1) Who first asserted that the attack was motivated by the Youtube video?

2) Why did the White House decisively declare the video to be the motivator so early after the event?

3) Did the White House break their own spoken protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when dealing with acts of terror/violence?

4)Did the White House unwittingly give more attention to the Youtube video by falsely blaming it? Is the White House thus responsible for agitating violence that lead to deaths in other countries?

5)Did Hillary really declare that she would "bring the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If so, what criminal offense was committed? Would she consider other films such as "Last Temptation of Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of prosecution?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2013 07:06PM by WingNut.

1. Who pushed the video? Specifically. A name.

2. Following the death of an ambassador, a significant event by any objective measure, why did a person with no direct responsibility for anything to do with Benghazi (Rice), go on the Sunday shows versus the Secretary?

3. Where was Obama and what was he doing following being informed of the attack at about 5 pm and then having no further direct contact with anyone related that evening.

4. Following the death of an ambassador and a still uncertain situation, why did Obama not cancel his campaign event in Vegas the next day?

5. The video maker is still in jail for it.

6. Nobody else is.

7. What was Stevens doing in Bengahzi? (hint: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/05/new-york-times-arms-shipments-secretly-approved-by-obama-admin-ended-up-in-hands-of-islamic-militants/ )

8. Who was the Turkish official that he met with earlier in the evening on 9/11? (hint: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/ )

9. Why doesn't anyone in the MSM ask basic questions about this? (hint: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx )

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> motivated by the Youtube video?
>
> 2) Why did the White House decisively declare the
> video to be the motivator so early after the
> event?
>
> 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> dealing with acts of terror/violence?
>
> 4)Did the White House unwittingly give more
> attention to the Youtube video by falsely blaming
> it? Is the White House thus responsible for
> agitating violence that lead to deaths in other
> countries?
>
> 5)Did Hillary really declare that she would "bring
> the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If so,
> what criminal offense was committed? Would she
> consider other films such as "Last Temptation of
> Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of
> prosecution?

Wing Nut you are one ignorant fuck.

Ben Gazzi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Wing Nut you are one ignorant fuck.


So in other words you, like everyone else, still have no answers to simple, clear, and obvious questions after 8 months.

Ben Gazzi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> > motivated by the Youtube video?
> >
> > 2) Why did the White House decisively declare
> the
> > video to be the motivator so early after the
> > event?
> >
> > 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> > protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> > dealing with acts of terror/violence?
> >
> > 4)Did the White House unwittingly give more
> > attention to the Youtube video by falsely
> blaming
> > it? Is the White House thus responsible for
> > agitating violence that lead to deaths in other
> > countries?
> >
> > 5)Did Hillary really declare that she would
> "bring
> > the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If
> so,
> > what criminal offense was committed? Would she
> > consider other films such as "Last Temptation
> of
> > Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of
> > prosecution?
>
> Wing Nut you are one ignorant fuck.


Your irrational angry makes me happy.

Ring, No Answer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Gazzi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Wing Nut you are one ignorant fuck.
>
>
> So in other words you, like everyone else, still
> have no answers to simple, clear, and obvious
> questions after 8 months.

If, as you indicate, no one has answers to "simple, clear, and obvious questions", then no new knowledge can be gained by asking them. If no knowledge can be gained, then QED the questions are amusing distractions but utterly meaningless. But please, continue to stoke your fires of indignation and frothy anger. Its really quite funny. I'm going to miss you guys as you slip into irrelevancy, undone by your small minds and dwindling demographics.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> motivated by the Youtube video?
>
> 2) Why did the White House decisively declare the
> video to be the motivator so early after the
> event?
>
> 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> dealing with acts of terror/violence?
>
> 4)Did the White House unwittingly give more
> attention to the Youtube video by falsely blaming
> it? Is the White House thus responsible for
> agitating violence that lead to deaths in other
> countries?
>
> 5)Did Hillary really declare that she would "bring
> the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If so,
> what criminal offense was committed? Would she
> consider other films such as "Last Temptation of
> Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of
> prosecution?

this is what you get when you let a bunch of coonluvin wetbacks control police forces. they take over! we should've never been over in benghazi in the first place. we need to take care of our own first! our own soldiers go without food and medical care while the same time these Benghazi fucks are eating off our own plate. time to take back America!!

Ambassador of Sanity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ring, No Answer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ben Gazzi Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WingNut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > Wing Nut you are one ignorant fuck.
> >
> >
> > So in other words you, like everyone else,
> still
> > have no answers to simple, clear, and obvious
> > questions after 8 months.
>
> If, as you indicate, no one has answers to
> "simple, clear, and obvious questions", then no
> new knowledge can be gained by asking them. If no
> knowledge can be gained, then QED the questions
> are amusing distractions but utterly meaningless.
> But please, continue to stoke your fires of
> indignation and frothy anger. Its really quite
> funny. I'm going to miss you guys as you slip
> into irrelevancy, undone by your small minds and
> dwindling demographics.


Your logic makes as much sense as the video story.

Here, let's make this simple for you...

I know that the story was political bullshit.

You know that it was political bullshit, you just won't ever admit it.

Every thinking person with half a functioning brain knows that it was political bullshit.

The only question is how obvious does it need to be made with specific objective, independent evidence and answers to questions as those above before it just becomes so brutally clear that they and you have to publicly admit it.

No anger at all. In fact, I think it's kind of amusing watching the walls close in. The WaPo and NYT already have had to run factual stories today effectively pointing out how ridiculous it was. Just a matter of time...

The accusations are all over about the gunrunning. They may well be true.

But if true the questions I ask are still valid, they should be asked of Hillary, Susan Rice, Obama.

Where did this Youtube notion originate and why was it pressed so hard as the definitive root of the attack?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Look at them yo-yo's.
That ain't working.
That's the way you do it.
You blame it on youtube on the tv.

when you get mixed up with the towelheads nothing good can come from it

slappy white Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> when you get mixed up with the towelheads nothing
> good can come from it


And when you lie.

Especially when your story sucks.

They've made this far worse than it ever would have been had they not tried to cover up what really had happened.

>The accusations are all over about the gunrunning. They may well be true.
What gunrunning?

