Were 4 Americans sacrificed at Benghazi so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda?

[Londoner]

The far right wants to use their deaths to attack liberals- what a contrast to the 1983 Beirut bombings where over 200 American servicemen died.

No Democrats were claiming that those 200 Americans were 'sacrificed' so Reagan could pretend we were protecting Lebanon.

Instead- both parties rallied together and attempted to find out what happened- and what we could learn from the mistakes that led to the deaths of Americans.

Fast forward to Benghazi- and from the very beginning the Republican narrative was of blame- rather than of finding the cause, and addressing the errors that were made.

Not only were there over 200 marines lost under Reagan, but there were far more embassy & consulate attacks under Bush, who had a far higher death toll than Obama. Republicans voters said nothing; the folks on this board would never criticize or demand an investigation of a sitting Republican President (for anything). And, as you state, the Democrats never used the embassy deaths that occured under Republican presidents as political fodder, nor did they investigate Bush for ignoring a August 2001 memo warning of an imminent terrorist attack using planes/sky scrapers. Had Obama done this, and had he flown members of Bin Laden's family out of the country right after the attack, he would have been impeached and possible in prison.

The Republican Party has jumped the shark;they are responding to a shifting electoral map. It's becoming harder for them to win presidential elections, so they have turned increasingly to scandal as instruments to survive.

[Any Republican politician who works with Obama or the Left to end gridlock and pass legislation, risks a primary challenge]

The current Republican party is at war with 1/2 the country. They don't want to share power with their fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle; rather, they want to destroy them. The Republican Party of my youth is gone. Reagan - who admittedly created the rhetorical pretext for the rise of the far right - at least made an effort to appeal to Democrats. He was willing to be moderate and make deals with Tip O'neill - he accepted the legitimacy of the democratic pary and its voters (who were American citizens).

But those days are gone. The Right created a media bubble that convinces people that their country has been stolen by an evil, anti-American force. Under these conditions, it becomes rational to use scandals to destroy the enemy. They are at war with Obama and they are at war with Clinton. Listen to talk radio. They hate/fear Obama/Clinton more than they fear Islamic terrorists. They lie out of felt-necessity.

 

[Vigilante]

The far right wants to use their deaths to attack liberals- what a contrast to the 1983 Beirut bombings where over 200 American servicemen died.

No Democrats were claiming that those 200 Americans were 'sacrificed' so Reagan could pretend we were protecting Lebanon.

Instead- both parties rallied together and attempted to find out what happened- and what we could learn from the mistakes that led to the deaths of Americans.

Fast forward to Benghazi- and from the very beginning the Republican narrative was of blame- rather than of finding the cause, and addressing the errors that were made.

Not only were there over 200 marines lost under Reagan, but there were 13 embassy & consulate attacks under Bush, who had a higher death toll than Obama. Republicans voters said nothing. And, as you state, the Democrats never used these deaths as political fodder, nor did they investigate Bush for ignoring an August 2001 memo warning of an imminent terrorist attack using planes/sky scrapers. Had Obama did this, and had he flown members of Bin Laden's family out of the country right after the attack, he would have been impeached and possible in prison.

The Republican Party has jumped the shark;they are responding to a shifting electoral map. It's becoming harder for them to win presidential elections, so they have turned increasingly to scandal as instruments to survive.

[Any Republican politician who works with Obama or the Left to end gridlock and pass legislation, risks a primary challenge]

The current Republican party is at war with 1/2 the country. They don't want to share power with their fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle; rather, they want to destroy them. The Republican Party of my youth is gone. Reagan - who admittedly created the rhetorical pretext for the rise of the far right - at least made an effort to appeal to Democrats. He was willing to be moderate and make deals with Tip O'neill - he accepted the legitimacy of the democratic pary and its voters (who were American citizens).

But those days are gone. The Right created a media bubble that convinces people that their country has been stolen by an evil, anti-American force. Under these conditions, it becomes rational to use scandals to destroy the enemy. They are at war with Obama and they are at war with Clinton. Listen to talk radio. They hate/fear Obama/Clinton more than they fear Islamic terrorists. They lie out of felt-necessity.

Were there 600 calls for help and increased security that went unanswered?....Didn't think so!

 

[Rustic]

You're one of the few I'll respect for asking decently...Now lets see if PMS does also!

I've found gum underneath tables that was far more worthy of respect than you two and your need to beat Hillary over the head, with what's left of Chris Stevens...

It just doesn't matter to Hildabeast... A loopy kunt

This next year is really gonna suck for you, she's probably the next President...

