Obama lied about Benghazi

[Attic]

There has been literally nothing new, revealing or scandalous about Benghazi since the first couple weeks; what we've learned since is entirely boring and uncontroversial, especially after Clinton answered all the various House Intelligence investigator's questions publicly and privately to the point where they stopped talking about it altogether. The only reason (my emphasis here, the ONLY reason) we're still talking about this is last week Fox got some loser to spill his guts about his feelings regarding how quickly he "knew" the U.S. military could have responded, but didn't for some inexplicable reason Fox's fake informant couldn't explain himself.

But seriously, no one important cares, citizen or politician. No one that will decide elections at least.

Susan Rice?, is that you? Still don't want the American public to have anything true regarding Bengazai, predictable.

 

[Doppel]

So all the outrage is over obama citing the protests that were occuring at US embasies across the middle east and not using the word "terrorist"? Of course this had some political motivation but it was still a plausible hypothesis for what was occuring based on avaible information.

No, it appears according to this that the administration was not misinformed, did not misspoke, but simply lied.

 

[Attic]

God forbid you take issue with the misinformation campaign the left perpetuated regarding Bengazai. Just remember when you thought Bengazai was a result of the video that you were following the leader like a good sheep and doing like you were told, if you questioned that false narrative... Even though you were right, you are clearly unhinged and should be squelched.

Questioning the enlightened is tough business when they are never wrong.

 

[fallenangel99]

At least getting the spelling correct.

 

[davmat787]

The whole Benghazi thing is a real object lesson in how the extreme right lives in its own bubble. I consistently find myself marveling at how baffled extremely right wing people are when they don't see the public freaking out over Benghazi, how they can't figure out why Obama isn't impeached over it, etc, etc. As per usual, they blame a conspiracy by the media, etc.

Maybe it's not a conspiracy, maybe it's just you.

Given the info in the op, do you think Benghazi offers any object lessons for the left as well? If so, what are they?

 

[Screech]

Given the info in the op, do you think Benghazi offers any object lessons for the left as well? If so, what are they?

Yes: When in doubt, say terrorism.

edit: topical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village_Idiot,_and_I_Married_One

 

[Moonbeam]

At least getting the spelling correct.

You need work on your grammar.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the info in the op, do you think Benghazi offers any object lessons for the left as well? If so, what are they?

Not really. I've found the whole thing to be a pretty clear cut case of the right desperately looking for some sort of scandal to attack Obama with.

I have plenty of issues with Obama's security policy and foreign policy and I always think it's important to realize the the government is a self interested actor, but this whole thing? It's just reeks of desperation.

 

[Moonbeam]

What we see in this thread is the impotency of rage, the depression of low testosterone, and the psychosis of group think, and it would be profoundly hilarious if it weren't so sad. Perhaps a couple of aspirins and a good night's sleep.

 

[IGBT]

if it wasn't for the obama willing accomplices in the media covering / protecting / with action lines / sound bites designed to appease the obama low information supporters he would have been called out on this issue early on.

 

[berzerker60]

So, in the world of conservatives, let's sort out what constitutes a presidential 'scandal,' which I'm sure will be rational:

Obama 'lies' about the Benghazi attacks being terrorist attacks, and maybe theoretically could have augmented security at consulates worldwide: impeach him!

Reagan literally caves to Islamic terrorist demands to sell weapons to Iran, then uses the money to fund nun-raping terrorists in Latin America, in direct violation of a law duly passed by Congress: celebrate him as a saint forever more!
____________

edit:

Clinton: Got a consensual BJ in the White House, lied about it: impeach him!

Bush II: Wanted to go to war in Iraq, lied about weapons of mass destruction, didn't plan out the war, thousands of American soldiers and many, many, many innocent civilians die: either A) Bush who? Obama was president during the crash! or B) Go USA!

 

[waggy]

4 Americans are dead and it doesn't seem like obama and his ass-kissing doucehbags care.

that's what blows my mind. IN the last thread i took Obama's word on what happened and argued in his favor. now its coming out that it was all a lie.

this really does need to be investigated to its fullest (it won't though. see replies from many on why).


im rather surprised and kinda glad people are coming foreword with the truth. The Government should have said the truth from the start though.

