Americans Died, Obama Lied!

For months this has been portrayed as a non-story by the left.

Now that the truth comes out, the left is saying, "yeah, but it's the republicans fault too, ya know!"

reply to post by beezzer


I am not on the left. GOP and Dems are both corrupt parties owned by the elite and support the NWO. I don't support either of the 2 major parties, I am against both.

Unilluminist
reply to post by beezzer

 

I am not on the left. GOP and Dems are both corrupt parties owned by the elite and support the NWO. I don't support either of the 2 major parties, I am against both.

Apologies if my comment was directed at you.

But I stand by my comment none the less.

reply to post by jimmyx

I heard it directly from the president that it was an act of terror, he was on TV saying it....they were trying to figure out the "WHY" part of it...

He did?

I know you can show us right?

All I remember hearing "directly from the president" was that a video caused a protest.
He never said anything about a terrorist attack.

reply to post by Unilluminist

Republicans are also to blame for Benghazi.

No they aren't last time I checked Obama is a Democrat.

Qaddafi in the first place, many of us did not support it and Obama might have gave in to pressure from the anti-war activists if the Republicans weren't also pressuring him to intervene

Seriously using peer pressure as an excuse?

What the eff is this high school ?

Last time I checked Obama and the Democrats have never gave a damn what them Republicans thought.

Guess some people forgot this:



Oh yeah she really does look like she 'gave' in to 'peer pressure'.

beezzer
For months this has been portrayed as a non-story by the left.

Now that the truth comes out, the left is saying, "yeah, but it's the republicans fault too, ya know!"

Yeah same old story with them,

The left never does anything wrong.

It is ALWAYS someone elses 'fault'.

Typical blame game, but we all know who is responsible.

reply to post by Helious


Since when has the US constitution actually meant more than a hinderance to get around to these people?

howmuch4another
-- snip --
Anyone and I do mean ANYONE that buys the official story about a video is a blind partisan.

And anyone with a decent grasp of what this was all about is risking big time even opening their mouth.

With time, it may finally be made clear to everyone. For the foreseeable future, I don't see that happening.

In the meantime, I ask you to think about this: With the weapons that were brought to bear on our interests, why did the "firefight" last seven hours when they could have leveled that building in 45 minutes...?

butcherguy
reply to post by beezzer

 

It was three weeks. They stayed for less than 24 hours.
ap.org

Yep. That's a fresh crime scene, eh?

edit on b000000312014-01-14T20:21:51-06:0008America/ChicagoTue, 14 Jan 2014 20:21:51 -0600800000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

I think that because this is allegedly about illegal arms running by the State Dept. instead of the usual suspects there is a part of me that believes that a conscious decision was made to first make sure that the compound had insufficient security prior to the attack and after delay delay delay to make sure that every shred of evidence was destroyed. Sure some things were sloppily left behind but that stinks too. Almost like the evidence left behind was done so on purpose.

CornShucker

howmuch4another
-- snip --
Anyone and I do mean ANYONE that buys the official story about a video is a blind partisan.

In the meantime, I ask you to think about this: With the weapons that were brought to bear on our interests, why did the "firefight" last seven hours when they could have leveled that building in 45 minutes...?

interesting timing. See my post above this. I don't think they were going to level or torch the building until they had what they came for…..damning evidence.

Here's some 'ammo' from Dec 10, 2012

Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms DOS had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi.


The State Department was specifically looking to acquire the 20,000 MANPADS (they are commonly known as man-portable air shoulder-fire missiles) that went missing once Qaddafi was killed.

OOps !!!

Did CIA and State Department Run Illegal Arms Trafficking in Benghazi?


Oh wait, never mind......I forgot:
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"


related thread from August... www.abovetopsecret.com...

jimmyx
-- snip --
c'mon, I heard it directly from the president that it was an act of terror, he was on TV saying it....
-- snip --

I'm not gonna track down the transcript again and run in through OpenOffice like I did for someone else, but it took him 400+ words to get around to mentioning an act of terror. That is NOT how a commander in chief responds in outrage!

xuenchen
reply to post by jimmyx

I heard it directly from the president that it was an act of terror, he was on TV saying it....they were trying to figure out the "WHY" part of it...