Wingnut, I've long been curious about this issue so I'm gonna ask, with no ulterior motive nor attempt to bait: what is the deal with these questions over Benghazi? I know it was more than bit of a clusterfuck by the Obama administration but why the interest in the whole youtube / not-youtube 'act of terror' thing anyway? I assume there is some deep dark secret being guarded by the Obama administration so what is it? That they knew Benghazi was a trap and did nothing? That they were trying to draw attention away from something worse by letting Benghazi happen? Or is it that there just seems to be stuff that nobody is telling and the truth needs to come out. I know I'm inviting you to speculate but what's the worst here?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2013 11:05PM by abelard.

Google the gunrunning thing. A lot of embassy people are spies and agents, even ours. I don't know if it's true and it wouldn't really change much of how the story is handled.


Why send Susan Rice out so adamantly with the story it was the youtube video?

Why jump to a conclusion in this case that makes muslims look like hair trigger fanatics who will kill if so easily offended? Especially an administration that completely tows the PC line when it comes to blaming Muslim perps...

Answer that for me, I still don't get it.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Google the gunrunning thing. A lot of embassy
> people are spies and agents, even ours. I don't
> know if it's true and it wouldn't really change
> much of how the story is handled.
>
>
> Why send Susan Rice out so adamantly with the
> story it was the youtube video?
>
> Why jump to a conclusion in this case that makes
> muslims look like hair trigger fanatics who will
> kill if so easily offended? Especially an
> administration that completely tows the PC line
> when it comes to blaming Muslim perps...
>
> Answer that for me, I still don't get it.

too many damn foreigners involved , just admit it. we don't need them here.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The accusations are all over about the
> gunrunning. They may well be true.
> What gunrunning?
>
> Wingnut, I've long been curious about this issue
> so I'm gonna ask, with no ulterior motive nor
> attempt to bait: what is the deal with these
> questions over Benghazi? I know it was more than
> bit of a clusterfuck by the Obama administration
> but why the interest in the whole youtube /
> not-youtube 'act of terror' thing anyway? I
> assume there is some deep dark secret being
> guarded by the Obama administration so what is it?
> That they knew Benghazi was a trap and did
> nothing? That they were trying to draw attention
> away from something worse by letting Benghazi
> happen? Or is it that there just seems to be
> stuff that nobody is telling and the truth needs
> to come out. I know I'm inviting you to speculate
> but what's the worst here?


Beyond some sketchy stuff going on there which seems fairly obvious given that a lot of it is classified and can't even discussed in public hearings, it goes to the matter of the government outright lying to the public at a number of levels. Doesn't need to be some deep dark secret (although there may well be some). That's really the crux of the matter.

And in this case, it appears to have been politically motivated which makes the lie even worse in that it involves the deaths of people.

Questions need answers, and when the democrats lie, I've gotta ask the Question.

The real question is what were Darrell Issa's intentions when he voted against appropriate funding for embassy security around the world? Was he hoping for a security lapse that he could make into a non existent political scandal? I think there needs to be an investigation into top Republicans politicians and their recent tendencies to undermine overseas security funding for Americans.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real question is what were Darrell Issa's
> intentions when he voted against appropriate
> funding for embassy security around the world?
> Was he hoping for a security lapse that he could
> make into a non existent political scandal? I
> think there needs to be an investigation into top
> Republicans politicians and their recent
> tendencies to undermine overseas security funding
> for Americans.

Sorry, already shot down with facts many times.

Security staffing and facilities were determined by headquarter's at State and budget wasn't the determining factor.

Even if you still want to try to argue that budget was an issue, Tripoli and Benghazi were designated as 2 out of the 14 highest ranked facilities in terms of risk and rather small so any shorting would reflect more improper prioritization of funding by management at State.

Your talking point Kung Fu is weak in light of hard cold facts.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real question is what were Darrell Issa's
> intentions when he voted against appropriate
> funding for embassy security around the world?
> Was he hoping for a security lapse that he could
> make into a non existent political scandal? I
> think there needs to be an investigation into top
> Republicans politicians and their recent
> tendencies to undermine overseas security funding
> for Americans.


Are you actually this stupid or did you stay in a Holiday Inn last night?

The why Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Beyond some sketchy stuff going on there which
> seems fairly obvious given that a lot of it is
> classified and can't even discussed in public
> hearings, it goes to the matter of the government
> outright lying to the public at a number of
> levels. Doesn't need to be some deep dark secret
> (although there may well be some). That's really
> the crux of the matter.
>
> And in this case, it appears to have been
> politically motivated which makes the lie even
> worse in that it involves the deaths of people.


Also the fact that we hung them out to dry. Sadly it was probably all because they wanted to keep it quiet and not start an issue before the election.

Had they sent in help it wouldnt be a story. Had they been honest from day one the story would have been why didnt they get help, the answer to that is probably something no one will like. But to not send help and then lie about it it makes it a huge issue

You got nothing, you people are rabid. Do you have any idea the crimes Republican presidents get away with? Keep beating this dead horse and embarrassing yourselves. I'm loving the precedent you're setting.

I think the Benghazi mania is the product of a holy fuck collective moment. Holding the economy hostage failed. You will continue to fail. Four more years and add 8 for Hillary, Benghazi ain't gonna change that. You my friends is what I like to call fucked royally.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> motivated by the Youtube video?
>
> 2) Why did the White House decisively declare the
> video to be the motivator so early after the
> event?
>
> 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> dealing with acts of terror/violence?

supposedly the embassy staff got into a knife fight outside the gates just moments before the terrorism started, and obama's have nothing to vouch for it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the Benghazi mania is the product of a
> holy fuck collective moment. Holding the economy
> hostage failed. You will continue to fail. Four
> more years and add 8 for Hillary, Benghazi ain't
> gonna change that. You my friends is what I like
> to call fucked royally.


Yeah, Nixon thought he'd spend a full second term in the White House too.

And no one died at the Watergate.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, Nixon thought he'd spend a full second term
> in the White House too.
>
> And no one died at the Watergate.

Maybe the GOP should re-open the Vince Foster investigation while they're at it.

abelard, the speculation is that every decision made by the administration during and after Benghazi was based on the presidntial election. Obama as running partly on the killing of Bin Laden, therefore ending terror as we have known it. Losing a few people in an attack that could be blamed on a video made by an American that incited people to spontaneously protest and then attack our embassy was an easier sell. While some of the libiots are talking about Bush, who hasn't been the president since 2008, or ranting about things other republicans have done, several things became clear yesterday. There were 2 stand down orders issued to 2 different groups of people that could have assisted the people in Benghazi before the 9HOUR seige ended. In addition there is written communication from a very senior state department official within 24 hours of the attack identifying the incident as a terror attack, and the terror group responsible. Essentially proving beyond a doibt that the administration intentionally lied to the American people most probably for political gain.

