Rep. Peter King Doubles Down: Obama Administration’s Benghazi Cover-Up Was For Electo

[Stephanie]

vote this administation OUT folks

SNIP:
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, September 29, 2012, 12:35 PM


Of course it was…
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) doubled-down today and called for UN Ambassador Susan Rice to resign for deceit and/or incompetence. King also accused the Obama Administration of deceiving the American public on the Benghazi terror attack for political gain.


“Either Ambassador Rice was deliberately misleading the American people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn’t hold that position anymore. The entire administration has handled this wrong from the start. They’ve misinformed the American people, misinformed the world. And, she was their spokeswoman. She showed such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn’t hold that position anymore… Virtually everything she said was wrong.”

all of it and video at site
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...zi-cover-up-was-for-electoral-purposes-video/

 

[Lakhota]

Peter King is a scumbag NaziCon who gives Jews a bad name.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

 

[The Infidel]

Good for him... their feet need to be continually held to the furnace!

I am sick of them lying to us, and the left just ignoring it.

 

[The Infidel]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

Not by this DOJ

 

[Rozman]

This whole thing stunk from the get go....
Why is it the media isn't holding this administrations feet to the fire on this?
Back when we had real journalists they would be all over a story like this.

 

[Mustang]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

 

[beretta304]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

Not when you hold to the story 2 weeks later. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[Mustang]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

Not when you hold to the story 2 weeks later. That's all that needs to be said.

I don't see that 2 weeks represents some kind of number that passed the point of credibility in some way. If the administration was trying to conceal something, why not continue saying that it wasn't a terrorist attack? Certainly they must understand that reversing course on the determination that it was terrorism (as opposed to a spontaneous attack) was going to be exploited by the Republicans, especially in the final stage of the election. So, what did the administration have to gain by doing so other than to set the record straight after more facts came to light? Keep in mind that the investigation is taking place overseas in a place where English is not the first language. And my guess is that the US is likely very dependent on Libyan personnel and expertise. It's not as if we can crack the whip with them. We needed/need their help, and we're playing on their turf.

 

[depotoo]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

and what possible good could come of blaming it on a film in which you don't know yet, either? Works both ways, ya know. And the film could be much more damaging as it brings to light something most over there didn't even know existed.

 

[kiwiman127]

I think Peter King should stick to writing about sports.

Peter King (born June 10, 1957 in Springfield, Massachusetts) is an American sportswriter. He writes for Sports Illustrated, including the weekly multiple-page column Monday Morning Quarterback. He is the author of five books, including Inside the Helmet. He was named National Sportswriter of the Year for 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_King_(sportswriter)

So, King knows sports and has awards for his work. So why is he sticking is nose in politics/foreign/affairs?

 

[bodecea]

vote this administation OUT folks

SNIP:
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, September 29, 2012, 12:35 PM


Of course it was…
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) doubled-down today and called for UN Ambassador Susan Rice to resign for deceit and/or incompetence. King also accused the Obama Administration of deceiving the American public on the Benghazi terror attack for political gain.


“Either Ambassador Rice was deliberately misleading the American people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn’t hold that position anymore. The entire administration has handled this wrong from the start. They’ve misinformed the American people, misinformed the world. And, she was their spokeswoman. She showed such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn’t hold that position anymore… Virtually everything she said was wrong.”

all of it and video at site
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...zi-cover-up-was-for-electoral-purposes-video/

You guys want this to be like Watergate SOOOOOOO bad, dontcha?

 

[Mustang]

There's a real scandal here...

Impeachment type if this asshole gets re-elected.

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

and what possible good could come up blaming it on a film in which you don't know yet, either? Works both ways, ya know. And the film could be much more damaging as it brings to light something most over there didn't even know existed.

The film had already been shown to cause widespread protests and rioting, especially when certain Muslim fundamentalists chose to exploit it for their own purposes. In that sense, the film explanation could easily serve as a plausible cover story for an investigation that explored other possibilities while also lulling the real culprits into a false sense of security that their true identity might not be known or even suspected. Considering that nobody stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, it seems pretty likely that their intention was to keep a lower profile than other groups who brag about their exploits.

This begs the question as to whose side American conservatives are on. While that may sound like a ridiculous statement, conservatives sure are spending a lot of time (this thread is evidence of that) assailing and undermining the very gov't whose responsibility it is to bring the killers to justice which is what the Obama administration is quite obviously trying to do. In that sense, it looks like the terrorists have an unwitting ally who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by distracting our gov't from the task at hand.

