Benghazi... After today's revalations...

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. The safe schools act was the first bill in history to use emotionally charged names to get through passage and only Liberal Democrats are capable of doing it. And I only judge bills based on their name alone. Yep

Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what i like to call the "i know you are but what am i" response from liberals.... when backed in to a corner and out of lies to tell and no way to spin out....

theyre left with the response "they did it to"... as if that makes it right.


But.... thank you for admitting that the "safe schools act" was an emotional name designed to manipulate those grieving of tragedy, that it was falsely labeled and did not accurately represent it's content. This small act of honesty is a huge step forward for you and i commend you.

[.blank cd]

This is what i like to call the "i know you are but what am i" response from liberals.... when backed in to a corner and out of lies to tell and no way to spin out....

theyre left with the response "they did it to"... as if that makes it right.


But.... thank you for admitting that the "safe schools act" was an emotional name designed to manipulate those grieving of tragedy, that it was falsely labeled and did not accurately represent it's content. This small act of honesty is a huge step forward for you and i commend you.

I'm not backed into a corner at all. YOU said its bullshit because of its name. I know its not right to use emotionally charged names to pass a bill, but I typically read the information within a bill before I decide to support it or not, so the name means nothing to me. Just as I supported some things in the patriot act, not because it was called the patriot act, but because some of those things were a benefit to the society at the time.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not backed into a corner at all. YOU said its bullshit because of its name. I know its not right to use emotionally charged names to pass a bill, but I typically read the information within a bill before I decide to support it or not, so the name means nothing to me. Just as I supported some things in the patriot act, not because it was called the patriot act, but because some of those things were a benefit to the society at the time.

I did not say it's bullshit BECAUSE of its name. I said it's bullshit...... then laughed at the irony of it's name.

[David88vert]

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying "a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to a video" I'm saying "a premeditated attack that used the video as an opportunity".

Has someone figured out that a terrorist cell didnt pre-plan this attack and then used the video as a diversion? They must have captured someone and interrogated him to figure that out. Where is that evidence?

And it just happened that the "opportunity" came on 9/11?

[.blank cd]

I did not say it's bullshit BECAUSE of its name. I said it's bullshit...... then laughed at the irony of it's name.

Then why did you even point out its name? I don't give a shit what they named it. They could have named it the free pink cotton candy for everyone bill. I would have read the bill and supported what's in it based on what's in it.

[David88vert]

Then why did you even point out its name? I don't give a shit what they named it. They could have named it the free pink cotton candy for everyone bill. I would have read the bill and supported what's in it based on what's in it.

Please don't give the Dems the idea to call it that. I might have to vote for it because everyone wants free pink cotton candy.

[.blank cd]

And it just happened that the "opportunity" came on 9/11?

The video was created in July 2012, then translated and uploaded in Arabic in September 2012, the week before. Do you think that was a coincidence as well? There were 10 other 9/11 dates before that, why pick 9/11/12?

You can speculate on coincidences all you want, or you could ask the people that killed the ambassadors why they did it and if they used the video as an opportunity. Seems to me like the right, and Fox News apparantly, would prefer to do the former.

Like I said, I'd be more inclined to believe it all if there was a legitimate motive, but there's none at the moment. No one seems to be as interested in finding that out at the moment.

[.blank cd]

Please don't give the Dems the idea to call it that. I might have to vote for it because everyone wants free pink cotton candy.

If there was a free pink cotton candy provision in the bill, I'd probably vote on that alone, even if another provision was that black people would be thrown back into Slavery. It would be well worth it.

[Sinfix_15]

Then why did you even point out its name? I don't give a shit what they named it. They could have named it the free pink cotton candy for everyone bill. I would have read the bill and supported what's in it based on what's in it.

They name it with two purposes.......

#1, make it something you might overlook and not dissect. They want you to go "oh, safe schools act... nothing to see here"
#2, politically charge the name so in future debates they can say "Johnny republican did not vote for safe schools, he doesnt want safe schools"

[Sinfix_15]

If there was a free pink cotton candy provision in the bill, I'd probably vote on that alone, even if another provision was that black people would be thrown back into Slavery. It would be well worth it.

Black people are thrown back into slavery................... the government just realized that mental chains are cheaper than actual chains.


"I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

[David88vert]

The video was created in July 2012, then translated and uploaded in Arabic in September 2012, the week before. Do you think that was a coincidence as well? There were 10 other 9/11 dates before that, why pick 9/11/12?

You can speculate on coincidences all you want, or you could ask the people that killed the ambassadors why they did it and if they used the video as an opportunity. Seems to me like the right, and Fox News apparantly, would prefer to do the former.

Like I said, I'd be more inclined to believe it all if there was a legitimate motive, but there's none at the moment. No one seems to be as interested in finding that out at the moment.

