The Obama White House lied to the American people.

[koshergrl]

All you right wingers are wrong, Rdean correctly pointed out the deaths were because republicans directly cut Hillary Clinton's security budget.....

" Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate? Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

State Dep’t rep: “We had the correct number of [security] assets in Benghazi” « Hot Air

 

[Oldstyle]

You're a world class dumbass. Hell, you even think Reagan cut taxes.

This "world class dumbass" is sitting here laughing at you, Lakhota. You've got to try and defend these incompetent liars...while this whole sordid story blows up in your face a month before the election. Come on, little buddy...give me some Huff Po! I need a good chuckle.

President Obama is conducting foreign policy. You're conducting a witch hunt in hope of derailing his re-election - same as Darrell Issa. Facts and truth are irrelevant to you NaziCons.

Witch hunt? This Administration just attempted to hide the truth from the American people. They deliberately lied to us about what happened in Libya because it didn't fit their reelection "narrative" that Barack Obama had all but destroyed Al Queda. They didn't want the voters to know that Al Queda just assassinated one of our ambassadors. They didn't want the voters to grasp how badly the so called "Arab Spring" was actually turning out for us in the Middle East. Those are the "facts" and that is the "truth".

Calling me a Nazi for pointing out those facts and that truth shows how little comeback you have, Lakhota. Barack Obama walked you out on a limb that has now been cut out from under you. Enjoy defending the indefensible!

 

[Oldstyle]

What "should" be under Barry's serving lid is Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who died on his watch...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't watch TV.

Or read newspapers or magazines, obviously.

If it ain't on DailyKOS, you don't know about it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why?

Because the guys conducting the investigations VOTED TO CUT FUNDING FOR EMBASSIES.

It's far past Ironic.

Look, you're a partisan hack, we get it.

But even if Republicans cut funding - how does that excuse Obama and the administration directly lying to the American people, over, and over again?

 

[Mustang]

I don't watch TV.

Or read newspapers or magazines, obviously.

If it ain't on DailyKOS, you don't know about it.

Actually I read quite a lot. So far this year, over 50 books by my cursory count (averaging 6 a month)...and newspapers and magazines, of course.

I just don't sit in front of a TV and get my mind manipulated by purveyors of propaganda. And frankly, I take exception with the news media when they just repeat partisan propaganda and call that 'reporting.' But it looks as if there's a light shining on the horizon as more and more organizations are embracing the concept of fact-checking. Imagine that!

But I admit to listening to talk radio. Frankly, it amazes me that so many people believe anything beyond what most RW hosts say after they've mentioned their names and the station's call letters. But, alas, there's a LOT of money to be made and a lot of fools to be separated from said money.

 

[Conservative]

All you right wingers are wrong, Rdean correctly pointed out the deaths were because republicans directly cut Hillary Clinton's security budget.....

" Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate? Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

State Dep’t rep: “We had the correct number of [security] assets in Benghazi” « Hot Air

" Exit question: Are House Democrats right that reduced congressional funding for embassy security contributed to Stevens’s fate? Exit answer: No. But even if they were, more Democrats voted for that reduction than Republicans did."

suck on reality, libtards.

 

[Mustang]

It's become perfectly clear from what's come to light this week that the Obama White House lied to the American people for political reasons about the death of our Ambassador in Libya. Testimony in front of the Congressional Oversight Committee has our intelligence operatives KNOWING within 24 hours that the attack was not an unplanned response to an anti-Islam video as the Obama White House said but rather a well planned attack by Al Queda forces armed with assault rifles, mortars and RPG's. Rather than admit that such an attack took place, this Administration sent out the UN Ambassador five days later to lie repeatedly on national news programs, attempting to make it something that it never was.

Getting Barack Obama reelected was more important to these people than telling us the truth. They stonewalled the investigation because it didn't match the "narrative" that they were selling...that Barack Obama's policies had weakened Al Queda to the point of near defeat. You're honestly telling me that the FBI couldn't investigate this for THREE WEEKS because it was supposedly too dangerous on the ground...yet reporters were on site? The truth is that this Administration didn't WANT an investigation showing how inept they were at protecting our diplomats or how they subsequently covered up what happened.

Amazing. I recall hearing from conservatives that there was (is) a war against radical Islamists who want to kill all Americans regardless of political affiliation. Anyone else remember that?

And NOW that Obama is president, conservatives agonize over every single casualty in that global conflict and rail against their own gov't almost like an al Qaeda sleeper cell which is determined to undermine the very gov't which is tasked with fighting this war. Curious.

