Obama lied about Benghazi

[kage69]

The Bloody Hands of Barack Obama

One passage from the article follows.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/the_bloody_hands_of_barack_obama.html#ixzz2TAnhfd00

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook​

...and yet hardly a peep out of you guys when Fox news puts a bin Laden raid SEALs real name and picture on the evening news. Sickening as it is, it's Fox that's pumping the story of Karen and Billy Vaughn, the parents of a SEAL killed in an area where American troops are already targeted by the enemy.

You guys are like a broken record of double-standard bullshit. Biden mentioning Team Six is apparently worse than airing a SEALs real name and picture on the news?

I like how Fox tries to make it sound like no one had a clue what SEAL Team Six was until after that raid.

Pathetic, not to mention disgusting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Question- When is a President (any President) responsible for the actions of his subordinates. Remember, this applies to Obama, Bush or Calvin Coolidge. This isn't a "gotcha". What level of accountability ought there to be.

 

[fskimospy]

Question- When is a President (any President) responsible for the actions of his subordinates. Remember, this applies to Obama, Bush or Calvin Coolidge. This isn't a "gotcha". What level of accountability ought there to be.

That entirely depends on the situation. Generally, presidents should be held responsible for the behavior of their subordinates that is related to specific policies the president has endorsed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Question- When is a President (any President) responsible for the actions of his subordinates. Remember, this applies to Obama, Bush or Calvin Coolidge. This isn't a "gotcha". What level of accountability ought there to be.

It's a good question that I don't think has a single answer. Presidents of all sorts are charged with high-level leadership; it's not reasonable to expect them to be able to control what each and every subordinate is doing, but the leader is responsible for the overall results. I think presidents should be held directly accountable for lies or errors that they were directly involved in, or omissions of duty that clearly fall within their scope of immediate responsibility. The "overall" responsibility factor can only really legitimately impact the ballot box.

Everyone will have different ideas of what the answer should be. I can respect most of them, as long as they are applied evenly regardless of partisanship. What gets my blood boiling is seeing people talking about impeaching Obama over four deaths when far, far worse disasters have occurred that they either completely ignored, or actively tried to minimize, all because the person in charge then was of a different party.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

That was Powells single greatest failure. He went with this although it was extremely suspect and he hadn't the ability to check on it as he was expertly hamstrung in his ability to investigate. Powell could have resigned, but if he did there would be absolutely no opposing voice, not that it mattered in the end.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone will have different ideas of what the answer should be. I can respect most of them, as long as they are applied evenly regardless of partisanship. What gets my blood boiling is seeing people talking about impeaching Obama over four deaths when far, far worse disasters have occurred that they either completely ignored, or actively tried to minimize, all because the person in charge then was of a different party.

Well to be fair to the Republicans they talk about impeaching Obama every time he's late to a party. The Republican base is so absolutely delirious with rage against Obama that congressional Republicans know this kind of talk plays well to their constituents.

Republicans won't impeach Obama over this because:

1.) Even if everything they say is true it's not even remotely close to an impeachable offense.

2.) they would lose.

3.) there are still enough Republicans around that remember the last time they were stupid enough to try and impeach a president on dubious grounds.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a good question that I don't think has a single answer. Presidents of all sorts are charged with high-level leadership; it's not reasonable to expect them to be able to control what each and every subordinate is doing, but the leader is responsible for the overall results. I think presidents should be held directly accountable for lies or errors that they were directly involved in, or omissions of duty that clearly fall within their scope of immediate responsibility. The "overall" responsibility factor can only really legitimately impact the ballot box.

Everyone will have different ideas of what the answer should be. I can respect most of them, as long as they are applied evenly regardless of partisanship. What gets my blood boiling is seeing people talking about impeaching Obama over four deaths when far, far worse disasters have occurred that they either completely ignored, or actively tried to minimize, all because the person in charge then was of a different party.

Impeaching Obama is nonsense. I do however think he deserves some level of blame. That does not mean he was directly responsible for any wrongdoing, however subordinates know what is permissible by the tone set by their leader. If this sort of thing was unacceptable then people at the level involved would have already have know that. We're talking about the President of the United States here, the leader of the Executive Branch. We hold those elected to too low a standard, and indeed they don't seem to hold to a sufficient one themselves. It's always Bush or Obama, whoever is not our own. No, the person in office is the one who is responsible for his own actions, but unfortunately it's responsibility without real accountability. That's one of the things I would like to see change in our system.

 

[Matt1970]

Well to be fair to the Republicans they talk about impeaching Obama every time he's late to a party. The Republican base is so absolutely delirious with rage against Obama that congressional Republicans know this kind of talk plays well to their constituents.

Republicans won't impeach Obama over this because:

1.) Even if everything they say is true it's not even remotely close to an impeachable offense.

2.) they would lose.

3.) there are still enough Republicans around that remember the last time they were stupid enough to try and impeach a president on dubious grounds.

4.) NOBODY wants a President Biden.

Had to add one for you

 

[xBiffx]

Had to add one for you

Yep. Biden is nothing more than impeachment insurance.

Smart move by Obama.

 

[unokitty]

 

[umbrella39]

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.

/thread and this clearly obvious bullshit being pulled by our esteemed conservative spokesmen posting here. Transparent hacks. See above...

 

[Matt1970]

Yep. Biden is nothing more than impeachment insurance.

Smart move by Obama.

Yep, just like Gore was for Clinton and Cheney was for Bush.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, just like Gore was for Clinton and Cheney was for Bush.

You don't really think that had anything to do with it for any of them, do you? Obama's impeachment insurance is that he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses, and he would destroy the Republicans if they tried it.

