• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama lied about Benghazi

Page 33 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
As best I can remember, in all the history of P&N he's only actually participated in a thread once, and even then only for two or three posts. The rest of the time he just drops by long enough in to plop off a turd he copied from some RNC-approved propaganda site, or some meaningless gibberish with signature terms like "eco-kooks". What he does not do is actually read the threads he posts in. Calling him useless would be an overstatement.

He's a drive-by drooler. Not interested in discussing anything, just posting mindless cheap shots.

Back on topic...

946429_576859595677831_1224578144_n.png


John "Let's Stay in Iraq for a Hundred Years" McCain cares so very much about American lives. Though, more than the right-wingers here do, of course.
 
Last edited:
He's a drive-by drooler. Not interested in discussing anything, just posting mindless cheap shots.

Back on topic...

946429_576859595677831_1224578144_n.png


John "Let's Stay in Iraq for a Hundred Years" McCain cares so very much about American lives. More than the right-wingers here do, of course.
Well, yes, but nobody lied about their deaths afterwards. They just lied to send them to be killed.
 

The Bloody Hands of Barack Obama


One passage from the article follows.


On May 2, 2011, members of SEAL Team VI invaded Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound and killed him. Three months later, 30 American troops, most of them members of SEAL Team VI, were shot down by the Taliban over Afghanistan.

On May 9, 2013, families of the fallen held a press conference to accuse Barack Obama of complicity in their deaths. They charged Obama with endangering SEAL Team VI by breaking protocol and revealing its identity as bin Laden's killers. They also revealed that their sons were sent to battle with inadequate equipment and air support and denied requested pre-assault fire.



The families played a video of their sons' military funeral. No mention of the Judeo-Christian God was allowed, but the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric to speak, who cursed their sons in Arabic as infidels condemned to hell.

 

Best line from that article: "Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012."

Which ties in nicely with the graphic I posted, since before George W. Bush decided to deliberately throw away the lives of thousands of Americans based on a lie, he first decided to abdicate his responsibility to "keep America safe" by allowing over 3,000 Americans to be murdered on that same date 11 years earlier.

But of course, "bloody hands" only matter when they're attached to Democrats. Right, hack?
 
Dare to dream.

BTW, when did the RNC start lacing your Kool-Aid with hallucinogens? Does this mean they're looking to relax their public stance on drugs, or is it only for their internal use for their flock? It's clearly some potent stuff. You should probably back off a bit, not gulp it.
You're lashing out now. It's understandable. Surely there's a government funded mental health clinic nearby?
 
Best line from that article: "Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012."

Which ties in nicely with the graphic I posted, since before George W. Bush decided to deliberately throw away the lives of thousands of Americans based on a lie, he first decided to abdicate his responsibility to "keep America safe" by allowing over 3,000 Americans to be murdered on that same date 11 years earlier.

But of course, "bloody hands" only matter when they're attached to Democrats. Right, hack?
You can't change the past skippy but you can influence the future. Common sense for most of us.
 
You can't change the past skippy but you can influence the future. Common sense for most of us.

Yes, let's "influence the future" by making abundantly clear that people like you do not give a shit about anyone who died in Benghazi. They are merely tragedies to be exploited for political purposes.

All you really care about is this: "We're fighting a cold war in this country. A winner will emerge. The Dem's have no candidate besides Hillary. It's heartwarming to see Hillary being undermined so early."
 
You're lashing out now. It's understandable. Surely there's a government funded mental health clinic nearby?
No, I'm mocking your abject ignorance and boundless partisan lunacy. I do want to commend you, however, for looking into mental health facilities. That's the first step in getting better.
 
Yes, let's "influence the future" by making abundantly clear that people like you do not give a shit about anyone who died in Benghazi. They are merely tragedies to be exploited for political purposes.

All you really care about is this: "We're fighting a cold war in this country. A winner will emerge. The Dem's have no candidate besides Hillary. It's heartwarming to see Hillary being undermined so early."
Indeed. Remember, he showed his deep concern for those four slain Americans by starting the thread, "Benghazi, the gift that keeps on giving". He is the trash that is taking America down, far more concerned about his party than he is about America or Americans.
 
Ah crap. It's abc news

The vid shows an email from Hillary's aid asking why there should be references in the CIA talking points that would be politically problematic. Those which may have been troublesome mysteriously went away. It wasn't security, it was politics. Would be worth looking up. I found it on Google News.
 
Ah crap. It's abc news

The vid shows an email from Hillary's aid asking why there should be references in the CIA talking points that would be politically problematic. Those which may have been troublesome mysteriously went away. It wasn't security, it was politics. Would be worth looking up. I found it on Google News.
OK, that's likely the same story, or an updated version of the story first linked in post #596 in this thread. Several people have responded. My most complete response was in #746.

TL;DR -- It doesn't support the most shrill accusations against Obama and Rice, but it does show bureaucratic infighting between State and the CIA. That's a problem, but it's not a scandal. I also said in a later post that it does show the Obama administration lied when it claimed the talking points came directly from the CIA with only one technical revision. Clearly the State Department was quite heavy-handed in its editing. What is not clear is how much the White House was also directly involved, if at all. There is nothing in the emails from the WH or attributed to the WH.
 
