Off Topic Messages

Benghazi Cover-up

Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:03 pm

For those with their eyes and ears open it would seem crystal clear that with or without Obama's actual presence, those in his administration:
* denied increased security for the compound in Benghazi, despite repeated requests
* watched the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound in real time from inside the Situation Room
* denied repeated calls for assistance during the attack (the seige went on for seven hours - help was only about 70 minutes away)
* repeatedly instructed security personnel not to engage the attackers or attempt to rescue embassy personnel (the officers disobeyed and lives were saved).

It is also clear that Obama personally:
* insisted that White House staff withhold information about the terrorist attack.
* specifically instructed Susan Rice to lie to the media in her repeated statements "This was not a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous protest." A complete lie.
* specifically instructed Jay Carney to lie to the media in his repeated statements "There is no evidence whatsoever that this was a pre-planned attack." Another complete lie.
* continues to be evasive about the details about the attack and openly lie to the country, hoping to stall things until after the election.

And the main media is complicit in this lie by not covering the story. They want him to win the election. A very miserable state of affairs indeed.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:55 pm

Please be respectful of our beloved Commander-in-Chief. He should be referred to as President Obama, especially since he'll be keeping this title for the next 5 years. ;-)

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:57 pm

Thanks for the GOP BS Dannyboy

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:12 am

This info is taken from sources ranging from statements taken at enquiries to leaks from service personnel wanting to set the record straight after being thrown under the bus. Of course you won't want to hear about any of it in your little world where Obama can do no wrong. Its fairly easy these days when the political left controls almost all of the news media.

Kind of hypocritical of you to insist on respect for the Commander-in-chief, DJC. I am much more respectful to Obama than you ever were to Bush.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:21 am

dannyboy1 wrote:This info is taken from sources ranging from statements taken at enquiries to leaks from service personnel wanting to set the record straight after being thrown under the bus. Of course you won't want to hear about any of it in your little world where Obama can do no wrong. Its fairly easy these days when the political left controls almost all of the news media.

Here's a reality-check for you: this statement is false.

You rely on sources that seek to brainwash people into believing such things, instead of paying attention to what's really going on.

The "media" is owned by a handful of corporations, none of which follow a liberal agenda:

CBS Corporation
Comcast Corporation
News Corporation
Time Warner
Viacom
Walt Disney Company

Rather they follow their own agenda. And it has been that way for a very long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:59 pm

The trouble is that everything is still shaking out and conclusions are still aways away. What's being called "a cover up" is actually the information being discovered as we go along. The President has admitted that this was a disaster. The Foxies are just so dying for a scandal to pin on the president that they really care how it shakes up.

It is worth noting that it was the Republican congress who suggested cuts to Embassy security.

And yes, four American lives on American soil are definitely something to get worked up about. But so are 3000 American live slaughtered in one day, when there was a real cover up. The hundreds of lives lost in Katrina when there was real mass scale incompetence. The thousands of lives sent into Iraq and lost (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died) based on deliberate deception and obfuscation. A little scale is necessary here.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:19 pm

The point here is to not lose sight of the big picture, which conservative forces are desperate to do.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:50 pm

jak wrote:No offense but tell the families of the slain they should apply a little scale while they mourn.


No offense but the critics of the president should. No one is saying it's not a tragedy, but also be realistic in your assessments. Yes there should be no killings or unnecessary deaths on US soil, but four is much better than 3,000. For the families it's always going to be pain, but in terms of your city, or your state, or your country you're always going to have murders, rape etc. It doesn't mean the pain of the people that suffer are not important but there's a difference between a city where 10,000 murders occur a year and another one of comparable size where there's 50. One is doing a better job of protecting citizens. Both could do better but in city #2 there's hardly wholesale slaughter going on.

Wait until everything comes out and then make a judgment. If things could have been better hold people accountable. But what's going now is politically inspired hysteria to try and create a scandal for the Obama administration that remotely holds a candle to anything that happened in the prior decade.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:45 am

jak wrote:I was wrong. Four deaths really isn't that big of a deal I guess. Peope die every day.


If you actually read, and understood what was written above you wouldn't make such a petty, childish comment Jak.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:46 am

jak wrote:I was wrong. Four deaths really isn't that big of a deal I guess. Peope die every day.



Really!?

That is what you got from likeandbike's response? :shock: :roll:

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:57 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Please be respectful of our beloved Commander-in-Chief. He should be referred to as President Obama, especially since he'll be keeping this title for the next 5 years. ;-)



Exactly what the German public said about their Commander-In-Chief in 1937 :D

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:44 am

KiwiAlan wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Please be respectful of our beloved Commander-in-Chief. He should be referred to as President Obama, especially since he'll be keeping this title for the next 5 years. ;-)



Exactly what the German public said about their Commander-In-Chief in 1937 :D


Really? Even with your :D, this is offensive...and completely wrong to even make the comparison...

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:16 am

jak wrote:Seemed like I was one of the few that thought the four deaths was a big deal. I thought it ranked high on my scale but I guess I was wrong. Dont let you're political affiliations cloud you're judgement. I notice people are not as quick to criticize as they are to praise the administration. That's not good. All should be accountable.


One death is a big deal, one death is too much. However, you have to let the story play out before you make judgments and harsh as it is, sometimes scale belongs in judgements of public figures. No president or leader can prevent everything bad from happening, even in those things which he/she has under her/his control. It's a big picture thing. President Kennedy, in his hasty decision, to allow the Bay of Pigs debacle allowed for the deaths of four American pilots and over a hundred Cubans. He put the Cubans on offensive which helped increase their bond with the Soviet Union. But that debacle, which unlike this one has been adjudged by history as completely preventable within the president's power, was offset by Kennedy's absolute calm during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a single wrong step could have led to a full scale nuclear exchange. Yes it's sad that men died that didn't need to die, but the prevention of a nuclear holocaust weighs far more on the judgment of Kennedy's presidency.

