obama Lies And Media Slap-Down...

[stevenash]

IF you disagree, that means you believe they were being honest.  How much evidence/proof do you need to understand it was a total lie?

[westend1]

IF you disagree, that means you believe they were being honest.  How much evidence/proof do you need to understand it was a total lie?

More than what has been provided.

[stevenash]

Didn't require a brain surgeon to know that when Mortars and other heavy artillery are used, its far more than a spontaneous reaction to a video.  Also, in less than 24 hours, the military and the intelligence agencies also knew/confirmed it was an organized attack.  But you still believe the video was the legitimate reason and the attack was spontaneous?  I guess that also means that you still cling to the "2 rogue agents in Cincinnati when it comes to the IRS scandal?

[westend1]

Didn't require a brain surgeon to know that when Mortars and other heavy artillery are used, its far more than a spontaneous reaction to a video.  Also, in less than 24 hours, the military and the intelligence agencies also knew/confirmed it was an organized attack.  But you still believe the video was the legitimate reason and the attack was spontaneous?  I guess that also means that you still cling to the "2 rogue agents in Cincinnati when it comes to the IRS scandal?

Don't know about the IRS, but, in order for your statement to be true,  I would have to believe that not 1 person was stirred up over the video, and I would have to believe that both Obama and Hillary knew beyond any doubt that not one person on site was stirred up over the video.   Given the state of affairs over there at the time(Cairo), that is too much for me to buy in to.  This is the only way it could be a "total lie".

[NorthoftheBorder]

Being mean has nothing to do with it.    He is not heading in with an open mind.   Why investigate if you have already decided the outcome.  Pure politics and a waste of time.

That is right out of the Democratic Party operations manual aka Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid!!!

[NorthoftheBorder]

More than what has been provided.

This response is a no response!!!

[westend1]

That is right out of the Democratic Party operations manual aka Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid!!!

Yeah, and the big "investigation"  is right out of the righty handbook.  That's why they don't have a president now nor a candidate with a chance of winning next time. 

[NorthoftheBorder]

Don't know about the IRS, but, in order for your statement to be true,  I would have to believe that not 1 person was stirred up over the video, and I would have to believe that both Obama and Hillary knew beyond any doubt that not one person on site was stirred up over the video.   Given the state of affairs over there at the time(Cairo), that is too much for me to buy in to.  This is the only way it could be a "total lie".

So only a total lie is a lie, and half truths, misdirections and subtle deception are acceptable forms of behavior from our leaders!!!

[stevenash]

Whether one person was stirred up about the video does not relate well to a planned attack using mortars and heavy artillery.   And, of course, the fact that it occurred on 9/11 was simply a coincidence. Not a total lie?  Would that mean a partial lie is acceptable or is not really a lie? 

 

 

According to Finding#9 of the Senate Intelligence report, " press reports on protests were simply copied into intelligence products of the intelligence community and these ERRONEOUS REPORTS caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policy makers.

 

Do you believe that the most recent email (that should have been released a year ago but only recently because of court order- hmmm I wonder why that happened?) written by Ben Rhodes , President Obamas DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY advisor was issued without the President knowing anything about it?  Does this also mean that RIchard Nixon was innocent?

[NorthoftheBorder]

Yeah, and the big "investigation"  is right out of the righty handbook.  That's why they don't have a president now nor a candidate with a chance of winning next time. 

The reason that we have a radical leftist President is 40 years of public education that "under educated" the population on top of the liberal bias that was built into the education system, therefore making easy to sell the voting public a line of BS to get elected.  That is why a President can say things like,"if you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor", and then when it turns out to not be true he can then pretend like he didn't say it even with the evidence on video!!! And the "under educated and liberally biased" voting population doesn't know the difference!!

[77]

I guess some things are more important than others to some folks!

[westend1]

The reason that we have a radical leftist President is 40 years of public education that "under educated" the population on top of the liberal bias that was built into the education system, therefore making easy to sell the voting public a line of BS to get elected.  That is why a President can say things like,"if you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor", and then when it turns out to not be true he can then pretend like he didn't say it even with the evidence on video!!! And the "under educated and liberally biased" voting population doesn't know the difference!!

