It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by 48e18

You are so out of touch with the facts is not even funny... Benghazi is different in many ways because they were talking with Obama and his administration for hours asking to send help that never arrived, the other attacks were SUICIDE bombings for the most part, which means FAST ATTACKS WITH NOT MUCH TIME TO REACT...

You should learn the difference before coming up with a BS claim with not one iota of facts...

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 04:14 AM

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by 48e18

It is going to look very embarassing when the real meaning of this charade plays out.
It will show just how afraid these "men" are of some political competition from a woman.

ie... Hillary.

Wow... you people really can't get off either the "racial card" or the "gender card" can you?...

It's not like there was a WOMAN named Palin running for vp in the REPUBLICAN party...

But of course, when it is a REPUBLICAN WOMAN or other minority leftwingers STILL play their "racial card" or "insert minority here card"...

Only leftwingers can have minorities it seems according to their lies...

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:41 AM
Come on people...this is so simple. The Obama administration had been playing up their "destruction" of al-qaeda and it was BS. Obvious after the embassy attack. So...they lied and lied big. They were caught in the lie/cover-up and the lying caused the FBI to be refused timely entry to Libya and other problems, not to mention the deaths. Why? Because Obama's re-election was more important to these liberals than life, truth or anything else.

We were lied to by OUR government and THAT is unforgivable. Now, they perpetuate the lie and THAT is even worse. This is typical liberal mentality. What they want is more important than what the people want or the truth or our lives. And since lying is what resulted in Nixon's deal, this has become Obama's Watergate. And the price to pay should be at least equal...because no one died during Watergate.

Simple enough? Throw them all out and send a message to all our "leaders". You cannot lie to the people of this country without being punished. Send all future representatives into office with a FEAR of lying to us. That is as it should be.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by 48e18

Well the diff here when compared with other attacks is that we didn't have a bomb go off and then nothing to do but clean up and wait for someone to claim responsibility. We had an embassy under attack for a number of hours with men willing to defend against attackers. In short we could have done something here.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Anmarie96
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

Could be just as simple as weak political will. You know we just "liberated" them and now we have to bomb the crap out of them to save the ambassador. Besides everybody knows when you play with wild animals you get bit sometimes. And now why lie? Just to cover indecision and what looks like total lack of leadership and ineptitude. Trying to look to many ways at once. You know. To the liberal it just looks to "colonial" to defend an embassy with deadly force.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:34 AM
Roy Potter Benghazi Quick Explanation Video


- Pat Tillman was assassinated because he made the CIA- Al-Qaeda connection (bringing Tillman up to show pattern of assassination of patriotic Americans)
- There is an internal war in our government
- Ambassador Stephens was killed because he was complaining about the US giving arms to Libyan Al-Qaeda for transfer to Syrian Al-Qaeda and was meeting with the Turkish in Benghazi
- Benghazi was an organized assault on compound with express purpose of killing Ambassador Stephens and his entourage
- Cmdr Job. W. Price, Commander of SEAL Team Four, was murdered
- SEAL Team Six killed in helicopter crash was not an accident
- General Petraus was taken down by scandal because he was going to testify about Benghazi

SEAL Team 4 Commander Found Dead
Helico pter Crash that Killed 22 Navy SEALs
Amb assador Murdered in Benghazi Warned Consulate Could Not Withstand Organized Attack
The Assasination of Pat Tillman

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:08 AM
Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by 48e18

Was there a Presidential election three months after your list of attacks happened?
Was there discussions the next day with State Department official and Lybian PM confirming Answer Al Shari'a is the terrorist organization responsible? (Oh Yes.)
I could go on and you want more "Proof"?!!
Even shills are incompetent these days...

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by Indigo5

SO...Give me a question about Behngazi that you think the gov. has refused to answer?

Questions they refuse to answer?

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?

2. Why did you LIE and tell the world it was Libyan Muslim protesters who attack the compound that day when you clearly knew for a FACT it was terrorists?

Thanks for the actual questions..

1. Don't be a troll...I am not the gov..To your question...11 hearings in Congress has discussed this. at the end of the day...most embassies request more security and there is limited funding..a low level admin in state turned down the money after the GOP hacked the budget. In retrospect...with 20-20 hindsight...massive eff-up and a good question. The woman responsible for denying the funds/extra security has testified she made the call and didn't bump up the request to higher ups and despite that Hillary Clinton says it was her responsibility.

