Obama, " Susan Rice Said what we told her to say"

[koshergrl]

Of course it was Obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes I'm sure you were calling Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell the same thing in 2002-2003.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

If you go and read the leaked top secret "Downing Street Memo's" you will see that shortly before Britain and the US invaded Iraq, one of the major concerns of Britain and the US was whether or not Saddam Hussein would use WMD's against an invasion and what the loss of life would be if he did. The truth is...our intelligence was faulty. We believed Saddam Hussein when he threatened to retaliate with WMD's in the event of an invasion. Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell were not lying when they said we know they have WMD's because they believed that Hussein DID have them.

What Susan Rice did was completely different. She was sent out by this Administration five days after the attack...at a time when it was known by the CIA, the State Department and the White House that this was NOT a spontaneous attack over a YouTube video...to none the less make that assertion. The Obama White House sent her out there to misinform us.

So then Powell was lying here then?

Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

Then kindly explain to me the concern going back and forth between Great Britain and the United States over whether Saddam Hussein would use WMD's against their invasion forces and if so what the level of casualties would be. The Downing Street memos...which were top secret communications between GB and the US before they were leaked...plainly show that the military was very worried about WMD's being used against them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama ordered Rice to lie.

What else could it be?

 

[koshergrl]

What's more, I think he will admit it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yes, he is an egomaniac and will admit it once pissed off.

He is Col Jessup on the stand...."You're damn right I ordered a Code Red!"

What's more, I think he will admit it.

 

[francoHFW]

Things dupes haven't heard:

!. Help arrived at the semi-consulate within 25 minutes.
2. 20+ other embassies were attacked before Bengazi the same day because of that video.
3. EVERYONE was saying what the CIA was telling them.
Now the CIA has talking points? Pub dupe idiocy knows no bounds...change the channel.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progrs told us a billion times that Nixon's greatest crime was "lying to the American people" that seems to be Obama greatest accomplishment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama and Rice should be frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs

 

[Oldstyle]

OK, Oldstyle...it's not 5 days after the attack, it is 65 days after the attack. So tell us:

1) Who carried out the attack; names, organization etc?

2) What was their motives?

3) Can you rule out that the anti-Islam video as a cause or contributing cause?


I'll be waiting.........

First of all let's be honest with ourselves here...the YouTube video as a "cause" for all of the violence that took place in Libya and across the globe has always been a joke. The truth is that Islamic extremists make up excuses for their violent acts...in this case an obscure video that had been out for years and had been seen by practically nobody.

The "motive" for an attack on 9/11? Do I really have to spell that out for you? Suffice it to say that date will always be an important one for Islamic extremists and we will have to be especially vigilant each and every time it occurs. Ambassador Stevens seemed to understand that...the idiots that are currently running our State Department couldn't seem to grasp the concept.

As for "who" carried out the attack? It appears to be an offshoot of Al Queda that has sprung up in post Quadafi Libya just as other offshoots of the original Al Queda are taking root all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia. We would probably know more about who carried out the attack if the Obama White House's first reaction to the attack wasn't to blame it on something they knew never occurred and investigated it properly and promptly. The truth is the White House stonewalled things as much as they could to delay any conclusions until AFTER the election. An organized attack by Islamic extremists on 9/11 didn't jive with the Obama reelection mantra of "we have Al Queda on the ropes" so the Obama spin doctors simply called it a spontaneous attack because of the You Tube video even though they KNEW it was no such thing.

Now we're finding out from David Petraeus' testimony that someone changed the wording of the CIA's assessment of what happened in Benghazi...leaving out that the CIA felt it was an Al Queda operation and instead calling the attackers simply "extremists". It will be interesting to find out "who" it was that changed that assessment.

You are making shit up Oldstyle. There were violent protests in 20 countries. And we know they were caused by the anti-Islam film.

Anti-US protests spread to 20 countries throughout Muslim world

The White House did not 'stonewall' or delay any investigations. The FBI couldn't get in there because of security hazards.

Security Fears Hobble Inquiry on Libya Attack

September 28, 2012

BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.

Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.

“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, as so badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access, “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys.”

Piecing together exactly how Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died here would be difficult even under the best of conditions. But the volatile security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya has added to the challenge of determining whether it was purely a local group of extremists who initiated the fatal assault or whether the attackers had ties to international terrorist groups, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Wednesday.

