What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I just recently made a thread about how the "outrage" in response to Benghazi is purely manufactured from the Right since they ignored 11 similar attacks under Bush. But one thing that keeps getting repeated over and over is that this attack was different because of the "cover up".

So I have a simple question ATS, what exactly was "covered up"?

No one denied there was an attack. No one denied Americans died. No one tried to hide that this attack actually took place. So what exactly is being "covered up"?

Is there a consensus on what the cover up is trying to hide? Does anyone really know? Or do people just keep repeating it because that is what they keep hearing the Right Wing media keep repeating?




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18
I just recently made a thread about how the "outrage" in response to Benghazi is purely manufactured from the Right since they ignored 11 similar attacks under Bush. But one thing that keeps getting repeated over and over is that this attack was different because of the "cover up".

So I have a simple question ATS, what exactly was "covered up"?

No one denied there was an attack. No one denied Americans died. No one tried to hide that this attack actually took place. So what exactly is being "covered up"?

Is there a consensus on what the cover up is trying to hide? Does anyone really know? Or do people just keep repeating it because that is what they keep hearing the Right Wing media keep repeating?


Nothing was covered up, it was addressed in the rose garden the following day.

This is an attempt to manufacture outrage because the Republicans are in a bad position.
The evil Muslim communsit president now over sees the highest DOW recorded to date and
bounce back of many economic indicators.

Conservatives invested too much into a PR campaign based upon mallarky and now they have nowhere
to go.


+3 more 
posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Accountability.

If Obama and/or Clinton had said, "I/We made a decision. I/We decided not to provide support because we didn't feel it called for." then there wouldn't be the issue.

But this administration doesn't hold itself accountable for anything.

They and Susan Rice spent weeks blaming the video or blaming spontaneous nature of riots.

They don't hold themselves accountable for anything!

Hillary says, "What's the big deal?"

Really? "What's the big deal?"

Keep supporting these people and this administration if you want, but it's lame anyway you look at it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Being that you already created a thread on this,,,,,,,,,,why are you creating another//??

You haven't even replied (or maintained) your original thread which is very similar to this one?

How about maintaining this thread, before you create another one?

AboveTopSecret



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by 48e18
 


Accountability.

If Obama and/or Clinton had said, "I/We made a decision. I/We decided not to provide support because we didn't feel it called for." then there wouldn't be the issue.

But this administration doesn't hold itself accountable for anything.

They and Susan Rice spent weeks blaming the video or blaming spontaneous nature of riots.

They don't hold themselves accountable for anything!

Hillary says, "What's the big deal?"

Really? "What's the big deal?"

Keep supporting these people and this administration if you want, but it's lame anyway you look at it.


Making this an issue is lame, glad you can admit it!

Obama did not kill Stevens, blame the killers, amigo, this is America



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo


Making this an issue is lame, glad you can admit it!


Taking peoples statements out of context is also lame. Nice try, though.


Obama did not kill Stevens, blame the killers, amigo, this is America


Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by 48e18
 


Accountability.

If Obama and/or Clinton had said, "I/We made a decision. I/We decided not to provide support because we didn't feel it called for." then there wouldn't be the issue.

But this administration doesn't hold itself accountable for anything.

They and Susan Rice spent weeks blaming the video or blaming spontaneous nature of riots.

They don't hold themselves accountable for anything!

Hillary says, "What's the big deal?"

Really? "What's the big deal?"

Keep supporting these people and this administration if you want, but it's lame anyway you look at it.


Yes, the first intelligence reports that came out suggested that this was spill over from the Cairo protests. That's the intelligence they had, that is what they initially related to the public. Later when they found out more information, they released that information saying that it looks more like a planned attack.

This meme of a "stand down" order really needs to stop. Republicans have offered no proof that there was ever a "stand down" order of any kind. In fact, reinforcements from Tripoli were sent to Benghazi, which is where the two SEALS who died came from. No, they didn't rush into the burning building and fight off the attackers single handedly. They were on the roof of the safe house on guard duty when it got hit by a mortar hours after the initial attack...bad luck more so than anything else. There is no response that Obama or Clinton could have made that would have likely prevented that.

You can't "cover up" accountability, they released the information they had when they had it. The fact that the initial intel was incorrect does not make this a cover up...it was just early information that wasn't correct.

Not to mention you are mis-quoting Clinton...she didn't say "What's the big deal" about the attack happening. She said it in response over the motive behind the attack and the Republican obsessive fixation on it.

I still don't see how there is a "cover up" of accountability, that just doesn't even make sense.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by 48e18
 


Being that you already created a thread on this,,,,,,,,,,why are you creating another//??

You haven't even replied (or maintained) your original thread which is very similar to this one?

How about maintaining this thread, before you create another one?

AboveTopSecret


It's a completely different topic.

There are others in that thread that are doing a fine job of "maintaining" that thread.

That thread was to point out the fake manufactured outrage. This thread is to explore what people think the "cover up" is about...which has already shown that none of you are on the same page and doesn't seem like anyone knows what is actually being "covered up".



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.


Clinton has already taken responsibility for it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18


Yes, the first intelligence reports that came out suggested that this was spill over from the Cairo protests. That's the intelligence they had, that is what they initially related to the public. Later when they found out more information, they released that information saying that it looks more like a planned attack.


Bull poop. They knew what happened then. They tried to use the Cairo protests to find someone to blame.


