Obama lied about Benghazi

[boomerang]

This really needs to drag on for another 18 months or so to keep Hillary in the crosshairs. Then, the Dems can run Weiner or some other shining star.

 

[jackschmittusa]

xBiffx

WTF are you talking about? The people in Congress did read the bogus report. Bush & Co. knew they could never sell the war if they presented the straight dope. That's why they took the reports and info they had and scrubbed everything out that they felt did not support immediate war.

And if you don't know that yet, you are the idiot.

 

[IGBT]

who changed the white house narrative talking points from truth to lies??

 

[woolfe9998]

I've never understood the motive for this alleged "lying." The DoS was responsible for protecting the consulate and some measure of blame was going to be attached for the inadequate security regardless of whether the attack was spontaneous or planned.

Moreover, why would they lie about it being a planned attack when the truth would certainly have come out soon enough? And the truth, or I would say, the accurate version, certainly did come out within days. I don't put it past any administration to spin or lie, but I don't see a strong enough motive here to take the risk.

This was more likely a premature assessment from the intelligence community, which consists of numerous moving parts.

 

[fskimospy]

xBiffx

WTF are you talking about? The people in Congress did read the bogus report. Bush & Co. knew they could never sell the war if they presented the straight dope. That's why they took the reports and info they had and scrubbed everything out that they felt did not support immediate war.

And if you don't know that yet, you are the idiot.

Actually if you're referring to the NIE about Iraq WMD it was Congress itself that requested it, not Bush. He didn't scrub it, the intelligence community produced it and they were wrong.

The real scandal from all that was the fact that Bush never asked the intel community for an NIE.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually if you're referring to the NIE about Iraq WMD it was Congress itself that requested it, not Bush. He didn't scrub it, the intelligence community produced it and they were wrong.

The real scandal from all that was the fact that Bush never asked the intel community for an NIE.

Thanks eskimo.

But to be fair, Bush never declared war either.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks eskimo.

But to be fair, Bush never declared war either.

No one declared war against Iraq. Congress authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq if he so chose, and he chose to do so. Unlike a more explicit declaration of war which would happen with or without the president's OK, this one abdicated final authority on deciding on military conflict to the president.

 

[xBiffx]

No one declared war against Iraq. Congress authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq if he so chose, and he chose to do so. Unlike a more explicit declaration of war which would happen with or without the president's OK, this one abdicated final authority on deciding on military conflict to the president.

Fine. Whatever makes it more Bush's fault. The war wouldn't have happened without Congress' approval.

 

[fskimospy]

Fine. Whatever makes it more Bush's fault. The war wouldn't have happened without Congress' approval.

Uhmmm, the Iraq war was more Bush's fault than anyone else. That's not even remotely controversial.

 

[xBiffx]

Uhmmm, the Iraq war was more Bush's fault than anyone else. That's not even remotely controversial.

Of course not.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course not.

Oh my god. Has the revisionist history really gotten this bad already? It's only been 10 years and the situation was quite thoroughly documented. Then again, you thought the civil war was fought over tariffs.

 

[xBiffx]

Oh my god. Has the revisionist history really gotten this bad already? It's only been 10 years and the situation was quite thoroughly documented. Then again, you thought the civil war was fought over tariffs.

Any more derailment?

I just agreed with you, asshole. WTF?

 

[fskimospy]

Any more derailment?

I just agreed with you, asshole. WTF?

I took that to mean that you were being sarcastic, if I was wrong I apologize.

 

[xBiffx]

I took that to mean that you were being sarcastic, if I was wrong I apologize.

Meh, this whole side discussion got started over someone trying to compare Benghazi to Iraq and then claiming Bush falsified intel reports. It's all screwed up in here.

At least we cleared that up.

No worries.

 

[werepossum]

I've never understood the motive for this alleged "lying." The DoS was responsible for protecting the consulate and some measure of blame was going to be attached for the inadequate security regardless of whether the attack was spontaneous or planned.

Moreover, why would they lie about it being a planned attack when the truth would certainly have come out soon enough? And the truth, or I would say, the accurate version, certainly did come out within days. I don't put it past any administration to spin or lie, but I don't see a strong enough motive here to take the risk.

This was more likely a premature assessment from the intelligence community, which consists of numerous moving parts.

The motive is crystal clear; there was an election in two months and Romney would have used this to beat up Obama. If it is a normal threat, the administration had an obligation to be competent and protect the ambassador and his staff against foreseeable attacks. If on the other hand this was a spontaneous, massive uprising against an Internet video, two things change. First, no one can predict that kind of thing, nor effectively defend against thousands of angry Muslims out for blood. And second, the administration now has a bad guy (the film producer) to deflect criticism. "It's HIS fault; let's get him!"