The Libyan government has advised the F.B.I. that it cannot ensure the safety of the American investigators in Benghazi. So agents have been conducting interviews from afar, relying on local Libyan authorities to help identify and arrange meetings with witnesses to the attack and working closely with the Libyans to gauge the veracity of any of those accounts.

“There’s a chance we never make it in there,” said a senior law enforcement official.

Also hampering the investigation is fear among Libyan witnesses about revealing their identities or accounts in front of Libyan guards protecting the American investigators, because the potential witnesses fear that other Libyans might reveal their participation and draw retribution from the attackers.

One person with knowledge of the inquiry said the investigators had gathered some information pointing to the involvement of members of Ansar al-Shariah, the same local extremist group that other witnesses have identified as participating in the attack.

Ah yes..."security concerns" are what kept the FBI from investigating the Benghazi murders!!! I kept hearing that and it never failed to amuse me. You've got news organizations strolling through the ruins of our consulate but you're telling me the most powerful military on the planet can't secure a building in a country with which we supposedly have good relations?

Are you kidding me? The troops that we never sent to save Ambassador Stevens and rescue the others were never sent to secure our consulate either. Why is that? You honestly want me to buy that story that we couldn't keep our FBI agents "safe" in Libya because it's SO dangerous...yet also buy the Administrations story that they had taken appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our diplomats earlier? Which is it? Is Libya so safe that our Ambassador only needs a handful of security personnel to guard him or is it so dangerous that we can't get secure our burned out property FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD!!!

We didn't send investigators because this Administration was in no hurry to HAVE an investigation. Right from the start the goal of the Obama White House was to delay...delay...delay...putting off an investigation until AFTER the election.

 

[Oldstyle]

Things dupes haven't heard:

!. Help arrived at the semi-consulate within 25 minutes.
2. 20+ other embassies were attacked before Bengazi the same day because of that video.
3. EVERYONE was saying what the CIA was telling them.
Now the CIA has talking points? Pub dupe idiocy knows no bounds...change the channel.

Only one problem, Franco...the CIA report (according to the head of the CIA, who just testified to Congress) called it an Al Queda attack right from the start...but SOMEONE changed that report removing the reference to Al Queda. So who did that and why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Things dupes haven't heard:

!. Help arrived at the semi-consulate within 25 minutes.
2. 20+ other embassies were attacked before Bengazi the same day because of that video.
3. EVERYONE was saying what the CIA was telling them.
Now the CIA has talking points? Pub dupe idiocy knows no bounds...change the channel.

Only one problem, Franco...the CIA report (according to the head of the CIA, who just testified to Congress) called it an Al Queda attack right from the start...but SOMEONE changed that report removing the reference to Al Queda. So who did that and why?

Obama ordered it so he would get voter frauded into reelection.

He was worried that not even the Dem Voter Fraud effort would get him reelected if he admitted he got 4 Americans killed in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11

 

[GoneBezerk]

He's an idiot that ignores FACTS.

They come here all the time talking shit out both ends without knowing the joke is on them.

Obamination could be arrested and thrown in jail and these idiots will be here for 1-3 days defending him without knowing he is sitting in jail for high crimes.

Things dupes haven't heard:

!. Help arrived at the semi-consulate within 25 minutes.
2. 20+ other embassies were attacked before Bengazi the same day because of that video.
3. EVERYONE was saying what the CIA was telling them.
Now the CIA has talking points? Pub dupe idiocy knows no bounds...change the channel.

Only one problem, Franco...the CIA report (according to the head of the CIA, who just testified to Congress) called it an Al Queda attack right from the start...but SOMEONE changed that report removing the reference to Al Queda. So who did that and why?

 

[koshergrl]

He's already admitted she said exactly what she was told to say.

 

[BlindBoo]

Progrs told us a billion times that Nixon's greatest crime was "lying to the American people" that seems to be Obama greatest accomplishment

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

That's the the First Article of Impeachment filed against him. But scour them as you will, you simply will not find a charge of "lying to the American people".

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

 

[Bfgrn]

First of all let's be honest with ourselves here...the YouTube video as a "cause" for all of the violence that took place in Libya and across the globe has always been a joke. The truth is that Islamic extremists make up excuses for their violent acts...in this case an obscure video that had been out for years and had been seen by practically nobody.

The "motive" for an attack on 9/11? Do I really have to spell that out for you? Suffice it to say that date will always be an important one for Islamic extremists and we will have to be especially vigilant each and every time it occurs. Ambassador Stevens seemed to understand that...the idiots that are currently running our State Department couldn't seem to grasp the concept.

