Conquer Club

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

... Just couldn't help myself.

... Link is here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... 2C20121024

I never really understood why this matters.

Shouldn't the headline be "Good Men Died... and Obama and team lied"?

Nobunaga strikes at the heart again.

Nobunaga 2016.


--Andy

... Remember the Bush vs. Kerry campaign? Which one of them lied, I forget, but it was something like, "Bush lied and good men died", or maybe it was Kerry who lied...

... Regardless, I was trying to dust off that old phrase.

... But this does matter. A terrorist attack by Al Quaeda (sp?) that kills our ambassador. Obama knew about this as it was going on and did nothing to protect US citizens in harm's way.

... We always have a carrier in the Med. We have Marines in many locations around the area (the Med is not a big sea - 2 hours from Italy to Benghazi)... he should have done something! He knowingly ignored the situation and knowingly attempted to deceive the American people into believing that the whole tragedy was the result of a video.

... Why? Think about it. Obama got Osama. "Terrorists on the Run" is the narrative we're supposed to believe. Al Quaeda killing our ambassador does not fit the narrative and hurts the re-election campaign. Everything is political to this man, evaluated for its potential use or harm, even the death of innocents he had the power to protect.

... In case you forgot:


... If you refuse to admit the truth, don't watch the vid. If you do - listen to what they say.

... The attack is not his fault. Two of the deaths are probably at least partially his fault (some died hours after it began - time enough to get a few CH-53s full of Marines on the ground in Libya).

... His failure to act and his attempt to cover it up are nothing less than criminal. Who would disagree?

...

think everyone is going to far with this,just fricking move on

Nobunaga wrote:... Remember the Bush vs. Kerry campaign? Which one of them lied, I forget, but it was something like, "Bush lied and good men died", or maybe it was Kerry who lied...

... Regardless, I was trying to dust off that old phrase.

... But this does matter. A terrorist attack by Al Quaeda (sp?) that kills our ambassador. Obama knew about this as it was going on and did nothing to protect US citizens in harm's way.

... We always have a carrier in the Med. We have Marines in many locations around the area (the Med is not a big sea - 2 hours from Italy to Benghazi)... he should have done something! He knowingly ignored the situation and knowingly attempted to deceive the American people into believing that the whole tragedy was the result of a video.

... Why? Think about it. Obama got Osama. "Terrorists on the Run" is the narrative we're supposed to believe. Al Quaeda killing our ambassador does not fit the narrative and hurts the re-election campaign. Everything is political to this man, evaluated for its potential use or harm, even the death of innocents he had the power to protect.

To be honest, it appears to me that everything is political to YOU, evaluated for it's potential to use or harm, even the story of the death of innocents.

Umm, the headline implies causation. Unless Obama's inability to use the CIA time machine counts for failing to prevent the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and his Marine detail, it's hard to pin their deaths on events that occurred after their death. Should Obama have blamed their assassination on AQ before it happened?

Obama was not responsible for those deaths, however, Romney is directly responsible for a great many jobs lost in the US.

... Dodging like Ninjas now. Anybody care to address the facts?

... Fact 1. The President knew full well a terrorist attack was under way in Benghazi while it was happening. This is confirmed by e-mails sent from Benghazi by the attacked, to the White House (please see the Reuters article).

... Fact 2. The President did not send in the Marines. He did not send gun ships. He did not send anybody. He abandoned those people.

... Fact 3. Obama said (through Clinton, through Jay Carney, and himself) that a video was responsible for riots in Benghazi (a lie). Please see video posted earlier - listen to what they say and how easily they lie. If that doesn't unnerve you, you have issues.

...

... For all the attention this is getting from major media, it's like Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate.

...

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.

Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

But remember, it's not just what happened "at the right of the BANG." We need to know what happened at the left of the BANG.

Left of the Bang is a very scary place.

Left of the Bang may make Opeation Fast and Furious "Spring Training."

Left of the Bang may in fact be TREASON.

Then came the Bang, and the deliberate attempt at a non response.

Then came the Right of the Bang and the crap attempt at a coverup.

notyou2 wrote:Obama was not responsible for those deaths, however, Romney is directly responsible for a great many jobs lost in the US.

No, Romney is not responsible for a great many jobs lost in the US. Almost all major media outlets have proved that the Obama campaign's insistence on this "fact" is actually false.

As for this issue, I agree with spurgs... the title implies causation. Obama's activities subsequent to the event did not cause the event (barring any time travel paradox).

notyou2 wrote:Obama was not responsible for those deaths, however, Romney is directly responsible for a great many jobs lost in the US.