So how did the whole Youtube excuse get started?


Why no answer?

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Nixon thought he'd spend a full second term
> in the White House too.
>
> And no one died at the Watergate.

What was the crime committed reagrding Benghazi?

Prove that the administration knowingly, purposefully lied, as opposed to being mistaken.

Without that, you got nothing.

You cannot impeach the President with a conspiracy theory.

Wingnut the video story was lifted from the protest in Cairo where it MAY have had had an impact on the protests the same day.

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wingnut the video story was lifted from the
> protest in Cairo where it MAY have had had an
> impact on the protests the same day.


But why the jump to the conclusion when the Obama admin has been very hesitant to classify Ft. Hood, Boston etc as terrorist?


Seems odd they were anxious to hammer out Youtube as the reason.

Pretty clear they LIED...

Why is the question.

Then Why did Republicans slash funding for the state department. They should own this. INstead they are passing the blame and the buck onto the President. Its in their lap. Its a black mark on them. There was no one left to die. The embassy and Stevens were not abandoned. Thats BS. Keep believing your lies for political gain. The truths are convenient when you want them to be and ignored when its not politically expedient for YOUR side. that is all.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then Why did Republicans slash funding for the
> state department. They should own this. INstead
> they are passing the blame and the buck onto the
> President. Its in their lap. Its a black mark on
> them. There was no one left to die. The embassy
> and Stevens were not abandoned. Thats BS. Keep
> believing your lies for political gain. The
> truths are convenient when you want them to be and
> ignored when its not politically expedient for
> YOUR side. that is all.

Again, its NOT that it happened, its how the current administration handled it.

And just because someone else did wrong does not give you the right to do wrong as well. Bush screwing up is not an excuse for Bama.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then Why did Republicans slash funding for the
> state department. They should own this. INstead
> they are passing the blame and the buck onto the
> President. Its in their lap. Its a black mark on
> them. There was no one left to die. The embassy
> and Stevens were not abandoned. Thats BS. Keep
> believing your lies for political gain. The
> truths are convenient when you want them to be and
> ignored when its not politically expedient for
> YOUR side. that is all.

Dude, answer the questions about Youtube, why the deception on the motive?

I started this thread to talk about the Youtube angle and why it was played so strong.

We know you are young and gullible, but try to sit with the grownups and learn something instead of parroting some liberal dogshit from 89.3, MSNBC or Rolling Stone.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then Why did Republicans slash funding for the
> state department.

Get a new talking point. That one has been debunked.


"The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for,” said Biden in Thursday night’s debate, referencing Paul Ryan’s budget plan. “So much for the embassy security piece.”

But would more money have prevented the attacks?

Apparently not, at least according to one senior State Department official who would certainly seem to know.

In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.

> They should own this.

No, the President is in charge of the Executive branch and he is ultimately responsible for the management of each agency.

> INstead they are passing the blame and the buck onto the
> President.

Where it belongs.

> Its in their lap. Its a black mark on
> them.

Nobdoy is buying this BS.

> There was no one left to die. The embassy
> and Stevens were not abandoned.

Then how did he end up dead?

> Thats BS. Keep
> believing your lies for political gain.

The only one that wants this to be political are Democrats who are in denial and deflection mode.

> The truths are convenient when you want them to be and
> ignored when its not politically expedient for
> YOUR side. that is all.

You are an idiot. That is all.

I'd like to know why republicans thought cutting funding embassy protection was a good idea?

That's the real question about Benghazi!

Libbys View Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, its NOT that it happened, its how the
> current administration handled it.
>
> And just because someone else did wrong does not
> give you the right to do wrong as well. Bush
> screwing up is not an excuse for Bama.

Huh?

WTF?

Tea Baggins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libbys View Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Again, its NOT that it happened, its how the
> > current administration handled it.
> >
> > And just because someone else did wrong does
> not
> > give you the right to do wrong as well. Bush
> > screwing up is not an excuse for Bama.
>
> Huh?
>

Liberal's knee-jerk reaction to Bama criticism is to either point out a Bush era situation that they disagreed with or divert attention from what was criticized.

The Benghazi attack was mishandled from beginning to end by the Bama administration.



> WTF?

Agreed, WTF?

Jungle_Butt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, Nixon thought he'd spend a full second
> term
> > in the White House too.
> >
> > And no one died at the Watergate.
>
> What was the crime committed reagrding Benghazi?
>
> Prove that the administration knowingly,
> purposefully lied, as opposed to being mistaken.
>
> Without that, you got nothing.
>
> You cannot impeach the President with a conspiracy
> theory.


Who wants to impeach the president? I'd be perfectly happy if he'd just stay on the golf course.

In the last few weeks have you heard the words "cover up" mentioned in regards to Benghazi? Nixon didn't break into the Watergate. But he did go to great lengths to cover up the break in for those that did.

Evidently all he needed to convince the left he was blameless was a video tape.

The hearings will produce all that is necessary for a special prosecutor or some other official entity to level charges.

This isn't going to go quietly into the night. And I believe it will ultimately end Hillary's career in politics.

Let's say you're right though. It wasn't intentional and it was all based on bad information. So as soon as you find out the truth you start firing people and rewriting security policies and so forth, right? That's only fair since people did die and the US didn't lift a finger to help them.

So why promote she who told and retold and retold again the lie about it being because of a video tape?

Obama wanted her to be the Secretary of State. In hindsight, how wise was that decision? Not to mention where she finally landed. US Ambassador to the UN????? I guess her skills as a lier and carrier of administrations banner might come in handy there.

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wingnut the video story was lifted from the
> protest in Cairo where it MAY have had had an
> impact on the protests the same day.


Yeah, it had nothing to do with Ayman al-Zawahiri calling on his supporters to raise up and attack American interests in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East for the killing of fellow terrorist Abu Yahya al-Libi (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/11/237300.html). Funny, this was the right before all these protests broke out, first in Egypt and then spread, just like he wanted. And they all were flying the Al Qaeda flag, both over our consulate after dragging Stevens body out of there and into the street and in front of our embassy in Cairo.

Putz

mish mash, I was answering wingnuts question. perhaps you could pay a little bit of attention. By the way, how long did it take them to get Stevens body from Benghazi to Cairo?