As for "who" carried out the attack? It appears to be an offshoot of Al Queda that has sprung up in post Quadafi Libya just as other offshoots of the original Al Queda are taking root all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia. We would probably know more about who carried out the attack if the Obama White House's first reaction to the attack wasn't to blame it on something they knew never occurred and investigated it properly and promptly. The truth is the White House stonewalled things as much as they could to delay any conclusions until AFTER the election. An organized attack by Islamic extremists on 9/11 didn't jive with the Obama reelection mantra of "we have Al Queda on the ropes" so the Obama spin doctors simply called it a spontaneous attack because of the You Tube video even though they KNEW it was no such thing.

Now we're finding out from David Petraeus' testimony that someone changed the wording of the CIA's assessment of what happened in Benghazi...leaving out that the CIA felt it was an Al Queda operation and instead calling the attackers simply "extremists". It will be interesting to find out "who" it was that changed that assessment.

You are making shit up Oldstyle. There were violent protests in 20 countries. And we know they were caused by the anti-Islam film.

Anti-US protests spread to 20 countries throughout Muslim world

The White House did not 'stonewall' or delay any investigations. The FBI couldn't get in there because of security hazards.

Security Fears Hobble Inquiry on Libya Attack

September 28, 2012

BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.

Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.

“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, as so badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access, “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys.”

Piecing together exactly how Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died here would be difficult even under the best of conditions. But the volatile security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya has added to the challenge of determining whether it was purely a local group of extremists who initiated the fatal assault or whether the attackers had ties to international terrorist groups, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Wednesday.

The Libyan government has advised the F.B.I. that it cannot ensure the safety of the American investigators in Benghazi. So agents have been conducting interviews from afar, relying on local Libyan authorities to help identify and arrange meetings with witnesses to the attack and working closely with the Libyans to gauge the veracity of any of those accounts.

“There’s a chance we never make it in there,” said a senior law enforcement official.

Also hampering the investigation is fear among Libyan witnesses about revealing their identities or accounts in front of Libyan guards protecting the American investigators, because the potential witnesses fear that other Libyans might reveal their participation and draw retribution from the attackers.

One person with knowledge of the inquiry said the investigators had gathered some information pointing to the involvement of members of Ansar al-Shariah, the same local extremist group that other witnesses have identified as participating in the attack.

Ah yes..."security concerns" are what kept the FBI from investigating the Benghazi murders!!! I kept hearing that and it never failed to amuse me. You've got news organizations strolling through the ruins of our consulate but you're telling me the most powerful military on the planet can't secure a building in a country with which we supposedly have good relations?

Are you kidding me? The troops that we never sent to save Ambassador Stevens and rescue the others were never sent to secure our consulate either. Why is that? You honestly want me to buy that story that we couldn't keep our FBI agents "safe" in Libya because it's SO dangerous...yet also buy the Administrations story that they had taken appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our diplomats earlier? Which is it? Is Libya so safe that our Ambassador only needs a handful of security personnel to guard him or is it so dangerous that we can't get secure our burned out property FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD!!!

We didn't send investigators because this Administration was in no hurry to HAVE an investigation. Right from the start the goal of the Obama White House was to delay...delay...delay...putting off an investigation until AFTER the election.

You're making shit up again.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are making shit up Oldstyle. There were violent protests in 20 countries. And we know they were caused by the anti-Islam film.

Anti-US protests spread to 20 countries throughout Muslim world

The White House did not 'stonewall' or delay any investigations. The FBI couldn't get in there because of security hazards.

Security Fears Hobble Inquiry on Libya Attack

September 28, 2012

BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.

Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.

“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, as so badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access, “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys.”

Piecing together exactly how Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died here would be difficult even under the best of conditions. But the volatile security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya has added to the challenge of determining whether it was purely a local group of extremists who initiated the fatal assault or whether the attackers had ties to international terrorist groups, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Wednesday.

The Libyan government has advised the F.B.I. that it cannot ensure the safety of the American investigators in Benghazi. So agents have been conducting interviews from afar, relying on local Libyan authorities to help identify and arrange meetings with witnesses to the attack and working closely with the Libyans to gauge the veracity of any of those accounts.

“There’s a chance we never make it in there,” said a senior law enforcement official.

Also hampering the investigation is fear among Libyan witnesses about revealing their identities or accounts in front of Libyan guards protecting the American investigators, because the potential witnesses fear that other Libyans might reveal their participation and draw retribution from the attackers.