 

[beretta304]

What's the scandal, again?

I ask because it's SOP for law enforcement to withhold official judgment on a suspicious death even as they investigate it as a possible homicide right from the beginning.

So too with the attack on our consulate. What possible good could it do to come out publicly and declare it a terrorist attack (and possibly attribute it to whom, exactly?) without the evidence to support that contention? The US Gov't would have egg on it's face, internationally, if it made that claim and it later turned out to not be true.

And if you don't believe that, recall all the fall out from our declaration prior to the Iraq War that Saddam actually had WMDs and we knew exactly where they were, thereby justifying our 'preemptive war.' In the war against Islamic extremism, the US is not served well by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations that we may later have to retract. Let al Qaeda make those kinds of mistakes. That hurts THEIR credibility in the Muslim world. We don't need our credibility any more tarnished than it has been by a series of screw ups from the Iraq War intelligence fiasco to Abu Ghraib.

and what possible good could come up blaming it on a film in which you don't know yet, either? Works both ways, ya know. And the film could be much more damaging as it brings to light something most over there didn't even know existed.

The film had already been shown to cause widespread protests and rioting, especially when certain Muslim fundamentalists chose to exploit it for their own purposes. In that sense, the film explanation could easily serve as a plausible cover story for an investigation that explored other possibilities while also lulling the real culprits into a false sense of security that their true identity might not be known or even suspected. Considering that nobody stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, it seems pretty likely that their intention was to keep a lower profile than other groups who brag about their exploits.

This begs the question as to whose side American conservatives are on. While that may sound like a ridiculous statement, conservatives sure are spending a lot of time (this thread is evidence of that) assailing and undermining the very gov't whose responsibility it is to bring the killers to justice which is what the Obama administration is quite obviously trying to do. In that sense, it looks like the terrorists have an unwitting ally who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by distracting our gov't from the task at hand.

Just admit you're in awe of "Dear Leader" and we can move on. You post paragraph after paragraph making excuses, blabbering about Conservatives, when many media outlets including one or two in "Dear Leader" back pocket said that they knew from day one.

All you're trying to do is make excuses, contorting every which way to say that Obama was right. it's about a video and everyone else is wrong. We got it.

 

[Mustang]

Any other conservatives here who want to give aid and comfort to the terrorists by undermining the very US Gov't which is trying to bring them to justice for killing American consulate personnel?

 

[beretta304]

Any other conservatives here who want to give aid and comfort to the terrorists by undermining the very US Gov't which is trying to bring them to justice for killing American consulate personnel?

FAIL! Try again. That "transference" shit doesn't work me me. I'm surprised a guy who prides himself as an intellectual with long-winded replies would try such an amatuerish strawman argument.

 

[Lakhota]

Peter King is a Muslim-hating witch hunter. Putting that aside, he also seems dumb as hell.

The Screaming Hypocrisy of Congressman Peter King | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center

 

[AmericanFirst]

Peter King is a scumbag NaziCon who gives Jews a bad name.

Better then obamaturd who gives muslims lip service.

 

[Mustang]

Any other conservatives here who want to give aid and comfort to the terrorists by undermining the very US Gov't which is trying to bring them to justice for killing American consulate personnel?

FAIL! Try again. That "transference" shit doesn't work me me. I'm surprised a guy who tries to come across as an intellectual would try such an amatuerish strawman argument.

Really?

You're trying to publicly weaken the very gov't and our president who's trying to work with foreign gov'ts in Muslim nations to find the terrorists who killed our personnel and bring them to justice. You think leaders and potential adversaries overseas don't pay attention to the relative strength and/or weakness of an American president among the citizenry? Guess again. It's one thing for a president to face opposition on domestic issues. It's quite another when one segment of the electorate is railing against the president and trying to undermine his foreign policy leadership at the very same time that he's trying to show American solidarity on this issue abroad.

You obviously care more about undermining President Obama than you care about bringing the killers of American patriots to justice.

As the British might say (in their characteristically understated way, of course), BAD SHOW, THAT!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Any other conservatives here who want to give aid and comfort to the terrorists by undermining the very US Gov't which is trying to bring them to justice for killing American consulate personnel?

You are delusional. This gov't. is trying it's best to protect the enemy.