Putz

Mish Mash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wronggg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wingnut the video story was lifted from the
> > protest in Cairo where it MAY have had had an
> > impact on the protests the same day.
>
>
> Yeah, it had nothing to do with Ayman al-Zawahiri
> calling on his supporters to raise up and attack
> American interests in Egypt and the rest of the
> Middle East for the killing of fellow terrorist
> Abu Yahya al-Libi
> (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/11/
> 237300.html). Funny, this was the right before
> all these protests broke out, first in Egypt and
> then spread, just like he wanted. And they all
> were flying the Al Qaeda flag, both over our
> consulate after dragging Stevens body out of there
> and into the street and in front of our embassy in
> Cairo.
>
> Putz


Exactly right. The demonstrations were planned and advertised for 9/11 long before the video became known. They were mostly related to the 'Blind Sheikh' with a 'sit-in' protest around the US embassy in Egypt for months prior to. As was the attack on the Algerian gas plant and several other attempted attacks on US embassies in Turkey and elsewhere.


"...The killings in Libya followed demonstrations in front of Cairo's U.S. Embassy, where protesters tore down the U.S. flag and scaled the embassy's wall.

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar, the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor party, which holds about 25% of the seats in parliament, called on people to go to the embassy. He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans, known as Ultras, to join the protest.

On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet," Trager said.

Zawahiri justified al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in an interview with Al Jazeera last month.

"If America attacks the Arab peoples and their regimes do not defend them, somebody who does defend the Arab and Muslim peoples should not be considered a criminal," Zawahiri told the television network, according to a translation by MEMRI. "We have done nothing wrong."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/deadly-embassy-attacks-were-days-in-the-making/57752828/1


NOBODY with any knowledge of the region believes that the video played any significant role.

ps since you seem to be a little confused, there was a protest in front of our embassy in Cairo the same day. It appears that protest may have been linked to the you tube video,that's where the administration got the cover up idea for Benghazi. I typed that really slowly so you could understand it.
Cairo-Egypt
Benghazi- Libya

Putz

Ben gazarra, I have no personal knowledge that the video played a role in the protests that were scheduled in the Islamic countries in the region, but the CIA says that a heightened awareness played a part in those protests. The attack in Libya was a totally different deal, as I have been pointing out all day. The administration used the video and the other protests to provide cover for their decision to abandon our people and deny it was a terrorist attack.

.
Attachments:

Mish mash, it occurs that I may owe you an apology. I just realized you were probably using putz as a signature. I am sorry to have pointed out that you are geographically challenged.

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ps since you seem to be a little confused, there
> was a protest in front of our embassy in Cairo the
> same day. It appears that protest may have been
> linked to the you tube video,that's where the
> administration got the cover up idea for Benghazi.
> I typed that really slowly so you could understand
> it.
> Cairo-Egypt
> Benghazi- Libya
>
> Putz


Ahh, you're one of those libtards that has to keep posting the same thing over and over, ignoring any facts or anything you're responding to. You must be Gerry. wronggg

Ben Gazarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mish Mash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wronggg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wingnut the video story was lifted from the
> > > protest in Cairo where it MAY have had had an
> > > impact on the protests the same day.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, it had nothing to do with Ayman
> al-Zawahiri
> > calling on his supporters to raise up and
> attack
> > American interests in Egypt and the rest of the
> > Middle East for the killing of fellow terrorist
> > Abu Yahya al-Libi
> >
> (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/11/
>
> > 237300.html). Funny, this was the right before
> > all these protests broke out, first in Egypt
> and
> > then spread, just like he wanted. And they all
> > were flying the Al Qaeda flag, both over our
> > consulate after dragging Stevens body out of
> there
> > and into the street and in front of our embassy
> in
> > Cairo.
> >
> > Putz
>
>
> Exactly right. The demonstrations were planned
> and advertised for 9/11 long before the video
> became known. They were mostly related to the
> 'Blind Sheikh' with a 'sit-in' protest around the
> US embassy in Egypt for months prior to. As was
> the attack on the Algerian gas plant and several
> other attempted attacks on US embassies in Turkey
> and elsewhere.
>
>
> "...The killings in Libya followed demonstrations
> in front of Cairo's U.S. Embassy, where protesters
> tore down the U.S. flag and scaled the embassy's
> wall.
>
> The protest was planned by Salafists well before
> news circulated of an objectionable video
> ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric
> Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for
> Near East Policy.
> The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was
> announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State
> Department-designated terrorist group, to protest
> the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader,
> Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life
> sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
> Center.
>
> When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar,
> the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor
> party, which holds about 25% of the seats in
> parliament, called on people to go to the embassy.
> He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans,
> known as Ultras, to join the protest.
>
> On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al
> Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people
> should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet,"
> Trager said.
>
> Zawahiri justified al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in an
> interview with Al Jazeera last month.
>
> "If America attacks the Arab peoples and their
> regimes do not defend them, somebody who does
> defend the Arab and Muslim peoples should not be
> considered a criminal," Zawahiri told the
> television network, according to a translation by
> MEMRI. "We have done nothing wrong."
>
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/20
> 12/09/12/deadly-embassy-attacks-were-days-in-the-m
> aking/57752828/1
>
>
> NOBODY with any knowledge of the region believes
> that the video played any significant role.


Of course. Per usual, the cover up will the worse than the initial act.

Before you embarrass yourself any further, perhaps you should take a moment and read my posts throughout the day in the Benghazi threads. I am anything but a liberal. You have in fact confused Cairo with Benghazi. I have tried to point this out to you, but it appears you are afflicted with a terminal case of ignorant. Stevens was killed in Benghazi,not Cairo. His body was dragged through the streets of Benghazi not Cairo. There was a protest in front of our embassy in Cairo as well as the attack on Benghazi. Benghazi is in Libya, Cairo is in Egypt. 2 different countries 2 different incidents.

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before you embarrass yourself any further, perhaps
> you should take a moment and read my posts
> throughout the day in the Benghazi threads. I am
> anything but a liberal. You have in fact confused
> Cairo with Benghazi. I have tried to point this
> out to you, but it appears you are afflicted with
> a terminal case of ignorant. Stevens was killed in
> Benghazi,not Cairo. His body was dragged through
> the streets of Benghazi not Cairo. There was a
> protest in front of our embassy in Cairo as well
> as the attack on Benghazi. Benghazi is in Libya,
> Cairo is in Egypt. 2 different countries 2
> different incidents.