 

[davmat787]

So, in the world of conservatives, let's sort out what constitutes a presidential 'scandal,' which I'm sure will be rational:

Obama 'lies' about the Benghazi attacks being terrorist attacks, and maybe theoretically could have augmented security at consulates worldwide: impeach him!

Reagan literally caves to Islamic terrorist demands to sell weapons to Iran, then uses the money to fund nun-raping terrorists in Latin America, in direct violation of a law duly passed by Congress: celebrate him as a saint forever more!
____________

edit:

Clinton: Got a consensual BJ in the White House, lied about it: impeach him!

Bush II: Wanted to go to war in Iraq, lied about weapons of mass destruction, didn't plan out the war, thousands of American soldiers and many, many, many innocent civilians die: either A) Bush who? Obama was president during the crash! or B) Go USA!

I don't know, you would have to ask those who actually hold those starting positions you refer to. Ascribing the worst traits of the fringe to an entire group in a monolithic manner only results in you fooling yourself. Of course sometimes we need to fool ourselves to protect our biases and preconceived notions from self inspection, which might heaven forbid result in an adjustment, and thus having to admit one may not have had it pegged from the get go afterall.

It sure does make it easier to hate though, doesn't it? And hating can be fun and fuel that victimhood that can result in extreme self righteousness, which may or may not be on display here.

 

[IGBT]

Democrats distance themselves from the Obama administration's explanation of the Libya terror attacks — in which US Ambassador Susan Rice initially said they were sparked by protests — amid evidence that suggests the information was revised to appease obama low information voters.

 

[berzerker60]

I don't know, you would have to ask those who actually hold those starting positions you refer to. Ascribing the worst traits of the fringe to an entire group in a monolithic manner only results in you fooling yourself. Of course sometimes we need to fool ourselves to protect our biases and preconceived notions from self inspection, which might heaven forbid result in an adjustment, and thus having to admit one may not have had it pegged from the get go afterall.

It sure does make it easier to hate though, doesn't it? And hating can be fun and fuel that victimhood that can result in extreme self righteousness, which may or may not be on display here.

Well people in this thread have talked about impeaching Obama for this. Clinton was impeached. Reagan was not impeached for Iran-Contra, and is celebrated very frequently by today's GOP as a great president (I can find plenty of sources if you like, it's common knowledge - they renamed National Airport for him, have talked about putting him on currency, his image was displayed on a huge screen over one of the Republican primary debates, etc. etc.). You can debate reactions to Bush II, but he was never anything close to impeached for his gross failings as a president.

 

[Paul98]

Politicians lie, this is not news. Just be glad it didn't lead to anything worse

 

[davmat787]

Well people in this thread have talked about impeaching Obama for this.

And???

Why not reply directly to them instead of ascribing a few peoples opinion on an internet forum to an entire group? You seem more interested in bashing conservatives as a whole to sweep the meat of the OP under a rug. Do you have a problem with your President lying to you, or only when he has an R after his name?

 

[UberNeuman]

And???

Why not reply directly to them instead of ascribing a few peoples opinion on an internet forum to an entire group? You seem more interested in bashing conservatives as a whole to sweep the meat of the OP under a rug. Do you have a problem with your President lying to you, or only when he has an R after his name?

If you lay in a bed of fleas, you're gonna get bit...

 

[berzerker60]

Sure I have a problem with the president lying in theory, but much less so when it's not especially consequential. Mostly I just find the outrage of Benghazi amusing, as it's another mountain made out of a molehill by right-wing media to tar Obama when he's been mostly scandal-free. It's sad that the US citizens died, but that's an unfortunate part of being diplomats in a dangerous world.

