Benghazi: Most people..just dont care! Give it up already.

[Freewill]

Then why do you post here? To post non-sequiturs? Your opinion is all you actually know and I hope that opinion is based on the facts as you know them. So you post here so you apparently think that your opinion means something or are you just an Obama supporter here to spread manure?

So, do you PERSONALLY CARE?

Please tell me what exactly has your personal "caring" done to resolve the faux Benghazi crisis.

btw I am a Republican and not enamored with Obama in the least.

So tell me what "the majority of the people" don't care has done to resolve the deaths of those in Benghazi?

Four people were killed on 9/11, do you think it is something we can learn from to prevent it in the future? Did they die needlessly? What if four people were kill at a steel mill, would you want to find out culpability? Why care about a steel worker and not an Ambassador that really didn't have to die.

You may be a Republican but I will bet you voted for Obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

Joe still thinks all Mormons are evil cultists that eat Christian babies...

 

[Freewill]

"what happened to those killed on 9/11" - that's pretty obvious, they died
"about the Obama administration lying" - that's has been shown not to be the case

Now we need to know the rest of the story. This is the time when I have to ask you, are you PERSONALLY ready for the rest of the story?

What? It is pretty clear that what Rice said was known not to be true. In any world when someone says something that everyone knows not to be true that is usually called a lie. Rice just repeated what she was told to say, she can be forgiven I susppose. But to say that the truth was told is belong belief.

(you're pretty funny there bigred but that is for another time )

The elephant in the room right now is the talking points. Susan Rice repeated what was on the talking points. Feinstein said that from what she had learned the talking points that Rice used were the ones out of the intell community, although Senator Chambliss seem to think maybe the WH had changed them. Rep. King said that the testimony Patraeus gave yesterday relative to what he gave in mid September was of a different nature, although others, mostly democrats it seems, says Petraeus's testimony was consistent. It would seem that what Patraeus knew and what Rice was saying were two completely different messages but how that happened is also unclear.

If you claim to have this all sorted out and we don't need to hold any more hearing, just impeach President Obama, by all means, please let us know how it all went down.

Think back to the day that Rice was making her statements, did you believe her then? I certainly didn't the facts were obvious. A whole lot of people said it then and say it now. The fact that the administration put out a false story is without doubt. The proof is that the story they put out has clearly and without doubt been proved to be incorrect. So, were they lying, protecting US interests by not telling the truth, or covering their behinds.

In the end does it really matter? Obama was elected by the takers and as said they could care less about what goes on in the ME. They won't care until the whole place goes up in flames and the price of gasoline skyrockets.

 

[Sunni Man]

So tell me what "the majority of the people" don't care has done to resolve the deaths of those in Benghazi?

There is nothing resolve..........

 

[Freewill]

So tell me what "the majority of the people" don't care has done to resolve the deaths of those in Benghazi?

There is nothing resolve..........

So if four people were killed on the job in a steel mill the reason for their deaths and the way to prevent it in the future would not need resolved? Really? Are we at the point of just shrugging our shoulders at whatever act that the radical Muslims perpetrate because there is nothing we can do about it? Except drop predatory missiles on people off a CIA kill list? Where in the hell were the predator drone the night of 9/11. Caring people would like to know.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The fatass donut eater can't keep his tiny brain focused on the issues surrounding Libya. Mmmmm, more donuts....

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

The constant attacks on our President have gone full circle, from the stupid to the ridiculous to the absurd and back to stupid. It's the same fools who over and over raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily and post hysterically and incessantly attacks on President Obama.

They began even before he had taken the oath of office and have proved only one thing: The far right in America is composed of stupid people, bigoted people and unabashed partisan people.

two words Bush,, and Reap.

Two words? Bush (1) and (2) Reap (3); thanks from proving once again my observation on your abilities.

You are one of the fools whose constant cavil comments are at once stupid, ridiculous and absurd.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yeah, the mind of a simpleton American focused on getting a Big Mac and laying on the couch all day until they might shit themselves doesn't care about a US Ambassador being killed by terrorists in a country that was bombed by the US and European warplanes....that caused the current condition there.

The simpleton doesn't care that the Ambassador demanded more security for his facility and people but people back in DC ignored him, not spending money they had for that very thing.