And as I point out the data is not in yet here. If the perpetrators are held accountable, if the lower officials whom may have permitted the lapses are held accountable, if whatever lapses are fixed, get fixed that goes a long way.

However, Fox News was on this the next day before anyone knew anything trying to make this a scandal. Do you think they care about the deaths of those four people or is dirt on the President they care about?

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am

dannyboy1 wrote:Kind of hypocritical of you to insist on respect for the Commander-in-chief, DJC. I am much more respectful to Obama than you ever were to Bush.


The great doctor is smart enough to know that
we Republicans have to play by a different set
of rules. We have the moral high ground here.
Let Doc and his cronies put down the office if
they choose to do so. It says more about them
than the person who holds the office.

Eventually we will find out the truth about Benghazi.
And from the reactions on this board, it seems some
are very worried what that might be.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:58 am

Um, what moral high ground would that be? The previous president invaded a country that represented no immediate threat to the US, killing thousands of US soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, failed to adequately prepare for the worst attack on US soil in US history, gave up on pursuing the man behind those attacks, allowed one of America's greatest cities to drown underwater, fired qualified government officials for failing to persecute political witch hunts, outed an undercover CIA operative for spite burning every connection she ever built, violated the Geneva action and US Constitution with acts of torture, violated the US Constitution with illegal phone wire taps, encouraged his buddies on Wall Street to rape the country financially eventually leading to a complete meltdown of the world economy. Meanwhile members of the Department snorted coke off another's belly while the President's appointees took bribes and sold the country's resources to the highest bidder. There's moral high ground there? That's corruption. What you're alleging here is maybe poor decision making.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:09 am

likethebike wrote:Um, what moral high ground would that be? The previous president invaded a country that represented no immediate threat to the US, killing thousands of US soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, failed to adequately prepare for the worst attack on US soil in US history, gave up on pursuing the man behind those attacks, allowed one of America's greatest cities to drown underwater, fired qualified government officials for failing to persecute political witch hunts, outed an undercover CIA operative for spite burning every connection she ever built, violated the Geneva action and US Constitution with acts of torture, violated the US Constitution with illegal phone wire taps, encouraged his buddies on Wall Street to rape the country financially eventually leading to a complete meltdown of the world economy. Meanwhile members of the Department snorted coke off another's belly while the President's appointees took bribes and sold the country's resources to the highest bidder. There's moral high ground there? That's corruption. What you're alleging here is maybe poor decision making.


Exactly!

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:55 am

The title should be Benghazi Politicized.

I honestly -- honestly -- think it's disgraceful the way the Republicans have milked this tragedy.

And the saddest part is they wouldn't have said a damn word about it after the first week, if it weren't an election year.

Fact!

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:40 am

As much as you wish it weren't - the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief is an immensely relevant issue coming up to an election. Any argument to the contrary is simply not in touch with reality.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:53 am

In reply to the Doc -

I'm not sure who you think I use for my information sources. You know a lot about news carriage services in Australia do you? Didn't think so. But bias is easy to detect. Most sources of info over here, as in the US, are supportive of the political left. That goes for newspaper and TV here. Talk radio is a mixed bag. But one of the main tools of the left is to control the media in order to silence opposing voices.

In schools, 95% of the teachers are unionists and supportive of the political left. Their aim is to brainwash students to think and vote the way they do so that within a genereration there will be no political right remaining. And before you try and give some other knowledgeable response, Doc - I'm a teacher, okay. So I know.

It's you on the left who are caught up in the brainwashing. Bias is easy to detect. You just have to be sceptical of everything you hear, and then honest in your assessment of it. Good luck with that, Doc.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:05 am

the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief is an immensely relevant issue coming up to an election
Romney has so little integrity, he'd have to be running against Bernie Madoff to win on that point.

And even Madoff finally confessed to his lies.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:08 am

intheghetto wrote:The reality is that there are always going to be issues in the Middle-East and it is almost impossible to not have an event like what took place in Benghazi at times. Believe me, whoever the president may be, these things are going to happen and to pretend that they're not is just ridiculous. In the third debate the President illustrated that he had an excellent command of the international issues at hand. Romney couldn't do that. He has no experience with international policy. If that's the guy you want in office, then you deserve him.


I'm not north-american and I'm not taking sides here, but could you please inform us all on just how much more experience Barack Obama had with international policy in 2008 than Mitt Romney has in 2012?

Serious question, by the way. I thank you in advance.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:22 am

Obama knew Iran bordered the sea.

That put him well ahead of Romney.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:25 am

elvissessions wrote:Obama knew Iran bordered the sea.

That put him well ahead of Romney.


+ 1

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:27 am

I can't wait for this wretched election to be over and done with, as I am near to gloves-off arguing with some folk on Facebook who keep posting ridiculous and tedious Anti-Obama stuff like this.

Edited to add that the link is without an introduction which included this:
The military was told to Stand Down and not to enter the fight to save American citizens! As a result, our Ambassador was raped, sodomized, beaten, the safe room he was hiding in was set on fire, then he was dragged from that room and through the streets of Bengazi so the cowards who attacked and killed him could ridicule his death.


The above paragraph doesn't even make sense to me.

Apart from other issues, if I were and American woman, and Romney and his cronies got in I would be disgusted and seriously pissed off.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:34 am

elvissessions wrote:Obama knew Iran bordered the sea.

That put him well ahead of Romney.


He also knows that 'England' is not an island :twisted: