Obama Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack Within Three Days, But Continued to Cover Up

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by CB328
Romney said he was mad because Obama didn't say the words "terrorist attack", so again this is just partisan stupidity with no bearing on anything.


Oh I see, because Romney says something that must means Washington DC isn't covering up allowing a terrorist act to happen on 9/11's ten year anniversary.
edit on 17-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


So now the white house allowed this to happen? Did they receive warning for months in advance like the last 9/11? Btw the first 9/11 happened in 2001 this is 2012 so it was the eleventh year anniversary not the tenth.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one is allowing anything. Seems like most people are getting along just fine after all the blatant lies that cost thousands of lives in Iraq. It's our world today.

CJ



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one is allowing anything. Seems like most people are getting along just fine after all the blatant lies that cost thousands of lives in Iraq. It's our world today.

CJ


So a justification of lies based on past lies is your reasoning?

Good to see that Obama supporters have yet to leave the "blame Bush" meme.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010


So now the white house allowed this to happen?


They sure as hell have blood on their hands.

Even you cant deny this.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


No one is allowing anything. Seems like most people are getting along just fine after all the blatant lies that cost thousands of lives in Iraq. It's our world today.

CJ


So a justification of lies based on past lies is your reasoning?

Good to see that Obama supporters have yet to leave the "blame Bush" meme.




Hardly Beezer. I didn't vote for Obama, why would you say that? My point is the indignation of board posters comes with whatever the next issue is. Indignation fades fast in our world.

CJ
edit on 17-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens


Hardly Beezer. I didn't vote for Obama, why would you say that? My point is the indignation of board posters comes with whatever the next issue is. Indignation fades fast in our world.

CJ
edit on 17-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)


Bull poop.

How many people on ATS still rail on Bush being responsible for 9/11?

This is the fringe world. We're not "journo-lists".



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Good lord, did you even read my posts in this thread? Short answer is yes.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by CB328
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.


Ignorance is all I see when I read your post here.

Ignorance not worthy of a response but I just wanted to point it out.

You're an Obama supporter, no wonder.

What he said is the damned truth, but you people are so delusional you don't realize it.
You're just accusing Obama of everything you can think of and hope something sticks....except you believe your own accusations, despite no evidence.

and I didn't vote for Obama....before you go there.


Yeah right! I posted the evidence! Its not my fault you people refuse to look at it and acknowledge it. And too be clear, I'm not only blaming Obama I'm blaming all of DC but let's be real here, OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT so he gets first dibs of blame.

Believe whatever you want, it's clear you can lead a horse to water but that's about it.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Why did they "lie" about it Beezer? You yourself admitted it is hard to decern what good would come of it.
What would have happened if they said our embassy had been attacked? It's not like we weren't just in Libya blowing things up a year ago.

CJ
edit on 17-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


Why did they "lie" about it Beezer? You yourself admitted it is hard to decern what good would come of it.
What would have happened if they said our embassy had been attacked? It's not like we weren't just in Libya blowing things up a year ago.

CJ
edit on 17-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)


Cui bono.

Find out who benefitted, and you'll find your reason as to why Obama lied.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

******Killing an ambassador is an act of war. ******

>>>>>>Willfully refusing help to American's under attack is an act of treason.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not that smart, as you have probably figured out. Who gained benefit and how?

CJ



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not that smart, as you have probably figured out. Who gained benefit and how?

CJ


If you've read the thread then you'll realise that your snark failed.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm not that smart, as you have probably figured out. Who gained benefit and how?

CJ


If you've read the thread then you'll realise that your snark failed.


Snark? What are you on about tonight? Again, you yourself said you can't see a benefit in lying.

CJ



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
If I were a betting man, I'd bet the
entire Administration watched on
live t.v., via ; Drones .



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BrainGarden
 


And they jumped for joy when men died.

CJ



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I'm sorry for having been away from the thread for so long, not that I could have done anything, but still it's a little sad to see it being pummeled. It looked like the start of a solid discussion, but, I suppose, things happen.

ColoradoJens,

Been awhile, hope you're doing well. Something you said caught my eye.

My point is the indignation of board posters comes with whatever the next issue is. Indignation fades fast in our world.
Perhaps a few questions?

Do you think there should be indignation over the attack and cover-up? If not, do you see it as a perfectly normal event in today's world that doesn't rate much attention?

If there should be indignation, should we, as individual and posters, keep the issue alive here and through our representatives?

By the way, this has been burned into my heart. A Commander doesn't do the things Obama has appeared to have done. Leaving politics aside, I have lost all respect for him as a leader of American military forces. His actions are beyond wrong.

If this post sounds stilted, it is because I am figuratively biting my tongue. I have seen foul things on this thread and believe I would regret speaking freely.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
The president referred to it as being a terrorist attack the day after.

The election is over, there is no need to keep lying like a carpet.


thanks



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepump
 

That one occurence has been strongly questioned, and it is not clear that is what he said. But leaving that aside, two weeks later in the United Nations he was referring to the terrible film as a possible excuse for the attack. He knew the film had nothing to do with it.

Accusing people of lying, in this case, seems a large mistake. Which of the posters do you accuse of lying and what statement did they make that you think they lied about?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Hmmm, who benefited? It is obvious that we will never find out the truth behind the Benghazi cover-up; so, we’ll just have to use some deductive reasoning, using what information we do have. With known facts, we should be able to come up with some valid arguments.

Remember this statement the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released on that day?

www.tow nhall.com



“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”


I believe it was the same day the Administration said something like, “we do not stand by that statement” and then…



"Although the White House initially distanced itself from the embassy statement above, they had their straw man. Obama administration officials decided to push the argument that the amateur YouTube video insulting Islam, with just 300 views at the time, was the reason for the violence. A spontaneous protest of the film that spun out of control was the talking point."


Does anyone else find it interesting that the (now) famous video had only 300 views at the time? Yet, we are to believe the Administration knew enough about it to blame the attack on that very video?
I mean, if this were the case and it was due to a video, would it not make sense that it would have been viewed (at least that many times) by the Administration and all of its advisors? I’ve seen personal videos posted to youtube strictly for family and friends that get more hits/views.

Oh, but after the shameless plug made by our Administration, it sure went viral:


Then, after Obama administration officials repeatedly blamed the YouTube video, the Muslim world erupted, with U.S. Embassies in multiple countries coming under siege, just as we saw with the Danish cartoon fiasco.

On September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “The cause of the unrest was a video," adding, “The reason there is unrest is because of the film.”

In this case, Carney was actually telling the truth. The cause of the unrest was a result of a video, a video the Obama administration cynically promoted.


After the video was blamed, all hell broke loose with rioting in more than 25 countries, and many more people were killed.

So, maybe the Administration lied about the video being the cause of the Benghazi attack, but it did end up being the cause of the subsequent attacks. Isn’t that ironic?

I don't believe it was to make the Muslim world believe America is now a Muslim friendly country. It looks more like the Administration is poking the hornet's nest, intentionally.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join