The simpleton doesn't care that during the actual attack no military assets within 1 hour of the 7 hour attack were brought in to counter the terrorists despite 2 CIA agents on the ground demanding it before their own deaths.

The simpleton doesn't care the POTUS went into cover up mode when the attack happened, not actually doing his fucking job protecting Americans that he put in harm's way. He was interested in winning an election, these situations are a "bump in the road" for his fucked up life.

Yeah, it's no big deal that people running this country don't care about someone they sent to represent the US in Libya.....but of course they "really, really" care about you.....not.

 

[emptystep]

What? It is pretty clear that what Rice said was known not to be true. In any world when someone says something that everyone knows not to be true that is usually called a lie. Rice just repeated what she was told to say, she can be forgiven I susppose. But to say that the truth was told is belong belief.

(you're pretty funny there bigred but that is for another time )

The elephant in the room right now is the talking points. Susan Rice repeated what was on the talking points. Feinstein said that from what she had learned the talking points that Rice used were the ones out of the intell community, although Senator Chambliss seem to think maybe the WH had changed them. Rep. King said that the testimony Patraeus gave yesterday relative to what he gave in mid September was of a different nature, although others, mostly democrats it seems, says Petraeus's testimony was consistent. It would seem that what Patraeus knew and what Rice was saying were two completely different messages but how that happened is also unclear.

If you claim to have this all sorted out and we don't need to hold any more hearing, just impeach President Obama, by all means, please let us know how it all went down.

Think back to the day that Rice was making her statements, did you believe her then? I certainly didn't the facts were obvious. A whole lot of people said it then and say it now. The fact that the administration put out a false story is without doubt. The proof is that the story they put out has clearly and without doubt been proved to be incorrect. So, were they lying, protecting US interests by not telling the truth, or covering their behinds.

In the end does it really matter? Obama was elected by the takers and as said they could care less about what goes on in the ME. They won't care until the whole place goes up in flames and the price of gasoline skyrockets.

First of all I was the first one on the USMB to post that the attacks were believed to be a terrorist attack which I got from New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside Gates I jumped on the article when I saw it because I actually never really bought the rioters with rocket launchers thing. The administration probably didn't either but was going with the intelligence talking points assuming they must know something they didn't. Apparently Petraeus did, he just wasn't correcting Susan Rice when she was saying something he did not believe himself. If you go to comments and put them in reverse chronological order you will see that practically everyone there was surprised by the change in explanation. (If you are going to rewrite history you will also need to go fix the Internet.)

 

[Neotrotsky]

Not only that but there's been embassy attacks under virtually every American President since the beginning of the 20th century. This stuff happens and there's actually been less attacks on embassies under Obama than under Bush or Clinton. Yes it's a tragedy and yes we need to know what happened. But once it got thrown in the right wing spin machine, the majority of the country just tuned out.

How many ambassadors got murdered in those?

 

[Katzndogz]

The tactic used in Benghazi were so successful they could be used anywhere with fully security that the royal regime would cover it up. After all, didn't we have a terrorist attack at Ft. Hood with a cover up of it being workplace violence?

If obama had been presidebt on 9/11/01, the muslim pilots would have committed nothing more than following an unauthorized flight plan.

 

[Oldstyle]

(you're pretty funny there bigred but that is for another time )

The elephant in the room right now is the talking points. Susan Rice repeated what was on the talking points. Feinstein said that from what she had learned the talking points that Rice used were the ones out of the intell community, although Senator Chambliss seem to think maybe the WH had changed them. Rep. King said that the testimony Patraeus gave yesterday relative to what he gave in mid September was of a different nature, although others, mostly democrats it seems, says Petraeus's testimony was consistent. It would seem that what Patraeus knew and what Rice was saying were two completely different messages but how that happened is also unclear.

If you claim to have this all sorted out and we don't need to hold any more hearing, just impeach President Obama, by all means, please let us know how it all went down.

Think back to the day that Rice was making her statements, did you believe her then? I certainly didn't the facts were obvious. A whole lot of people said it then and say it now. The fact that the administration put out a false story is without doubt. The proof is that the story they put out has clearly and without doubt been proved to be incorrect. So, were they lying, protecting US interests by not telling the truth, or covering their behinds.

