It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama SCOTUS Pick Smeared by Lie About Benghazi Video Fact

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   
The usual reactionary anti-Obama agitators on ATS are trying to make a big deal out of nothing at all by repeating the long debunked smears from a right wing agitprop cabal called Judicial Watch.

Yes folks, Merrick Garland did say that a video did contribute to the death of an American ambassador - and the leader of the group that made the attack on the American compound that resulted in the Ambassador's death confirmed that the video did, in fact, inspire that attack.

So what is the real lie? The real lie is the charge that the video had nothing to do with motivating the attackers. Even though they KNOW its a lie, the charge is trotted out by by these agitprop cabals every so often hoping to 'get under the skin' of a few more folks who might not have seen the confirmation of the actual motivation.

Conservative Media Smear Merrick Garland: Benghazi Edition


Right-wing media outlets have consistently claimed that the Obama administration deliberately lied by linking that anti-Islam video to the attacks.

In fact, the leader of the 2012 attack has confirmed that the video -- which had been spurring sometimes-violent protests throughout the Middle East at the time of the attack -- did inspire the perpetrators to assault the United States' Benghazi diplomatic compound, ultimately leading to the death of four Americans.


No one says that the video was the ONLY motivation, but it did contribute to it. Judicial Watch are liars, hypocrites, and anti-American to continue to push this propaganda.

The House Investigation on Benghazi has been going for SEVEN HUNDRED DAYS and cost over TWENTY MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS. And they have found NOTHING. ZERO. NADA. ZIP.

They have especially not found that the White House 'lied' about the motivation supplied by some right-wing propaganda video.

Why would they lie about something as innocuous as that? What if they were honestly trying to get the best information available out to the public in the quickest fashion possible and they just simply got wrong, or conflicting, or incomplete information from sources closest to the events?

That filthy video most certainly inspired protests all over the world: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Egypt. Why wouldn't the obvious connection be made in Libya. Why is it that everything that someone, even a Government spokesman, gets wrong is a lie according to these reactionary anti-civilization bigoted bum-nuts. People do make mistakes, no matter how lofty their position. On the fly analysis of fast moving fluid events is seldom going to be completely accurate in every detail - it isn't a lie, its just wrong.

In the end, the leader of the attacking militant group CONFIRMED that the video was a motivating factor.

End of non-story.
edit on 11/4/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

So using the left wing agitprop cabal called Media Matters to refute the right wing source you dislike makes everything all better?


More left/right circle jerk BS.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: rnaa

So using the left wing agitprop cabal called Media Matters to refute the right wing source you dislike makes everything all better?


More left/right circle jerk BS.

Let us add George Soros' Media Matters. Some folks will fall for anything...as long as it sounds good . Even if it is from an org owned by an International Fugitive.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Watchitburn beat me to it, but I'll just add a kudos for using so many buzzwords in your post.

No flag, just kudos.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Meanwhile, in the real world of judicial justice:




Lawyers for nine California public school teachers, who object to paying any fees to the labor union that represents them and union-member teachers, asked the Supreme Court on Friday to rehear their constitutional claim but not to go forward with that until a new ninth Justice is on the bench. There does not appear to be much chance that a new Justice will be seated until next Term, because of resistance to President Obama by Senate Republican leaders.

The Court split four to four on March 29 in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, thus upholding a federal appeals court ruling in favor of so-called “agency fees” for non-members of public employee unions. That result, however, did not set a precedent for the issue in general, and it remains in dispute in several other pending cases in lower courts.

www.scotusblog.com...


one case probably left sitting on the back burner waiting for the congress to get off their butts and take the time to either approve or disapprove of obama's nomination..
ATS isn't the place where all these objections to hi nominee should be brought up!! congress is, while they are holding hearings on weather the guy is qualified to be a supreme court justice or not.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

That video had zero to do with the preplanned attack on Benghazi and the Obama worshippers are grasping as straws there.

Haven't we been lied to enough over the abandonment of our own in Benghazi?



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Ok. That's cool, but besides the rant about the conservative echo chamber, were you planning on tying the OP into Obama's SCOTUS decision? I saw you reference it in the thread title, but not once mention it in the OP.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
from the MediaMatters story..

And as the Times reported in 2014, the alleged ringleader of the attack "told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him."


Well that seals the deal right there.

I wonder if Obama got the idea from the same guy?




posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




I'll just add a kudos for using so many buzzwords in your post.


Just havin' fun. Glad you enjoyed it.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose




That video had zero to do with the preplanned attack on Benghazi


So the guy that led the attack telling you that it most certainly was a motivating factor isn't good enough for you?

There were protests and riots all over the world over that video, and the fact that it occurred within hours of these other riots leads you to believe that it had nothing to do with the timing of the attack?

Sure the attack was pre-planned and no Abdul Daverage Rioter doesn't carry around RPG's when he's got plenty of rocks and Molotov Cocktails to throw. Obvious troll is obvious.

The video release provided the motivation for the attack, and lent the attackers the veneer of a mandate within their own small minded community. The protests and riots that followed it around the world created the perfect cover for the attack and inspired the timing.

This is beyond question, it is directly from the mouths of those who led the attack.

The real question is: What does that have to do with Clinton, Obama, the various Government spokesmen, or anything that has anything to do with their reaction to the crisis? The Congress has spent more than 20 million taxpayer dollars on this wild goose chase and has found nothing. That's 20 million dollars that cannot fund a hospital or a new bridge somewhere. When are you going to organize a payment plan to pay the rest of the us back?

Another question is: what did the producer of the filthy video hope to accomplish with it? Was it not expected to stir up hatred in both Muslims and non-Muslims against each other? What did he think the positive outcome from that would be? Is incitement to murder, and the successful result of that incitement a positive outcome in your world view?

Another question is: why are you attacking OUR government and the Obama administration in particular over this incident? Is it to deflect the blame from the producer of that filthy video? This person clearly has the blood of 4 Americans on his hands, why would you want to do that?
edit on 12/4/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

The guy leading the pack was TOLDto lie...just as most others. You must have no prob with being lied to.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join