It Is Official: Fox News Lied About Benghazi

[ScienceRocks]

Obama lied flat out for over a month.

If you believe he is innocent you're a fool. No wonder people vote Chavez back into power. Stupid is as stupid does.

And, if you don't post the exact lies that Obama told, you are the very thing that you assert.

Read all about it...Obama spins and lies!!!!


Time line of lies!

Obama's Benghazi Lies - Home

Destroys Obama's case. It was NEVER ABOUT A FUCKING VIDEO.

On the 12th he was talking about the protest when he said terrorized.

Susan Rice said on the 16th that this wasn't a pre-planned attack. LIES

On the 18th Obama went on the letterman show and blamed our first amendment for the attack. LIES!!!

If the terrorized was supposed to mean a terrorist attack. Well, Obama sure inserted his foot in his ass.

Clinton on the 21st was the first to say it was a Terrorist attack. SPIN!

Obama on the view on the 25th said it was about the fucking video! Spin some more!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD4a9GHBF_U&feature=related]Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPzjayOh-PU&feature=relmfu]Who is responsible for the attack in Benghazi? - YouTube[/ame]




Biden blatantly lied about Chris Stevens wanting more Security
The Fact Checker


“We weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security.”

— Biden, speaking of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya

Biden’s bold statement was directly contradicted by State Department officials just this week, in testimony before a congressional panel and in unclassified cables released by a congressional committee.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” said Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya earlier this year. A Utah national guardsman who led a security team, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, said: “We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxjz5wEcF0]September 12, 2012 - President Obama Speaks on Libya Attacks that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens - YouTube[/ame]

@ 5:00-6:20 you can hear the context in which he mentioned terrorism, Romney was correct in his assertation as, in context, Obama was referring to terrorism in general and not specifically the attack
====

Candy wasn't even right here as Obama said "terror" in the context of the protest.



Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror
Breitbart ^ | 17 Oct 2012, 3:44 AM PDT | Tony Lee
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.
"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.
This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.
During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.
On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.
With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.

---
Yet we learn today that Stevens was begging for months for security??? WTF is wrong with the Obama Admin. If you leftist had any honor you wouldn't vote for Obama.


Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
Fox News ^ | 10-19-2012 | James Rosen
Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack | Fox News

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents -- released Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack -- slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."

Obama lied his fucking ass off and blamed a fucking video for it all. Wake the fuck up idiot.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Matthew neg rep comment. "eat shit commie red."


I'm proud of you matthew, you managed to string together four words, and seem at least partially coherent.

when will you learn? Negative rep from a douchenozzle like you makes me HAPPY. keep doing it.

Go live in Cuba red.

 

[Darkwind]

We are to believe this administration when they have been proven to lie time and again?

Can you please post the lie told by this Administration? A link would be helpful.

btw.....FoxNews does not have a candidate.

They are not part and parcel of the corrupted main stream media which has been proven to be in the Obama campaign.

Fox News, reported that the CIA called for "Air Support" during the attack. Do you believe this, too?

They are posted all over this forum.

I'll let you know that anything said by the CIA cannot be trusted, so your source is compromised. The CIA will lie at the drop of a hat under the orders of the President.

CNN is just the publicist wing of the Obama Campaign, and cannot be trusted at all. They haven't even bothered to inform the people of this country what has happened in Benghazi. Hell, half the people voting for Obama have not even heard of the place.

Video: Let’s ask young Obama supporters what they think about Benghazi « Hot Air

I want you to pay particular attention to the fact that these are colleges where they claim that they are having enlightened debates and are informed about world events. Or, at least, that is the usual tag line when discussion bias in the Universities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fox News, originally reported that the CIA was issued a "Stand Down Order" by the Administration during the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. Fox News, never declared where it got that information, other than to say they had a "source."

h.t.t.p://w.w.w.youtube.com/embed/G0sA4P2CPgQ


Tonight, CNN reports that the Central Intelligence Agency itself says that no "Stand Down Order" was ever given by anyone at the Administration and/or the State Department.

h.t.t.p://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/02/exp-erin-cia-releases-new-benghazi-timeline-peter-brookes-nick-burns.cnn

Aside from the fact that I knew the Fox News "Exclusive Report" had been created out of thin air when it concluded that the "CIA called for Air Support" (for which we simply have no protocol for whatsoever within our military relative to the CIA), the entire storyline put forth by Fox News, never made any sense from the very beginning.

What does this do in the minds of those who rely upon Fox News for their information about what's going on in the world, and what does this do to the reputation of Fox News itself? Can you realistically trust anything they say at this point, given their willingness to lie in broad daylight, about something so important relative to the trust that people have in the President of the United States and the Commander In Chief?

No "Stand Down Order" at all was ever given to anyone. Yet, for days now the country was being told the such an order actually existed. Should any News Organization that lies with reckless abandon and willful intent, be subject to Civil and/or Criminal charges of some kind?