Last edited:
OK, that's likely the same story, or an updated version of the story first linked in post #596 in this thread. Several people have responded. My most complete response was in #746.

TL;DR -- It doesn't support the most shrill accusations against Obama and Rice, but it does show bureaucratic infighting between State and the CIA. That's a problem, but it's not a scandal. I also said in a later post that it does show the Obama administration lied when it claimed the talking points came directly from the CIA with only one technical revision. Clearly the State Department was quite heavy-handed in its editing. What is not clear is how much the White House was also directly involved, if at all. There is nothing in the emails from the WH or attributed to the WH.

What's frankly bizarre to me is that people are shocked... SHOCKED that federal agencies take into account political considerations when crafting talking points to use on Sunday morning talk shows.

Of course no one is actually shocked about this, they just think they might be able to use it to attack the other political football team so they will pretend to be shocked for now.
 
When the progs keep repeating the same shit over and over, and they start lashing out at anyone within arms reach, that's when you know they're getting worried. When they start sticking their chins up and declaring that everyone else is ignorant, when their talking points include correcting grammer and punctuation, you know they're really getting worried.

Benghazi, the IRS debacle and who knows what other scandals are lurking beneath the surface are all the fault of our second term President. The fault of Dear Leader. They are hung around his neck for all to see. We get to watch him squirm and wriggle frantically trying to get them to come off but it's not working.

You fight a Chicago style politician with Chicago style politics. It's great that we've got some members of Congress that are willing to fight down in the ditches. You fight those that use Alinsky tactics by preemptively using Alinsky tactics on them.

We're fighting a cold war in this country. A winner will emerge. The Dem's have no candidate besides Hillary. It's heartwarming to see Hillary being undermined so early. She brought it upon herself by following the orders Obama dished out. She's been stung by the scorpion. As the frog, she should have known who she was dealing with. Will the scorpion rescue the frog for the good of the party? Can he? Stay tuned.

This post is impressively insane. Do you actually believe this sort of shit?
 
OK, that's likely the same story, or an updated version of the story first linked in post #596 in this thread. Several people have responded. My most complete response was in #746.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't watch that vid you referenced to, but I did look at counterarguments on the web. Thinkprogress's first response was to name Nuland as "a Dick Cheney holdover." Anything that follows is suspect in my book.

I have to use a similar standard that I used with the prior administration, and that leads me to believe that this was a case of ass covering. I won't go as far as to say it was out of consideration for the election, but I won't say otherwise. I haven't any sense for that. It should be fairly obvious that Nuland hasn't the authority to tell the CIA to do anything. Truth is that no one should tell the CIA to change something then use them as a scapegoat.

I will however say that the mentality displayed is "the same old", in that when things go bad hide references to it. It seems that this wasn't a spontaneous situation in Benghazi and I think we know that. There is the argument of security, but even now the reasoning for statements made refer back to the talking points as justification, the ones which were sterilized. "Don't blame us, blame the CIA". We've heard that before. This is starting to feel like Rumsfeld is behind the wheel, and I definitely do not like that. Who knows? Maybe Iraq was just one big mistake made by honest people of good will. Somehow I just don't buy it.
 
Hey now! Those were facts, not assertions.

🙂

There's a very good chance that Powell was set up. Powell was purposefully kept out of the loop as a potentially dangerous whistleblower. The Big Three, didn't include Powell, or even Bush, when it came to know what was what. It would have been Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. David Halberstam fairly tore them up.
 
Last edited:
Benghazi is not terribly interesting to me, but a lot of sites are going with this story recently, and not just fox.

It won't result in an impeachment of Obama.
 
There's a very good chance that Powell was set up. Powell was purposefully kept out of the loop as a potentially dangerous whistleblower. The Big Three, didn't include Powell, or even Bush, when it came to know what was what. It would have been Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. David Halberstam fairly tore them up.

Yes, I've read reports to that effect. As I remember it, when Powell first got his talking points for his UN performance, he called them "bullshit". He was, unfortunately, a good soldier who carried out his assignment anyway. Of course the beauty of having Powell present them was that he had far more credibility than the White House or the neocons.
 
Ithey had the parents on a news show. i thought they were pushing it.

I won't/can't blame Obama for this.

Now Fox News is having other military parents on that are blaming Obama for the rules of engagement, like they have changed just for Obama.
 

This is quite out of context of the thread. However I must say that this (below) doesn't sound like some horrible damning of the SEAL team. It should also be noted that 7 Afghan soldiers and an Afghan translator died as well and that is likely the reason for the inclusion of the Muslim cleric. I cannot find any legitimate news source who has referenced this story, it seems the only sites that talk about it are ones known for presenting more false news than real news.

(Text of the prayer)
Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones.
In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver.
The companions of the fire
are not equal with the companions of heaven.
The companions of heaven are the winners
Had he sent this Koran to the mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.
Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think.
Blessings are to your God the God of glory and what they describe.
And peace be upon the messengers and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes.
 
Back
Top