In the end does it really matter? Obama was elected by the takers and as said they could care less about what goes on in the ME. They won't care until the whole place goes up in flames and the price of gasoline skyrockets.

First of all I was the first one on the USMB to post that the attacks were believed to be a terrorist attack which I got from New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside Gates I jumped on the article when I saw it because I actually never really bought the rioters with rocket launchers thing. The administration probably didn't either but was going with the intelligence talking points assuming they must know something they didn't. Apparently Petraeus did, he just wasn't correcting Susan Rice when she was saying something he did not believe himself. If you go to comments and put them in reverse chronological order you will see that practically everyone there was surprised by the change in explanation. (If you are going to rewrite history you will also need to go fix the Internet.)

With all due respect, Empty? Petraeus testified that the initial CIA conclusion was that the attack was believed to be the work of Al Queda and that report's language was subsequently changed by someone to take out the reference to Al Queda. This new explanation by Obama supporters that Rice was simply relying on the intelligence reports they had is laughable because the intelligence reports had obviously been altered to reflect the narrative that the White House was trying to sell...namely that it WASN'T a planned attack by Al Queda.

I want to know who was responsible for altering that report and what their reason was for doing so. To be quite frank it's hard for me to come up with an explanation other than someone in the Obama White House didn't want the American people to know Al Queda wasn't as "toothless" as it had been portrayed by the Administration.

 

[emptystep]

Think back to the day that Rice was making her statements, did you believe her then? I certainly didn't the facts were obvious. A whole lot of people said it then and say it now. The fact that the administration put out a false story is without doubt. The proof is that the story they put out has clearly and without doubt been proved to be incorrect. So, were they lying, protecting US interests by not telling the truth, or covering their behinds.

In the end does it really matter? Obama was elected by the takers and as said they could care less about what goes on in the ME. They won't care until the whole place goes up in flames and the price of gasoline skyrockets.

First of all I was the first one on the USMB to post that the attacks were believed to be a terrorist attack which I got from New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside Gates I jumped on the article when I saw it because I actually never really bought the rioters with rocket launchers thing. The administration probably didn't either but was going with the intelligence talking points assuming they must know something they didn't. Apparently Petraeus did, he just wasn't correcting Susan Rice when she was saying something he did not believe himself. If you go to comments and put them in reverse chronological order you will see that practically everyone there was surprised by the change in explanation. (If you are going to rewrite history you will also need to go fix the Internet.)

With all due respect, Empty? Petraeus testified that the initial CIA conclusion was that the attack was believed to be the work of Al Queda and that report's language was subsequently changed by someone to take out the reference to Al Queda. This new explanation by Obama supporters that Rice was simply relying on the intelligence reports they had is laughable because the intelligence reports had obviously been altered to reflect the narrative that the White House was trying to sell...namely that it WASN'T a planned attack by Al Queda.

I want to know who was responsible for altering that report and what their reason was for doing so.

Is that your first hand report?, you we in the briefing. Second hand?, you watched c-span's video of the senator's or congressman's statement to the reporters, if so which one. Third hand perhaps?, some new agency reporting on what one of the senators or congressman said. Forth hand?, you read it on a blog that read it on some news agency that heard the senators or congressman. I am pretty sure you did not hear that from Petraeus himself. He did not speak to reporters. He actually came through the secret tunnels to the briefing room some floors below ground and despite reporters being camped out at every possible entrance not one of them saw Petraeus come or go.

 

[grunt11b]

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

I care.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh, just imagine if Bush bombed Libya so that BP could get more access in Libya.

After turning Libya into a terrorist cesspool, he sent his Ambassador, his staff and some CIA to the country without proper security despite previous terrorist attacks on US facilities and others like the UK which caused them to leave town.

When the Ambassador was being killed, Bush ignored his plea for help even working with Cheney to start the cover up because an election was around the corner and claiming AQ was dead/dying would lose traction in the election. Also, manslaughter charges for ignoring security upgrade requests for months doesn't sit well with Bush.

Using an affair by his CIA Director Bush convinces him to play along with a bogus storyline to downplay terrorists being behind the attack, instead blaming some kook movie producer like Micheal Moore for the riot err protest.

Oh, once confronted about lying about the attack...Bush goes on TV and challenges the Democraps to a fight and to quit blaiming "Condi" Rice for her false statements....even claiming Democraps are racists for attacking her Sunday morning talk circuit lies.