2. putting "LIE" in all caps makes it no more true...anyone that ACTUALLY reads the careful statements made by Rice sees a heavily hedged statement. At the time there were protests at EVERY embassy in the middle east regarding the film...are we re-writing history? The Amb. in Tripoli, not Behngazi CLAIMS he told Sec. Clinton he thought it was terrorists. She and the CIA can not rely on was uncertain at the time Rice talked to the press a few days later. It appears while the GOP scream about lack of transparency...they were penalized for rushing to share the uncertain information they did have in an effort at BEING transparent..

Her ACTUAL UNEDITED WORDS on the talk show circuit...

A statement that began with...


Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

And ended with...

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

And said this in between

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:08 AM
This OP is amazing in it's obvious water carrying for the left. Yes, there is a left and right side. Most constitutionalists are on the right side, but are often NOT Republicans. The Democrats and Republicans are playing their roles. There is a power struggle going on right now and I believe it is quite possible there is a power struggle between the CIA and the Military right now.

Any past wrongs before Benghazi do not negate the issue of Benghazi.


posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:12 AM
They are focusing on this more than the first 9/11. There was no investigation into why those three buildings "collapsed" in New York city. Look into that.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by 48e18

Seriously? ARE YOU HIGH?


Oh and then there was the carefully worded recriminations against free speech in the aftermath

And the blame on a YT video that most libyans had no idea existed

and the stand down orders for reinforcements

And the general scumminess of this ENTIRE FREAKING ADMINISTRATION that cries foul any time anyone tries to call them on any of their MYRIAD of failures and outright BETRAYALS of the core values that built this country!

You sir are the one that is being led astray by manufactured apathy!

Why is it that EVERY GOD DAMN TIME this administration screws up all they can do is point a finger and say "oh yeah well Bush did this!"

Guess what?? BUSH WAS A MORON!!! and you know what?

I'd KILL to have him back in office over this current group of ass clowns!

Oh and FYI... this is really saying something because i was VEHEMENTLY antibush from the jump starting with his free speech zones on inauguration and only getting worse from there!

I am neither a republican nor a democrat... and quite frankly I am laughing so hard at the liberal left as they close ranks and vociferously defend the indefensible things this administration is doing all in the name of solidarity and political correctness!

I can at least respect rank and file republicans who will not just admit flat out but will be the FIRST to TELL YOU when a republican screws up! Comparing that with the conformist newspeak freakshow that is the democratic party at this point.... it's a no brainer deciding who are the sheep and who are the rationally thinking adults!

It's all good though because your pet politicians that can do no wrong in your eyes... they are losing credibility so fast they are actually forming a vacuum in their wake!

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Oannes
They are focusing on this more than the first 9/11. There was no investigation into why those three buildings "collapsed" in New York city. Look into that.

I think you have indirectly identified the reason the Benghazi incident is being seized on with such vigor; 9-11 got away without proper investigation. I think everybody wants to hang onto this like a dog with a bone.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by 48e18

Quite simply the outrage is due to the cover-up of a screw-up. This thing is going along about the same way that Watergate did back in the 70s. Yes...I was in college during Watergate. It started with a whimper...then gained momentum and when it became apparent that there was a cover-up all hell started breaking loose.

I figure we are a month or 3 from all hell breaking loose, if it reaches that extent.

It seems clear that there is a cover-up going on. The White House spoke person today stated that only one change had been made to the memo and that was to change embassy to diplomatic mission or some such...supposedly (havent seen it yet) there is proof that this is an outright lie.

If that is so, then it will be game on as far as the feeding frenzy goes. We have some media warring within themselves as to how to follow the story: Whether to minimize the WH's role and cover-up or whether to play hard ball (NY Times). We have some media ignoring the whole thing (Huffington Post) and we have some media hitting the story hard and often (Fox News).

From the reaction of the media as well as the WH's reaction combined with Hillary's outburst during her testimony a few weeks ago makes me think there is something rotten in Denmark (or rather in the Administration).

The question is whether some reporter or reporters will dig up serious dirt or whether the WH will find a scapegoat.