A crowd of protesters do not carry heavy weapons or attack on a specific anniversary. Possibility is not the same as Probability.

One thing is absolutely certain though. We should stand together against our enemy and support our President in this endeavour without political divide.

[Sinfix_15]

A crowd of protesters do not carry heavy weapons or attack on a specific anniversary. Possibility is not the same as Probability.

One thing is absolutely certain though. We should stand together against our enemy and support our President in this endeavour without political divide.

You cant stand with the cause of the problem to fix the problem.

[David88vert]

If there was a free pink cotton candy provision in the bill, I'd probably vote on that alone, even if another provision was that black people would be thrown back into Slavery. It would be well worth it.

Don't put slaves and cotton in the same sentence. Not tasteful.

[David88vert]

You cant stand with the cause of the problem to fix the problem.

Our government was not behind the attack.

[.blank cd]

A crowd of protesters do not carry heavy weapons or attack on a specific anniversary. Possibility is not the same as Probability.

Im not saying protestors were responsible! Lol.

[David88vert]

Im not saying protestors were responsible! Lol.

So, these attackers were just sitting around for weeks on end, and just happened to see the protests and said to themselves, "Let's go attack now." - and it just happened to be on 9/11? Do you really believe that?

Terrorists wouldn't want to try to launch an attack on a 9/11 anniversary, would they?
9/11 Anniversary Terror Threat: At Least 2 Suspects In Possible Attack May Be U.S. Citizens, Say Officials

[BanginJimmy]

The facts are there for anyone that isnt actively looking for ANY reason to give the Admin a pass.


I agree with David. I dont think Obama personally made the decision to cover this up. It was definitely someone among his senior staff and it was done for purely political reasons though. The best guess I have at this point would be Clinton as it was her Dept that dropped the ball at every stop.

Since we now have the unclassified CIA talking points that were given to the White House and we know there was never a mention of a demonstration or video, do you think we will ever find out who called for and made the changes?

[Sinfix_15]

Obama Admin Spent $70K To Run Overseas Ads Apologizing For YouTube Video

[.blank cd]

Obama Admin Spent $70K To Run Overseas Ads Apologizing For YouTube Video

Let uses this to build your critical analyzation skills a little.

1. Based on this one link alone, can you account for the legitimacy of this video?That is to say, are you sure if the State Dept. actually made this video, and its not the work of someone bored sitting behind his parents computer? It is not a difficult task to take two clips that were broadcast on free news channels, insert an Arabic translation caption at the bottom, and splash a state dept. logo at the end of it. With the right equipment, I could replicate that video in a matter of 10 minutes with a dead on balls Arabic translation.

2. IF the video is actually legitimate, and we're criticizing the $70k, why? Time and time again, have conservatives not claimed that hundreds of millions are only drops in the bucket when we're discussing revenue increases. Why is a $70k expenditure a problem?

3. If you're a journalist, and you have some kind of respect for balance and journalistic integrity, why use a politically and emotionally charged phrase like "Obama used X in taxpayer funds" when criticizing the content of the video? Why deviate off the subject to illicit an emotional response.

I give this link a D-

[Vteckidd]

Has nothing to do with the 70k. Why spend any money on something YOU KNOW DIDNT CAUSE THE EVENT in the first place.

Critical thinking my ass

[.blank cd]

Has nothing to do with the 70k. Why spend any money on something YOU KNOW DIDNT CAUSE THE EVENT in the first place.

Critical thinking my ass

That remains to be seen since we haven't really formally interrogated anyone yet.

But even if the video is legitimate, the message is still clear: We, as an administration, don't denigrate other religions, and attacking Muslims isn't what we consider freedom of speech.

[David88vert]

That remains to be seen since we haven't really formally interrogated anyone yet.

Actually, where have we formally interrogated anyone that supported that it was a protest over the YouTube video? Where is the evidence of that? Now that we have the CIA report, we can see that Rice's talking points did not get the allegation that it was over the posting of the video from the CIA report. So, where did the report come from saying that the attack was committed by the protesters?

[.blank cd]

Actually, where have we formally interrogated anyone that supported that it was a protest over the YouTube video? Where is the evidence of that?

We haven't formally interrogated anyone yet, so there isn't much evidence of that yet either.

Now that we have the CIA report, we can see that Rice's talking points did not get the allegation that it was over the posting of the video from the CIA report. So, where did the report come from saying that the attack was committed by the protesters?

Who is still saying it was protestors? Who said it was protestors in the first place?

[David88vert]

We haven't formally interrogated anyone yet, so there isn't much evidence of that yet either.

Who is still saying it was protestors? Who said it was protestors in the first place?

So, there was no evidence, but the Administration did put forth that narrative.

