest are so stupid to not stop and question the intelligence for a few days to collaborate that intelligence. And go to the American people and say we are continuing our investigation to insure our intell is accurate. And now after this coverup they are doing just that, they all have all been duck taped to keep their mouth shut.

You see I would like to see the record of that intelligence, and what community provided what exactly. Who was present, was Obama, Biden, Hillery there? Just what exactly was said and by whom? Showing me what Rice said is her way of continuing the coverup. I could care less what Rice has to say, now that she lied to the American people. I want the people she relied on for her statement and let them come forward and testify.

What you are conveniently ignoring is that fact that Rice, and indeed everyone else from the administration, was very careful to explain that it was an ongoing investigation and that no conclusions could or should be drawn until more facts were available. The only person who DIDN'T include such a disclaimer was Romney, who shot his mouth off before the blood was even dry.

 

[Bronson]

This is the first plausible defense of Obama administration's role in this debacle.

I commend you. Some of your possibilities are quite feasible.

And I will admit - openly and honestly - that the only reason I dismiss them at all is that I do not believe Obama has the best interests of the nation as his priority.

I will admit to be blinded by my belief that the only priority of Obama's is to be re-elected. Nothing I have ever observed of him directs me to any other conclusion. Every thing I am aware of in his background and in his actions as POTUS leads me to my conclusion that he cares not one whit for the success of America - especially in foreign affairs.

Your post is well reasoned and I commend you for it. For any other POTUS - dem or gop - it would be plausible.

eace

It's not even plausible in the slightest. His assumptions sounded about as plausible as pigs flying now that we know the truth.

The FBI didn't arrive on the scene for 17 days because they were waiting on Visas. This is a terrorist attack on sovereign US soil mind you. Meanwhile Obama jetting off to Vegas and fundraising with Beyonce and Jay-Z.

Insanity... Obama Administration Didn't Reach Benghazi For 17 Days Because of VISA Issues - YouTube

How could an American Ambassador possibly be on a secret mission in Libya where he would require no security after having repeatedly begged for more and told the WH that he was potentially on an Al Qaeda hit list? That doesn't make any sense. His post was nothing more than pure speculation rooted in fantasy land.

Ambassador Stevens stuck out like a sore thumb and he was guarded by "local security forces" who gave up his secret position he had been transferred to. What secret mission was this guy on? I mean seriously? He's an ambassador. If he was on some sort of secret mission why was he begging for more security? That consulate had been attacked several times over the past year and he was not given additional security. That part of the "secret mission" too? I find it absolutely reprehensible that anyone would try and sweep under the rug the travesty of what really happened there, especially for political purposes. It also shows the psychology of the modern left. A raped and murdered ambassador gets tossed under the bus to coddle and protect a failed President who is LYING to the public shamelessly.

The only mis-direction we've seen is from the WH trying to misdirect the American Public in regards to what really happened in Libya. Vital Intelligence was also stolen from the location. I mean seriously, his excuses are laughable.

Fact Check: Retired Army Major Calls BS (Literally) on Obama Surrogate's Libya Claims

Gov Granholm:

Just so you know - you are 100% incorrect in your statement. That's a polite way of saying that a) you have your head up your ass..and b) you either have no clue what you are talking about, or have chosen to intentionally lie for the Administration. I suspect the latter.

I've spent 24 years in uniform; lived/worked 14 years abroad, including multiple occasions in US Embassies working sensitive security issues! Get your facts straight.

Respond if you have a pair.

Regards,

Mike

MAJ, US Army, Retired

Mr. Faessler:

1. The New York Times story from Saturday states the security request was for Tripoli, not Benghazi:

2. Thank you for your service to our country. I have deep respect for those who serve our nation. But I'm surprised by the language and tone of your message, especially as someone who has served our country. We can disagree without being disrespectful and crude, one would hope.

Jennifer Granholm

Gov. Granholm

If your source is the NYT story from Saturday and YOU think they are credible, then there [are] even more problems with your statement than I originally thought.

Try reading the transcripts of the testimony given to congress by RSO Eric Nordstrom and LTC Wood. Then, if you still don't get it -- call them up for an interview on background, as to how the system works, to get the facts that when an RSO requests security it's for ALL of his jurisdictional responsibilities. Like in the Pablo Escobar days, when I was first posted to US Embassy in Colombia, and the RSO (and all of his resources, even with augmentations) didn't think they could keep AMB Busby alive, due to threats and increased risks. So, AMB Busby had to actually leave country for 3 weeks.

But, the RSO had responsibility for ALL embassy employees, families, and visitors in country, operating throughout the whole country. Again, the entire country.

