Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Retired Lt. Col:  Obama watched the attack personally.  

 

 

If this is true, I am beyond disgusted.  

Will you admit that this isn't true?  Or will this be another Iraq & WMDs case of evidence not swaying you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

He could certainly be aware of the strategy without knowing who executed it if that happened outside his agency.

 

He could certainly be aware of what strategy?  You're saying that he knew the talking points were supposed to be changed and knew why they were changed, but didn't know who actually made the decision to change them?  AYFKM?  

The strategy to try to avoid alerting suspect organizations. Why would you expect the originating organization necessarily to know who, precisely, in downstream processing, does what? How about a little patience to see how this plays out, rather than your letting your desperation for all this to be driven by an evil Democratic conspiracy lead you to keep making wild assertions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You're unbelievable.

Because I'm pointing out that we have insufficient information to draw conclusions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

File your wild conspiracy theory in the same bin as Bush White House was involved in the 911 attack. Both rubbish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

File your wild conspiracy theory in the same bin as Bush White House was involved in the 911 attack. Both rubbish.

I don't think that he is claiming that they were involved in the attack - just that they were incompetent in allowing it to happen and that they tried to cover up the nature of the attack for political reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

 

The CIA knew the attack was terrorism within hours.  So did the FBI.  The President claims he called it an act of terror the next day.  Then they blamed it on the video and a non-existent mob for over two weeks.  The White House sent Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to claim it was not a preplanned attack, and that it was in response to the video, when we KNOW the administration knew this wasn't true.  Petraeus testified that for some reason, their talking points were changed to downplay terrorism.  

 

Someone lied at the highest levels.  Come on..do the math.  

None of that rules out the explanation that it was done for intelligence reasons. As Peter King noted - it apparently left the CIA with the Al Qaeda background included and passed through the DOD, DOJ, State and White House. Rhodes says that they made only minor edits at that end.

Aside from that, if, in your view, modifying released information for NS reasons constitutes "lying at the highest levels", then yes, someone did. And, in fact, they do it all the time - you generally just don't find out about it until it is declassified. I assume that you know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

Really SDW. Let's hear that over whelming evidence because what seems to be coming out on both sides ( with the exception of a few Republicans with an agenda ) is that it was a security matter. You know SDW the same thing you used to excuse some Bush items in Iraq. http://news.msn.com/politics/reid-to-mccain-no-need-for-special-libya-panel

As you can see though it's not going anywhere as both Reed and Boehner aren't buying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

None of that rules out the explanation that it was done for intelligence reasons. As Peter King noted - it apparently left the CIA with the Al Qaeda background included and passed through the DOD, DOJ, State and White House. Rhodes says that they made only minor edits at that end.

 

Aside from that, if, in your view, modifying released information for NS reasons constitutes "lying at the highest levels", then yes, someone did. And, in fact, they do it all the time - you generally just don't find out about it until it is declassified. I assume that you know that.

 

You seem to be accepting at face value the claim that the editing was not done for political reasons.  This was Petraeus's claim.  However, he doesn't know who modified it after it left the CIA.  Well guess who that leaves?  The White House, State Dept and Justice...all of whom have a vested interest in preventing Obama/the admin from looking bad.  You've become an apologist on this.  

No, I've repeatedly said that the explanation is not implausible and the evidence that I have seen does not contradict it, but that we do not know enough to draw conclusions. It is you who is accepting a hypothesis as proven when it is not.

Political tribalism rears it's ugly head. A heroic general and CIA director lies hoping the president will return the favor by covering up a legacy killing affair, ambassador to the UN compromises her integrity to get her boss reelected, a president that swaggers to the tune of drone strikes and seal team 7 raids covers up a terrorist strike before an election because it strikes and ill chord.

It's all smoke and mirrors of a bitter and vast right wing conspiracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 The way you brush off 4 dead Americans is disturbing.  

The American public brushes off and is numb to reports of Americans killed in the Middle East on a weekly basis. 10 dead here, 4 dead there, 15 dead elsewhere. You are trying to sensationalize this because there was an ambassador killed so somehow it is different. Everyone over there in the conflict areas knows they are living in harms way. Shit happens, and often, over there. Nobody wanted these Americans to die except the enemy combatants. Stop making it out to be some calculated political maneuver on the part of the Democrats. It wasn't a benefit or a disadvantage in the election, it was just another tragedy in the Middle East's ever widening conflict which is not anyone's fault except the Islamic fundamentalists. That right wing religious movie certainly didn't help matters.