If so ten to one she never shows up on an Indian res??

Name the last POTUS who has?

Obama showed up at standing rock, but there is a question if he really set foot in the res??

 

[Rustic]

I've found gum underneath tables that was far more worthy of respect than you two and your need to beat Hillary over the head, with what's left of Chris Stevens...

It just doesn't matter to Hildabeast... A loopy kunt

This next year is really gonna suck for you, she's probably the next President...

If so ten to one she never shows up on an Indian res??

Name the last POTUS who has?

Obama showed up at standing rock, but there is a question if he really set foot in the res??

And for sure not in SD

 

[Little-Acorn]

Name the last POTUS who has?

Obama showed up at standing rock, but there is a question if he really set foot in the res??

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Ignore the troll and he'll go away.

Please.

You're one of the few I'll respect for asking decently...Now lets see if PMS does also!

Doesn't matter what the troll does. But thank you.

 

[kiwiman127]

Considering a 17 month investigation, many hearing, administration and non administration people testify under oath and nothing proven. And the part that pissesme off, $15million of tax payer money used for a poltical witch hunt.

It would have been 1/10 that much, if the Democrats had told the truth forthrightly, instead of obfuscating, lying, ignoring subpoenas, deleting emails, and generally obstructing the investigation into four dead Americans as long as they could.

So if you are angry over a long, costly, and (so far) unproductive investigation, complain to the Democrats. They made it that way.

17 months of testimony under oath by everyone involved and the GOP found nothing but it's the Dems fault and it's the Dems fault?

 

[kiwiman127]

The far right wants to use their deaths to attack liberals- what a contrast to the 1983 Beirut bombings where over 200 American servicemen died.

No Democrats were claiming that those 200 Americans were 'sacrificed' so Reagan could pretend we were protecting Lebanon.

Instead- both parties rallied together and attempted to find out what happened- and what we could learn from the mistakes that led to the deaths of Americans.

Fast forward to Benghazi- and from the very beginning the Republican narrative was of blame- rather than of finding the cause, and addressing the errors that were made.

Not only were there over 200 marines lost under Reagan, but there were 13 embassy & consulate attacks under Bush, who had a higher death toll than Obama. Republicans voters said nothing. And, as you state, the Democrats never used these deaths as political fodder, nor did they investigate Bush for ignoring an August 2001 memo warning of an imminent terrorist attack using planes/sky scrapers. Had Obama did this, and had he flown members of Bin Laden's family out of the country right after the attack, he would have been impeached and possible in prison.

The Republican Party has jumped the shark;they are responding to a shifting electoral map. It's becoming harder for them to win presidential elections, so they have turned increasingly to scandal as instruments to survive.

[Any Republican politician who works with Obama or the Left to end gridlock and pass legislation, risks a primary challenge]

The current Republican party is at war with 1/2 the country. They don't want to share power with their fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle; rather, they want to destroy them. The Republican Party of my youth is gone. Reagan - who admittedly created the rhetorical pretext for the rise of the far right - at least made an effort to appeal to Democrats. He was willing to be moderate and make deals with Tip O'neill - he accepted the legitimacy of the democratic pary and its voters (who were American citizens).

But those days are gone. The Right created a media bubble that convinces people that their country has been stolen by an evil, anti-American force. Under these conditions, it becomes rational to use scandals to destroy the enemy. They are at war with Obama and they are at war with Clinton. Listen to talk radio. They hate/fear Obama/Clinton more than they fear Islamic terrorists. They lie out of felt-necessity.

Were there 600 calls for help and increased security that went unanswered?....Didn't think so!

We all know your ignorance is driven by your obsession to hyper- partisan blogs that feed you misinformation. If you recall a couple weeks ago I destroyed two posts by you that you had made based on hyper- partisan blogs.
Below is a link that answers your questions. Scroll down to the declassified transcripts of the testimonies of 9 the military personnel who were in charge of Benghazi. This testimony was under oath and contains
Information backed by documentation.
I know these transcripts answer your questions. This information has been available for quite awhile, I bet your partisan resources never mention this testimony, because they don't want to. No, they'd rather feed you bullshit that you happily suck up.
Committee Oversight of Benghazi Attack - Committee Actions - Armed Services Republicans

 

[Little-Acorn]

It would have been 1/10 that much, if the Democrats had told the truth forthrightly, instead of obfuscating, lying, ignoring subpoenas, deleting emails, and generally obstructing the investigation into four dead Americans as long as they could.
So if you are angry over a long, costly, and (so far) unproductive investigation, complain to the Democrats. They made it that way.

