Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

reply to post by Danny85


It's in the video in the first post.

Transcript of Rose Garden Statements

Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Check this out, new "Right Wing Trolling Alert System"

soundcloud.com...

It's audio, so click on the link and hit the play button. It's hilarious!

If he took responsibility, he would resign. Whomever gave the order for the response team to stand down twice, needs to be put on trial for manslaughter.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This article was written by abc not fox nor any other news site many of you all complain about being bias, well after the rose garden speech on 9/26/12. If you woul kindly read the second paragraph, in no uncertain terms, Obama never referred to this as a terrorist act until 9/26, weeks after the fact. Please stop implying otherwise (unless abc news got it wrong, and you are right)

abcnews.go.com... 0terrorism%2520abc%2520news%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CEcQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252Fblogs%252Fpolitics%252F2012%25 2F09%252Fobama-considers-libya-assault-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says%252F%26ei%3D51mNUdDPAo_h0wGanYDoCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHutnyJ5mPr0tX3Khx75cSBfU4N rQ%26sig2%3Dojd9RPwf825vb7g-hgEP-A%26bvm%3Dbv.46340616%2Cd.dmQ

Just a quick thought, inspired by reading the transcript of his remarks. Our President said

Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

We know what the word "justice" means. I expect every ATSer to support Obama's call for justice to be done.

reply to post by kingofmd

Originally posted by kingofmd
This article was written by abc not fox nor any other news site many of you all complain about being bias, well after the rose garden speech on 9/26/12.

What article? I linked to a partial transcript of his actual statement in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks.

Are you upset that he said, "act of terror" instead of "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"??? That's your complaint?

look, the bottom line is republicans and right-wingers will blame Obama directly for the Benghazi deaths and a cover-up, regardless of the facts that are already out there. this is what they have done for the entire Obama administration. this site is has scores of threads about this, and each day more is added on. time after time, it is shown where they are wrong, but it is totally ignored, this has become an irrelevant side show of mutual political masturbation.

Originally posted by DistantRumor
You know, it is really sad to see cholo leave because it is being allowed for a gang of members to jump on him, insult him, mock him, and openly deride him and not his opinions.

I see it happen all the time, there is a gang of right wing members that will always gang up on someone with a liberal mindset and if that person dares to fight back...they get posts removed or banned.

Don't worry, I know the risk I'm running by pointing this out...it will most likely be removed and/or me banned...it is just how it is.

Your kidding right?

He didn't stay on the topic of his own thread once, he spent the entire time he participated saying, and I am quoting here, "it bushs fault".

Also, just to be clear, he had a post removed for being off topic, by a quite liberal mod"Hefficide", who is openly an Obama fan, and champions many liberal causes.

As for his being "ganged up on, by right wing members", many of us with differing oppinions are no more right wing than we are left wing, I would define my position as more like libertarian, or moderate, who views both sides as idiots most of the time, on most issues.

There are very serious issues with the official story, I am simply seeking the truth as to what occured, if the administration did nothing wrong they have no reason to keep deflecting.

Public servents while in office don't have the same rights and privaledges as regular citizens. They must be transparent about any and all official actions and policies.

It has revealed that they denied aid to those on the ground, it is obvious they have tried to cover somthing up, and now they pretend they don't know what anyone is talking about when asked about these inconsistencies.

Please let us all be clear and honest here, and not simply defend "our" side, there is only one side, the American peoples side.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So, if this is true, then why did he come out 2 weeks later in front of the UN and blame it on the Youtube video? I don't get it.

Pladuim

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So, if this is true, then why did he come out 2 weeks later in front of the UN and blame it on the Youtube video? I don't get it.

Pladuim

You are confusing motive and action.

The action was a terrorist attack, regardless of the motive. The motive is what was debated about INSIDE the intelligence community for weeks if not months.

Take a step back and just think how ridiculous all of this is...you are all angry over the intelligence community not being able to pin down the motive immediately. And in turn, you are angry that the administration released the information they had at the time concerning the motive.

Whether the motive was the video or the motive was to stage an attack on the anniversary of 9/11...it truly doesn't matter. It is still a terrorist attack at the end of the day, just like Obama called it the very next day after it happened. What is left is motive...and confusion about the motive is what apparently you guys are claiming is treason.

If you can be honest with yourself and take a step back...you will see just how dumb the whole controversy is.

reply to post by DistantRumor

Take a step back and just think how ridiculous all of this is...you are all angry over the intelligence community not being able to pin down the motive immediately. And in turn, you are angry that the administration released the information they had at the time concerning the motive.

That is blatantly false information. The Intel agencies had it CORRECT and the Administration ordered the talking points CHANGED. The Intel was right from day one that this was an attack. The story was changed in the middle of a presidential campaign.

reply to post by DistantRumor

Whether the motive was the video or the motive was to stage an attack on the anniversary of 9/11...it truly doesn't matter.

It certainly matters to the film maker who picked up a year as a guest of the State, because they needed some one to blame it on. It mattered to at least some of the voters who were being told to believe that this was a demonstration of righteous indignation against someone who had insulted their Prophet, and since the attack was just triggered a few days before. it was understandable that the Administration couldn't see it coming, so Obama can't be blamed.

Yes, it makes a difference.

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So, if this is true, then why did he come out 2 weeks later in front of the UN and blame it on the Youtube video? I don't get it.

Pladuim

You are confusing motive and action.

The action was a terrorist attack, regardless of the motive. The motive is what was debated about INSIDE the intelligence community for weeks if not months.