...If you really wanted to be accurate about your statement, you might have considered doing that background BEFORE you went on live TV. If you are truly a patriot, and concerned with the truth, then you have an opportunity NOW to do your homework, and amend your statement.

I apologize if my words appear harsh. I went to West Point, where we internalized Duty, Honor, Country, and the ethics of "don't lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do." And, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. People like me are quite tired of all of the BS, spin and lies from the progressive/socialist in the White House. My doc says I might have rectal cancer: likely as a result of all the smoke being blown up my ass!

Ma'am, also thanking you for your service to our country, and having the guts to respond! Good on you!

Respectfully,

Mike

 

[American]

It had to be some serious **** for Hillary to fall on her sword today.

 

[Erod]

Compare this blatant cover-up to Watergate.

Which is worse?

And trying to pass off the blame to an obscure youtube video.....typical and disgusting.

 

[American]

Compare this blatant cover-up to Watergate.

Which is worse?

And trying to pass off the blame to an obscure youtube video.....typical and disgusting.

I remember seeing Watergate on TV day after day. Just shows how standards of conduct have changed, I wonder if it would even be a blip on the radar these days.

 

[AdamT]

Compare this blatant cover-up to Watergate.

Which is worse?

And trying to pass off the blame to an obscure youtube video.....typical and disgusting.

Watergate was about 1000X worse. At least. Y'all have lost your minds.

 

[Erod]

I remember seeing Watergate on TV day after day. Just shows how standards of conduct have changed, I wonder if it would even be a blip on the radar these days.

Amazing, isn't it?

The good news is that people are wise to it now. The major network news get almost no viewership whatsoever, and the internet is fast becoming the largest source of news for thinking people.

Can't you feel the anger seething from the big news organizations over their irrelevance these days?

 

[CedarBear]

Watergate was about 1000X worse. At least. Y'all have lost your minds.

Seems to me Benghazigate is four times worse than Watergate.

 

[Erod]

Watergate was about 1000X worse. At least. Y'all have lost your minds.

Oh, this is going to be good. Do tell us how campaign shenanigans - albeit quite egregious - are worse than ignoring repeated warnings that lead to the death of Americans, then lying about it and trying to blame a youtube video.

 

[Travis007]

Watergate was about 1000X worse. At least. Y'all have lost your minds.

Your posts are a disgrace... I hate when I see them quoted...

who died in Watergate...

I know reality and you are not friends.. but we are not talking "White water" another Clinton death ride..

 

[Travis007]

Oh, this is going to be good. Do tell us how campaign shenanigans - albeit quite egregious - are worse than ignoring repeated warnings that lead to the death of Americans, then lying about it and trying to blame a youtube video.

I hear ya bro.. the other guys posts are sheer garbage..

 

[AdamT]

Oh, this is going to be good. Do tell us how campaign shenanigans - albeit quite egregious - are worse than ignoring repeated warnings that lead to the death of Americans, then lying about it and trying to blame a youtube video.

The Watergate breakin was a violation of state and federal law -- an attempt to subvert the political process. The coverup was real and went to the highest level of government.

Benghazi was a poor decision by a mid-level State Department employee and there was no coverup, outside of the minds of rabid Obamaphobes.

 

[Erod]

The Watergate breakin was a violation of state and federal law -- an attempt to subvert the political process. The coverup was real and went to the highest level of government.

Benghazi was a poor decision by a mid-level State Department employee and there was no coverup, outside of the minds of rabid Obamaphobes.

If you don't think Obama was involved in this coverup, you are so fargone in Kool-aid drinking that you might as well lie face down and link arms with the dying people next to you.

 

[Travis007]

The Watergate breakin was a violation of state and federal law -- an attempt to subvert the political process. The coverup was real and went to the highest level of government.

Benghazi was a poor decision by a mid-level State Department employee and there was no coverup, outside of the minds of rabid Obamaphobes.

You truly are just an Obamabot spin operative.. again the base had been attacked twice prior and Obama lied to the UN about a fake video tape to coverup prior requests for protection...
why did Obama go to the UN with concretes claims of a fake video tape.. only to cover himself and to take our freedoms..he was there with Hillary..

Your ****ing scumbag hero Obama is going to jail.. American hero's died

 

[AdamT]

If you don't think Obama was involved in this coverup, you are so fargone in Kool-aid drinking that you might as well lie face down and link arms with the dying people next to you.

There was no coverup to be involved in. :roll:

But credit where due -- y'all never seem to get tired of throwing **** against the wall, hoping against hope that something will stick.