There are tons of Dems more educated than you, so give that up.  And, quit trying to change the subject.  it gets old.

[westend1]

Whether one person was stirred up about the video does not relate well to a planned attack using mortars and heavy artillery.   And, of course, the fact that it occurred on 9/11 was simply a coincidence. Not a total lie?  Would that mean a partial lie is acceptable or is not really a lie? 

 

 

According to Finding#9 of the Senate Intelligence report, " press reports on protests were simply copied into intelligence products of the intelligence community and these ERRONEOUS REPORTS caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policy makers.

 

Do you believe that the most recent email (that should have been released a year ago but only recently because of court order- hmmm I wonder why that happened?) written by Ben Rhodes , President Obamas DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY advisor was issued without the President knowing anything about it?  Does this also mean that RIchard Nixon was innocent?

I know it was a planned attack.  Doesn't mean that elements in the area weren't motivated by the video.  I think the real terrorists used it for a cover.  You disagree?

[stevenash]

Are you telling me that the sole motivation for this attack was the video?  I don't know if the terrorists used it as a cover or not.  While I cant prove this, I would be willing to bet that plans for this incident were in place before the video was made.

 

The Senate Committee report says the intelligence community produced "hundreds of analytic reports" warning that "militias and terrorists" planned to strike at the US in Libya.  The report HIGHLIGHTS seven of these reports by name.  ( Without investigating, I will also bet some or all of the warnings PRECEEDED the production of the video)

 

Ambassador Stevens and others were aware of these reports of escalating violence and attempted to increase security personnel in response.  The report NOTES that in early July, Ambassador Stevens cabled STate Dept. headquarters to request 13 additional security personnel.  The state Dept NEVER FULFILEED or EVEN  RESPONDED to his request.

 

No wonder they tried to use the video as an excuse

 

According to finding #5, the decision by other countries to abandon Benghazi in advance because of increased militant activity meant the "tripwires" had been crossed which could have led to the US pulling out as well.  The concern about whether or not to even stay in the city should have been another clue to the State Dept that security needed to be given more attention.

 

If they didn't try to blame the video, they would have looked like incompetent idiots.    I just can't believe that some would accept, to any small degree, the video theory as even partially credible.

 

And one more thing- when you say " I don't know about the IRS" I think you are misleading us a little.  I am aware of how you keep up with current events and my guess is you know fully well about the IRS but wont reveal what you feel because it damages those you believe in.

[westend1]

Are you telling me that the sole motivation for this attack was the video?  I don't know if the terrorists used it as a cover or not.  While I cant prove this, I would be willing to bet that plans for this incident were in place before the video was made.

 

The Senate Committee report says the intelligence community produced "hundreds of analytic reports" warning that "militias and terrorists" planned to strike at the US in Libya.  The report HIGHLIGHTS seven of these reports by name.  ( Without investigating, I will also bet some or all of the warnings PRECEEDED the production of the video)

 

Ambassador Stevens and others were aware of these reports of escalating violence and attempted to increase security personnel in response.  The report NOTES that in early July, Ambassador Stevens cabled STate Dept. headquarters to request 13 additional security personnel.  The state Dept NEVER FULFILEED or EVEN  RESPONDED to his request.

 

No wonder they tried to use the video as an excuse

 

According to finding #5, the decision by other countries to abandon Benghazi in advance because of increased militant activity meant the "tripwires" had been crossed which could have led to the US pulling out as well.  The concern about whether or not to even stay in the city should have been another clue to the State Dept that security needed to be given more attention.

 

If they didn't try to blame the video, they would have looked like incompetent idiots.    I just can't believe that some would accept, to any small degree, the video theory as even partially credible.

 

And one more thing- when you say " I don't know about the IRS" I think you are misleading us a little.  I am aware of how you keep up with current events and my guess is you know fully well about the IRS but wont reveal what you feel because it damages those you believe in.

Total BS.   Apparently,  Stevens turned down military security twice.    The question is, why?   I don't know the answer, but to say that nobody responded to the request goes against the evidence.   As for the IRS, I suspect(actually, I know) that agents were told to crack down on political parties who were scamming the system.     Those claiming tax exempt status when they were really political movements.  The easiest targets were those who identified themselves as parties.  ie-tea party

[NorthoftheBorder]

There are tons of Dems more educated than you, so give that up.  And, quit trying to change the subject.  it gets old.

