Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TypeO

Benghazi

Recommended Posts

The election's over, and the media are hard-pressed to keep ignoring this bombshell.

It's almost laughable all the coverage General Petraeus' infidelity is getting, especially in contrast to the Benghazi story.

But the Benghazi story is not going away, and all of the Petraeus news appears to be leading back to Benghazi.

The Petraeus story smells bad, and looks to reveal way more than Team Obama would prefer.

http://www.washingto...ytKXg6U.twitter

From the article:

Big scandals from little leaks grow.

Watergate was at first only “a third-rate burglary.”

Does anyone even remember the news-grabbing (or should I say deflecting?) headline the Monday morning after the embassy attacks?

Teen held in 'jihad' terrorist plot to bomb Chicago bar

Haven't heard much about it since then, though.

File that under Things that make you go Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The attorney for an 18-year-old man charged with attempting to detonate what he thought was a car bomb outside a Chicago bar said his client was a "immature kid" who is not a danger to the public during the defendant's first court appearance on Monday.

:rolleyes: It amazes me what comes out of attorneys' mouths sometimes. He tried to detonate a bomb but yet is not a danger to the public? Please!!!

The National Democratic Party Channel, or MSNBC as they like to be called, not only doesn't report on the Benghazi story; they find it laughable that Fox keeps bringing it up. Obummer is the real Teflon Don, Gotti got nothing on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election's over, and the media are hard-pressed to keep ignoring this bombshell.

It's almost laughable all the coverage General Petraeus' infidelity is getting, especially in contrast to the Benghazi story.

Yeah, 4 people dead and a U.S. consulate up in flames and hardly a word about it in the media except for that "right wing kook organization" Fox News. And then we hear that CBS' 60 Minutes suppressed part of an interview in order to protect Obama. No liberal media bias though right? :rolleyes:

You wanna bet that something like this wouldn't be front page news if it had happened under the watch of a Republican President?

But a sex scandal, now that's front page news.

The Coen brothers should make a movie about this.

Cast:

Petraeus: Clint Eastwood

Mrs. Petraeus: Kathy Bates

Paula Broadwell: Cameron Diaz

Jill Kelley: Kim Kardashian

General John Allen: Chris Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 4 people dead and a U.S. consulate up in flames and hardly a word about it in the media except for that "right wing kook organization" Fox News. And then we hear that CBS' 60 Minutes suppressed part of an interview in order to protect Obama. No liberal media bias though right? :rolleyes:

You wanna bet that something like this wouldn't be front page news if it had happened under the watch of a Republican President?

But a sex scandal, now that's front page news.

The Coen brothers should make a movie about this.

Cast:

Petraeus: Clint Eastwood

Mrs. Petraeus: Kathy Bates

Paula Broadwell: Cameron Diaz

Jill Kelley: Kim Kardashian

General John Allen: Chris Elliott

Oh man, talk about the worm turning, you guys really crack me up. Let's see, when Clinton was banging Monica THAT was a big deal, but Petraeus is not. Reagan knowingly placing Marines in harms way AFTER both the CIA and Mossad told him not to do it, result, 241 Marines dead, nope, nothing there. Bush being notified an attack on US soil was imminent, result, 3,000 americans dead. Nope, not his fault, did the best he could.

Man, if all we need to do is to place Democrat after their names we could have had both Reagan and Bush convicted by now. Love the double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, if all we need to do is to place Democrat after their names we could have had both Reagan and Bush convicted by now. Love the double standard.

Uh huh. The media would have loved to see them brought down, just as they love to protect "their guy". Sooner or later they'll turn on him though like they do everyone else. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, talk about the worm turning, you guys really crack me up. Let's see, when Clinton was banging Monica THAT was a big deal, but Petraeus is not. Reagan knowingly placing Marines in harms way AFTER both the CIA and Mossad told him not to do it, result, 241 Marines dead, nope, nothing there. Bush being notified an attack on US soil was imminent, result, 3,000 americans dead. Nope, not his fault, did the best he could.

Man, if all we need to do is to place Democrat after their names we could have had both Reagan and Bush convicted by now. Love the double standard.

It's the same thing that has applied to everyone since Watergate.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

It's gonna be funny to see the Petraeus smokescreen backfire and reveal even more about Benghazi.

Again Sag, it's not that it happened, it's the deliberate coverup of their ineptitude being revealed leading into an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same thing that has applied to everyone since Watergate.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

It's gonna be funny to see the Petraeus smokescreen backfire and reveal even more about Benghazi.

Again Sag, it's not that it happened, it's the deliberate coverup of their ineptitude being revealed leading into an election.

