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.

 

Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


You know, I thought the same thing. It's an obvious attack on Hillary Clinton. I just hate slight handed politics. I'm remorseful for the deaths, but come on. There is so much more that is going on that we don't know of. Glad I'm not the only one that felt the same way.




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



In case you missed the hearing, Clinton kept the intel arm of her agency in the dark


A source would be nice.

A source that shows that Clinton had all the details and actively withheld them from her agency.

Thanks.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by suz62
reply to post by 48e18
 


You're talking out of your behind.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. I don't want a thing like that representing my country.

She blatantly blew off Johnson at that hearing. How the hell can you defend that behavior?

IT MATTERS.
edit on 5/9/2013 by suz62 because: (no reason given)


Well I wouldn't mind her representing the country.

I'll be voting for her if she runs.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Hillary Clinton should be tried in a criminal court and disqualified from running for president in 2016 based on her failure to provide protection for Americans in Benghazi


Then Bush and Cheney should be burned at the stake for ignoring terrorist plane attack warnings.

But of course no one here cares about that do they? Or the 4000 soldiers that died for no reason in Iraq, or the 100,000 Iraqis that died for no reason.


It was an inside job 100%. They did not let it happen. Big difference my friend and yes its wayyy worst then you think. Two remote-controlled military planes hit the twin towers as evidenced by locals and a missle hit the pentagon a few hours later. Then the war machine propaganda went into full force against iraq and afghanistan. As well as the formation of DHS supposedly to gather intelligence better, then NDAA and TSA and finally the collapse of america because of gross-overspending.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by Swills
 



1. Ok, why did you, the gov't, deny the security requests to the "embassy" when they requested it after being attacked by the same terrorists who attack them on September 11, 2012?


That has been answered many times. First, not all requests can be fulfilled, it costs money and we simply can't fulfill all requests for security. Plus, the Republicans cut the funding for embassy defense...but they don't want to talk about that.



Oh that's just a complete lie if I've ever heard one and standard BS remark given by any politician. You are aware the compound was attacked in the past leaving behind huge holes blown in the walls that surround the compound? The terrorist made threats via Facebook posts even threatening an attack on Septembers 11ths anniversary. They also followed the Ambassador and took pictures of him during his morning jog. Libya was and still is over run with terrorists while Libya's newly found gov't was weak AND corrupt. Sean Smith was an avid PC gamer and would criticize the Libyan security they had to his online friends. The night he died he was online playing EVE with his friends and saw the attack coming a mile away and told his friends he'll be afk and will be back as long as he doesn't die while referring to the security as "security".

So it was no secret any US building in an terrorist infested place like Libya would be under constant threat and that goes double for the compound since it was ATTACKED and constantly received THREATS. You can parrot all the lies of red tape and bureaucracy all you want but it doesn't make it true. These people are complete liars so why do you defend them?




I love that we have so many mind readers here on ATS that they KNOW exactly what these people knew at the time. The fact is that, as stated many times and confirmed by intel agencies, that was the initial intel...and that is what they shared. When they found out otherwise THEY CAME OUT AND SAID SO.


I know they knew exactly what was happening at the time it was happening because 1) The compound called for help. Shocker, I know. When an attack on a US embassy happens and a call for help is sent that message will be routed via the classified internet(s) to all those whom it may concern, the Situation Room probably on that CC list. So with just the one call for help from the compound all that needed to know knew exactly what was going on. The compound would know the difference between another terrorist attack and some Libyans protesting over some stupid anti Islam movie. You could say they had plenty experience already in being attacked.

2.) Surveillance drone(s) were overheard broadcasting the whole event live via the classified internet. Nothing like a birds eye view to know exactly what is going on.

Terrorist



Protester



The Libyans themselves were calling it terrorism from the start but Washington and the MSM wanted to blame the Libyan people. Once again, this lie they started actually incited protest riots that did actually attack embassies, France comes to mind.

But you're right, I'm really just magically reading their minds, yours as well.... ewww.




So what do you want them to say now? They have already corrected the wrong information...what is left?


Well, I would ask them those very questions you think you just debunked but I don't expect anything but more lies from these people. The only redeeming thing about asking them questions is catching them in another lie.




But it is nice to knew that these are the two most pressing questions...it just once again proves that this is all just fake manufactured outrage by the Right. You are admitting that you are OUTRAGED because the initial information about the motive was incorrect and that Republicans defended security budgets.


I already admitted my outrage in my first post that you seemed to completely ignore. Just some very good reasons to be outraged and I find it disgusting you are using the death of innocent people to try and make people feel bad because they are actually outraged not only by 4 peoples death but how the attack was allowed to occur while providing no help what so ever. What's ironic is that you seem to not care about these peoples deaths yourself. Pot trying to call the kettle black it is, yes.

Deny ignorance, please.

edit: You got banned eh? Well I was gonna respond to your 2nd reply to me about the timeline, which you are again dead wrong about, but what's the point.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 



Well I wouldn't mind her representing the country.

I'll be voting for her if she runs.


It's really sad that you are that ignorant (or do you work for Them?).. Educate yourself.... She Lied, Let Our Men Die, Aided and Armed Terrorists among a list of other things. - Really?

The main question in my mind though is WHY? There is something so deep behind all this... I can't put my finger on it - just yet... WHY the cover up? WHY the lie? What would have been so bad to say it was a Terrorist attack? WHY??? Bigger things are going to come out of this - Way bigger things

WHY did her husband let Binladin go so many time? WHY did the Towers and surrounding buildings fall the way they did.. WHY? WHY did Barry say he had Osama killed and Dropped into the Sea with the Blink of an eye on the days after the release of his BC? WHY is was a Clinton back working in the WH? WHY, did Mrs. Clinton leave as Sec. of State 5 days after she said - "What does it matter"? WHY is the Muslum Brotherhood weaved throughout our Government? WHY? Why. WHY are we arming these terrorist and giving them billions of dollars? WHY has the Potus closed the door to "OUR HOUSE" in the first time in history - and don't go giving me that no money crap! -- WHY, WHY, WHY! I think the answer is obvious...And then There's your type that just let it happen!

It's Folks like you that just follow along blindly and listen to the MSM - the voice of Them and go to the polls that make me crazy.. Not only should voters have to show ID to vote, they should also have to take a iq test.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Anmarie96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Wow, you stir up the false left-right paradigm and actually admit you will vote for this monster for President?...Wow...

Vince Foster is just the tip of the iceberg...



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
You love Obama and Hillary don't you?
And you didn't spend over three hours yesterday watching the investigation yesterday did you?

I have news for you, Hillary will not be running in '16. And if she tries, that short clip of her raving in a Congressional hearing of "....What difference does it make?" will play, play and play to haunt her bid.

You know those famous words of her husband? "I did not have sex with that woman?"
Well, guess what, Hillary has uttered her most famous words ever also. They make such a nice pair. That's why they never carried Arkansas back when slick Willy won the national vote. The people of that state knew them too well.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Sorry bud, but your disinformation thread is in the dustbin. Who are you working for?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Anyone else think Benghazi is not a big deal as the msm is playing it to be. Why are we setting up embassy's in the middle east? Do you think we were safe in Lybia? Really? Easy access to people that hate the US. These Americans signed up to be in a hostile area. The administration obviously knew the threat but what were they supposed to do? It would have been a blood bath on both sides. I am a conservative and can see republicans are just playing politics here. Not an Obama fan at all but this is a story most Americans could careless considering the things going on in this country. JMO
edit on 9-5-2013 by jaynx because: misspell



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Is the question I asked too hard? Perhaps its the math involved,I just think you're riled up so you're going all EMO about your guy not being able to run a conspiracy worth a damn.
I know you want to vote for her but felons can't run kid.If tour savior wants to make it she goes under the bus.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18

Originally posted by suz62
reply to post by 48e18
 


You're talking out of your behind.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. I don't want a thing like that representing my country.