If you ignore the jobs he provided, then I guess the costs-only approach works wonders.

Obama cried... and good men died.

show

Obama spied... and good men died.

show

Obama dried... and good men died.

show

--Andy

tzor wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Doc_Brown wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

Woodruff wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

The Senate declined to convict him, so in a legal sense, he is not guilty of committing perjury. Congress impeached him, which is the equivalent to a grand jury indictment, which means there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury. He was found in contempt of court and fined, and he lost his Arkansas law license for 5 years and was permanently disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/13/us/cl ... wsuit.html
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/30/news/mn-61021
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... 011001.htm

Doc_Brown wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

The Senate declined to convict him, so in a legal sense, he is not guilty of committing perjury. Congress impeached him, which is the equivalent to a grand jury indictment, which means there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury. He was found in contempt of court and fined, and he lost his Arkansas law license for 5 years and was permanently disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/13/us/cl ... wsuit.html
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/30/news/mn-61021
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... 011001.htm

I do agree that there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury (by MY definition, as opposed to the LEGAL definition of lying, he lied). However, per the legalities, he did not commit perjury, which was my point.

Aside from that reasonable aspect, the Lewinsky situation did not merit all of the angst that came out of it, to be honest.

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

In hindsight, if you really want an honest answer, I think the Clinton perjury was a .8 to .9 on the Nixon Scale.

It is borderline at best and probably not worth the expense on average and probably not a significant offense to impeach at worst.

Mind you, in either Clinton's or Nixon's purjury ... NO ONE DIED.

Fast and Furious is probably a 2.0 on the Nixon Scale.

In the case of Benghazi, It's at a minimum of 10.0 on the Nixon Scale and might even reach TREASON.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

In hindsight, if you really want an honest answer, I think the Clinton perjury was a .8 to .9 on the Nixon Scale.

It is borderline at best and probably not worth the expense on average and probably not a significant offense to impeach at worst.

Mind you, in either Clinton's or Nixon's purjury ... NO ONE DIED.

Fast and Furious is probably a 2.0 on the Nixon Scale.

In the case of Benghazi, It's at a minimum of 10.0 on the Nixon Scale and might even reach TREASON.

So then you're pursuing Bush as well? Or is this just a partisan thing?

Woodruff wrote:So then you're pursuing Bush as well? Or is this just a partisan thing?

Bush was only continuing the line started by Clinton. Quotes from Democrats About the Threat of Iraq

It was also maintained by many democrats of the time ...

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

If everyone believes in a falsehood, how can it be a "lie?"

Nobunaga wrote:. ... Fact 2. The President did not send in the Marines. He did not send gun ships. He did not send anybody. He abandoned those people.
...

So you are under the impression that marines or gun ships could have arrived at the embassy within the 15 minutes or so it took for it to go in full swing... and noting that by the time Obama DID know, it was a few minutes after the attack had commenced?

Also, did it ever occur to you that maybe he wanted to calm the American people in a post 911 climate where far too many people here "terrorism" and basically stop thinking. OR even that he might have wanted to temporarily take focus off the terrorists by non-professionals, that is, let the pundits talk about preventing a riot, etc... instead of trying to themselves discover which group was responsible and thereby wind up blurring the real investigation?

Did you know that its police often give slightly "off" information about big crimes, both to try and give the guilty the impression that the police are not looking in the correct direction and specifically to help weed out those who actually know the truth?

Now.. if you want to argue about whether there should have been more security at the embassy BEFORE the attack, that is a legitimate debate. However, you have to remember that the requests, then were not for "gun ships", but for 1-2 more armed personnel. The real truth is that HAD Obama approved them, it would not have made a significant difference at that point. Again, whether more should have been done before that, whether requests for even more security should have been submitted -- that is a different question, but that failure would not be the presidents. (and yes, I have said similar things about Bush, previously, when appropriate).

PLAYER57832 wrote:So you are under the impression that marines or gun ships could have arrived at the embassy within the 15 minutes or so it took for it to go in full swing... and noting that by the time Obama DID know, it was a few minutes after the attack had commenced?

Some important FACTS to consider
The assult took place over the span of seven hours.
There was a marine post right down the block.
Several marines apparently disobeyed orders and rushed there.
The local commander had been relieved of command!

The CIA has categorically denied ordering the forces to stand down; that means that order had to come from higher up in the chain. Specifically the POTUS.