Your point would be valid if the administration had to make up something with evidence to back it up, but only a couple of months were required, and only enough plausibility to give cover to their friends in the press.

 

[Matt1970]

The motive is crystal clear; there was an election in two weeks and Romney would have used this to beat up Obama. If it is a normal threat, the administration had an obligation to be competent and protect the ambassador and his staff against foreseeable attacks. If on the other hand this was a spontaneous, massive uprising against an Internet video, two things change. First, no one can predict that kind of thing, nor effectively defend against thousands of angry Muslims out for blood. And second, the administration now has a bad guy (the film producer) to deflect criticism. "It's HIS fault; let's get him!"

Your point would be valid if the administration had to make up something with evidence to back it up, but only a couple of weeks were required, and only enough plausibility to give cover to their friends in the press.

And Obama had just made a campaign speech claiming Al-Qaeda was on the run.

 

[zinfamous]

Nice to see how the left feels about Benghazi where 4 Americans were murdered.

you don't care about 4 Americans being killed you lying douchebag.

 

[woolfe9998]

The motive is crystal clear; there was an election in two weeks and Romney would have used this to beat up Obama. If it is a normal threat, the administration had an obligation to be competent and protect the ambassador and his staff against foreseeable attacks. If on the other hand this was a spontaneous, massive uprising against an Internet video, two things change. First, no one can predict that kind of thing, nor effectively defend against thousands of angry Muslims out for blood. And second, the administration now has a bad guy (the film producer) to deflect criticism. "It's HIS fault; let's get him!"

Your point would be valid if the administration had to make up something with evidence to back it up, but only a couple of weeks were required, and only enough plausibility to give cover to their friends in the press.

My understanding is that there was minimal security at that consulate in an Islamic country with many potential hostiles. Like any Islamic country, there are plenty of extremists there. I doubt the spontaneity of it would have changed the assessment. Even with a planned attack, we wouldn't necessarily have had any warning so it may as well have been spontaneous. Yet there is an obligation to provide security either way.

Still, failing to provide security was at best a minor scandal for the election, since everyone knows that Obama doesn't micro-manage such things. OTOH, if they lie about something, that can be a much larger scandal. The cost-benefit just does not add up. This is parallel to a point I once argued with you about the supposed lying of Holder over Fast and Furious. I pointed out that there was very little to cover up there because almost nothing of any scandalous consequence occurred on the ground. It made no sense to lie about it because a lie is 1000x worse than what would have been covered up by the lie.

Anyway, leaping to the conclusion that the attack had to do with protests over the video was pretty natural. There were protests in Cairo the same day which resulted in the embassy being attacked there. Without further information, I would definitely have assumed the same thing.

I've seen conflicting reports about what this or that person in the intelligence community says we "knew" or didn't "know." The fact is, we never "know" anything. We have evidence which points one way or the other. But the government is a vast bureaucracy with numerous moving parts. It is quite common to get things wrong with any early reporting. The press does it all the time, and so does the government, accidentally. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind. I'm also equally certain that your conclusions would be entirely different if this was a republican administration. My own would be exactly the same.

 

[marincounty]

Even if I accept your premise that Obama lied about Benghazi, which I don't, still leaves the fact that no one cares. Sure a few right wing nuts are outraged, but the general public is yawning about this.
This could be a major scandal, but the right has cried wolf so many times about petty crap that the public is no longer listening. He's a muslim, birther nonsense, fast and furious, etc..
The right lost the election but they just can't let the nonsense go. Now they are obviously trying to smear Hillary.
If Republicans really want to govern, how about focusing on something the people want? How about that laser like focus on jobs? How about a jobs program? How about some job training programs? How about a plan for natural gas fueled vehicles ?
How about something to deal with the skyrocketing cost of medical care?
No, the only focus is on negativity, no positive plans for America. And righties wonder why they are punished by the voters.

 

[Fern]

Another article about the lies told by Obama and his administration to the American people about Benghazi.

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

I'd like to hear more about this. I want to hear the response from SOCAFRICA.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

Amazing, a thread calling obama a liar turns into a thread bashing bush.

Pathetic.

 

[Matt1970]

Amazing, a thread calling obama a liar turns into a thread bashing bush.

Pathetic.

I know, that never happens around here.......