 

He did?

I know you can show us right?

All I remember hearing "directly from the president" was that a video caused a protest.
He never said anything about a terrorist attack.

Let see, My friend xuenchen.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none

Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Benghazi Timeline
Go there and read, These Murders have still gone unpunished, Not Only the Terrorist!
Remember this for Hillary in 2016.

I'll let you count the words... Make sure to breathe, he takes his time getting around to it!!!!

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi From The Rose Garden 9-12-2012

reply to post by CornShucker


And.

He was a little vague too !!!

Almost like he was eluding to something else as a general way.

reply to post by guohua


Well that sounds better !!

And here I thought yimmy was on to something big.

---------
almost forgot....

September 24, 2012

(AP) ISLAMABAD - Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.

Anti-film ads in Pakistan feature Obama, Clinton

Helious
If this is true, which it appears to be then Obama is guilty of treason under Article III, Section III of the Constitution by ordering the stand down of American forces that could have intervened. Thereby, Aiding the enemy. We have our needed two witnesses in the OPs article.

Once again, we see first hand this governments iron fist clamping down on American citizens, obscenely robbing us of personal liberty and freedom in the name of domestic terrorism while little to nothing is done about actual and real terrorism. Except when we fund and arm them of course, such as in Egypt and Syria.

Illegitimate and rogue administration and federal government. What more proof is needed that has not been presented already? This is twisted and sick, it's a month old rotting corpse under your bed, it's festering and profane and worst of all, it's unbecoming of America.

edit on 14-1-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)

treason can only be applied to a "declared enemy". that means declaration of war by congress. and since congress cannot declare war on a gang, there is no declared enemy. therefore, no treason.

I love how the Obamatons on these threads cherry pick the articles and attempt to pull off some amazing word gymnastics in order to defend the criminal in chief and his cronies.

No matter how you try to spin it, Benghazi should have been the end of this administration. This is what happens when politicians are truly above the law. Just shut up, sit in front of the television, take your prozac and worship government.

Let the impeachment begin! Obama has only managed to get away with this because the media and his army of extreme liberal, big government-loving zombies work overtime trying to demonize any free-thinking writers or citizens who still believe in personal freedoms...including a right to privacy. They actually had some believing that anyone who criticized his policies must be a crazy right-wing nut job....now the so-called nut-jobs like me outnumber the obama zombies, so maybe we can get rid of our arrogant, incompetent and shamefully scandalous liar-in-chief.

The really sad part is that everyone knows who Obama is now. They know he is a liar, they know he doesn't care about a single American citizen and they know that he is willing to break the law/Constitution to get his way. But these people...his people, knowing this, don't care. They don't care when he lies, don't care when he ignores the people and surely don't care when he gets his way. And I don't understand it.

Is it because they don't want to admit they were wrong or admit they made a mistake? I mean...how can any citizen not in politics or employed by the government act like everything is fine? Everyone knows it isn't...but they keep ignoring the facts. Are they really that "sports minded" in that they chose a team and will die to defend it, regardless how badly it's doing and what it is doing to the sport itself?

I'm amazed this thread ended in the second slot on ATS. Its kinda cool. But the fact that there are people here fighting the facts, trying to derail the thread and running in circles to find something positive to say about Obama is scary. Is this the country we have become? Do the majority of us really believe that being right, or not admitting an error is more important than trillions in debt and growing, throwing our kid's future out the window, losing freedom and rights, being TOLD what we can and can't do, being TOLD what we can and can't buy...or have to buy? Well...if this is the make-up of our country...we are in worse shape than I thought.

I get the "gimmie my Obamaphone" crowd and the "give me some of THEIR money" people. But these people defending Obama here, in this thread actually sound like intelligent individuals. Sad.