And as much as I sincerely loathe the trend that some partisans engage in (which both sides use but conservatives use incessantly) to postulate what would happen if a talk radio personality X said Y and he was a conservative Republican as opposed to a liberal Democrat. And doesn't that just prove blah, blah, blah that there's a double standard blah, blah, blah, and conservatives never get treated fairly blah, blah, blah. You know what? I simply can't help but ask myself what conservatives as a whole would have said if America was attacked on 9-11 if Democrat Obama was president instead of Republican Bush. Think they could have been counted on to rally 'round the POTUS like Democrats did back in 2001?

No one is blaming Obama for the attack. The question is why did he lie to the American people for over a week about what happened? Is he unable to utter the words "al Qaeda", "Muslim" or "terrorist?" Repeating the lies over and over is inexcusable. Who made up the crap about a few protesters getting out of hand over some stupid film? There was no intel pointing to that and reports show everyone knew right away it was a terrorist attack, yet Obama went about his campaign appearances and stuck with what he knew was a lie. Maybe if he had attended security briefings, he'd have a fucking clue. Or maybe he just doesn't care.

Your statement that Obama lied as presented as if it's a fact. It isn't. It's a contention. In fact, it's a contention made in the heat of an election cycle. That makes the motives of the people making the accusation even more suspect. The burden on your side is to prove the contention has merit. From everything I've read and heard up to this point (sans various opinion pieces and long-winded diatribes), that burden of proof hasn't even remotely come close to being met.

So, carry on, lads!

 

[Immanuel]

These lies and coverup are wall-to-wall on talk radio and conservative media.

Obama won't escape this.

I hope you are right, but I think that is wishful thinking. The media loves him too much. This will be brushed under the table and by the weekend, we'll have some Republican caught in a sex scandal or something like that to talk about.

Immie

I'm telling you right now...the third Presidential debate...the one on foreign policy that was "supposed" to be a cake walk for Barack Obama because he could point to the killing of Osama bin Laden and claim the mantle of "protector" of US interests is totally changed. Now, with what has happened in Libya, the President is going to get on stage with Romney and he's going to get GRILLED over both why it happened and why his Administration lied about what happened. What should have been a safe night for Obama has now morphed into an extremely dangerous one...something which puts even more pressure on Joe Biden to try and stop the bleeding tomorrow night.

Hehe,

Yeah, I can see it now...

Turn on the debate and this is what we will see on TV scrolling along the bottom of the screen.

"Debate cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances."

and it will be replaced with... "Leave it to Beaver".

Immie

 

[Mustang]

These lies and coverup are wall-to-wall on talk radio and conservative media.

Obama won't escape this.

I hope you are right, but I think that is wishful thinking. The media loves him too much. This will be brushed under the table and by the weekend, we'll have some Republican caught in a sex scandal or something like that to talk about.

Immie

I'm telling you right now...the third Presidential debate...the one on foreign policy that was "supposed" to be a cake walk for Barack Obama because he could point to the killing of Osama bin Laden and claim the mantle of "protector" of US interests is totally changed. Now, with what has happened in Libya, the President is going to get on stage with Romney and he's going to get GRILLED over both why it happened and why his Administration lied about what happened. What should have been a safe night for Obama has now morphed into an extremely dangerous one...something which puts even more pressure on Joe Biden to try and stop the bleeding tomorrow night.

Tell me something. Are you grateful for that attack on the American consulate in Libya?

 

[Oldstyle]

I hope you are right, but I think that is wishful thinking. The media loves him too much. This will be brushed under the table and by the weekend, we'll have some Republican caught in a sex scandal or something like that to talk about.

Immie

I'm telling you right now...the third Presidential debate...the one on foreign policy that was "supposed" to be a cake walk for Barack Obama because he could point to the killing of Osama bin Laden and claim the mantle of "protector" of US interests is totally changed. Now, with what has happened in Libya, the President is going to get on stage with Romney and he's going to get GRILLED over both why it happened and why his Administration lied about what happened. What should have been a safe night for Obama has now morphed into an extremely dangerous one...something which puts even more pressure on Joe Biden to try and stop the bleeding tomorrow night.

Tell me something. Are you grateful for that attack on the American consulate in Libya?

Are you kidding me? I simply point out how badly this Administration handled security for it's Ambassador to Libya and how they blatantly lied to the American people about what happened that night...and you accuse me of being "grateful" for the attack? Pardon my French, Mustang...but FUCK YOU!!! That's sleazy and underhanded and you know it. If you have any class at all you'd apologize for even trying to go there...

