What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Now Cafferty/CNN Why didn't the President tell the truth about Benghazi

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,813
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
Whoa geeze. Cafferty has been a huge supporter of the left for as long as I can remember so this is big.

I know you left wingnuts here keep trying to defend him but even old time big name supporters are questioning why he didn't tell the truth. If you think Cafferty's wrong try arguing with him.:D You have valiantly tried to spin but the truth is coming out.

Here's part of his blog.

Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The truth about what happened in Benghazi – and when President Obama knew it – could have a huge impact on the closing days of this campaign.

Turns out the White House, the State Department and the FBI were all told two hours after the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility. Two hours.

One government e-mail from the State Department shows a Libyan group – called Ansar al-Sharia – claimed responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter. The group denied responsibility the next day.

This is big. It suggests that the president had reports that very day that the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans weren't because of some film clip.

And yet – we heard just the opposite.

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Instead, top officials insisted there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."

They continued to suggest that it was that anti-Muslim video produced in the United States that fueled a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. This includes folks at the very top like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and the State Department spokeswoman.

Why did the president and his top lieutenants obfuscate and hem and haw for so long before telling us what really happened? Try politics.


Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? – Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs
 

BluePhantom

Educator (of liberals)
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
7,062
Reaction score
1,762
Points
255
Location
Portland, OR / Salem, OR
Pfft.....I'll tell him why. Anyone with half a brain knows why. The only thing Obama has going for him in his re-election bid is that he is strong against terrorism. If it comes out right before the election that we got thumped by terrorists he doesn't even have that anymore. So what does he do?

He points the blame on some guy that made a video, looks at the Islamic nations of the worlds and says "we really ought to learn to be more tolerant of your faith", and acts all disgusted about the prospect of playing politics.

Problem is he forgot to toss that smoking gun in the river.

And he had so little respect for the intelligence of the American people (except apparently Chris Matthews) that when he said "oh ignore the fact that it was on 9/11, ignore that they used a double wave frontal assault with RPG and mortar support...this was just a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand." he was stunned when everyone looked at him and said "how fucking stupid do you think we are?"
 
Last edited:

CaféAuLait

This Space for Rent
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
7,777
Reaction score
1,968
Points
245
Location
Pacific Northwest
Whoa geeze. Cafferty has been a huge supporter of the left for as long as I can remember so this is big.

I know you left wingnuts here keep trying to defend him but even old time big name supporters are questioning why he didn't tell the truth. If you think Cafferty's wrong try arguing with him.:D You have valiantly tried to spin but the truth is coming out.

Here's part of his blog.

Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The truth about what happened in Benghazi – and when President Obama knew it – could have a huge impact on the closing days of this campaign.

Turns out the White House, the State Department and the FBI were all told two hours after the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility. Two hours.

One government e-mail from the State Department shows a Libyan group – called Ansar al-Sharia – claimed responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter. The group denied responsibility the next day.

This is big. It suggests that the president had reports that very day that the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans weren't because of some film clip.

And yet – we heard just the opposite.

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Instead, top officials insisted there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."

They continued to suggest that it was that anti-Muslim video produced in the United States that fueled a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. This includes folks at the very top like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and the State Department spokeswoman.

Why did the president and his top lieutenants obfuscate and hem and haw for so long before telling us what really happened? Try politics.


Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? – Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

Cafferty even says:

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Damn!
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,127
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
I actually disagree Blue. There is more to this. Much more.

If Obama wanted to be seen as tough on terrorism, he would have sent some bombers or something in to take out the terrorists sometime during the 7 hours they were supposedly conducting the attack. He could have looked tough on terrorism, looked Presidential. He would like be winning now if he did.

But he didn't. Moreover, he went out and had his administration delibrately lie and try to cover it up.

My guess is because he was trying to:

1) Avoid the media questioning where the terrorists got their weapons.
2) He is pushing this Political correctness in the UN to make it illegal to criticize Islam for some odd reason.

Either way, there is more to it and I think he miscalculated.
 

Clementine

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
12,919
Reaction score
4,814
Points
350
Pfft.....I'll tell him why. Anyone with half a brain knows why. The only thing Obama has going for him in his re-election bid is that he is strong against terrorism. If it comes out right before the election that we got thumped by terrorists he doesn't even have that anymore. So what does he do?

He points the blame on some guy that made a video, looks at the Islamic nations of the worlds and says "we really ought to learn to be more tolerant of your faith", and acts all disgusted about the prospect of playing politics.

Problem is he forgot to toss that smoking gun in the river.