One person with knowledge of the inquiry said the investigators had gathered some information pointing to the involvement of members of Ansar al-Shariah, the same local extremist group that other witnesses have identified as participating in the attack.

Ah yes..."security concerns" are what kept the FBI from investigating the Benghazi murders!!! I kept hearing that and it never failed to amuse me. You've got news organizations strolling through the ruins of our consulate but you're telling me the most powerful military on the planet can't secure a building in a country with which we supposedly have good relations?

Are you kidding me? The troops that we never sent to save Ambassador Stevens and rescue the others were never sent to secure our consulate either. Why is that? You honestly want me to buy that story that we couldn't keep our FBI agents "safe" in Libya because it's SO dangerous...yet also buy the Administrations story that they had taken appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our diplomats earlier? Which is it? Is Libya so safe that our Ambassador only needs a handful of security personnel to guard him or is it so dangerous that we can't get secure our burned out property FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD!!!

We didn't send investigators because this Administration was in no hurry to HAVE an investigation. Right from the start the goal of the Obama White House was to delay...delay...delay...putting off an investigation until AFTER the election.

You're making shit up again.

So you honestly believe the Administration's narrative that Benghazi was too dangerous for the FBI but not too dangerous to warrant additional security for Chris Stevens? You don't strike me as a stupid person, Bfgrn...surely you can see the absurdity of what we've been told by the Obama White House?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that I'm "making shit up again". Am I questioning the honesty of the Obama Administration on Benghazi? Yes...I actually am. The testimony of the former head of the CIA confirmed what I already suspected...that the White House deliberately mislead the American people leading up to an election.

 

[Political Junky]

The quotes in your subject make it untrue. Those are not the exact words that the president said.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah yes..."security concerns" are what kept the FBI from investigating the Benghazi murders!!! I kept hearing that and it never failed to amuse me. You've got news organizations strolling through the ruins of our consulate but you're telling me the most powerful military on the planet can't secure a building in a country with which we supposedly have good relations?

Are you kidding me? The troops that we never sent to save Ambassador Stevens and rescue the others were never sent to secure our consulate either. Why is that? You honestly want me to buy that story that we couldn't keep our FBI agents "safe" in Libya because it's SO dangerous...yet also buy the Administrations story that they had taken appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our diplomats earlier? Which is it? Is Libya so safe that our Ambassador only needs a handful of security personnel to guard him or is it so dangerous that we can't get secure our burned out property FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD!!!

We didn't send investigators because this Administration was in no hurry to HAVE an investigation. Right from the start the goal of the Obama White House was to delay...delay...delay...putting off an investigation until AFTER the election.

You're making shit up again.

So you honestly believe the Administration's narrative that Benghazi was too dangerous for the FBI but not too dangerous to warrant additional security for Chris Stevens? You don't strike me as a stupid person, Bfgrn...surely you can see the absurdity of what we've been told by the Obama White House?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that I'm "making shit up again". Am I questioning the honesty of the Obama Administration on Benghazi? Yes...I actually am. The testimony of the former head of the CIA confirmed what I already suspected...that the White House deliberately mislead the American people leading up to an election.

First of all, it is not the Administration's narrative that Benghazi was too dangerous for the FBI. READ the article.

Second, you are making shit up. Petraeus DIDN'T confirmed that the White House deliberately mislead the American people leading up to an election.

Third, but not too dangerous to warrant additional security for Chris Stevens?

Ask Mike Rogers...

Representative Mike Rogers , a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN there was no sign of intelligence “chatter” leading up to the Benghazi consulate attack that would have warned U.S. officials to take extra precautions.

 

[francoHFW]

Things dupes haven't heard:

!. Help arrived at the semi-consulate within 25 minutes.
2. 20+ other embassies were attacked before Bengazi the same day because of that video.
3. EVERYONE was saying what the CIA was telling them.
Now the CIA has talking points? Pub dupe idiocy knows no bounds...change the channel.

Only one problem, Franco...the CIA report (according to the head of the CIA, who just testified to Congress) called it an Al Queda attack right from the start...but SOMEONE changed that report removing the reference to Al Queda. So who did that and why?

Right- everything else was Pubcrappe- NOW TODAY WhoTF edited that? Good question. And what HAS Petraeus actually done right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rice said it was a video on 5 different networks. This is a fact.

Obama went in front of the world in dissed our first amendment...Who gives a fuck even if it was a video? Does our freedom of speech mean anything to you on the left??? You flip flopping fags.