There's plenty of things Obama has done I disagree with, from drone policy to intra-US surveillance policy and other issues, but they're not what get 1,000 threads and talk news outrage, because they're not what Fox News says is awful and evil about the scary black man in the Oval Office (those policies are also mostly hold-overs from Bush II, which doesn't make them any better or worse, but would make Republican criticisms of them ring a little false). Instead we get thread after thread about Benghazi, because if it were actually a scandal it might help fit Obama into the 'weak on defense' box the Republican party and its media wings would so desperately like him to inhabit.

As for painting 'conservatives' with a wide brush, well, again, it's a thread in a small internet forum best enjoyed by letting stupid people make you angry and getting to respond, much like listening to Rush but getting to yell back at him. I don't think anyone here really goes for 'calm, deliberate and 100% reflective of heartfelt opinion' here. Of course not all conservatives believe this is an impeachable thing, but large inflammatory statements like my earlier one highlight the more reasonable point that in the context of other presidential scandals, this is small beans indeed, and those saying otherwise seem motivated by partisanism rather than genuine concern for the welfare of the country. But that's less fun to post and for others to respond angrily to.

 

[Matt1970]

Sure I have a problem with the president lying in theory, but much less so when it's not especially consequential. Mostly I just find the outrage of Benghazi amusing, as it's another mountain made out of a molehill by right-wing media to tar Obama when he's been mostly scandal-free. It's sad that the US citizens died, but that's an unfortunate part of being diplomats in a dangerous world.

I just love it when a President is mostly scandal-free.

 

[Theb]

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

...by Obama.

 

[davmat787]

If you lay in a bed of fleas, you're gonna get bit...

Or one could realize fleas are a parasitic creature, and not representative of the host? 🙄

I am more convinced by the day that people gain their convictions not wholey on their merits, but because of their hate or disdain for the other side. Thus, by default, their positions and opinions must be righteous since the other side is evil.

You ever thought that maybe we come to different world views and opinions because we have led different lives? That if we were to have traded places at birth, and all other things being equal, you would hold my opinions of today and I of yours?

In other words, while I may not agree with you, your positions are perfectly logical given your experiences, as are mine? And if you were to have experienced what I have, as I you, we would then hold each others opinions?

 

[railer]

What are you nutters going on about now? Do you have any idea how many Americans are murdered in any given week, on average? Are you whining and complaining about that? Of course not, that's why you're classified as nutters. Are you actually surprised that in a part of the world where everyone seems to be half crazy and hate Americans, that 4 Americans were killed? Are you stupid? Or are you just mad 'cause Obama didn't use the word "terrorist" enough, like Faux News would have?
Well your faux outrage over this non-issue makes me laugh, so thanks for sending me off to bed with a chuckle.

 

[BlueWolf47]

So this whole benghazi gate that the GOP is manufacturing rage about is over these stupid memo changes. I think they should go back to looking for his birth certificate in kenya.

 

[jackschmittusa]

For those here too dense to understand, I offer relevant points long in evidence to consider.

The C.I.A. appeared to be the primary target. They wanted a little breathing room to collect more info and make a better assessment. That meant delaying the full release of information immediately.

Various agencies were tasked with elements of trying to identify and capture the perps. The hope was that not revealing everything they knew right away might give a false sense of security to the perps that could be exploited.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that there was any intent to specifically deceive the American public. There was a delay releasing all of the info to gain advantage against the perps specifically but which also necessitated a generic news delay. Not a one of you can prove that there was no intention to release more info after a short time frame to see if the tactic helped. The government absolutely knew that others would eventually piece together the big picture, though with their more limited resources it would take longer ( the time buffer they hoped to use to advantage). The government had no intention to write a lie for history.

For the truly ignorant, I'd like to point out that temporarily withholding the sum total of information has been used by both law enforcement and the military for a very long time and many times in the past to great effect.

And I suppose some of you out there are the equivalent of a modern day Kreskin with mystic powers. The attack came at a small outpost. No one would have sent battalions of security personnel (nor could the station have supported it). Would 2 or 4 or 10 have prevented any American deaths? Would they have just been more targets for the perps resulting in a larger death toll?

I wish I could distinguish which groups of people are the ones too lazy to think and those that are incapable of it.