And he had so little respect for the intelligence of the American people (except apparently Chris Matthews) that when he said "oh ignore the fact that it was on 9/11, ignore that they used a double wave frontal assault with RPG and mortar support...this was just a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand." he was stunned when everyone looked at him and said "how fucking stupid do you think we are?"

His supporters bought it hook, line and sinker. If you go back through threads there are so many arguments with one side saying this wasn't the work of some protesters and others following the administration's talking points to the letter. They still defend him and act as if there is nothing more to see here.
 

BluePhantom

Educator (of liberals)
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
7,062
Reaction score
1,762
Points
255
Location
Portland, OR / Salem, OR
I actually disagree Blue. There is more to this. Much more.

If Obama wanted to be seen as tough on terrorism, he would have sent some bombers or something in to take out the terrorists sometime during the 7 hours they were supposedly conducting the attack. He could have looked tough on terrorism, looked Presidential. He would like be winning now if he did.

But he didn't. Moreover, he went out and had his administration delibrately lie and try to cover it up.

My guess is because he was trying to:

1) Avoid the media questioning where the terrorists got their weapons.
2) He is pushing this Political correctness in the UN to make it illegal to criticize Islam for some odd reason.

Either way, there is more to it and I think he miscalculated.

Well he certainly miscalculated, no question about that. It's possible that the terrorists were using weapons supplied by the United States, that's what I am assuming you are suggesting anyhow. On the other hand perhaps he saw an opportunity to once again cast the United States as "reaping what we sow".....you could be right, but honestly I think he just thought it was in his political best interests to cover it all up like he...well...tried to do with Ft. Hood. He doesn't like to admit terrorism and especially not when it has Islamic connections.

Whatever his reasons were I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument that he was not trying to use this event to his political advantage even as he stood in front of Romney in debate II and scolded Romney for the suggestion that he would politicize it.....that's precisely what Obama was doing.
 

BluePhantom

Educator (of liberals)
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
7,062
Reaction score
1,762
Points
255
Location
Portland, OR / Salem, OR
Pfft.....I'll tell him why. Anyone with half a brain knows why. The only thing Obama has going for him in his re-election bid is that he is strong against terrorism. If it comes out right before the election that we got thumped by terrorists he doesn't even have that anymore. So what does he do?

He points the blame on some guy that made a video, looks at the Islamic nations of the worlds and says "we really ought to learn to be more tolerant of your faith", and acts all disgusted about the prospect of playing politics.

Problem is he forgot to toss that smoking gun in the river.

And he had so little respect for the intelligence of the American people (except apparently Chris Matthews) that when he said "oh ignore the fact that it was on 9/11, ignore that they used a double wave frontal assault with RPG and mortar support...this was just a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand." he was stunned when everyone looked at him and said "how fucking stupid do you think we are?"

His supporters bought it hook, line and sinker. If you go back through threads there are so many arguments with one side saying this wasn't the work of some protesters and others following the administration's talking points to the letter. They still defend him and act as if there is nothing more to see here.

Oh I know...I was one of those saying "uh guys...use some fucking common sense here...this was not a spontaneous random occurance and this video had nothing to do with it". But when the Messiah speaks MSNBC listens and then we get jackasses like JimH, hazelnut, and the like on here parroting the bullshit. Meh...it's typical.
 
OP
tinydancer

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,813
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
CaféAuLait;6219924 said:
Whoa geeze. Cafferty has been a huge supporter of the left for as long as I can remember so this is big.

I know you left wingnuts here keep trying to defend him but even old time big name supporters are questioning why he didn't tell the truth. If you think Cafferty's wrong try arguing with him.:D You have valiantly tried to spin but the truth is coming out.

Here's part of his blog.

Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The truth about what happened in Benghazi – and when President Obama knew it – could have a huge impact on the closing days of this campaign.

Turns out the White House, the State Department and the FBI were all told two hours after the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility. Two hours.

One government e-mail from the State Department shows a Libyan group – called Ansar al-Sharia – claimed responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter. The group denied responsibility the next day.

This is big. It suggests that the president had reports that very day that the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans weren't because of some film clip.

And yet – we heard just the opposite.

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Instead, top officials insisted there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."

They continued to suggest that it was that anti-Muslim video produced in the United States that fueled a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. This includes folks at the very top like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and the State Department spokeswoman.

Why did the president and his top lieutenants obfuscate and hem and haw for so long before telling us what really happened? Try politics.


Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? – Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

Cafferty even says:

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Damn!