That charge made by Fox News, was morphed into an entire theory about the reasons WHY the "Stand Down Order" was given, including an assertion that the United States was engaged in shipping Libyan WMD into Turkey, for use in some kind of Coupe attempt against Assad in Syria. All of that was predicated on the CIA having received a "Stand Down Order" from the President, which we now know was a complete and utter lie told by Fox News.

Is this the future template for Presidential Elections? Say anything to get your candidate elected, no matter how absolutely deceitful and fraudulent what you are saying turns out to be? Who supports that kind of election process?

The reports did not say who gave the stand down order, just that it was received, and disobeyed, by the team at the safe house. Calling they said it came from somewhere, and then saying that proves they lied, just makes you look like the idiot you are when you claim the report was made up out of thin air.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now I can see why people like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Hitler, Kim jong sung, Ill and Un can be in power. Some people love living under this shit.

 

[theHawk]

Fox News, originally reported that the CIA was issued a "Stand Down Order" by the Administration during the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. Fox News, never declared where it got that information, other than to say they had a "source."

h.t.t.p://w.w.w.youtube.com/embed/G0sA4P2CPgQ


Tonight, CNN reports that the Central Intelligence Agency itself says that no "Stand Down Order" was ever given by anyone at the Administration and/or the State Department.

h.t.t.p://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/02/exp-erin-cia-releases-new-benghazi-timeline-peter-brookes-nick-burns.cnn

Aside from the fact that I knew the Fox News "Exclusive Report" had been created out of thin air when it concluded that the "CIA called for Air Support" (for which we simply have no protocol for whatsoever within our military relative to the CIA), the entire storyline put forth by Fox News, never made any sense from the very beginning.

What does this do in the minds of those who rely upon Fox News for their information about what's going on in the world, and what does this do to the reputation of Fox News itself? Can you realistically trust anything they say at this point, given their willingness to lie in broad daylight, about something so important relative to the trust that people have in the President of the United States and the Commander In Chief?

No "Stand Down Order" at all was ever given to anyone. Yet, for days now the country was being told the such an order actually existed. Should any News Organization that lies with reckless abandon and willful intent, be subject to Civil and/or Criminal charges of some kind?

That charge made by Fox News, was morphed into an entire theory about the reasons WHY the "Stand Down Order" was given, including an assertion that the United States was engaged in shipping Libyan WMD into Turkey, for use in some kind of Coupe attempt against Assad in Syria. All of that was predicated on the CIA having received a "Stand Down Order" from the President, which we now know was a complete and utter lie told by Fox News.

Is this the future template for Presidential Elections? Say anything to get your candidate elected, no matter how absolutely deceitful and fraudulent what you are saying turns out to be? Who supports that kind of election process?

The proof obviously is that the administration granted the request from the people on the ground and sent forces in to help.....oh wait a minute...

Of course you Obam-bots are free to explain what decisions were made that night during the attack and exactly what orders were given out. But since your Dear Leader won't part with the details you honestly have no fucking clue what was done and we're left to wait for leaks to the media.

What is obvious is no help was sent. So which is it, did Obama give the order to send help in and someone within the military or CIA disobeyed that order? Or did Obama simply say "present" and made no decision, thus no one was given authority to move out and help them?

 

[buckeye45_73]

OP still thinks the video caused it...do I need to say anything else?

 

[ScienceRocks]

OP still thinks the video caused it...do I need to say anything else?

That's what Obama blamed for 3 fucking weeks. Done a shit load of damage to our first amendment.

This guys really bad for our bill of rights.

 

[Oddball]

Is this the future template for Presidential Elections? Say anything to get your candidate elected, no matter how absolutely deceitful and fraudulent what you are saying turns out to be? Who supports that kind of election process?

Google "projection" and get back to us, sport.

 

[tinydancer]

Has anyone got a link that works to this new timeline?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Has anyone got a link that works to this new timeline?

Like I'd trust anything that comes out of this nest of vipers.

 

[tinydancer]

Neither of those links worked for me. When I copy and pasted one of the http's I come up with just 3.

CIA defends Benghazi decisions
my.twonky.com/video/channel/latest/play?cid=842641&vid...
31 minutes ago – Source: Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com. Tags: ...
Get more results from the past 24 hours


It Is Official: Fox News Lied About Benghazi - US Message Board ...
www.usmessageboard.com › US Discussion › Politics
7 posts - 7 authors - 22 hours ago
h.t.t.p://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/02/exp-erin-cia-releases-new-benghazi-timeline-peter-brookes-nick-burns.cnn. Aside from the ...


It Is Official: Fox News Lied About Benghazi - Page 2 - US Message ...
www.usmessageboard.com › US Discussion › Politics
11 posts - 6 authors - 22 hours ago
h.t.t.p://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/11/02/exp-erin-cia-releases-new-benghazi-timeline-peter-brookes-nick-burns.cnn. Aside from the ...

 

[ScienceRocks]

I know for a fact that Obama from the 13th to at least the first week of Oct blamed the video. He agreed with the president of fucking Egypt that wants us to silence our first Amendment rights.