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

Consistency is important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

 

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

 

Consistency is important.

If you would show some that would be great. Rather you change your tune based on if there is a "D" or and "R" after the presidents name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

 

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

 

Consistency is important.

I'm completely consistent on that. I pointed out repeatedly that more people would die from driving drunk just in the state of California per year than would die fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He's either the Commander-In-Chief or he's not...make up your mind or his. He brags about 'pulling the trigger' to kill Bin Laden but he didn't 'pull the trigger' to save Americans trapped in Benghazi. If not for the courageous Navy Seals there would be an additional 30 dead (the consulate staff). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lesismor 

He's either the Commander-In-Chief or he's not...make up your mind or his. He brags about 'pulling the trigger' to kill Bin Laden but he didn't 'pull the trigger' to save Americans trapped in Benghazi. If not for the courageous Navy Seals there would be an additional 30 dead (the consulate staff). 

That's not really what the argument is about - it's about information provided after the event. In any case, the two events that you mention are not comparable; one was planned and rehearsed for since back when President Bush was hunting him, and was initiated by the US on Presidential authority, while the other was a sudden and short-duration hostile act on foreign territory. I doubt Obama even made the tactical decisions on the latter, but we'll know the details soon enough.

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation, refusing to upgrade security and then refusing to send recsue. When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it. In fact, he admits he knew. It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi. 

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it. Then he lied about lying. If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lesismor 

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation, refusing to upgrade security and then refusing to send recsue. When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it. In fact, he admits he knew. It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi. 

 

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it. Then he lied about lying. If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator. 

Apart from Obama being informed when the attack occurred, I can't see a single assertion in that post that even the Republican Party is promoting. If there was negligence or worse here then it will emerge from the inevitable investigations. And please don't add to your litany of nonsense by telling me what I would do under other circumstances. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Apart from Obama being informed when the attack occurred, I can't see a single assertion in that post that even the Republican Party is promoting. If there was negligence or worse here then it will emerge from the inevitable investigations. And please don't add to your litany of nonsense by telling me what I would do under other circumstances. 

Let's take the claims one by one:  

Quote:

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation,

Obama didn't do so personally, but he must have been aware of the previous attacks.  It's his responsibility in the end.  

Quote:

refusing to upgrade security

More of a State Dept issue, but one could make the argument Obama is ultimately responsible as CIC.  

Quote:

and then refusing to send recsue

More of a CIA issue, though see above on Obama's ultimate responsibility.  

Quote:

When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it.

Most likely true.  

Quote:

In fact, he admits he knew.

I'm not sure what he admitted knowing, and when he knew it.  

Quote:

It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. 

I don't know that the WH and Pentagon got a live feed.  My understanding it was only the State Dept and CIA.  

Quote:

The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi.

I find that hard to believe.  

Quote:

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it.

 

Then he lied about lying.

That certainly seems to be the case.  We know that the administration new this was terror within mere hours.  There was no evidence of any kind that this was a protest or mob action gone wrong.  Yet, Rice and other officials parroted this line on five Sunday talk shows, in other interviews, etc.  Hillary Clinton blamed the video and renounced it.  Obama blamed the video at the UN.  Someone definitely changed the story, and it appears to be for political reasons.  

Quote:

If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator.

I don't know what muppetry would do, but I imagine the media would make it bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined.  

 

I agree that it is most unlikely that he would put political gain ahead of saving lives in Benghazi, mostly because that makes no sense. The political capital that he would have made had he been able to take credit for a rescue operation would have been huge.

I'm still unconvinced by the "lying" accusation, since the modification of information deemed sensitive before release is very commonplace. We don't usually regard that as lying. If it were for political gain then that would be different, but that has not been demonstrated, and also seems improbable since there was no possibility that the lie could remain undiscovered.

Comparing this event to Watergate or Iran-Contra kills any attempt at a credible argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I agree that it is most unlikely that he would put political gain ahead of saving lives in Benghazi, mostly because that makes no sense. The political capital that he would have made had he been able to take credit for a rescue operation would have been huge.

 

I'm still unconvinced by the "lying" accusation, since the modification of information deemed sensitive before release is very commonplace. We don't usually regard that as lying. If it were for political gain then that would be different, but that has not been demonstrated, and also seems improbable since there was no possibility that the lie could remain undiscovered.