Ger, my ignore tags didn't post in my first and only resonse to you. Since they didn't, I'll respond once more. Like ferfux, Gerry, MHK and now wronggg, you'll will get no more responses from me until you once again change you anon ID again. I don't even read your posts, so whatever your posting makes no nevermind to me. Putz

You sir are an idiot. Please do not associate yourself with conservatives that actually can think. Once again, get a map.

You will appear to be quite a fool to those that actually do read the posts.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> motivated by the Youtube video?
>
> 2) Why did the White House decisively declare the
> video to be the motivator so early after the
> event?
>
> 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> dealing with acts of terror/violence?
>
> 4)Did the White House unwittingly give more
> attention to the Youtube video by falsely blaming
> it? Is the White House thus responsible for
> agitating violence that lead to deaths in other
> countries?
>
> 5)Did Hillary really declare that she would "bring
> the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If so,
> what criminal offense was committed? Would she
> consider other films such as "Last Temptation of
> Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of
> prosecution?

You really don't want people to know the answers to those questions, do you? It might eliminate the whole GOP "cover up" idea.

abelard, the speculation is that every decision made by the administration during and after Benghazi was based on the presidntial election. Obama as running partly on the killing of Bin Laden, therefore ending terror as we have known it. Losing a few people in an attack that could be blamed on a video made by an American that incited people to spontaneously protest and then attack our embassy was an easier sell. While some of the libiots are talking about Bush, who hasn't been the president since 2008, or ranting about things other republicans have done, several things became clear yesterday. There were 2 stand down orders issued to 2 different groups of people that could have assisted the people in Benghazi before the 9HOUR seige ended. In addition there is written communication from a very senior state department official within 24 hours of the attack identifying the incident as a terror attack, and the terror group responsible. Essentially proving beyond a doibt that the administration intentionally lied to the American people most probably for political gain.

right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Essentially proving beyond a
> doubt that the administration intentionally lied
> to the American people most probably for political
> gain.

You realize that the majority of information the administration provided in the beginning came from the CIA and NSA, right? So either the CIA and NSA were lying in order to help the president (not bloody likely), or they were incorrect in what they said.

I realize that a senior state department official identified the attack as one of terror and the terror group responsible within hours of the attack. I realize the CIA revised their statement to exclude the video and include terror on the 12th. I realize that Susan Rice days later lied to the American people and denied it as a terror attack and blamed it on a video many days after the CIA and state department had correctly identified it as a planned terror attack. I do not disagree that the CIA initially claimed to be unclear. By the time Hillary told one of the parents of one of the fallen Americans that they would arrest and prosecute the video producer, and Susan Rice did her act, everyone knew it was an act of terror,that could not be more clear at this time.

I have not seen any credible evidence or testimony from anyone that the CIA or NSA implicated the video.

Rydell, you are right. it is a srech to get there. Initially the cia said the attack in benghazi may have been linked to thecairo protest and the video may have played a part in the cairo protest some make the leap. however i don't argue that point because by the time rice clinton and obama blamed the video all agencies were clear it was a terror attack, no video involved. they lied, that is the crux of the matter.

For some. Wrong place at the wrong time.
Where were the drones?

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ps since you seem to be a little confused, there
> was a protest in front of our embassy in Cairo the
> same day. It appears that protest may have been
> linked to the you tube video,that's where the
> administration got the cover up idea for Benghazi.
> I typed that really slowly so you could understand
> it.
> Cairo-Egypt
> Benghazi- Libya
>
> Putz


The point was that the video didn't play any significant role in EITHER protest.

The protests were planned in advance of the video even coming to light. Virtually nobody saw it, including the leaders of the protest (there's an interview with one of them if you want to search for it as well as interviews done among the protesters). Virtually NONE of the protesters ever saw it. It was played on a limited basis on a single TV outlet with limited viewership among much other promotion for the protests, most associated with releasing the Blind Sheikh and already scheduled to happen on 9/11.

The video itself was not the cause of the protests and itself was a non-event. At best it was one of many other pieces of propaganda released to promote the demonstrations.

Again, NOBODY, with any deeper knowledge of the region and the Salafists believes that the video was important.

agreed. It is easier to get people to see that there was no possible way the administration could have believed the video was the cause when Rice did her dog and pony show, Hillary told the parents of the fallen hero, and the President refered to the video, when I at least acknowledge its existence. My 2 points are the administration lied about the nature of the attacks and abandoned our people in Benghazi. How could they have possibly known they couldn't get there in time when they did not know how long it would last?

WE NEED ANSWERS NOW!

When did Boehner and McCain know that the embassy's were at risk?

Did republicans intentional cut embassy security budgets in hopes of embarrassing Clinton? Causing Americans to be unprotected and killed?

wronggg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> agreed. It is easier to get people to see that
> there was no possible way the administration could
> have believed the video was the cause when Rice
> did her dog and pony show, Hillary told the
> parents of the fallen hero, and the President
> refered to the video, when I at least acknowledge
> its existence. My 2 points are the administration
> lied about the nature of the attacks and abandoned
> our people in Benghazi. How could they have
> possibly known they couldn't get there in time
> when they did not know how long it would last?


The president of Libya said immediately that it was a terrorist attack. He was then embarassed by the lies of Clinton and her mouthpiece Susan Rice. After that, he slow-rolled the approval to let the FBI into Libya to investigate the crime scene in retaliation. Another success for Clinton's State Dept and relations with our allies. We're more hated now that when Obama took office in the Arab world. The Russians kept Kerry waiting for 4 hours before meeting with him after they made him sit at the airport for 2 hours before he could even come over to the Kremlin to wait the 4 hours. The Russians then told him that any US military assistance to the Syrian rebels would not be tolerated. The USA is a shell now. All the college fucktards better being taken Chinese cause they'll be your owners in 30 years.

Money, that's the GOP's chief consern.

People, they're expendable.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You really don't want people to know the answers
> to those questions, do you? It might eliminate the
> whole GOP "cover up" idea.

Dude, you or anyone else can answer the questions or at least speculate.

Why did the Obama administration go with the Youtube lie and why did they stick so steadfastly to it? Susan Rice repeated that shit 5 motherfucking times.

Meanwhile Axelrod said after Boston he was sure that "tax day" was on the Presidents mind http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/16/axelrod_on_boston_bombings_im_sure_what_was_going_through_the_presidents_mind_is_it_was_tax_day.html


Do you think the fucking 11th anniversary of 9/11 could have at least been a suspiscion?