This is why I think you leftist are red marxist. You use the bill of rights to advance your mindset but then turn around in crap on it.

 

[Politico]

There's so much wrong with that post I won't waste the time to break it down.

 

[tinydancer]

I know for a fact that Obama from the 13th to at least the first week of Oct blamed the video. He agreed with the president of fucking Egypt that wants us to silence our first Amendment rights.

This is why I think you leftist are red marxist. You use the bill of rights to advance your mindset but then turn around in crap on it.

Well it's a sad day for Americans when the first person who told the truth that it was an organized attack and nothing to do with the video was the freaking Libyan President.

I mean come on!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our first amendment suppose to protect "unwanted" speech. Speech that is agreeable doesn't need a right for it to be said.

Understand??? The kind of president we have in office hates this.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The OP still thinks its the video and that the administration is truthful on this....he really really likes the democrat jizz

 

[Locke11_21]

Obama lied flat out for over a month.

If you believe he is innocent you're a fool. No wonder people vote Chavez back into power. Stupid is as stupid does.

And, if you don't post the exact lies that Obama told, you are the very thing that you assert.

Ooooohhh, so you want exact lies from Obama, well, while it doesn't relate to the thread, here are just a few, how about we start off with this load of crap before he was even elected:


"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America - there's the United States of America."


Never before has there been a more partisan hack, racially divisive, class war oriented person to hold the office of president than dictator Obama.






Now, how about this enormous lie:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.



Biggest lie ever stated in this country's history.


Oh, what about that transparency thing...and yes he lied about Benghazi.


Go ahead, keep hating on FOX, while I don't completely trust FOX, I would take their word over the SuperPacs for the Democrat Party, AKA...ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc.

 

[336thF15E]

OP: Yea, the government would never lie.

But let's talk about a lie we know about for sure. We were told that the Benghazi was a riot gone wrong. Americans died and we got lied to. UNACCEPTABLE.

You are intentionally misinterpreting what was actually said for political purposes and for ideological shortcomings.

1) Everybody in the world already knows that the Video caused unrest throughout the entire region and that our Egyptian Embassy, was attacked as a direct result of an Anti-Islamic Video.

2) You say that you were told Benghazi was a riot gone wrong and that you were lied to. What you fail to say is that you are making that determination from a position of having the benefit of 20/20. There is a name for that - its called a Displaced Presupposition (look it up). That's also called being Intellectual Dishonest. You can't time-travel. You have no ability to go back through time, pick a supposition and then apply to some future event. Doing so is by definition circular reasoning. Anyone, who willfully engages in circular logic, is by definition irrational.

3) As stated before in another thread, it is holistically unreasonable to expect that information coming out of Benghazi after the attack, came from a singular source that was always giving the exact same message all the time. Different Administration Officials came upon different information and different times and in different locations. The don't all work out of the exact same office space, sharing the exact same speaker phone, as they take input from the field from the exact same source giving them the exact same information, so that they can all march out and give the exact same speech in exactly the same way. Only a hyper-partisan is going to expect that kind of unrealistic outcome.

They are all different human beings and they got information from different sources and different times immediately after the attacks, yet they were tasked with giving the public immediate answers mere hours after the attack.

Despite all of that, the general theme remained the same throughout all discussions on Benghazi, and only changed over time as new information became available to them and they were able to share their sources with each other. These people are not working in the same cubical together with just one phone and the information coming in was most assuredly very fluid.

Pay very close attention to this NON-U.S. Media News Report: (remove the unnecessary dots in the url)

h.t.t.p://w.w.w.youtube.com/watch?v=fHItObp7gGA&feature=relmfu


Clearly, Media Reports were streaming in that put the Video at the center of focus for the possible cause of the attacks. Read the banner in the RT video. What does it say? It reads: U.S. Ambassador to Libya 'Killed' In Mob Attack On Benghazi Compound

So, you have instant reports in Non-U.S. Media about:

1) A violent reaction to this film
2) A Mob action
3) At least a dozen Libyan Security Forces personnel taken to hospital

This is why the information coming into the White House was initially mixed. These three (3) things directly contradict what Fox News has told you. It also explains why Susan Rice, first began discussing the matter through the lens that everybody on the ground was looking through, a Video.

The initial perception was very real and very correct based on what they knew. Non-U.S. Media, were reporting that it was a Mob Action that was connected to the Video. Later reports, showed that at least 150 heavily armed me caused some 20 younger individuals to stand in front of the Compound and yell in protest that they were outraged about the Anti-Islamic Video that "insulted the Prophet Muhammad."

So, if you have a crowd of people outside the Compound yelling about how upset they were about the Video - why would you concluded (at the time) that the attack was somehow not connected to the Video. Answer? You would not do that and the Administration responded accordingly - believing initially that the attacks did have something to do with the Video, because there were people standing directly outside the compound complaining about the Video.

Nobody knew that 20 person crowed was staged at that point - except the 150 heavily armed aggressors.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How clear does it have to be for you idiots to connect the dots that this president lies?