If the best "defense" you can come up with for what this Administration has done is to attempt to smear me for being outraged about it then you might want to rethink your position.

 

[oreo]

It's become perfectly clear from what's come to light this week that the Obama White House lied to the American people for political reasons about the death of our Ambassador in Libya. Testimony in front of the Congressional Oversight Committee has our intelligence operatives KNOWING within 24 hours that the attack was not an unplanned response to an anti-Islam video as the Obama White House said but rather a well planned attack by Al Queda forces armed with assault rifles, mortars and RPG's. Rather than admit that such an attack took place, this Administration sent out the UN Ambassador five days later to lie repeatedly on national news programs, attempting to make it something that it never was.

Getting Barack Obama reelected was more important to these people than telling us the truth. They stonewalled the investigation because it didn't match the "narrative" that they were selling...that Barack Obama's policies had weakened Al Queda to the point of near defeat. You're honestly telling me that the FBI couldn't investigate this for THREE WEEKS because it was supposedly too dangerous on the ground...yet reporters were on site? The truth is that this Administration didn't WANT an investigation showing how inept they were at protecting our diplomats or how they subsequently covered up what happened.

And then this testimony coming from a Security officer at the consulate in Bengazi.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3QfU_FP0zQ]Ex-Embassy Security Officer In Libya - The Taliban Is On The Inside Of The Building At State Dept - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mustang]

I'm telling you right now...the third Presidential debate...the one on foreign policy that was "supposed" to be a cake walk for Barack Obama because he could point to the killing of Osama bin Laden and claim the mantle of "protector" of US interests is totally changed. Now, with what has happened in Libya, the President is going to get on stage with Romney and he's going to get GRILLED over both why it happened and why his Administration lied about what happened. What should have been a safe night for Obama has now morphed into an extremely dangerous one...something which puts even more pressure on Joe Biden to try and stop the bleeding tomorrow night.

Tell me something. Are you grateful for that attack on the American consulate in Libya?

Are you kidding me? I simply point out how badly this Administration handled security for it's Ambassador to Libya and how they blatantly lied to the American people about what happened that night...and you accuse me of being "grateful" for the attack? Pardon my French, Mustang...but FUCK YOU!!! That's sleazy and underhanded and you know it. If you have any class at all you'd apologize for even trying to go there...

If the best "defense" you can come up with for what this Administration has done is to attempt to smear me for being outraged about it then you might want to rethink your position.

Let's be clear about everything. I didn't accuse you. I ASKED you. BIG difference! Considering the glee to which I see conservatives embracing this new found 'issue,' it's a reasonable question, especially if it's a catalyst to a change of fortunes of each of the candidates. Certainly you can't deny that conservatives are trying to exploit the attack and the consequences of the attack for political gain.

Think of it as being somewhat equivalent to when Ann Coulter made her statement about the Jersey Girls, except Ann did essentially accuse them when she said that she'd never seen anyone so enjoying the deaths of their husbands vis-a-vis the 9-11 Commission. In THAT particular case, the Jersey Girls were married to those men (obviously), which meant that they had the most significant emotional attachment possible to those men. Yet Ann more than implied that they were enjoying their husbands' deaths because it allowed them to use them as a political wedge against President Bush. Really? That's more than a stretch when you consider the nature of their relationships. However, when it comes to the men who were killed in Libya, how many conservatives here on this board or involved in election year politics even had a passing acquaintanceship with those men? Can we find even ONE on this board? My guess is no. Those men were essentially complete and total strangers to everyone here. So, let's compare! How difficult is it for people to exploit anonymous people for some kind of personal or political gain compared to exploiting the deaths of close family members?

 

[Oldstyle]

Tell me something. Are you grateful for that attack on the American consulate in Libya?

Are you kidding me? I simply point out how badly this Administration handled security for it's Ambassador to Libya and how they blatantly lied to the American people about what happened that night...and you accuse me of being "grateful" for the attack? Pardon my French, Mustang...but FUCK YOU!!! That's sleazy and underhanded and you know it. If you have any class at all you'd apologize for even trying to go there...

If the best "defense" you can come up with for what this Administration has done is to attempt to smear me for being outraged about it then you might want to rethink your position.