 

[bodecea]

The fatass donut eater can't keep his tiny brain focused on the issues surrounding Libya. Mmmmm, more donuts....

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

^Pathetic shrillness and whining.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ahhh, the simpleton lesbo runs to his defense......a moron couple.

Yeah both of you believe college football is more important than terrorists killing Americans, especially an Ambassador.

The fatass donut eater can't keep his tiny brain focused on the issues surrounding Libya. Mmmmm, more donuts....

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

^Pathetic shrillness and whining.

 

[Sherry]

The depths that some will sink to protect and defend their political leaders.

 

[emptystep]

Oh, just imagine if Bush bombed Libya so that BP could get more access in Libya.

After turning Libya into a terrorist cesspool, he sent his Ambassador, his staff and some CIA to the country without proper security despite previous terrorist attacks on US facilities and others like the UK which caused them to leave town.

When the Ambassador was being killed, Bush ignored his plea for help even working with Cheney to start the cover up because an election was around the corner and claiming AQ was dead/dying would lose traction in the election.

Using an affair by his CIA Director Bush convinces him to play along with a bogus storyline to downplay terrorists being behind the attack, instead blaming some kook movie producer like Micheal Moore for the riot err protest.

Oh, once confronted about lying about the attack...Bush goes on TV and challenges the Democraps to a fight and to quit blaiming "Condi" Rice for her false statements....even claiming Democraps are racists for attacking her Sunday morning talk circuit lies.

If this is such a major fuck up, the way you make it out to be, why is there not a single person on the inside of any agency screaming foul? There were several when Bush was screwing things up. Very odd.

 

[Oldstyle]

First of all I was the first one on the USMB to post that the attacks were believed to be a terrorist attack which I got from New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside Gates I jumped on the article when I saw it because I actually never really bought the rioters with rocket launchers thing. The administration probably didn't either but was going with the intelligence talking points assuming they must know something they didn't. Apparently Petraeus did, he just wasn't correcting Susan Rice when she was saying something he did not believe himself. If you go to comments and put them in reverse chronological order you will see that practically everyone there was surprised by the change in explanation. (If you are going to rewrite history you will also need to go fix the Internet.)

With all due respect, Empty? Petraeus testified that the initial CIA conclusion was that the attack was believed to be the work of Al Queda and that report's language was subsequently changed by someone to take out the reference to Al Queda. This new explanation by Obama supporters that Rice was simply relying on the intelligence reports they had is laughable because the intelligence reports had obviously been altered to reflect the narrative that the White House was trying to sell...namely that it WASN'T a planned attack by Al Queda.

I want to know who was responsible for altering that report and what their reason was for doing so.

Is that your first hand report?, you we in the briefing. Second hand?, you watched c-span's video of the senator's or congressman's statement to the reporters, if so which one. Third hand perhaps?, some new agency reporting on what one of the senators or congressman said. Forth hand?, you read it on a blog that read it on some news agency that heard the senators or congressman. I am pretty sure you did not hear that from Petraeus himself. He did not speak to reporters. He actually came through the secret tunnels to the briefing room some floors below ground and despite reporters being camped out at every possible entrance not one of them saw Petraeus come or go.

Nobody is getting it "first hand" because it was a series of closed meetings. I'm getting my information from the members of Congress who were at the meetings. To be honest there is a completely different story now being put out by Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats are going with a story that Rice was using "edited" intelligence reports and that neither she nor the White House knew that Al Queda was behind a pre-planned 9/11 attack...Republicans are going with the story that someone other than the CIA changed those initial CIA reports so that Al Queda was not named.

I find the Democrats contention that Rice and the Obama White House didn't know what the initial CIA report said to be extremely hard to believe. Some vague notion of "security concerns" have been floated to explain why the reference to Al Queda was eliminated and that's hard to buy as well. As if somehow lying to the American people and telling them Al Queda was not involved would make it easier to catch those involved? Does that make sense in anyway? Like the people behind the attack don't already KNOW that there was no spontaneous demonstration that morphed into an attack? They know because they were THERE!

There is someone who made the call to alter that initial report. If that person is associated with the Obama White House then they are going to have some explaining to do because it's hard to paint THAT as anything but politically motivated when it occurred so close before an election.