Take a step back and just think how ridiculous all of this is...you are all angry over the intelligence community not being able to pin down the motive immediately. And in turn, you are angry that the administration released the information they had at the time concerning the motive.

Whether the motive was the video or the motive was to stage an attack on the anniversary of 9/11...it truly doesn't matter. It is still a terrorist attack at the end of the day, just like Obama called it the very next day after it happened. What is left is motive...and confusion about the motive is what apparently you guys are claiming is treason.

If you can be honest with yourself and take a step back...you will see just how dumb the whole controversy is.

Well, for one I have never used the words anger or treason in any of my posts. And the rest of your post deserves one of these.

Pladuim

reply to post by DistantRumor


If you would have taken the time to do your homework, and read any of the decenting views of the thread, you would know already, the admin changed the conclusions of the intel community, they created the tragedy by denying available aid to those seeking it on the ground, and then have been nonstop trying to cover it up.

If I do wrong, and try to hide it, what's that called?

Obstruction of justice.

If I make false statements, it is called what?

Dishonesty, bordering on an outright lie, depending on the manner, and content of the statements.

When I allow Americans to die for political expedience, what's that called?

Deriliction of duty, bordering on manslaughter.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Take a step back and just think how ridiculous all of this is...you are all angry over the intelligence community not being able to pin down the motive immediately. And in turn, you are angry that the administration released the information they had at the time concerning the motive.

That is blatantly false information. The Intel agencies had it CORRECT and the Administration ordered the talking points CHANGED. The Intel was right from day one that this was an attack. The story was changed in the middle of a presidential campaign.

The CIA Intel said it was from a protest, what was changed is that they said they suspected there were Al Qaida elements that hijacked the protest...but they still claimed it was a protest.

The protest talking point wasn't made up out of thin air, it came from the CIA.

gma.yahoo.com...

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA's first drafts said the attack appeared to have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" but the CIA version went on to say, "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

So no, it isn't false...these are the facts. If you want to use the recent reports that the talking points were changed 12 times, you then have to concede that the CIA in fact said that the attack was inspired by the protests.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Whether the motive was the video or the motive was to stage an attack on the anniversary of 9/11...it truly doesn't matter.

It certainly matters to the film maker who picked up a year as a guest of the State, because they needed some one to blame it on. It mattered to at least some of the voters who were being told to believe that this was a demonstration of righteous indignation against someone who had insulted their Prophet, and since the attack was just triggered a few days before. it was understandable that the Administration couldn't see it coming, so Obama can't be blamed.

Yes, it makes a difference.

The film maker wasn't arrested by the Feds, he was arrested for a probation violation. It had nothing to do with his film.

And honestly, Benghazi was always a non-issue...Republicans tried their best to make it an issue (as they are now), but informed voters saw through it.

The only ones they convinced (and are convincing now) is their own base...they are preaching to the choir.

Here, a WND source so you can't cry foul

www.wnd.com...

A lawyer for the filmmaker told WND his client was serving time for a probation violation and is scheduled to be released this fall from a prison in Latoona, Texas.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

If you would have taken the time to do your homework, and read any of the decenting views of the thread, you would know already, the admin changed the conclusions of the intel community

No, they did not. The CIA is the one that came out with the intel that it was a result of the protests. This wasn't made up. Like I said before, if you want to use the new reports that the talking points were revised 12 times, then you have to concede that the CIA said the attack appeared to be from the protests about the video.

You can't pick and choose...it's all in the same report. Yes, the talking points were revised. But it is a FACT that the CIA pinned the blame on the protests and that information was shared with the public.

they created the tragedy by denying available aid to those seeking it on the ground, and then have been nonstop trying to cover it up.

You need to check the timelines. The attack was over, no need to send in anyone else. The two that died later was a result from another quick hit attack 4-5 hours after the initial attack ended.

If you can prove without any reasonable doubt that sending reinforcements would have stopped a mortar attack...be my guest. The fact is that you can't.

It was a combat situation decision...they are made all the time on the battle field...reinforcements can't always be sent for whatever reasons. People die all the time because of these decisions...doesn't make it derilection of duty.

What you have is pure fantasy and speculation, nothing more. Which is why the majority of the public doesn't care about this issue...they know it is in the realm of conspiracy theory...not reality.

Video; Darrell Issa & the GOP Responsible for Benghazi...case closed!



See how easy that is?

reply to post by charles1952


Well actually there are others saying that only the President had the power to give the stand down order.


Rep. Ann Wagner on The Dana Show 5-8-13

Impeachment is being suggested by others writing about this topic, and it must be on the minds of some politicians too, or it wouldn't even be brought up.

reply to post by DistantRumor


I would think it is obvious the majority do not agree with your view, which is why faux news gets more views in one hour than most MSM sources combined.

Meaning, most folks are watching faux, and most folks agree it is an issue.

Don't believe the MSM, they are the only people saying this is a non issue, because they are covering for Obama like usual, and hoping repeating the same line over and over will make it true to the masses.

The military ALWAYS sends reinforcements to aid soldiers in trouble, every single time.

That is why American soldiers fight so hard, they know their battle buddies are coming for them, they only have to hold out until they come.

Your assumption that they just leave soldiers to die without aid all the time is a flat out lie,please don't try to say this to me ever again or we will have very unpleasant words.

I am a former soldier, and know first hand this is the exact opposite of actual US Military SOP.

I have donthing but asked questions about the reasons and causes associated with this event, and made statements, that are backed up with facts, not once I am aware of did I make up anything, or use conjecture, I take exception to your accusations, and will debate the merits of my position with logic and reasoning, but will not play symantics.