If that scapegoat turns out to be Hillary, then you can bet there is a serious blow hanging over democrat's heads. The only way Hillary will be fed to the public as a scapegoat would be if Obama were involved himself and only a high ranking official will suffice as the sacrificial lamb. If it turns out to be some lackey that is sacrificed then more than likely he is or would be sacrificed to preserve the potential of a Hillary run in 2016.

Personally some of the things I have heard does piss me off...but I have no way at this time of knowing whether what I have heard is the hard fact or not.

As far as the OP...he forgot to include the number of people killed in auto accidents, since that is about as equivalent as most of his list to what appears to be a cover-up.

Bear in mind that in the real world if a business makes a decision that directly results in a death they are held accountable and someone may face criminal charges. Up until just recently it appeared that multiple deaths resulted from decisions by, at the very least, the State Dept and no one was going to be held accountable.

Perhaps now someone may be held accountable although it likely will not be the person or persons who should be held accountable. The buck never stops at the White House.....

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by 48e18

It is going to look very embarassing when the real meaning of this charade plays out.
It will show just how afraid these "men" are of some political competition from a woman.

ie... Hillary.

I really do not think Hillary has a political future. Since her fall right before she resigned from the State Dept she doesnt quite seem the same person. Almost as if she has suffered a minor stroke of some kind....

Toss this in the mix, even before this latest explosion, her future was already damaged since the State Dept's obvious failure to support the mission properly would be a constant irritant, at the very least, to her during a campaign.

Personally I think there is a hope to corral Obama into it, but that will never happen. He will throw Hillary under the bus before he takes a hit.

I also believe (note I am expressing opinions here, and unlike many, I am not presenting them as facts) that the smell of a cover-up is what is driving the feeding frenzy.

Whether this is a Dem Admin or if it were a Repub Admin, the feeding frenzy would be much the same, except that if a Republican were in office the frenzy would be more ..... frenzied.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:55 PM
Oh...and directly to the OP: Not proof...

You are expressing an opinion and presenting it as fact.

Can you spell disingenuous?

There is a huge difference between an attack on an embassy where someone died and the cover-up of who was directly involved in making stupid decisions that resulted in the death of an Ambassador and others. Add in that support was not allowed when available and you have a clusterf_ck of major magnitude politically.

The blame was placed on some video on youtube because, heaven forbid, right before a major election we wouldnt want to damage the public's perception of the current administration. Outright lies were part of the official statement, a statement made plainly and purely for political gain. Add a cover-up of the who what where, not to mention why and, well, this will be a major pain, at the very least, in Obama's butt for the remainder of his term.

Shall we see if the CIA is blamed? Or will it stick in the State Dept? Or is it serious enough to throw Hillary under the bus?

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by roguetechie

Did anyone YOU know die? Did anyone YOU know personally lie directly to you?

I have a hard time understanding why the "outrage" is so high. It's a dangerous country over there, and people sometimes die. You don't take the job of Ambassador in a place like that without weighing the potential risks.

There is much more going on that we aren't being told -- probably due to national security. We can't, and won't get those details because the CIA is involved. Maybe in 50 years we'll understand the BIG PICTURE and realize how stupid and petty this whole thing is.

9/11 was much worse, and those that let all the people die didn't get grilled nearly as bad.
edit on 10-5-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

There are a few differences....for one there are a number of govt insiders who are "blowing the whistle"...

Number 2, the Admin has bungled the whole thing to a degree that there is a reek of cover-up which has fed the "feeding frenzy" going on. Damage control is in full tilt and after CBS presents a report that the Rice Statement was changed 12 times the WH's response is to say that only one minor change had been made rather than 12 revisions...if there is proof of 12 revisions then there is no doubt there is much more at the root of the cover-up than is readily obvious.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by 48e18

The issue is the cover up and lies about it. There are many lies around the incident so it is natural to dig deeper.

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by redtic
If you didn't happen to see it last night, Jon Stewart sums it up succinctly, as usual:

(Wish I could embed those..)

LOL seriously? There is no agenda there...there is no bias there...there is no playing up to a particular audience there. Keep repeating ...

By all means we should rely on the Comedy Channel to provide us with unbiased news.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in