17 months of testimony under oath by everyone involved and the GOP found nothing but it's the Dems fault and it's the Dems fault?

By George, I think he's (finally) got it.

 

[g5000]

Originally written May 2013

Finally, after puttering around with stories and videos and lies after the attacks, Congress is beginning to get at the real scandal in Benghazi.

What happened after the attacks, and who lied to whom and how, is less important than why security there was left to deteriorate for months, even while attacks were going on, bombs were blowing 12-foot holes in the consulate walls, and Amb. Stevens was pleading for months for more security.

That summer, Obama was crowing over "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!". He was desperately trying to fool American voters into thinking he had defeated Al Qaeda and they were "on the run". And the increasing attacks by Al Qaeda were not fitting into the glossy image he was trying to project.

Sending MORE security into areas like Benghazi, Cairo etc. would have done even more harm to his story... so he simply didn't do it. Instead he reduced security, pulled out American agents, and in some cases substituted Libyan personnel for the American security troops. He was hoping this would look good to American voters who weren't paying much attention.

By the first week in September 2012, there were exactly three American security personnel at the consulate in Benghazi. The gate guards and patrols had been replaced by Libyans... and they were unarmed, with nothing but whistles and batons. And so, when the major attack came on Sept. 11, 2012, the people in the consulate didn't have much chance.

Basically, the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, were sacrificed so that Obama could get more votes three weeks later in the November, 2012 election.

And that is the real scandal of Benghazi. Obama hopes fervently that people will keep complaining about Susan Rice and lies about a video afterward... because then they aren't complaining about what killed Amb. Stevens and three other Americans: Months of fatal, flagrant neglect of consulate security for the purpose of gaining votes.

------------------------------------------------------

CBS News - Breaking News, U.S., World, Business, Entertainment & Video

The Obama administration -- and the State Department in particular -- has been accused by Republican lawmakers and some former U.S. officials who worked in Libya of ignoring warning signs and even rejecting pleas for increased security around American offices in the country ahead of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others dead.

The House Oversight Committee will begin questioning three senior State Department staff on Capitol Hill Wednesday over claims that dozens of U.S. security personnel were removed from Libya in the six months leading up to the attack, in spite of alleged requests to increase personnel levels from American officials on the ground.

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, has told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that he and many other senior staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, "felt we needed more, not less" security personnel in the country, but were told "to do with less.

For what reasons, I don't know."

This begins to get at the real scandal in Benghazi.

In other news: The Moon landings were hoaxed to get Nixon re-elected!

 

[easyt65]

"Were 4 Americans sacrificed at Benghazi so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda?"

I'm still trying to figure out WHY these Americans were allowed to be murdered, but I do not believe it was so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda. I think after declaring 'Al Qaeda is on the run' Benghazi was an inconvenient event that blew up in his face. Having done so that close to the election he then tried to LIE, declare it was a 'protest' instead of a terrorist attack....but that was a STUPID decision because no one was going to buy that.

Benghazi was not mutually exclusive...on the very same day 20 US embassies were simultaneously attacked all throughout the Middle east, 4 were overrun...but if you remember, the media didn't hardly say a word about the other 19. All the attention was focused on Benghazi, and the narrative 1st put out by Hillary, Obama, and especially Rice was about a protest / video. (Yes, I am saying the media was complicit in NOT highlighting such a highly coordinated attack on 20 US Embassies.)

Couple of Points:
1. Hillary and Obama had every opportunity to prevent Stevens death:
- They had heard about the warnings
- Stevens himself said if he did not get more security he would die in a 3rd attack.
- He repeatedly asked for additional security...and was denied
- every other country with people there pulled them out - even the Red Cross bugged out, but Stevens was left behind

2. Despite having declared the war on terror to be over and Al Qaeda was 'on the run', Americans know a President can control/prevent everything. They know the ME, especially Benghazi, is a dangerous place. If they had just come clean immediately and told the American people this was a terrorist attack AND vowed to get those people responsible (as Bush did immediately after 9/11/01) people would have rallied around and supported him. Americans HATE when their leadership instead tries to treat them like idiots and lies to them. The Obama administration made the wrong call by trying to initially blame a video...

 

[BlindBoo]

"Were 4 Americans sacrificed at Benghazi so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda?"

I'm still trying to figure out WHY these Americans were allowed to be murdered, but I do not believe it was so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda. I think after declaring 'Al Qaeda is on the run' Benghazi was an inconvenient event that blew up in his face. Having done so that close to the election he then tried to LIE, declare it was a 'protest' instead of a terrorist attack....but that was a STUPID decision because no one was going to buy that.