 

[Matt1970]

You don't really think that had anything to do with it for any of them, do you? Obama's impeachment insurance is that he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses, and he would destroy the Republicans if they tried it.

You really need to lighten up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You don't really think that had anything to do with it for any of them, do you? Obama's impeachment insurance is that he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses, and he would destroy the Republicans if they tried it.

Yeah, one kind of has to do something to get impeached. Further, impeachment is an embarrassment without consequence. Technically it's equivalent to indictment, however unless a sitting President is holding the gun and has a hundred witnesses and live video broadcast, he isn't going to be removed from office. OK, maybe it's not quite like that

Seriously, removing a sitting President (which is what some really want) is almost impossible. The only one who in recent history who was likely to be removed was Nixon. Even if Obama screwed up royally, or lied or whatever, there aren't legal grounds for action.

 

[bshole]

The Republican base is so absolutely delirious with rage against Obama that congressional Republicans know this kind of talk plays well to their constituents.

Too true. It is ironically sad that partisan politics that hurt America reward the practitioneers of it with guaranteed re-election. If you represent a batshit insane district, you have to do batshit insane things to get elected..... thus we have debacles like the one we are witnessing. The Republicans are going nuclear on this.... like they did with Monica Lewinsky.

Why don't the Democrats EVER go nuclear? Christ, I am utterly shocked that NONE of the perpetrators of the Iraq fiasco are in prison. Were they ever even put on trial? Their actions to get us into that inane and unneeded bloodbath rose to the level of treason and crimes against humanity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Christ, I am utterly shocked that NONE of the perpetrators of the Iraq fiasco are in prison. Were they ever even put on trial? Their actions to get us into that inane and unneeded bloodbath rose to the level of treason and crimes against humanity.

Seriously? Shocked? You don't get it. In this context the Democrats ARE the Republicans. Why deny themselves power and potentially be held accountable for their actions at some further date? That's batshit insane.

 

[IGBT]

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up. The Washington Times.

 

[bshole]

During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

Send troops onto foreign terrority with no intelligence and no prep..... yeah that'll work. We tried that once before in Iran. On April 24, 1980, Operation Eagle Claw resulted in a failed mission, the deaths of eight American servicemen, one Iranian civilian, and the destruction of two aircraft. That mission was planned for a long time in advance and it still failed miserably. I can't imagine any scenario where a rescue mission would have resulted in anything other than more American casulties. Too many Rambo movies and not enough common sense on the right side of the aisle. The absolutely cavalier attitude towards the lives of our serviceman is disgusting.

That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up. The Washington Times.

A "coverup" that lasted all of 3 days?!?!?!? Yes that is the entire length of time the "coverup" lasted, 3 lousy frigging days. So we are going to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars so selected Republicans can get face time in the news and solidify their re-election bids. Puleez!!!

The GOP was in scandal gin mode within 24 hours of the attack! The corpses weren't even cold yet before the GOP were trying to capitalize politically.

 

[Matt1970]

Send troops onto foreign terrority with no intelligence and no prep..... yeah that'll work. We tried that once before in Iran. On April 24, 1980, Operation Eagle Claw resulted in a failed mission, the deaths of eight American servicemen, one Iranian civilian, and the destruction of two aircraft. That mission was planned for a long time in advance and it still failed miserably. I can't imagine any scenario where a rescue mission would have resulted in anything other than more American casulties. Too many Rambo movies and not enough common sense on the right side of the aisle. The absolutely cavalier attitude towards the lives of our serviceman is disgusting.


A "coverup" that lasted all of 3 days?!?!?!? Yes that is the entire length of time the "coverup" lasted, 3 lousy frigging days. So we are going to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars so selected Republicans can get face time in the news and solidify their re-election bids. Puleez!!!

The GOP was in scandal gin mode within 24 hours of the attack! The corpses weren't even cold yet before the GOP were trying to capitalize politically.

If a plane goes down behind enemy lines, are there weeks of planning before they go after the pilot or do they go right in and get him? Operation Eagle Claw failed due to three helicopters having mechnical issues and then a crash while attempting to leave. It had absolutley nothing to do with a lask of knowledge of the enemy. Read your own link. And if we had such a lack of knowledge of the territory there we wouldn't have had a compound there.

 

[fskimospy]

If a plane goes down behind enemy lines, are there weeks of planning before they go after the pilot or do they go right in and get him? Operation Eagle Claw failed due to three helicopters having mechnical issues and then a crash while attempting to leave. It had absolutley nothing to do with a lask of knowledge of the enemy. Read your own link. And if we had such a lack of knowledge of the territory there we wouldn't have had a compound there.

Ahh, so now you know better than two secretaries of defense. Next time the US is engaged in a conflict I hope they call you.

People like you and TerryMathews are exactly who Gates was referring to when he said that people have a cartoonish understanding of military capability.

 

[TerryMathews]

Ahh, so now you know better than two secretaries of defense. Next time the US is engaged in a conflict I hope they call you.

People like you and TerryMathews are exactly who Gates was referring to when he said that people have a cartoonish understanding of military capability.

I still find it difficult to believe that our response time to an active mission exceeds 8 hours.

If that is truly true, shame on us for not managing our forces better.

 

[umbrella39]

so what do you think?? will biden pardon the obama and hillary??

Wonders if he will pardon you for your defective brain?? EKOTard in the 1st degree.

 

[First]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JaBDOhWWVPY

Vice Chair Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwriht says it takes upwards of 1-2 days to get properly prepared for an assault against the types of forces that attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

Armchair generals saying it should have merely been a matter of hours to respond? Swinnnnng and a miss.

 

[IGBT]

“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”

“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”

Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points. MSNBC


DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that, as a member of Obama's cabinet, Susan Rice would would've known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings.

The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false.