Let's be clear about everything. I didn't accuse you. I ASKED you. BIG difference! Considering the glee to which I see conservatives embracing this new found 'issue,' it's a reasonable question, especially if it's a catalyst to a change of fortunes of each of the candidates. Certainly you can't deny that conservatives are trying to exploit the attack and the consequences of the attack for political gain.

Think of it as being somewhat equivalent to when Ann Coulter made her statement about the Jersey Girls, except Ann did essentially accuse them when she said that she'd never seen anyone so enjoying the deaths of their husbands vis-a-vis the 9-11 Commission. In THAT particular case, the Jersey Girls were married to those men (obviously), which meant that they had the most significant emotional attachment possible to those men. Yet Ann more than implied that they were enjoying their husbands' deaths because it allowed them to use them as a political wedge against President Bush. Really? That's more than a stretch when you consider the nature of their relationships. However, when it comes to the men who were killed in Libya, how many conservatives here on this board or involved in election year politics even had a passing acquaintanceship with those men? Can we find even ONE on this board? My guess is no. Those men were essentially complete and total strangers to everyone here. So, let's compare! How difficult is it for people to exploit anonymous people for some kind of personal or political gain compared to exploiting the deaths of close family members?

Pointing out that this Administration failed at one of it's core responsibilities...naming protecting American citizens...because they were more worried about offending Muslims than they were about protecting our ambassador isn't "exploiting" the situation...it's being honest...something that Barack Obama seems to be having a hard time with lately.

The fact of the matter is that this Administration tried to "spin" this entire episode to make it match the narrative they have been putting out about Barack Obama decimating Al Queda. They LIED to the American people for political reasons about the death of four Americans. They knew that the attack wasn't some protest gone bad within a day of the attack if not sooner and yet a week later they were STILL sending Susan Rice out to the Sunday news shows to put out false information on what happened in Benghazi.

So what exactly SHOULD conservatives (or anyone else for that matter!) do when it becomes obvious that their President has failed at his job...but much worse LIED to them in order to cover that failing?

This situation is the result of Barack Obama ONCE AGAIN not wanting to take responsibility for his policies and the actions of his Administration. This situation is the result of his people attempting to cover-up what really happened in Libya and stonewall the investigation of it until after the election less than a month from now.

For some reason you think that what they did should be ignored...WHY you think that I don't understand at all.

 

[Mustang]

Are you kidding me? I simply point out how badly this Administration handled security for it's Ambassador to Libya and how they blatantly lied to the American people about what happened that night...and you accuse me of being "grateful" for the attack? Pardon my French, Mustang...but FUCK YOU!!! That's sleazy and underhanded and you know it. If you have any class at all you'd apologize for even trying to go there...

If the best "defense" you can come up with for what this Administration has done is to attempt to smear me for being outraged about it then you might want to rethink your position.

Let's be clear about everything. I didn't accuse you. I ASKED you. BIG difference! Considering the glee to which I see conservatives embracing this new found 'issue,' it's a reasonable question, especially if it's a catalyst to a change of fortunes of each of the candidates. Certainly you can't deny that conservatives are trying to exploit the attack and the consequences of the attack for political gain.

Think of it as being somewhat equivalent to when Ann Coulter made her statement about the Jersey Girls, except Ann did essentially accuse them when she said that she'd never seen anyone so enjoying the deaths of their husbands vis-a-vis the 9-11 Commission. In THAT particular case, the Jersey Girls were married to those men (obviously), which meant that they had the most significant emotional attachment possible to those men. Yet Ann more than implied that they were enjoying their husbands' deaths because it allowed them to use them as a political wedge against President Bush. Really? That's more than a stretch when you consider the nature of their relationships. However, when it comes to the men who were killed in Libya, how many conservatives here on this board or involved in election year politics even had a passing acquaintanceship with those men? Can we find even ONE on this board? My guess is no. Those men were essentially complete and total strangers to everyone here. So, let's compare! How difficult is it for people to exploit anonymous people for some kind of personal or political gain compared to exploiting the deaths of close family members?

Pointing out that this Administration failed at one of it's core responsibilities...naming protecting American citizens...because they were more worried about offending Muslims than they were about protecting our ambassador isn't "exploiting" the situation...it's being honest...something that Barack Obama seems to be having a hard time with lately.

The fact of the matter is that this Administration tried to "spin" this entire episode to make it match the narrative they have been putting out about Barack Obama decimating Al Queda. They LIED to the American people for political reasons about the death of four Americans. They knew that the attack wasn't some protest gone bad within a day of the attack if not sooner and yet a week later they were STILL sending Susan Rice out to the Sunday news shows to put out false information on what happened in Benghazi.