I know. :D

He's a seasoned liberal commentator. For all the spin the lib maniacs at USMB have been trying to put on this issue, Cafferty comes out and nails the truth.

:eusa_clap:
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
88,689
Reaction score
32,946
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
I actually disagree Blue. There is more to this. Much more.

If Obama wanted to be seen as tough on terrorism, he would have sent some bombers or something in to take out the terrorists sometime during the 7 hours they were supposedly conducting the attack. He could have looked tough on terrorism, looked Presidential. He would like be winning now if he did.

But he didn't. Moreover, he went out and had his administration delibrately lie and try to cover it up.

My guess is because he was trying to:

1) Avoid the media questioning where the terrorists got their weapons.
2) He is pushing this Political correctness in the UN to make it illegal to criticize Islam for some odd reason.

Either way, there is more to it and I think he miscalculated.


Yeah, this just isn't making sense, and the possibility of a big miscalculation keeps sticking out. Obama's apologists will continue trying to sweep this under the carpet, or at least run out the clock for the election, but something doesn't smell right. Could it be something as simple as a dumb miscalculation?

.
 
OP
tinydancer

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,813
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
I actually disagree Blue. There is more to this. Much more.

If Obama wanted to be seen as tough on terrorism, he would have sent some bombers or something in to take out the terrorists sometime during the 7 hours they were supposedly conducting the attack. He could have looked tough on terrorism, looked Presidential. He would like be winning now if he did.

But he didn't. Moreover, he went out and had his administration delibrately lie and try to cover it up.

My guess is because he was trying to:

1) Avoid the media questioning where the terrorists got their weapons.
2) He is pushing this Political correctness in the UN to make it illegal to criticize Islam for some odd reason.

Either way, there is more to it and I think he miscalculated.


Yeah, this just isn't making sense, and the possibility of a big miscalculation keeps sticking out. Obama's apologists will continue trying to sweep this under the carpet, or at least run out the clock for the election, but something doesn't smell right. Could it be something as simple as a dumb miscalculation?

.

As more is revealed, you will find that Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans died without support.

Did you know this for example? And the article is worth the read. It will make your hair stand on end.

Revealed: Second U.S. building attacked in Libya terror raid was CIA base . . . as it emerges American drones were circling above but were 'too slow' to act

Second building in Benghazi had previously been described as an 'annexe'
Two SEALs died while defending base a mile away from U.S. consulate
American drones were in the sky above city during deadly September 11 raid


And from the article:

On Saturday, Gary Berntsen told CBS News that U.S. military officials had been able to watch the attack through unmanned aerial drones in the sky above Benghazi, and criticised them for being too slow to respond.

'They stood, and they watched, and our people died,' he said.

Defense Department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, but ultimately decided not to.

Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to ramp up his security team in Libyain the weeks, days and hours leading up to the terrorist attack, newly released cables have revealed.


Libya consulate attack: Second U.S. building attacked in Benghazi was CIA base | Mail Online
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
103,421
Reaction score
32,995
Points
2,290
Location
Headmaster's Office, Hogwarts
What was done during the attack was questionable but what preceded and followed the attack was reprehensible.

The current administration refuses to face up to reality and that is why they're trying to cover this up.

I won't go into specifics because somebody else already has.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,865
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Remember the good old days when the Right attacked Obama for putting out too much information, too soon, about the killing of Bin Laden??

Anyone have that good a memory???
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
103,421
Reaction score
32,995
Points
2,290
Location
Headmaster's Office, Hogwarts
Obama left boot-prints on everyone's backs in his rush to the cameras to blab about OBL but looks like we're gonna need an act of Congress to find out the real story behind this mess.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
836
Points
190
Remember the good old days when the Right attacked Obama for putting out too much information, too soon, about the killing of Bin Laden??

Anyone have that good a memory???

So in short he screwed up twice.
 

blastoff

Undocumented Reg. User
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
21,493
Reaction score
2,862
Points
280
Location
In a galaxy far far away...
Barry & Co. were dumb enough to try to lie their way out of this disaster simply to save his worthless political ass.

They're now faced with Charlene Lamb's testimony before the congressional committee two weeks ago that she listened in on the attack in almost-real time (her words) in Washington, the emails that have now surfaced, and other reports damaging to the lying cabal. Yet they're still in denial that they lied, repeatedly.

Barry and the rest of the jackass party are cornered and there's no escape. Just like our unfortunate Americans who died there.

Will any down-ticket Dims afraid of losing their House or Senate seats in the election do the smart thing and turn on him in an effort to save their asses? Stay tuned!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top