Analysis of Benghazi: Right Wing World Spin & Distortions

[Dante]

We're talking about Benghazi! It's your job as a progressive "mouthpiece" for the Obama Administration to OBSCURE the facts about Benghazi. Remember the drill, little buddy...pretend it never happened...pretend it was something it never was...pretend it's all a political witch hunt...and above all stonewall any and all investigations for as long as you possibly can.

you know it is crazy talk like this that will keep the right wing base energized yet cost the GOP elections?

 

[MarcATL]

It's like WMD's all over again with the radical RW.

With WMD's they wanted and WISHED for there to be WMD's in Iraq, and paid attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts said.

With Benghazi, they now want and WISH for there to be some sort of scandal and/or wrong-doing on the Obama Administration's part and are paying no attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts say.

 

[Dante]

It's like WMD's all over again with the radical RW.

With WMD's they wanted and WISHED for there to be WMD's in Iraq, and paid attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts said.

With Benghazi, they now want and WISH for there to be some sort of scandal and/or wrong-doing on the Obama Administration's part and are paying no attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts say.

and sone wish for a huge battle and war in Israel so their Heaven will open up.


nuts!

 

[Oldstyle]

It's like WMD's all over again with the radical RW.

With WMD's they wanted and WISHED for there to be WMD's in Iraq, and paid attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts said.

With Benghazi, they now want and WISH for there to be some sort of scandal and/or wrong-doing on the Obama Administration's part and are paying no attention to nothing else, no matter what the facts say.

So you're really going to sit here and maintain that the Obama Administration didn't botch both the handling of security BEFORE the attacks and also the response to those attacks?

And I suppose you're ALSO going to state your belief that they didn't engage in an effort to spread a false narrative about what happened to the American people?

What I "wish" for is a little transparency from the administration that promised to be the most transparent EVER.

 

[blastoff]

Okay, a little review.

Greg Hicks was the second in command in Libya that night and while the assault was taking place in Benghazi, reported by phone to Secretary of State Hillary an attack was taking place with no mention whatsoever about either a demonstration or video. Thus, when he later heard the Susan Rice b.s. he said it left him "stunned."

Then later Hicks is told not to talk to an investigative congressional delegation, but he did so anyway and in return got a nasty phone call from a Hillary aide and was then demoted.

In the hours after the attack the CIA station chief in Libya cabled it was a terrorist attack and not an out of control mob, and the next day assistant secretary of state for the Near East emailed the attack was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia.

But what does the Barry administration tell the American public 4 days later via mouthpiece Susan Rice's "stunning" tale as patched together in the 12th iteration of CIA talking points? Essentially they claimed a demonstration that never took place was the result of a video virtually no one ever watched.

For some reason or other between the 1st and 12th set of talking points, the Obama administration deleted 4 paragraphs on the involvement of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists and about the dangerous security situation in Benghazi. Gee, I wonder why? Why completely fabricate events that never happened? Liberal ears don't seem to want to know.

Hmm...but folks recall Barry's press secretary Carney claimed the State Dept. and the White House only changed one little word, more or less a clerical correction as I recall. Oops...but then emails that were released confirmed that too was another Obama administration lie to the American public.

Hope and change. In spades.

 

[Oldstyle]

Marc amuses me. He still thinks the Benghazi scandal only exists because "mean old conservatives" are out to get his guy, Barry. In order to believe that of course you have to totally ignore the facts that have come to light about what happened in Libya both before and after those attacks on 9/11...the facts that show without question that this Administration deliberately misled the American people.

 

[blastoff]

Marc amuses me. He still thinks the Benghazi scandal only exists because "mean old conservatives" are out to get his guy, Barry. In order to believe that of course you have to totally ignore the facts that have come to light about what happened in Libya both before and after those attacks on 9/11...the facts that show without question that this Administration deliberately misled the American people.

Amen!

Now, what I'm waiting for is the questions of where exactly the President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of our armed services was for five hours or so that night. He had to be somewhere while, as he'd been briefed, his ambassador and others were under attack by friggin' TERRORISTS, fighting for their lives as it turned out.