This meme of a "stand down" order really needs to stop. Republicans have offered no proof that there was ever a "stand down" order of any kind. In fact, reinforcements from Tripoli were sent to Benghazi, which is where the two SEALS who died came from. No, they didn't rush into the burning building and fight off the attackers single handedly. They were on the roof of the safe house on guard duty when it got hit by a mortar hours after the initial attack...bad luck more so than anything else. There is no response that Obama or Clinton could have made that would have likely prevented that.


No. It won't stop. If this administration doesn't want to take accountability for the order(s) then it's on them. Not on republicans.


You can't "cover up" accountability, they released the information they had when they had it. The fact that the initial intel was incorrect does not make this a cover up...it was just early information that wasn't correct.


Bull poop, again. You are wrong. They knew, then they lied. Then they got caught and tried to say it was ancient history.


Not to mention you are mis-quoting Clinton...she didn't say "What's the big deal" about the attack happening. She said it in response over the motive behind the attack and the Republican obsessive fixation on it.

I still don't see how there is a "cover up" of accountability, that just doesn't even make sense.


Sorry you don't see it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by beezzer
 



Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.


Clinton has already taken responsibility for it.


I googled "Clinton takes responsibility for Benghazi stand down orders" and found nothing. Could you source this for me?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 



It's a completely different topic.

There are others in that thread that are doing a fine job of "maintaining" that thread.

That thread was to point out the fake manufactured outrage. This thread is to explore what people think the "cover up" is about...which has already shown that none of you are on the same page and doesn't seem like anyone knows what is actually being "covered up".


NO!!!!! It isn't a different topic!!!! These issues that you are bringing up in this one are the same that were brought up in your previous OP!!!! Why did you abandon that thread????? Everything you are saying in this thread is being addressed in that one???????

Maybe I should just let you continue your partisan tirade to protect your team???? But again, I must say your handlers need to reel you in! Your over zealot approach, is actually doing you more damage than you realize!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Bull poop. They knew what happened then. They tried to use the Cairo protests to find someone to blame.


And do we have proof that they knew exactly what happened? Are we mind readers now that we know what they were thinking and what they knew?

There was an investigation afterwards that took months, to suggest they knew exactly what happened the days after the attack is just plain naïve.


No. It won't stop. If this administration doesn't want to take accountability for the order(s) then it's on them. Not on republicans.


And where are those "orders"? Do you have sources for them?


Bull poop, again. You are wrong. They knew, then they lied. Then they got caught and tried to say it was ancient history.


If I'm wrong, you must have definitive proof that they knew exactly what happened...right?

The fact is that you really don't seem to have any idea what this "cover up" is about that you keep repeating. There is no question about the video protest anymore, they have already come out and said that the initial information was wrong and they have corrected that. What exactly do you want from them?

It's not much of a "cover up" when they come out and say "Sorry, that initial information was incorrect".



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18


It's not much of a "cover up" when they come out and say "Sorry, that initial information was incorrect".


That is in no way an apology for calling down 2 separate requests for help.

That is in no way an acknowledgement that they were responsible for the deaths.

You are obfuscating and doing a poor job for Team-Obama. Hope they aren't keeping your chair warm at MSNBC.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by beezzer
 



Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.


Clinton has already taken responsibility for it.


I googled "Clinton takes responsibility for Benghazi stand down orders" and found nothing. Could you source this for me?


Here you go

nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by beezzer
 



Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.


Clinton has already taken responsibility for it.


I googled "Clinton takes responsibility for Benghazi stand down orders" and found nothing. Could you source this for me?


Here you go

nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”





Wonderful! So she gave the cancelation orders!

Awesome!

Brilliant!

Burn the $#@#ing witch at the stake!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by cholo


Making this an issue is lame, glad you can admit it!


Taking peoples statements out of context is also lame. Nice try, though.


Obama did not kill Stevens, blame the killers, amigo, this is America


Never said Obama killed them. That's a straw man argument. The Obama administration is responsible. They just don't have the stones to man up about it.


Obama stated that he was responsible, during the debates.

Problem solved!

Or should he use his magical powers to resurrect a dead person?

The truth is, you on about this because it is low hanging fruit that you can droll on about endlessly.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


My outrage isn't fake...I expect the people who are in Political Office running MY Country to not pass the buck, and tell outright lies.

I too, think this didn't require a new flag and star chasing thread...jmoho...

Des



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by 48e18


It's not much of a "cover up" when they come out and say "Sorry, that initial information was incorrect".


That is in no way an apology for calling down 2 separate requests for help.

That is in no way an acknowledgement that they were responsible for the deaths.

You are obfuscating and doing a poor job for Team-Obama. Hope they aren't keeping your chair warm at MSNBC.


They aren't responsible for the deaths no more than Team Bush was responsible for the 50+ deaths at US embassies under his watch. People die, especially when you have diplomats in hot spots...it's a job risk.

The only people responsible for those deaths are the men who attacked the consulate. There was no course of action that Clinton or Obama could have taken to prevent this attack. And actually, the two SEALS that died were BECAUSE of the response...they were sent in from Tripoli...and they died. It is an active hostile situation, you do the best you can, but you can't 100% prevent death...it is impossible.


But you still haven't really said what the "cover up" is. You are doing a poor job of arguing your side...where is the cover up? What is being covered up?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join