If you go back and read the information available regarding both the 83' Lebanon attack and the 9/11 attack, similar arguments can be made. If we go by such a standard, no president will be able to effectively do their job for fear of impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back and read the information available regarding both the 83' Lebanon attack and the 9/11 attack, similar arguments can be made. If we go by such a standard, no president will be able to effectively do their job for fear of impeachment.

I was around in '83, and I certainly remember 9/11.

Neither incident had intentionally misleading reports directly from the White House like this.

I don't think they counted on how quickly the facts would be made public, and I think they did count on the media providing even more cover than they did.

Thank goodness Anderson Cooper and others at least made some attempts to hold the White House accountable for giving such conflicting reports.

Jesus, they actually took an American citizen into custody for no other reason than being the person who made a ridiculously poor quality video that the White House chose to blame in an attempt to deflect attention away from their poor response to a major foreign policy debacle.

In other words, again, it's not that the embassy was attacked.

Things like that happen.

But much like when the traffic cop spots a speeding driver hitting his brakes - the cop knows that the driver knows he's guilty - the Obama Administration immediately fabricated a cover story in an attempt to buy time in which to spin a better explanation for their poor response to a major incident.

I personally think their should also be investigation (if there already isn't) into the Chicago Bomber story that conveniently popped up the following Monday morning.

This was a kid they had like a fish on a string for a number of months.

They provided him with the fake bomb and the Jeep Cherokee.

So it was their decision when to execute the sting.

Why did they decide to "set the hook" on this particular fish at the time they did?

Again, I believe the ultimate directive to set this particular "known quantity" into motion came from the White House, as well.

Sorry Sag, this is completely different than keeping secret intelligence from the public.

They fucked up, they knew it would reveal their lack of preparation, and it would do so at a time that was politically critical.

It reveals once again that the Obama Administration - more often than not - acts on political motives first and foremost.

Much like Obama used his first 2 years - when he had control of both House and Senate and could pass whatever he wanted without interference from Republicans - to force his Healthcare plan through (spending), ignoring passing a budget (his own party voted unanimously against him) or taking any serious action to help the economy or unemployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read everything that's out there regarding the Benghazi attack, and given that the CIA and State Department is involved, it would be impossible for us civilians to ever know all the intel...but at first glance, I will say as a former military man, this doesn't pass the smell test. Something smells fishy. I didn't buy the 'video protest' story to begin with.

It'll be interesting to see what comes up in the Press Conference about to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was around in '83, and I certainly remember 9/11.

Neither incident had intentionally misleading reports directly from the White House like this.

I don't think they counted on how quickly the facts would be made public, and I think they did count on the media providing even more cover than they did.

Thank goodness Anderson Cooper and others at least made some attempts to hold the White House accountable for giving such conflicting reports.

Jesus, they actually took an American citizen into custody for no other reason than being the person who made a ridiculously poor quality video that the White House chose to blame in an attempt to deflect attention away from their poor response to a major foreign policy debacle.

In other words, again, it's not that the embassy was attacked.

Things like that happen.

But much like when the traffic cop spots a speeding driver hitting his brakes - the cop knows that the driver knows he's guilty - the Obama Administration immediately fabricated a cover story in an attempt to buy time in which to spin a better explanation for their poor response to a major incident.

I personally think their should also be investigation (if there already isn't) into the Chicago Bomber story that conveniently popped up the following Monday morning.

This was a kid they had like a fish on a string for a number of months.

They provided him with the fake bomb and the Jeep Cherokee.

So it was their decision when to execute the sting.

Why did they decide to "set the hook" on this particular fish at the time they did?

Again, I believe the ultimate directive to set this particular "known quantity" into motion came from the White House, as well.

Sorry Sag, this is completely different than keeping secret intelligence from the public.

They fucked up, they knew it would reveal their lack of preparation, and it would do so at a time that was politically critical.

It reveals once again that the Obama Administration - more often than not - acts on political motives first and foremost.

Much like Obama used his first 2 years - when he had control of both House and Senate and could pass whatever he wanted without interference from Republicans - to force his Healthcare plan through (spending), ignoring passing a budget (his own party voted unanimously against him) or taking any serious action to help the economy or unemployment.

Sorry, but I do not agree, and further your memory on 83' is off. The Reagan administration following the attack SPECIFICALLY DENIED any prior warning of a possible attack. What is even more egregious is the Reagan administration REFUSED to allow our marines to carry loaded weapons to defend against such an attack, even though the commander had requested such several times.