"... in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there..." - Susan Rice on the ABC News interview with Jake Tapper, 7 months ago.

[Vteckidd]

Who is still saying it was protestors? Who said it was protestors in the first place?

The entire Obama administration for oh,i dont know, like 4 weeks

Specifically, Jay Carney.
Obama and his Press Secretary Blaming the Video for the Benghazi Attack - YouTube

I mean what else do you need?

They blamed it on a video, and SOMEONE covered up the notion that it was a terrorist attack. LEt me be more clear:

Attack occurs
Special OPS and CIA confirm it was a terrorist attack
Ambassador confirms it was a terrorist attack
CIA CHANGES TALKING POINTS (Or someone changes the talking points to reflect a video)
Admin pushes Video story for weeks
RIce pushes video story for weeks
Admin now acts like NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

THe problem isnt that they said man we dont know and then they figured it out. Someone , deliberately changed the story for a reason we can all speculate on. But the most plausible explanation is that it was to protect Obamas presidential re-election.

Now, you have people coming forward that are career diplomats with NO political affiliation saying they were told to lie, told not to talk to congress, and that no one ever spoke to them about the events that happened despite their first hand knowledge.

[Vteckidd]

An extreme version of this case would be

After 9/11, W says it was merely a commercial airliner off course that ran into the WTC, twice. The pilot was upset and may have drank the night before, crashed the plane. THen they send out people to blame PTS on the cause..................

THEN...........weeks later you find out that at the minutes following the plane crashing, the CIA, FBI, etc ALL KNEW it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by Al Qaeda.

[.blank cd]

The entire Obama administration for oh,i dont know, like 4 weeks

Specifically, Jay Carney.
Obama and his Press Secretary Blaming the Video for the Benghazi Attack - YouTube

I mean what else do you need?

They blamed it on a video, and SOMEONE covered up the notion that it was a terrorist attack. LEt me be more clear:

Attack occurs
Special OPS and CIA confirm it was a terrorist attack
Ambassador confirms it was a terrorist attack
CIA CHANGES TALKING POINTS (Or someone changes the talking points to reflect a video)
Admin pushes Video story for weeks
RIce pushes video story for weeks
Admin now acts like NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

THe problem isnt that they said man we dont know and then they figured it out. Someone , deliberately changed the story for a reason we can all speculate on. But the most plausible explanation is that it was to protect Obamas presidential re-election.

Now, you have people coming forward that are career diplomats with NO political affiliation saying they were told to lie, told not to talk to congress, and that no one ever spoke to them about the events that happened despite their first hand knowledge.

Obama himself on DAY 2 said it was a terrorist attack, did he not?

At this point we are arguing semantics.

[Vteckidd]

Obama himself on DAY 2 said it was a terrorist attack, did he not?

At this point we are arguing semantics.

This is a textbook example of you seeing what you want to see and changing the subject. HAve i not said for 10 pages that "SOMEONE" changed the story, and that most of us dont believe Obama is to blame personally?

He half assed said it . He said something to the effect that terrorism isnt tolerated, but continued to blame the video, not anti american terrorists.

2 WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACK at the UN blaming the video
[FLASHBACK] At the UN Obama blames an internet video for Benghazi and the other attack - YouTube


He said
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" in the rose Garden but he was talking about the anniversary of 9/11 and he never specifically said "what happened in Benghazi yesterday was a Terrorist attack by a militant group.

For Contrast, he specifically named the Tsarnaevs of being terrorists and perpetrating a terrorist attack, EVEN BEFORE WE KNEW IT WAS THEM.

[Vteckidd]

Even so, if he said it was a terrorist attack 2 days afterward, then why did Susan Rice and Jay Carney (his spokesperson) continue to blame a video they knew had NOTHING to do with the attack in the first place? And why did he mention that video in a speech at the UN?

You cant have it both ways.

[David88vert]

Even so, if he said it was a terrorist attack 2 days afterward, then why did Susan Rice and Jay Carney (his spokesperson) continue to blame a video they knew had NOTHING to do with the attack in the first place? And why did he mention that video in a speech at the UN?

You cant have it both ways.

He said it because his advisors told him to. He only has the information that they present to him.
He made the statement, it was a mistake, but I don't believe that it was an attempt by him to deceive the American people intentionally. If he wanted political gain, he could have just given the standard speech that "we will bring the terrorists to justice".

I do not think that we need to run Obama over the coals on this response that he gave. We need to focus on the enemy.

[.blank cd]

He said
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" in the rose Garden but he was talking about the anniversary of 9/11and he never specifically said "what happened in Benghazi yesterday was a Terrorist attack by a militant group.