She blatantly blew off Johnson at that hearing. How the hell can you defend that behavior?

IT MATTERS.
edit on 5/9/2013 by suz62 because: (no reason given)


Well I wouldn't mind her representing the country.

I'll be voting for her if she runs.


At least you are honest about it. Most people hide their political affiliations EVEN when asked about it. It must be a taboo to pick candidates and parties.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
How about the fact that the Bush II administration was warned about plane-based terrorist attacks and did nothing to stop them, and then did as much stonewalling as possible against the 9/11 commission? This was a multiple-part attack on US soil, resulting in about 750 times as many deaths as the Benghazi attack.

And how about the bombing of the Beirut Marine base during the Reagan administration, in which hundreds of marines were killed, and it was clear that this was due to incompetence on the military's part (who's the commander in Chief?) and the terrible way the Reagan administration was handling "peace keeping" efforts there, i.e. by bombing parts of Beirut with 16" battleship guns, which were inaccurate and caused many innocent deaths. Did the Democrats or the Republicans make a big stink about this gross negligence? No.

Did the Democrats immediately start criticizing the Bush administration after 9/11? No, they supported the President and his administration, and didn't look closely at all of the mistakes made. They did start complaining when the Bush administration initially didn't want a 9/11 investigation and then stonewalled on supplying information to it.

Additionally, the Bush Admin. did fly out many Saudi nationals right after the attack, before the FBI could interview them, yet a big scuttlebutt has been made of the Saudi national who was wounded in the Boston bombing and on the hearsay of one guest to the Glenn Beck show, the Right goes on about how this "suspect" is being deported before he can be investigated -- even though he was questioned by LEO's.

Does it appear there was incompetence, neglect and mistakes with regard to the Benghazi attack, and did the Obama Admin. likely soft-pedal the matter right before the election? These things appear likely or did in fact happen. The question is, why the double standard by conservatives in how they are dealing with this case relative to massive security failures by the Bush II and Reagan administrations. For years after 9/11 the Republicans would attack anyone questioning the administration's handling of the matter by saying that such persons were not patriotic or were even supporting the terrorists. But immediately after the Benghazi terrorist attack, Republicans -- including Romney -- were criticizing and questioning the Obama Administration's actions.

Again, why the double standard? Is it completely a partisan issue, i.e. a Democrat is in charge, so Republicans use it for political gain. Is it more than that? Is it because the President is African American? Is it because the Sec. of State is a woman, and was it because the State Dept. spokesperson on the matter was an African-American woman who was a contender for being the next Sec. of State?

I think it is a bit of all of these, but primarily the fact that it is the opposing political party, and Republicans have shown again and again that they have no problem undermining the foreign policies of Democratic presidents, whether it is GOP congressman criticizing US policy after such attacks or when they visit foreign countries, such as Israel, or be it GOP presidential candidates actively thwarting US foreign policy, i.e. treason, as Nixon* did during the Viet Nam war, or Reagan and Bush I did during the Iran hostage crisis**.

* Evidence has come out that LBJ had secretly wiretapped Nixon and found that he was interfering with US peace talks with North Viet Nam.

** There is also circumstantial evidence that George H W Bush tampered with negotiations between Carter and Iran. Given that Bush was head of CIA, it is not surprising that it was harder to find a smoking gun concerning this, but the fact that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in points to the fact that there was some deal between Iran and Reagan/Bush I; that the Reagan administration was later found to have been selling weapons illegally to Iran backs up this contention that the Reagan/Bush I administration had a history of such deals with Iran.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
If true accountability is wanted then why are you not asking for it from the Republican side...you know the ones who denied funding for more security of the embassy.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