Jungle_Butt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Money, that's the GOP's chief consern.
>
> People, they're expendable.
>
>


Did you not see Elijah Cummings commentary? "Death is a part of life?"

newgatedenizen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you not see Elijah Cummings commentary?
> "Death is a part of life?"

So? And? Is death not a part of life?

Conservative anger brings me pleasure. Thanks for being so mad and so stupid - please keep the show going!

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1) Who first asserted that the attack was
> > motivated by the Youtube video?
> >
> > 2) Why did the White House decisively declare
> the
> > video to be the motivator so early after the
> > event?
> >
> > 3) Did the White House break their own spoken
> > protocol of not "jumping to conclusions" when
> > dealing with acts of terror/violence?
> >
> > 4)Did the White House unwittingly give more
> > attention to the Youtube video by falsely
> blaming
> > it? Is the White House thus responsible for
> > agitating violence that lead to deaths in other
> > countries?
> >
> > 5)Did Hillary really declare that she would
> "bring
> > the maker of the Youtube video to justice"? If
> so,
> > what criminal offense was committed? Would she
> > consider other films such as "Last Temptation
> of
> > Christ" or "Dogma" to also be worthy of
> > prosecution?
>
> You really don't want people to know the answers
> to those questions, do you? It might eliminate the
> whole GOP "cover up" idea.

Doubtful. The most likely answers are

1. Whitehouse/Hillary/High Level State

2. Didnt want terrorism brought up so close to the election and look weak

3. Yes and no. Yes because now theyre playing dumb, no because they new it was terrorism and just lied.

4. Yes and Yes. No one knew that video even existed until they brought it up.

5. Possibly, unless she was dumb enough to email it well probably never know.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You really don't want people to know the
> answers
> > to those questions, do you? It might eliminate
> the
> > whole GOP "cover up" idea.
>
> Dude, you or anyone else can answer the questions
> or at least speculate.
>
> Why did the Obama administration go with the
> Youtube lie and why did they stick so steadfastly
> to it? Susan Rice repeated that shit 5
> motherfucking times.
>

Worse yet, it was a concerted effort to get her out there with that story. They were the ones who scheduled her on all of the shows that day.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dude, you or anyone else can answer the questions
> or at least speculate.

My dog speculates that when she's hungry it's time for dinner.

Speculation is how you nutjobs get yourselves all wound-up and jumping to conclusions.

Remember the speculation last Fall that all of the polls were wrong and Mittens was REALLY ahead and going to win?

Speculation is conspiracy theorizing.

Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dude, you or anyone else can answer the
> questions
> > or at least speculate.
>
> My dog speculates that when she's hungry it's time
> for dinner.
>
> Speculation is how you nutjobs get yourselves all
> wound-up and jumping to conclusions.
>
> Remember the speculation last Fall that all of the
> polls were wrong and Mittens was REALLY ahead and
> going to win?
>
> Speculation is conspiracy theorizing.


A dog also could come up with a better story than blaming some dumbass video that nobody saw.

Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Remember the speculation last Fall that all of the
> polls were wrong and Mittens was REALLY ahead and
> going to win?


Another liberal fallacy. So because he lost the polls were wrong? Were the elections held on the day of the polls? Sandy didnt have any impact then?

I know its hard to believe, but some people do actually change their vote as opposed to just voting D every time without even reading the ballot

actually, speculation is a guess. A conspiracy is what Obama Clinton and Rice did to mislead the American people about the terrorist attack in Benghazi. you know, right around the time there was speculation that Romney might win?

Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dude, you or anyone else can answer the
> questions
> > or at least speculate.
>
> My dog speculates that when she's hungry it's time
> for dinner.
>
> Speculation is how you nutjobs get yourselves all
> wound-up and jumping to conclusions.
>
> Remember the speculation last Fall that all of the
> polls were wrong and Mittens was REALLY ahead and
> going to win?
>
> Speculation is conspiracy theorizing.


Why the rush to blame Youtube?

wingnut, his base would believe that all of that could happen over a you tube video. you have to give the man credit, he knows his base.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wingnut, his base would believe that all of that
> could happen over a you tube video. you have to
> give the man credit, he knows his base.

I hate to admit it, but I believed it was because of the video. Remember what happened with the Danish cartoon and Draw Mohammed Day?

Someone in Obama's admin was perfectly content to play into the Muslim stereotype.

wingnut, don't beat yourself up too badly. We are supposed to be able to believe our President in those situations. I did not throw the bullshit flag right away, but it seemed off to me from the start. The next question will be, why was the Ambassador in Benghazi to begin with? Was he attempting to establish diplomatic relations with Al-Sharia? So they sent him into the lions den without proper protection to negotiate with terrorists?

anuary 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

And this doesn’t include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war.

RJR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anuary 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen
> associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack
> the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
>
> June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber
> connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S.
> Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
>
> October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S.
> diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of
> “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
>
> February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several
> gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are
> killed.
>
> May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida
> terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing
> 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants
> committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
>
> July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide
> bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
> attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
>
> December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida
> terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the
> perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
>
> March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide
> bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four
> people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was
> directly targeted by the attackers.
>
> September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed
> gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S.
> Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car
> bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13
> are wounded.
>
> January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a
> Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary
> Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the
> U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
>
> March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the
> al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a
> mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the
> embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
>
> July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed
> terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people
> are killed.
>
> September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists
> dressed as military officials attack the U.S.
> Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs
> and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are
> killed, including an American student and her
> husband (they had been married for three weeks
> when the attack occurred). This is the second
> attack on this embassy in seven months.
>
> And this doesn’t include the numerous and fatal
> attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the
> Iraq war.

What questions are you answering, dumbfuck?

This is the thread http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?40,1185418,1186653,quote=1#REPLY

Benghazi, just the latest round of bullshit "scandals" from the right. Their ship is sinking so they are forced to come up with pure shit.

RJR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anuary 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen
> associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack
> the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
>
> June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber
> connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S.
> Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
>
> October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S.
> diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of
> “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
>
> February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several
> gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are
> killed.
>
> May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida
> terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing
> 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants
> committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
>
> July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide
> bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
> attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
>
> December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida
> terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the
> perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
>
> March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide
> bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four
> people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was
> directly targeted by the attackers.
>
> September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed
> gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S.
> Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car
> bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13
> are wounded.
>
> January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a
> Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary
> Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the
> U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
>
> March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the
> al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a
> mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the
> embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
>
> July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed
> terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people
> are killed.
>
> September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists
> dressed as military officials attack the U.S.
> Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs
> and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are
> killed, including an American student and her
> husband (they had been married for three weeks
> when the attack occurred). This is the second
> attack on this embassy in seven months.
>
> And this doesn’t include the numerous and fatal
> attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the
> Iraq war.