Benghazi was not mutually exclusive...on the very same day 20 US embassies were simultaneously attacked all throughout the Middle east, 4 were overrun...but if you remember, the media didn't hardly say a word about the other 19. All the attention was focused on Benghazi, and the narrative 1st put out by Hillary, Obama, and especially Rice was about a protest / video. (Yes, I am saying the media was complicit in NOT highlighting such a highly coordinated attack on 20 US Embassies.)

Couple of Points:
1. Hillary and Obama had every opportunity to prevent Stevens death:
- They had heard about the warnings
- Stevens himself said if he did not get more security he would die in a 3rd attack.
- He repeatedly asked for additional security...and was denied
- every other country with people there pulled them out - even the Red Cross bugged out, but Stevens was left behind

2. Despite having declared the war on terror to be over and Al Qaeda was 'on the run', Americans know a President can control/prevent everything. They know the ME, especially Benghazi, is a dangerous place. If they had just come clean immediately and told the American people this was a terrorist attack AND vowed to get those people responsible (as Bush did immediately after 9/11/01) people would have rallied around and supported him. Americans HATE when their leadership instead tries to treat them like idiots and lies to them. The Obama administration made the wrong call by trying to initially blame a video...

A couple of things. The Video inspired at least a weeks worth of protests.

Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video

The attack by the leader of the GOP accusing the Obama administration of sympathizing with the terrorist, began the day of the attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html?_r=0

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Were 4 Americans sacrificed at Benghazi so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda?"

I'm still trying to figure out WHY these Americans were allowed to be murdered, but I do not believe it was so Obama could fake having defeated Al Qaeda.

Of course. Obama never intended those four Americans to be murdered. He just figured he could reduce their protection without any consequence... and that reducing their security would get him more votes by promoting the idea they didn't need security due to his masterful handling of the Middle East.

He was wrong.

And the reason he was wrong, was because he was an incompetent Commander In Chief, and surrounded himself with people who agreed with him (i.e. other incompetent military people who believed we could reason with the enemy).

But I'm open to all viewpoints. I'd like to hear Obama's and Hillary's explanation of WHY security was progressively reduced in those areas, even as attacks grew more frequent and more severe all summer and the people on the scene kept begging for MORE security, not less. Even as the administration was spending lots of money for luxurious furniture etc. in other consulates and embassies.

And they have spent several years now, avoiding that question. I'd like to know why they are doing that, too.

 

[easyt65]

A couple of things. The Video inspired at least a weeks worth of protests.

Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video

The attack by the leader of the GOP accusing the Obama administration of sympathizing with the terrorist, began the day of the attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html?_r=0

FACTCHECK.org has already PROVEN that the video played NO PART in the Benghazi attack. The CIA testified as such, revealing that the compound's video NEVER showed a protest. People on the ground testified there was NEVER a 'protest'. HILLARY HERSELF even testified - through her own emails - 'WE KNOW this was a terrorist attack, the video played NO PART in the attack - this was a terrorist attack'.

But you Libs keep right on repeating Hillary's lie in hopes that ONE DAY doing so might actually make it true.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why does this matter to you more than the deaths of these people. There are lots of diplomatic incidents where the public is never told what really happened because of national security interests. Are they more dead if terrorists did it?

Or is this an elaborate deflection on the part of Republicans who voted to systematically reduce spending on embassy security, worldwide, even knowing that the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was coming.

 

[Little-Acorn]

FACTCHECK.org has already PROVEN that the video played NO PART in the Benghazi attack. The CIA testified as such, revealing that the compound's video NEVER showed a protest. People on the ground testified there was NEVER a 'protest'. HILLARY HERSELF even testified - through her own emails - 'WE KNOW this was a terrorist attack, the video played NO PART in the attack - this was a terrorist attack'.

But you Libs keep right on repeating Hillary's lie in hopes that ONE DAY doing so might actually make it true.

More resounding silence from the Left.

 

[rdean]

Originally written May 2013

Finally, after puttering around with stories and videos and lies after the attacks, Congress is beginning to get at the real scandal in Benghazi.

What happened after the attacks, and who lied to whom and how, is less important than why security there was left to deteriorate for months, even while attacks were going on, bombs were blowing 12-foot holes in the consulate walls, and Amb. Stevens was pleading for months for more security.

That summer, Obama was crowing over "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!". He was desperately trying to fool American voters into thinking he had defeated Al Qaeda and they were "on the run". And the increasing attacks by Al Qaeda were not fitting into the glossy image he was trying to project.