The truth never get old my friend.  Of course the only way you will ever find truth is if you accidently bump into it.  You for sure are not looking for it!!

[smitty]

Total BS.   Apparently,  Stevens turned down military security twice.    The question is, why?   I don't know the answer, but to say that nobody responded to the request goes against the evidence.   As for the IRS, I suspect(actually, I know) that agents were told to crack down on political parties who were scamming the system.     Those claiming tax exempt status when they were really political movements.  The easiest targets were those who identified themselves as parties.  ie-tea party

Where did you get this information that is in bold?

[NorthoftheBorder]

Total BS.   Apparently,  Stevens turned down military security twice.    The question is, why?   I don't know the answer, but to say that nobody responded to the request goes against the evidence.   As for the IRS, I suspect(actually, I know) that agents were told to crack down on political parties who were scamming the system.     Those claiming tax exempt status when they were really political movements.  The easiest targets were those who identified themselves as parties.  ie-tea party

Total BS says a narrowly closed mind!!!  And the easiest targets were in actuality the groups that were PURPOSELY targeted, yes systematically picked!! 

[westend1]

Total BS says a narrowly closed mind!!!  And the easiest targets were in actuality the groups that were PURPOSELY targeted, yes systematically picked!! 

That is your ASSUMPTION.  I get it.

[westend1]

Where did you get this information that is in bold?

Google it. 

[stevenash]

I don't think I emboldened any of what my last post was.  Where did I get?  if you read it, you noticed that it came from the Senate Committee report.  So you are telling me that it is untrue that Ambassador Stevens cabled the State Dept. headquarters to request 13 additional security personnel?  Where is your information that negates what the Senate Committee reported?  Do you still maintain that the video has some relevance in all of this?  You also never told me why a partial lie is any less negative than a complete lie.

[baddog]

What is really sad is the simple fact that Americans died in the attack. No support was given and no retaliatory strikes carried out. It was like "burying heads in the sand and maybe it will go away" being fearful of what the world would think. This never has been the attitude of a true American and should never be tolerated. To sit here and discuss this from a Democrat/Republican standpoint and take sides, which I truly have never been able to figure how the same people can make excuses for these inexcusable acts of leadership, is totally ridiculous. Think if that was your dad who was murdered, then you will get your head straight. No American should ever accept his brothers being attacked and killed anywhere in the world without a swift response and total show of power. It is the only thing terrorists understand and the only way we should be.

[westend1]

What is really sad is the simple fact that Americans died in the attack. No support was given and no retaliatory strikes carried out. It was like "burying heads in the sand and maybe it will go away" being fearful of what the world would think. This never has been the attitude of a true American and should never be tolerated. To sit here and discuss this from a Democrat/Republican standpoint and take sides, which I truly have never been able to figure how the same people can make excuses for these inexcusable acts of leadership, is totally ridiculous. Think if that was your dad who was murdered, then you will get your head straight. No American should ever accept his brothers being attacked and killed anywhere in the world without a swift response and total show of power. It is the only thing terrorists understand and the only way we should be.

The beauty(if you want to call it that) of terrorism. No country to go against. If you had a lick of sense, you would see the difficulties. I think Obama has a pretty good record of going after terrorist groups. Americans also dies in Beirut. Who paid for that and which president was it that didn't respond?

[stevenash]

Also from the article that you suggested be googled:

 

 

One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Dept that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was STILL BEING TOUTED as a foreign success policy.  The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct request for security, an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject.

 

 

But the report also is peppered with references to Stevens and how well the embassy MADE THE CASE to Washington for more security.

[westend1]

Also from the article that you suggested be googled:
 
 
One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Dept that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was STILL BEING TOUTED as a foreign success policy.  The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct request for security, an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject.
 
 
But the report also is peppered with references to Stevens and how well the embassy MADE THE CASE to Washington for more security.

Sounds like he shouldnt have declined the military assistance that was offered. As I said in an earlier post, we should find out who denied the extra security and why he declined help from the military,