 

[marincounty]

I must have missed all of the Republican led hearings about what went wrong in Iraq, how we could spend a trillion dollars and cause the deaths of thousands of Americans for no good reason? But we have plenty of time and money to investigate an incident in LIBYA in which four Americans were killed by terrorists?
You guys are partisan assholes only interested in smearing your opponents, and unfortunately for you the vast majority of Americans aren't buying into it.

 

[werepossum]

My understanding is that there was minimal security at that consulate in an Islamic country with many potential hostiles. Like any Islamic country, there are plenty of extremists there. I doubt the spontaneity of it would have changed the assessment. Even with a planned attack, we wouldn't necessarily have had any warning so it may as well have been spontaneous. Yet there is an obligation to provide security either way.

Still, failing to provide security was at best a minor scandal for the election, since everyone knows that Obama doesn't micro-manage such things. OTOH, if they lie about something, that can be a much larger scandal. The cost-benefit just does not add up. This is parallel to a point I once argued with you about the supposed lying of Holder over Fast and Furious. I pointed out that there was very little to cover up there because almost nothing of any scandalous consequence occurred on the ground. It made no sense to lie about it because a lie is 1000x worse than what would have been covered up by the lie.

Anyway, leaping to the conclusion that the attack had to do with protests over the video was pretty natural. There were protests in Cairo the same day which resulted in the embassy being attacked there. Without further information, I would definitely have assumed the same thing.

I've seen conflicting reports about what this or that person in the intelligence community says we "knew" or didn't "know." The fact is, we never "know" anything. We have evidence which points one way or the other. But the government is a vast bureaucracy with numerous moving parts. It is quite common to get things wrong with any early reporting. The press does it all the time, and so does the government, accidentally. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind. I'm also equally certain that your conclusions would be entirely different if this was a republican administration. My own would be exactly the same.

You're assuming that I consider this a scandal; I do not. I consider this politics as usual. Somebody made a bad decision. Maybe that's Obama; probably it's Hilary Clinton or someone lower in State. At the time, I'm sure they had a reason to take that risk, but it turned out to be a bad decision. You win some and you lose some, and sometimes when you take a risk, people die. As far as cost-benefit for the lie, there is no cost. The same people bashing Obama over Benghazi would be bashing him for something else, the press will accept almost anything he tells them (with the exception of Fox News and the few right wing outlets which are going to be criticizing him anyway), his supporters will support him in anything, and the majority of the undecided are probably either too stupid to even notice or smart enough to realize that (A) the President probably doesn't personally decide to remove the Marines from the mission and (B) if the President did personally decide to remove the Marines from the mission he probably had a reason he thought worth the risk at the time. (And if they eventually decide against him, election's over and he can't run again.)

As to the benefit, the Presidency and Congress were on the line. The risk isn't whether Obama did anything wrong, but whether Team Romney could convince a significant number of voters that Obama did something wrong. Just as Obama's lie only had to hold up two months, so Romney's charges only had to hold up two months.

Wolf, you're accusing me of petty partisan politics on this and on Fast and Furious. I don't think that charge is warranted. On Benghazi I recognize that Team Obama lied, I recognize that Team Bush or Team Romney would have done exactly the same, I am scandalized by neither the lie nor the underlying decision, and I've given the government the benefit of the doubt by assuming that removing Marine and CIA security was done for a reason the deciders considered worth the risk at the time, even while acknowledging that due to the nature of the reason I may never learn it. On Fast and Furious I vocally supported Obama and Holder right up until Obama declared the entire government was his private lawyer and therefore off-limits, effectively owning the operation, because it seemed to me this was exactly the kind of rogue operation the BATFE would undertake on its own, without authorization. Granted, we do have a difference of opinion on the severity; I'm willing to give Obama a pass on a one-time strike where four Americans were killed, but not an ongoing, months long operation intentionally arming drug cartels and killing two Americans and hundreds of Mexicans. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether that is an issue, but to those of us who believe it IS a big deal, Obama had to decide whether to cover it up or dig it out. He chose the former, so whether he was part of the operation from the first he decided to support the people who intentionally armed drug cartels as an argument for disarming the law-abiding American public.

Meanwhile you've been all Obama, all the time, on both issues, with never a bobble. And I'M the partisan here? I think not.

 

[TerryMathews]

I must have missed all of the Republican led hearings about what went wrong in Iraq, how we could spend a trillion dollars and cause the deaths of thousands of Americans for no good reason? But we have plenty of time and money to investigate an incident in LIBYA in which four Americans were killed by terrorists?
You guys are partisan assholes only interested in smearing your opponents, and unfortunately for you the vast majority of Americans aren't buying into it.

Did you miss the Democrats led ones?