Number of times blamed on a dumbass video?

Never

Clinton-gore 2016 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Benghazi, just the latest round of bullshit
> "scandals" from the right. Their ship is sinking
> so they are forced to come up with pure shit.
Attachments:

is it really possible that these libs posting the same stats about previous attacks on our country don't see the difference ? really sad. perhaps if we showed them a video they would understand. they seem to really buy into the video part. i think they must all hate their parents.

I am trying to understand the issue(s) surrounding Benghazi.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the administration knew immediately (or very soon after) that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist operation, but said publicly that it was because of the video.

Why does that matter? What difference does it make or what difference would it have made in September 2012 if the administration had said publicly at the time that it was a planned terrorist operation?

twice help was on the runway in Libya not in Germany or Italy as obama claims. twice they were denied permission to go help.

barry lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> twice help was on the runway in Libya not in
> Germany or Italy as obama claims. twice they were
> denied permission to go help.

Myriad facets should be examined/considered in making to a decision that puts boots on the ground in a sovereign country.

Armchair quarterback all you want, but know that you don't have all of the facts and you don't know all of the geopolitical ramification of the actions you are advocating.

There were far worse potential outcomes on 9/11/2012 than a couple of dead security contractors.

Eponymous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am trying to understand the issue(s) surrounding
> Benghazi.
>
> Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the
> administration knew immediately (or very soon
> after) that the Benghazi attack was a planned
> terrorist operation, but said publicly that it was
> because of the video.
>
> Why does that matter? What difference does it
> make or what difference would it have made in
> September 2012 if the administration had said
> publicly at the time that it was a planned
> terrorist operation?


It matters for several reasons:

1. The administration lied. From the president on down, they stood in front of the American voters (with an election less than two months away) and blantantly lied. A case can be made that they lied for political reasons since they had the talking points from the intel community within 36 hours and someone in the WH edited them to rewrite the truth. It now goes to trust and the honesty of anyone who lied.

2. A pretty good case can be made that this was a politically-driven cover up to protect the Obama reelection efforts. Playing politics with a terrorist attack and the death of a US ambassador is politics at its worst.

3. If Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about this incident and did so for political reasons, that should known, especially if she's running for president in 2016.

4. The families and friends of the victims of this attack deserve to know the truth. Both the president and Hillary Clinton lied face to face with the victim's families in the hanger at Andrews when they blamed this on the video when both knew that wasn't true. Image not only losing your son or husband, but then being lied to about it.

5. Is this the tip of the iceberg regarding what Stevens and the administration was doing? There is enough evidence to support futher investigation that the administration was using Bengahzi to supply weapons to the Sryian rebels through Turkey. More, not less information is needed about this incident.

I drove into work this morning and did hear one mention of Benghazi on any of the radio shows.

Just if the guy who kidnapped the three girls would be charged with more and did Jodi Aires get the full penalty.

Personally I think Jodi should of been charged with more.

3 AM Phone Call Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eponymous Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am trying to understand the issue(s)
> surrounding
> > Benghazi.
> >
> > Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that
> the
> > administration knew immediately (or very soon
> > after) that the Benghazi attack was a planned
> > terrorist operation, but said publicly that it
> was
> > because of the video.
> >
> > Why does that matter? What difference does it
> > make or what difference would it have made in
> > September 2012 if the administration had said
> > publicly at the time that it was a planned
> > terrorist operation?
>
>
> It matters for several reasons:
>
> 1. The administration lied. From the president
> on down, they stood in front of the American
> voters (with an election less than two months
> away) and blantantly lied. A case can be made
> that they lied for political reasons since they
> had the talking points from the intel community
> within 36 hours and someone in the WH edited them
> to rewrite the truth. It now goes to trust and
> the honesty of anyone who lied.
>
> 2. A pretty good case can be made that this was a
> politically-driven cover up to protect the Obama
> reelection efforts. Playing politics with a
> terrorist attack and the death of a US ambassador
> is politics at its worst.
>
> 3. If Hillary Clinton lied to the American people
> about this incident and did so for political
> reasons, that should known, especially if she's
> running for president in 2016.
>
> 4. The families and friends of the victims of
> this attack deserve to know the truth. Both the
> president and Hillary Clinton lied face to face
> with the victim's families in the hanger at
> Andrews when they blamed this on the video when
> both knew that wasn't true. Image not only losing
> your son or husband, but then being lied to about
> it.
>
> 5. Is this the tip of the iceberg regarding what
> Stevens and the administration was doing? There
> is enough evidence to support futher investigation
> that the administration was using Bengahzi to
> supply weapons to the Sryian rebels through
> Turkey. More, not less information is needed
> about this incident.

Lets get some facts correct:

1) Nobody intentionally lied, just bad information much like Bush on WMD's.

2) Bad talking point from the CIA are just that, bad talking points.

3) Obama did not cause Benghazi, if anything republicans cutting budgets did.

Eponymous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am trying to understand the issue(s) surrounding
> Benghazi.
>
> Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the
> administration knew immediately (or very soon
> after) that the Benghazi attack was a planned
> terrorist operation, but said publicly that it was
> because of the video.
>
> Why does that matter? What difference does it
> make or what difference would it have made in
> September 2012 if the administration had said
> publicly at the time that it was a planned
> terrorist operation?


It shows an administration has a problem with telling the truth, and the lie was probably told to protect Obama in the upcoming election.

To speculate that the cause was a possibility is one thing, instead, the admin with certainty proclaimed the Youtube video WAS the cause.

There was no "let's wait until we get all the facts" or any of the other mamby pamby PC pussyfooting we got with Boston or Fort Hood. This event happened on the anniversary of 9/11. Clue?

Yes, even I believed the Obama admins first account. Hair trigger Islamist extremists? Ready to kill over some stupid video? YES, it was pretty believable. But a LIE.

Now, after the Obama admin gave "Innocence of Muslims" a little more publicity and recognition of sorts- the protests by extremists intensified. There were injuries and deaths at subsequent protests AFTER the video was blamed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims

According to the father of one of the slain SEALS, Hillary states at the service "We are going to get that guy who made the video".

WHAT?

Lock up the videomaker?