 

Comparing this event to Watergate or Iran-Contra kills any attempt at a credible argument.

 

OK, muppetry.  How about you provide a reasonable explanation for why the administration blamed a non-existent mob for the attack?  

 

And on Watergate, realize this clearly:  No one died in Watergate.  

You have heard their explanations for concealing the Al Qaeda connection. Whether or not they are true has not been established, but your continuing disingenuous efforts to pretend that they haven't been made are becoming very tiresome. None of which has to do with the issue of the event that led to those casualties. No one died as a result of the questionable information release after the event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

What I find tiresome is your continued dispassionate "ho-humness" in the face of being lied to.  We know what Ambassador Rice et al said on five Sunday talk shows was not true.  We know that there was no evidence of a mob or spontaneous attack.  This was not the initial belief...not of anyone.   Who told Rice to make the claims she did?  Why did Joe Biden claim that intelligence officials initially told the White House it was a spontaneous attack, when we know that's not true?  What did the President know?  When did he know?  Was he aware of previous attacks?  If not, why?  Why did he not order additional security after those attacks?  

 

These questions are all unanswered.  The American people were told a story that was false.  

Because they will be answered. The truth will emerge, and then we will know whether this was reasonable, unreasonable, justified or unjustified. I prefer to wait and see rather than indignantly blowing hot air.

That is a reasonable question, and if you would just have a little patience I'm sure the committees will figure it out.

As the Commander in Chief it is Obama's primary responsibility to secure the the safety of Americans here and abroad. He is the only one who could have given the order to 'send in the marines' in a foreign country and he didn't! 

All the excuses in the world don't change the fact that he was willing to let Ambassador Stevens and his staff of 30 die. Why? If you say he didn't know, he should have, that's his job.

We know Obama lied, Patraeus lied, Amb. Rices lied and Clinton lied so the only question is why. Was is to cover incompetence or something more sinister?

Stop making excuses and look at this with unbiased eyes. Imagine your own reaction if this had happened during the Bush administration. 

George W Bush had 30 minutes after the first hijacking to scramble jets.  He had 15 minutes after the first plane hit to take out the second.  According to your logic, George W Bush is responsible for those 3000 lives.  Please follow your argument to its logical conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Because they will be answered. The truth will emerge, and then we will know whether this was reasonable, unreasonable, justified or unjustified. I prefer to wait and see rather than indignantly blowing hot air.

 

That is a reasonable question, and if you would just have a little patience I'm sure the committees will figure it out.

 

They won't be answered if every time the question is asked, the Congressional Black Caucus screams "racism and sexism!!!!"   They won't be answered by those who are advocating the questions are not asked at all.  

I have no idea to what you are referring here, but this topic seems to be rushing headlong towards hysteria. What do racism and sexism have to do with this, and who (who actually has a say in this) is advocating not asking the questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I have no idea to what you are referring here, but this topic seems to be rushing headlong towards hysteria. What do racism and sexism have to do with this, and who (who actually has a say in this) is advocating not asking the questions?

 

MSNBC:  Racism behind "attacks" on Susan Rice

 

Democratic Women in Congress Lash Out at "Racism and Sexism" over Libya Questions

 

Clyburn:  Calling Rice "Incompetent" is Racist

Interesting. I'd like to see the Wolffe interview in full, but it those quotes are accurate then his comments were ill-advised IMO. Luckily he's just a news guy. The House members seem unhappy about McCain and Graham threatening to "scuttle" Rice's nomination on the grounds that she is "unqualified and untrustworthy", which, if true, they should not have said, but it doesn't excuse pulling the racism card on them. Clyburn looks to be in the same category.

However, that seems all to be just about Rice, and however much those people (and I'd include McCain and Graham if they really said that) are not helping, none of this has any chance of getting in the way of the investigations into the event.

Adding to the Twitter fights over Clinton's recent health issues (relative to the Benghazi inquiries) is a new Euro report - based on Russian sources - claiming she was injured during a recent secret trip to Iran.

I never will trust Russian sources about this information about Clinton.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Adding to the Twitter fights over Clinton's recent health issues (relative to the Benghazi inquiries) is a new Euro report - based on Russian sources - claiming she was injured during a recent secret trip to Iran.

I never bought the whole, "Dehydrated and fell" story.