original CNN lies...

[OnePercenter]

Possibly. It is also possible, even likely that Obama would still have displayed cowardice when the call for help came in. After all, he had a fund raiser to attend the next day.

The answer is what kind of security did the embassy have BEFORE the Senate reduced funds.

Regardless of security before or during the attack, it was total cowardice to deny a forceful response in defense of our Ambassador and staff. An attack on an American embassy is equivalent to an attack on American soil.

Obama is Mr. Chicken.

Educated people understand that to address a situation you need to address the original problem. Reducing security funding is asking for trouble which is what happened.

 

[freedombecki]

Please read carefully and completely. Follow the links within. You will understand more about the role of CNN in promoting lies and deception at the behest of Obama and other governments. If you are a liberal denier of truth, simply go to another thread and do not bother us with your asinine comments here.

CNN is the cesspool of selective journalism.

CNN Airs ?The Truth About Benghazi? ? But Fills The Story With Lies and Deception ? We Explain Why | The Last Refuge

In any endeavor of corruption and misleading governance, the control of, and support by, the media, is an absolute necessity. The USSR needed Pravda to keep the ruse of governance for decades. The need of/by the U.S. government has steadily grown over the course of several progressive decades; but the urgency has increased exponentially over the past five years with the extremes of The Obama Administration.

Yesterday another blatant example of this was clearly evident to those who are tuned in to the deceptive enterprise. However, for the sake of those who do not have the time or energy to actually track such things, here is what took place.

CNN broadcast a story about the Benghazi attacks on 9/11/12; a subject of much controversy. So much so, the administration cannot seem to get away from it because the deceptive narrative is so fundamentally false. Enter the need for the Pravda-esque media, CNN.

CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control.
Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light.


Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”


https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lxXzaxIu3h6nmJnit0oHb_LEVgOdfrypn_B0VDVm1cA


Watch this!...and listen to the lady!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eGDVzJNMKs8

I hate to tell you this, Asartis, but this has been going on for years with CNN. Their correspondent, Peter Arnett back in 1991:

Peter Arnett Comforts a Dying Dictatorship: As a CNN reporter during the first Gulf War back in 1991, Peter Arnett transmitted Saddam Hussein’s lies to an international audience. Before this year’s Gulf War, MSNBC and NBC chose to give Arnett, technically a correspondent for National Geographic Explorer, a starring role in their war coverage. As he had a dozen years before, Arnett’s war stories often parroted the propagandistic claims of Iraqi officials without a trace of professional skepticism.

Again, in March of 2003 the idiot reported another egregious lie as troops marched into Baghdad:

On the Today show on March 26, for example, he told Matt Lauer a horrifying — and false — story about the U.S. using cluster bombs on civilian targets in Baghdad: “We traveled down a wide road, and we got to the scene, and shops on both sides of this highway had been destroyed, Matt, and there was smoldering, 20 or so smoldering vehicles in the street. Residents said that 11 o’clock this morning, local time, two missiles came in, exploded, and the first journalists there earlier said they counted 15 corpses. It was smoldering on the road. We saw body parts being handed around by people and it was, later the Information Minister, Mr. al-Sahaf, complained that the U.S. has started using cluster bombs in the Baghdad area.”

Next, he went around the corner for this:

An hour later, Arnett dutifully repeated the Information Minister’s claim about “cluster bombs,” again without any skepticism or doubt. NBC finally summoned its Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski, who told Today’s audience the claim was highly dubious, that cluster bombs are normally used against troops in the field, not urban areas. Miklaszewksi explained: “It would be very unusual if, in fact, cluster bombs were used inside Baghdad. And if you look at pictures...a cluster bomb would create a Swiss-cheese effect, thousands and thousands of holes in the target, and we don’t see that.”

The rest of his treachery is here: Still Liberal, Still Biased - 01/04 - MRC Special Report - Media Research Center

His lies were so outrageous, NBC quit using his stories entirely and National Geographic fired him.

To get even, Peter Arnett went to Europe (he is a New Zealander by birth) and began eating the American press' livers. His lies were accepted there by people who didn't know better, and they began to distrust the press.

Not to worry. Friends in the press of the Democrats came to the "rescue" and began working President Bush over as well, claiming that Peter Arnett had not lied (which was a lie and they knew it), and America suffered world criticism after that.

Peter Arnett didn't bother to tell people how he financed his free Rolls Royce and was so wealthy for saying nice things about Saddam Hussein the entire time he was butchering his own people and butchering selected neighbors.

Democrats rushed in with this opportunity to destroy President Bush. They've been doing it ever since, all too eager to perpetrate a lie against this good giant of a man in order to take power and turn America into a center for redistribution of wealth, as if communistic plans ever brought anything but civil war, hatred, and inhumanity around.

I'm sorry this is going on. Peter Arnett is a free man, and his lies caused America to lose friends in the world, and given self-righteous rapists and assholes like the Wikileaks criminal reasons to further harm us through morons like PFC Manning who had security clearance and cleaned house on everything America is because he is a coward and a military traitor.

Because of Peter Arnett's wealth-garnering lies and obfuscations, the self-righteous creeps are wanting to give Manning an international honor for changing that video he distributed to omit the guy carrying a missile launcher to take out the helicopter that in retaliation, took the snipers out.

Lying Peter Arnett and his US disciples in the press are going to hell.

 

[freedombecki]

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Section.



In order for this OP to have any credence at all, you'd have to prove the assertions above. One person's interpretation of an event does not a truth make. Imagine if we believed anyone at all?

"We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations

Those claims are made within the links offered in the OP or in links within those links. I did not make up anything. If you had bothered to watch the 45 minute video, you would have heard the lady say so. She worked at CNN when they were being paid to play ball with deceptive governments such as Bahrain in reporting distorted versions of what was actually happening.

Can’t watch the video but if that is true then there is a much bigger problem here than even I thought.

I can’t fathom how that would be remotely legal.

This has gone on for decades, FA_Q2.

 

[asterism]

The truth about Benghazi is the Republican Senate reduced the security budget for embassy's by $370M.

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Not according to the State Department

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s]Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asterism]

More from Charlene Lamb of the State Department.

No mention of funding shortfalls, she even defends the decision to deny additional security from the Ambassador.

"Sir, we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9-11 for what had been agreed upon."

Issa on State Dept official's testimony: "Doesn't seem to ring true" - CBS News Video

Go ahead and blame this on the Republicans, but you look like an ignorant fool doing so.

 

[OnePercenter]

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Not according to the State Department

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Patrick Leahy - United States Senator for Vermont: Release

I have about 3 million more hits if you'd like.

 

[asterism]

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Not according to the State Department

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Patrick Leahy - United States Senator for Vermont: Release

I have about 3 million more hits if you'd like.

And I presented sworn testimony from a State Department Official.

Who do you think really knows what was going on? Are you saying that the politicians you cited know more about the operations than the person who was in charge of them?

 

[asaratis]

The answer is what kind of security did the embassy have BEFORE the Senate reduced funds.

Regardless of security before or during the attack, it was total cowardice to deny a forceful response in defense of our Ambassador and staff. An attack on an American embassy is equivalent to an attack on American soil.

Obama is Mr. Chicken.

Educated people understand that to address a situation you need to address the original problem. Reducing security funding is asking for trouble which is what happened.

You are speaking of issues prior to the terrorist attack. I am speaking of actions afterward. It would not matter if we had had only one bodyguard there or two platoons. When a call for help against attackers goes out, brave men respond with HELP.

When the US is attacked, the US should fight back...regardless of the budget or the effect it might have on approaching elections.

Obama is a cowardly man. Nothing you can say will ever change that.