And don't forget Obama's statement immediately after the attack:
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

Now how would you not get the impression he was talking about a video being the provocation?

Now, I've never mentioned in this thread the response or rescue effort- I have no idea if the attack could have been stopped by military intervention or rescue team.

Also, I think the maker of the Youtube video is rightfully jailed on an UNRELATED technical probation or parole violation, but he is being used as an obvious fall guy.

I can only make the jump and conclude the whole Youtube lie was pushed so hard by the Obamatards as an election strategy. Obama and campaign had thumped their chests about "Bin Laden dead, GM alive" and they would have looked like completely negligent assholes for letting an embassy get rolled. All while Barry was out fundraising with celebrities.

If there were security cuts that could have been blamed on the GOP or Bush, high level dems would have done so, they have proven themselves shameless on blaming everything they can on their opponents.

Shit, I'm a cynic. I have zero illusions about ANY government, dem or repub being completely honest. But if you believe all the "open and transparent" talk Obama made coming in, and then accept a willful LIE this fucking big, you really need to check yourself.


(NOTE- Compare the media attention the Valerie Plame case got to this. And the facts of both cases too)

Multiple edits were made to statements and talking points (from ABC news, Not FOX) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Those are the people in power there. It's not unlike sucking up to Saddam in the 80's. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets get some facts correct:
>
> 1) Nobody intentionally lied, just bad information
> much like Bush on WMD's.
>
> 2) Bad talking point from the CIA are just that,
> bad talking points.
>
> 3) Obama did not cause Benghazi, if anything
> republicans cutting budgets did.

As much as the rabid right wishes that it Benghazi were Obama's Watergate, it simply ins't.

No one lied. Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly. Do some disagree with decisions that were made? Of course.

Was a crime committed? No. Mistakes, even errant decisions that result in loss of life, are not crimes. Has the commission of a crime been covered-up? No.

As much as right-wing echo chamber is overheating over Benghazi, this is truly a 'tempest in a tea pot' and will ultimately go nowhere and result in nothing.

Truth4ThePeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3 AM Phone Call Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eponymous Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I am trying to understand the issue(s)
> > surrounding
> > > Benghazi.
> > >
> > > Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that
> > the
> > > administration knew immediately (or very soon
> > > after) that the Benghazi attack was a planned
> > > terrorist operation, but said publicly that
> it
> > was
> > > because of the video.
> > >
> > > Why does that matter? What difference does
> it
> > > make or what difference would it have made in
> > > September 2012 if the administration had said
> > > publicly at the time that it was a planned
> > > terrorist operation?
> >
> >
> > It matters for several reasons:
> >
> > 1. The administration lied. From the
> president
> > on down, they stood in front of the American
> > voters (with an election less than two months
> > away) and blantantly lied. A case can be made
> > that they lied for political reasons since they
> > had the talking points from the intel community
> > within 36 hours and someone in the WH edited
> them
> > to rewrite the truth. It now goes to trust and
> > the honesty of anyone who lied.
> >
> > 2. A pretty good case can be made that this was
> a
> > politically-driven cover up to protect the
> Obama
> > reelection efforts. Playing politics with a
> > terrorist attack and the death of a US
> ambassador
> > is politics at its worst.
> >
> > 3. If Hillary Clinton lied to the American
> people
> > about this incident and did so for political
> > reasons, that should known, especially if she's
> > running for president in 2016.
> >
> > 4. The families and friends of the victims of
> > this attack deserve to know the truth. Both
> the
> > president and Hillary Clinton lied face to face
> > with the victim's families in the hanger at
> > Andrews when they blamed this on the video when
> > both knew that wasn't true. Image not only
> losing
> > your son or husband, but then being lied to
> about
> > it.
> >
> > 5. Is this the tip of the iceberg regarding
> what
> > Stevens and the administration was doing?
> There
> > is enough evidence to support futher
> investigation
> > that the administration was using Bengahzi to
> > supply weapons to the Sryian rebels through
> > Turkey. More, not less information is needed
> > about this incident.
>
> Lets get some facts correct:
>
> 1) Nobody intentionally lied, just bad information
> much like Bush on WMD's.
>
> 2) Bad talking point from the CIA are just that,
> bad talking points.
>
> 3) Obama did not cause Benghazi, if anything
> republicans cutting budgets did.


Those are all your opinions, not facts. Someone in the WH took the CIA talking points and crossed out all references to terrorism and replaced it with BS about the youtube vid. The National Standard has the originals that were sent to the WH, the intermediate first draft and the final talking points out of the WH. Sorry if the facts contradict your opinions, but such is life.

I don't think Obama "caused" Benghazi. He was part of the coverup, ala Nixon in Watergate. Nixon didn't order those guys to break into the DNC HQ, but he covered it up and had his cronies lie about it once he found out the truth.

The "republican budget cuts" has been disproven dozens of times on this site. thedemocraticunderground's talking points are gaining NO traction.

Nutty's Sack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As much as the rabid right wishes that it Benghazi
> were Obama's Watergate, it simply ins't.
>
> No one lied. Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly.
> Do some disagree with decisions that were made?
> Of course.
>
> Was a crime committed? No. Mistakes, even errant
> decisions that result in loss of life, are not
> crimes. Has the commission of a crime been
> covered-up? No.
>
> As much as right-wing echo chamber is overheating
> over Benghazi, this is truly a 'tempest in a tea
> pot' and will ultimately go nowhere and result in
> nothing.


Rice lied about the core nature and basis for the attack. Obama lied re providing the public with "the best information that we have as we have it." Paneta lied about nobody ever being told to stand down. Clinton lied about, among others, nobody at State recommending that the Benghazi consulate be closed. Carney lied or significantly misrepresented the role of the White House in changing the talking points.

Apparently the "right wing echo chamber" now includes MSNBC since they talked about it all morning on "Morning Joe" as well as Chuck Todd's show and not just blowing it off, as well as NPR, BBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, etc., etc.

3 AM Phone Call Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those are all your opinions, not facts. Someone
> in the WH took the CIA talking points and crossed
> out all references to terrorism and replaced it
> with BS about the youtube vid. The National
> Standard has the originals that were sent to the
> WH, the intermediate first draft and the final
> talking points out of the WH. Sorry if the
> facts contradict your opinions, but such is
> life.

Perhaps because the WH person believed that the CIA talking points were wrong? You don't know and neither do I. Certainly, making a wrong decision is not a crime

Until you can prove that the talking points were changed in an effort to deliberately deceive, you’ve got nothing.