Talk about seeing only what you want to see. LOL. IF YOU can convince me Obama walked up on that podium that day to talk specifically AND ONLY about the world trade centers collapsing, I will suck my own dick. LMAO.

[.blank cd]

Even so, if he said it was a terrorist attack 2 days afterward, then why did Susan Rice and Jay Carney (his spokesperson) continue to blame a video they knew had NOTHING to do with the attack in the first place? And why did he mention that video in a speech at the UN?

You cant have it both ways.

Do you know the attack had absolutely zero to do with the video? Have you personally interrogated suspects or people responsible? Because if you have, you might need to speak with someone at the state department quickly. That's very sensitive information.

[David88vert]

Obama's Rose Garden - Sept 12, 2012

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. 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. 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.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

[Vteckidd]

Clearly this is futile when people don't read what you post and only see what they want.

Maybe if i just quoted people and used big words and said LOL I'd get somewhere .

[.blank cd]

Clearly this is futile when people don't read what you post and only see what they want.

Maybe if i just quoted people and used big words and said LOL I'd get somewhere .

What do you mean futile? I've heard the video and read this already and even quoted from it and it backs up everything I've said. He did not specifically mean 9/11/01. So I guess in a sense, yes. It is futile.

Lol.

[.blank cd]

BanginJimmy was absolutely right. All this information is there for those who want to villify him.

[Vteckidd]

What do you mean futile? I've heard the video and read this already and even quoted from it and it backs up everything I've said. He did not specifically mean 9/11/01. So I guess in a sense, yes. It is futile.

Lol.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. 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. 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.

Exercise critical thinking. The comments are about the 9/11 memorial services he participated in, and that he was equating soldiers dieing in war (caused by 9/11/01) with diplomats dieing. He then calls ACTS OF TERROR , but never SPECIFiCALLY calls Benghazi and "act of terror". Which, honestly im ok with. Then, for the next 4 weeks, he calls it a VIDEO PROTEST that was SPONTANEOUS. He gives a speech 2 weeks later calling the Benghazi attack the cause of a despicable video.

He NEVER EVER EVER calls it an act of terrorism specifically or even in the weeks afterwards.

So, SOMEONE LIED TO HIM, WHICH MADE HIM LIE (unknowingly) TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. How do you not see that? The Video had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK, THE VIDEO WAS RELEASED 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON OUR EMBASSY.

THEN this comes out today
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

OH LOOK ABC IS ACTUALLY REPORTING. ITS CLEAR HIlary and HIGHER are hiding something. The White House said only 1 word had been changed, now we find out its paragraphs 12 different times.

[David88vert]

Exercise critical thinking. The comments are about the 9/11 memorial services he participated in, and that he was equating soldiers dieing in war (caused by 9/11/01) with diplomats dieing. He then calls ACTS OF TERROR , but never SPECIFiCALLY calls Benghazi and "act of terror". Which, honestly im ok with. Then, for the next 4 weeks, he calls it a VIDEO PROTEST that was SPONTANEOUS. He gives a speech 2 weeks later calling the Benghazi attack the cause of a despicable video.

He NEVER EVER EVER calls it an act of terrorism specifically or even in the weeks afterwards.

So, SOMEONE LIED TO HIM, WHICH MADE HIM LIE (unknowingly) TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. How do you not see that? The Video had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK, THE VIDEO WAS RELEASED 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON OUR EMBASSY.

THEN this comes out today
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

OH LOOK ABC IS ACTUALLY REPORTING. ITS CLEAR HIlary and HIGHER are hiding something. The White House said only 1 word had been changed, now we find out its paragraphs 12 different times.

Can we agree that we do not believe that Obama changed the text/talking points in an effort to intentionally lie? If so, I think that we should simply acknowledge it as an error, and move on. Personally, I am ok with his Administration making a mistake, as long as they correct it, and go after the enemy. Hindsight is 20/20, during the days after the attack, it was not.

[Vteckidd]

Can we agree that we do not believe that Obama changed the text/talking points in an effort to intentionally lie? If so, I think that we should simply acknowledge it as an error, and move on. Personally, I am ok with his Administration making a mistake, as long as they correct it, and go after the enemy. Hindsight is 20/20, during the days after the attack, it was not.

I do not believe Obama lied or was in on the cover up. But his Administration is responsible. Ive always said that.

If Obama didnt lie, then someone high up in his admin lied. I believe the latter. Someone in the State Dept / CIA was trying to protect his re-election

[David88vert]

I do not believe Obama lied or was in on the cover up. But his Administration is responsible. Ive always said that.

If Obama didnt lie, then someone high up in his admin lied. I believe the latter. Someone in the State Dept / CIA was trying to protect his re-election

While that is possible, that should have no bearing on the support of the President in regards to finding the perpetrators of this attack.