So what exactly SHOULD conservatives (or anyone else for that matter!) do when it becomes obvious that their President has failed at his job...but much worse LIED to them in order to cover that failing?

This situation is the result of Barack Obama ONCE AGAIN not wanting to take responsibility for his policies and the actions of his Administration. This situation is the result of his people attempting to cover-up what really happened in Libya and stonewall the investigation of it until after the election less than a month from now.

For some reason you think that what they did should be ignored...WHY you think that I don't understand at all.

How many Americans do you think are walking around all over the world at any given moment? Tourists, businessmen, diplomats, soldiers (some on leave), students, etc. Then there's American businesses and foreign businesses that sell American products -- everything from jeans, to movies, to computers. No president can protect them all. Frankly, it amazes me that so few Americans have been killed overseas in the last eleven years. Considering that conservatives have been fond of stating that we're in a war of civilizations, blah, blah, blah, we've been remarkably casualty free for over a decade. And fewer people have died on Obama's watch than on Bush's. That's for damn sure.

So, I am not at ALL surprised that conservatives have jumped on the murders/terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate in an attempt to exploit it. I just KNOW that if this had happened when Bush was president, it would have been "a time to rally 'round the president who is, after all, doing the best he can to protect us yada, yada, yada." But it's not a Republican president, is it? That means it's okay to attack the president in a time of war whereas previously that was NOT okay.

What's one of the complaints I've heard? It's that there was no Marine detachment at the consulate. It may interest you and other conservatives to know that Marines are only assigned to Embassies, not consulates.

Additionally, the contention that there's a cover-up is just that, a contention. Of course, conservatives have let that accusations fly without any regard to the truth because, simply put, conservatives aren't interested in the truth any more than they're interested in the men who were killed. Conservatives are only interested in exploiting the attack in an election year. So, please spare us all your phony crocodile tears.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Obama White House lied to the American people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]


​

 

[Clementine]

It really shouldn't come as a surprise. Is there any difference in how they handled the "Fast & Furious" debacle?

This is a group of people who believe since they have the Main Stream Media in their back pockets that they can pretty much put out any story they want...no matter how unbelievable...and their buddies at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and most of the nation's newspapers will cover for them.

Where is the "outrage" from all of these news outlets over the line of bullshit that they were given?

A handful of them, like Anderson Cooper, spoke out about this. Most, like Rachel Madcow, aren't going to take Obama to task for making up the protester story. There are those who will cover for them no matter what happens. I believe that all too many of them knowingly reported lies and can cover themselves by saying they only reported what the White House told them. That is all some of them have done since day one. It's the Obama administration that has explaining to do, although don't expect headlines calling him up on the lies that they've been feeding everyone.

The claim that their misleading and outright false statement came through intel has been debunked. I don't think Obama is capable of saying anything negative about radical Muslims, so he'd rather risk getting caught in lies than admitting terrorists planned this for some time.

It demonstrates several things. First, that Obama believes his own lies regarding al Qaeda being defeated. Second, it is clear that this administration did not heed the warnings of this impending attack. Even if they didn't know the specific target, there had been many attacks and threats in Libya and the entire region. It should have been relatively easy to stay ahead of them, but there was no attempt. Obama was too busy making the talk show circuit to brag about killing Osama and saving GM.

He didn't save GM. He just insured that it will remain subsized by tax payers for the good of the auto union.

And killing Osama did not destroy al Qaeda. It was merely a hit, but one they quickly recovered from. And it likely offended them, which causes them to ramp up their efforts at killing us.

I read that Obama is practicing for the next debate. I can't think of any answers he can come up with that will deflect from the lies surrounding the attack and the problems with security. You can't protect people until you admit there is a threat.

I hope Obama doesn't show up at the debate with a Biden strategy of screaming down his opponent and avoiding the tough questions. He will try and his followers will swallow whatever bullshit he decides to feed them.

I personally think that many Obama voters are seriously thinking that they will benefit from his redistribution policies. They aren't concerned with American values and traditions, only with falsely elevating themselves through the labor of others. The only people who think socialism, Marxism or communism is good are those with nothing to lose or those who believe they will hold the power after the transformation. No one wants to be pushed down to be one of the lowly peons who must beg a government for basic needs. And that is what the majority becomes.

 

[Intolerant]

0bama is going down like a $2.00 hooker. I can't wait until he gets decimated in the debates.