So, now that I have given you the facts about the 83' Lebanon bombing do you still feel the same? I still stand behind my original assessment when I said you don't go off half cocked when things like this happen, you release either a benign cover story or state "investigation pending." I agree the whole video thing was bullshit and the administration should have simply said, "investigation pending," but they later admitted it was a terrorist attack. So at worst the administration is guilty of jumping the gun on the initial reporting, nothing criminal there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read everything that's out there regarding the Benghazi attack, and given that the CIA and State Department is involved, it would be impossible for us civilians to ever know all the intel...but at first glance, I will say as a former military man, this doesn't pass the smell test. Something smells fishy. I didn't buy the 'video protest' story to begin with.

It'll be interesting to see what comes up in the Press Conference about to begin.

My guess is LOTS of questions regarding Petraeus, Allen and SEX!

Very little about Benghazi.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and the press asks real questions that are relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I know this is off topic but I sure am sick of the whole "sex scandal" BS. The only question I have is was their ability to manage compromised, if not who cares. The US has become so puritanical in regards to sex it is crazy. Most powerful men have mistresses, that's how they roll; it is still none of my business or anyone else's. Now if one of these ladies was a Chinese spy instead of one of the Housewives of Orange County, that could be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I know this is off topic but I sure am sick of the whole "sex scandal" BS. The only question I have is was their ability to manage compromised, if not who cares. The US has become so puritanical in regards to sex it is crazy. Most powerful men have mistresses, that's how they roll; it is still none of my business or anyone else's. Now if one of these ladies was a Chinese spy instead of one of the Housewives of Orange County, that could be an issue.

Believe it or not, I feel the same way.

I pretty much went with the outcome of Clinton, i.e., it's not a big deal.

I believe the sex angle to this is part of the attempt to distract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election's over, and the media are hard-pressed to keep ignoring this bombshell.

It's almost laughable all the coverage General Petraeus' infidelity is getting, especially in contrast to the Benghazi story.

But the Benghazi story is not going away, and all of the Petraeus news appears to be leading back to Benghazi.

The Petraeus story smells bad, and looks to reveal way more than Team Obama would prefer.

http://www.washingto...ytKXg6U.twitter

From the article:

Does anyone even remember the news-grabbing (or should I say deflecting?) headline the Monday morning after the embassy attacks?

Teen held in 'jihad' terrorist plot to bomb Chicago bar

Haven't heard much about it since then, though.

File that under Things that make you go Hmmmm.

It is not going away you are correct. It was on Face the Nation and probably on Meet the Press which I missed. Its amazing the lack of accountability that went down on this one and the timing of it. Romney should have shoved it down their throats and the fact he did not may or may not have cost him the white house. But many of the voters are just voting on their own agenda's and tried to paint a false picture of Romney. Even if they know the facts, those that voted for this president would have turned away and plugged their ears. He is in there and we have to stomach it for another three years basically as he will be a lame duck in two. I see in house gridlock and fighting like their has never been seen before. Cabinet members aer stepping down This guy is not uniting us. He is dividing us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Systematic failures", the same excuse used to bailout the banks and AIG - where the system was responsible but not individuals. So here again is the Washington tactic to make all responsible (the system) so no one is responsible. - I've heard this record before.

Nail on the head.

post-4573-0-97619000-1355929502_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Systematic failures", the same excuse used to bailout the banks and AIG - where the system was responsible but not individuals. So here again is the Washington tactic to make all responsible (the system) so no one is responsible. - I've heard this record before.

The Benghazi fiasco kept Susan Rice from becoming Secretary of State, and deservedly so, but the administration still has a lot to answer for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shit is hitting the fan,....

Turns out Hillary may have been wrong, apparently it DOES matter.

“It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said of the investigation into the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 assault.

It matters to the American public for whom we serve and most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on Sept. 11.”

- Eric Nordstom, the regional security officer posted in Libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/08/nordstrom-has-testified-before-on-benghazi/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregory Hicks, who was second in command at the Benghazi mission, will testify along with Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counter terrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya.......Hicks has told investigators he thought is was a terrorist attack from the get-go and,everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.!!!!!!............ But U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning news shows five days later blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest that erupted after a similar protest in Egypt. The Egyptian protest was blamed on an anti-Muslim video made in the United States........................ Prior to Rice’s appearance on "Face the Nation" at that time, Libya's newly elected president Mohamed Magarief had just told host Bob Schieffer that the attack was caused by terrorism and for Rice to immediately contradict him was a "loss of face" in his own country and throughout the.world!!!........... State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland had expressed fear, that the talking points would be used by members of Congress to criticize the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings about the need for more security, according to Schieffer............Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should have been on the same sheet of music with the Libyan government and she wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When all is said and done, more will be said than done. <_<

The pantywaists will get us all killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×