Ok let me get this straight its ok we were lied to by the Obama administration because Bush did it too. Doesnt that bother you at all that your government lies to you?????? and you think they should be rewarded by say continuing to put them in office???? Hated Bush voted for Obama but now i relized guess what hes no different so yeah this is a big deal all whole system of government is corrupt but hey thats ok as long as both parties do it. All im going to say is god this country is screwed when we dont hold anyone accountable becaause we have partisan hacks on both sides blaming the other.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Wow, there is actually a thread on the fake outrage on Benghazi. Cool. We can't even ignore these politicians, they just keep it up. All life is important, a politician or diplomats life is no more important than a soldier in my book.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think it's funny that all of you think these guys actually care about the attack in Benghazi the ambassador and staff were expendable.Yeah,they are playing politics it's all part of the show.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by peter_kandra
reply to post by 48e18
 


How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.


That is the point missed by Secretary Clinton (former) and others here on ATS.....the focus is not on who did it but rather the steps taken in the aftermath to make it seem as if it was a spat or a mosquito bite to say. Levying all the blame on an obscure video on the internet while ignoring the obvious and telling signs it was not a "spontaneous" riot.

You don't want to question that? (You, meaning those who are saying it is "nothing" or "crazy conservatives")



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


It appears he has been posted into oblivion.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

Ok let me get this straight its ok we were lied to by the Obama administration because Bush did it too. Doesnt that bother you at all that your government lies to you?????? and you think they should be rewarded by say continuing to put them in office???? Hated Bush voted for Obama but now i relized guess what hes no different so yeah this is a big deal all whole system of government is corrupt but hey thats ok as long as both parties do it. All im going to say is god this country is screwed when we dont hold anyone accountable becaause we have partisan hacks on both sides blaming the other.


Let me put you straight:

I'm pointing out the double standards of the people trying to gin up the Benghazi affair for political gain, by pointing out that it is infinitesimal compared to what Bush II did, as well as pointing out major security lapses/incompetent handlings of other recent Republican administrations, and how they have not received ANYWHERE near the grief that Obama is getting.

And yes, I assume the government is always lying. There have been so many documented cases of this, that it would be foolish and naive to think otherwise. All administrations to it to a greater or lesser extent. I'd say Obama's instances of mendacity and incompetence have been far smaller than those of Reagan, Bush I or especially Bush II. Thus the outrage over Benghazi is manufactured if not outright fake. I'm not defending any incompetence or mendacity on the part of Obama or his minions, but it is dwarfed in comparison to what occurred under Bush II, but which the GOP failed completely to deal with. That these same people are making such a big deal out of this relatively small incident -- particularly since the GOP congress has cut back security funding for the DoS -- whereas they let massive security failures slide under GOP presidents is extremely telling.

One of the only GOP politicians to call out Bush II was Chuck Hegel, and we see how the GOP still has an axe to grind against him.

But a little more on the facts of Benghazi: it does appear to be that this was primarily a CIA operation, and the CIA was in charge of security as well as editing the talking points for the Dept. of State. I think the failure at Benghazi is the real reason for Betrayus' being ousted as head of the CIA, not his e-mail indiscretions with his squeeze.

Here's a rundown of this view, along with a link to a very good article on the subject, along with links to related articles:

In short:

1. Ambassador Stevens and the rest of the crew at Benghazi, were involved in a covert CIA operation. Exposing it as a CIA covert operation at the time (it is now exposed as such) would have put dozens of CIA shallow and deep cover agents in extreme danger. That is why the public story about it was a fairy tale.

2. The CIA was responsible for the security of the both the consulate and the "annex". They screwed up, big time. They, or someone at State, discounted reports that the operation could come under attack.

3. The reason for Stevens' presence was that he was the broker for an arms forwarding operation, moving 400 tons of (formerly) Russian artillery, left in Libya after the fall of Khadafy, to the rebels in Syria. It was covert because it was in direct contradiction to public statements of the US government regarding the US arming the Syrian rebels.

article, along with other links to articles on Benghazi

If you really care about this issue, I heartily recommend you read this article and possibly follow-up with the linked articles cited in it.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join