Sending MORE security into areas like Benghazi, Cairo etc. would have done even more harm to his story... so he simply didn't do it. Instead he reduced security, pulled out American agents, and in some cases substituted Libyan personnel for the American security troops. He was hoping this would look good to American voters who weren't paying much attention.

By the first week in September 2012, there were exactly three American security personnel at the consulate in Benghazi. The gate guards and patrols had been replaced by Libyans... and they were unarmed, with nothing but whistles and batons. And so, when the major attack came on Sept. 11, 2012, the people in the consulate didn't have much chance.

Basically, the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, were sacrificed so that Obama could get more votes three weeks later in the November, 2012 election.

And that is the real scandal of Benghazi. Obama hopes fervently that people will keep complaining about Susan Rice and lies about a video afterward... because then they aren't complaining about what killed Amb. Stevens and three other Americans: Months of fatal, flagrant neglect of consulate security for the purpose of gaining votes.

------------------------------------------------------

CBS News - Breaking News, U.S., World, Business, Entertainment & Video

The Obama administration -- and the State Department in particular -- has been accused by Republican lawmakers and some former U.S. officials who worked in Libya of ignoring warning signs and even rejecting pleas for increased security around American offices in the country ahead of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others dead.

The House Oversight Committee will begin questioning three senior State Department staff on Capitol Hill Wednesday over claims that dozens of U.S. security personnel were removed from Libya in the six months leading up to the attack, in spite of alleged requests to increase personnel levels from American officials on the ground.

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, has told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that he and many other senior staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, "felt we needed more, not less" security personnel in the country, but were told "to do with less.

For what reasons, I don't know."

This begins to get at the real scandal in Benghazi.

What about the dozens that died under Bush? Did they make him look good?

 

[Clementine]

More resounding silence from the Left.

First, the left repeated the lie about protesters and claimed it was true. Now Hillary says she never told the families that protesters attacked over a video and the left supports her.

So, they'll back her regardless of how many times she changes her story.

 

[rdean]

More resounding silence from the Left.

First, the left repeated the lie about protesters and claimed it was true. Now Hillary says she never told the families that protesters attacked over a video and the left supports her.

So, they'll back her regardless of how many times she changes her story.

Are you talking about the video that caused the deaths of dozens all over the Middle East?

'Anti-Islam' film sparks riots at US consulates
The violence in Benghazi followed protests in neighboring Egypt where protesters scaled the walls of the Cairo embassy and tore down the American flag and burned it during protests over what demonstrators said was a US film that insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

On Tuesday, Egypt's prestigious Al-Azhar mosque and seat of Sunni learning condemned a symbolic "trial" of the Prophet organized by a US group including Terry Jones, a Christian pastor who triggered riots in Afghanistan in 2010 by threatening to burn the Koran.

But it was not immediately clear whether it was the event sponsored by Jones, or another, possibly related, anti-Islam production, that prompted the melee at the US Embassy in Egypt, and possibly the violence in Libya.
----------------
I would trust Middle East papers before I would trust lying Republicans. Was it Republicans who made the video hoping for violence? Guess we will never actually know.

Notice how I posted a link? We don't hold USMB Republicans up to that standard.

 

[westwall]

More resounding silence from the Left.

First, the left repeated the lie about protesters and claimed it was true. Now Hillary says she never told the families that protesters attacked over a video and the left supports her.

So, they'll back her regardless of how many times she changes her story.

Are you talking about the video that caused the deaths of dozens all over the Middle East?

'Anti-Islam' film sparks riots at US consulates
The violence in Benghazi followed protests in neighboring Egypt where protesters scaled the walls of the Cairo embassy and tore down the American flag and burned it during protests over what demonstrators said was a US film that insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

On Tuesday, Egypt's prestigious Al-Azhar mosque and seat of Sunni learning condemned a symbolic "trial" of the Prophet organized by a US group including Terry Jones, a Christian pastor who triggered riots in Afghanistan in 2010 by threatening to burn the Koran.

But it was not immediately clear whether it was the event sponsored by Jones, or another, possibly related, anti-Islam production, that prompted the melee at the US Embassy in Egypt, and possibly the violence in Libya.
----------------
I would trust Middle East papers before I would trust lying Republicans. Was it Republicans who made the video hoping for violence? Guess we will never actually know.

Notice how I posted a link? We don't hold USMB Republicans up to that standard.

Still pushing that tired old propaganda are you? That's pretty pathetic.. Even for you..