Gee, we've all seen the pics of Barry and his team all hunkered down in the situation room or somewhere looking very serious and official while bin Laden fought for his life that night. But we don't know where our president was the night 4 Americans died in one of the most dangerous areas in the world, and on the anniversary of 9/11 no less.

Something stinks. Chicago style.

 

[Oldstyle]

Marc amuses me. He still thinks the Benghazi scandal only exists because "mean old conservatives" are out to get his guy, Barry. In order to believe that of course you have to totally ignore the facts that have come to light about what happened in Libya both before and after those attacks on 9/11...the facts that show without question that this Administration deliberately misled the American people.

Amen!

Now, what I'm waiting for is the questions of where exactly the President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of our armed services was for five hours or so that night. He had to be somewhere while, as he'd been briefed, his ambassador and others were under attack by friggin' TERRORISTS, fighting for their lives as it turned out.

Gee, we've all seen the pics of Barry and his team all hunkered down in the situation room or somewhere looking very serious and official while bin Laden fought for his life that night. But we don't know where our president was the night 4 Americans died in one of the most dangerous areas in the world, and on the anniversary of 9/11 no less.

Something stinks. Chicago style.

He was packing for his campaign trip to Las Vegas. Gotta have priorities, Blastoff!

 

[Oldstyle]

This is just one more example of a President who takes credit for anything that goes right...even if he had little to do with it...but absolutely RUNS from anything that goes wrong.

We get voluminous videos of Barry in the command center watching the take down of Osama bin Laden but not one single photo of him dealing with the death of our Ambassador or the other three Americans over a seven hour period of time.

No, for THAT...Barry was in-communicado.

 

[whitehall]

Analysis of Benghazi: Right Wing World Spin & Distortions

The Washington Times pretends to analyze fairly and with balance, the GOP obsession with Benghazi

The GOP promises 'bombshells' and promises to 'expose' things that have supposedly been 'suppressed'. GOP members are 'shocked' (ever watch FOX News commentators who are 'shocked' on a daily basis?) by 'press reports' (from FOX?) about 'whistleblowers' 'intimidation' and possible 'coverups' ---

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, has promised bombshells at the hearing, which he says will “expose new facts and details that the Obama administration has tried to suppress.”

“I strongly urge the Senate to hold new hearings on Benghazi” ...He added that he was “shocked” by press reports that survivors of the attack or other whistleblowers might have been intimidated...

Mr. Issa has publicly accused the State Department of trying to muzzle potential Benghazi witnesses...leading to speculation that his hearing will feature testimony from one or more whistleblowers.

Lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who say they are trying to represent Benghazi witnesses who want to testify publicly about what they know...Mr. diGenova said on Fox News that the hurdles he faced amounted to a “cover-up” and that the Accountability Review Board failed to interview key witnesses for its report, starting with Mrs. Clinton.

--- the Washington Times prints this shit and then covers itself with something most of Right Wing World will magically glide over without really absorbing...

[The accountability review board “interviewed everyone that was there who played a role in the events such that their account was needed to answer the questions they had,” said the source familiar with the review, speaking on the condition of anonymity."

...the person familiar with the investigation by the accountability review board, which published a 40-page report last year, insisted that the board already interviewed 100 witnesses, including all the CIA and State Department personnel involved in the defense of the diplomatic post and of the secret CIA base known as the annex a few miles away.

They also had access to transcripts of all the FBI interviews of those and other witnesses.

“The unclassified report is the best account of the events as they unfolded,” he said, adding that, although the inquiry also issued a longer classified report, its conclusions were the same.

The classified version “amplifies and extends the account the Board gave [in the published version] but doesn’t in any way change the conclusions it came to,” said the person, who had access to both versions.]


Benghazi investigations included CIA activities; personnel had secret base in Libyan city - Washington Times

What is wrong with this picture? Is the Washington Times reporting/spinning anything new, anything that was previously unknown?

Maybe that's what is wrong with the left. They think bull shit is analysis.