Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
""Professional" wrestling comes to mind

Keep the idiots occupied either loving or hating a bad or good guy fight it out, they are all good buddies out of the ring and public eye.

Why are people so stuck up in right vs. left that they forget they are being played?




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by 48e18

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by 48e18
 


Obama is Clintons' Boss...The cover up starts with him....do you get it now.....


Des

edit on 9-5-2013 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


What is the cover up?

Why is it that this very simple question can not be answered by any of you?


I remember you from a past life here....did you even watch the hearings on CSPAN? You are stuck in an Obama love fest rut. If you actually researched the facts...you'd see the cover-up your own darn self.

Des


If the "cover up" is so plain to see, then why is it so hard for you to say it?

Whenever I ask a straight forward question, and I am met with a reply of someone refusing to answer because it is so plain to see, I am forced to make a judgment that this person really doesn't know what they believe and they are just repeating things they have heard.

So I will ask again, very simply, what is the cover up?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by 48e18
 



The only people politicizing this tragedy are the Republicans and those that wish to turn it into a conspiracy for their own agenda. Republicans tried to use this to win an election...it failed and people were disgusted that they tried to use the dead bodies of 4 Americans to win votes (of course some people bought into it). Now they are back at it because they are scared to death of Hillary running in 2016.

They are playing you, and they are playing you well.


Nice try! I am not being played by ANY party!

I find it kinda funny that you said what you did, and never mentioned how the Progs are using the deaths of children to do away with the 2nd amendment! Who is politicizing that again?????

Throw your two party insults around as much as you want! The problem with your tactics is that, there are a whole lot of people waking up to the fact that they are one and the same! They have refined their purpose to divide and conquer those whom slave away so that they can live the high life and tell us that we are the ones whom have to sacrifice more, so that they can control us!

Your a tool and you know it! Give it up! Your agenda and purpose for joining ATS is known........


We are all being played by someone, that is just a fact of life. The only difference between you and me is that I know and accept the game, and I participate in it so I can control aspects of it.

But you are, and have been, straying off topic...so let's get back to business.

What do you think the "cover up" is?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
[snipped]

What is being covered up?
The administration is failing to cover up the fact that they mishandled Benghazi in a manner that is gross negligence at best. At worst it is treasonous. Depending on what was known and when. Time will tell.
Deriliction of Duty for starters.
edit on 9-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat May 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 



We are all being played by someone, that is just a fact of life. The only difference between you and me is that I know and accept the game, and I participate in it so I can control aspects of it.

But you are, and have been, straying off topic...so let's get back to business.

What do you think the "cover up" is?


WHAT DO YOU CONTROL???????

I'll tell you what the difference is between you am me! The difference is that you believe in a two headed one party monster, and I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America!!!!

I care not what party a politician belongs to! As I judge my fellow man by their actions toward others I do the same to ANY elected official whom has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution!!!

Chew on that my friend before you try to play some more word games with me! I dislike the Republicans almost as much as I despise the Mao worshipping administration that currently controls us.......



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



What is being covered up?
The administration is failing to cover up the fact that they mishandled Benghazi in a manner that is gross neglegenc at best. At worst it is treasonous. Depending on qhat was known and when. Time will tell.
Deriliction of Duty for starters.


Well, at least you tried.

So how should it have been handled? What was an acceptable course of action in your opinion?

And exactly how would it be treasonous, that is just kind of laughable. Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution as warring against the United States...so not sure how that applies here.

Deriliction of Duty only applies to Military personell...so not sure how that would be applied either.

Care to expand on how either of those would apply and to who they would apply???



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


If, as I suspect, stand down issues were ordered in an effort to create an aroma of fear on the anniversary of 9 11, and those orders resulted in the loss of life of military soldiers, I cannot think of a better example of treason.

Deriliction of Duty would be perfectly sufficient for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
He takes the same oath any soldier takes and is applicable to war crimes. Same as any soldier.

Whats next on your handy talking points list, stooge?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 





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.


The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the youtube film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior. They both knew the night of the attack the field agents were saying it was a planned attack according to testimony already given in the hearings yet they insisted it was some two bit film.

When the Pentagon refused, according to testimony slated for Wednesday from deputy embassy head Gregory Hicks, American officials tried to get four U.S. Special Operations troops dispatched to Benghazi early the next morning. They were told to stand down, Hicks said, according to a partial transcript of his testimony



The Obama administration’s lengthy trail of deception and denial goes back to the very beginning, when the attacks were mischaracterized as a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the claim repeatedly, and when it became glaringly obvious the video had nothing to do with the attack, Rice was offered up as the sacrificial lamb and yanked from consideration as Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state.


Two other witnesses said Clinton and an aide tried to cut the State Department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials contemplated how best to respond to, and characterize, the attacks. One witness, counterterrorism official Mark I. Thompson, said his account was suppressed by the official investigative panel convened by Clinton. He, too, is scheduled to testify Wednesday.

www.utsandiego.com...

This is what's clear to me: when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, and four Americans were killed, there was no question to those on the ground that it was a coordinated terrorist attack from the beginning. Security at the consulate was grossly inadequate, and officials at the highest levels of the Obama Administration mismanaged the response to the attack through their ineptitude. Depending on the source the attack went on for over 7.5 hours.....

In the aftermath, key witnesses were intimidated and silenced (their own testimony) as senior Administration officials proceeded to deliberately mislead the American people about what transpired on that day.

Now, was it some plan to keep everything quite until after the election or was it just stupidly and mismanagement of our security forces? I honestly don't know anything but what I have read and seen in testimony already given; I do believe we can agree people died that night.

It is normal procedure to find the weak link in any process where people died and try to stop it from happening again. Some believe it is a witch hunt and I am sure they have some frustration going on at the proceedings...The truth may be there is some witch hunting going on....it's politics after all....but the reasons and methods used that night should be explored and found out so policies and procedures can be enacted to preclude it happening again. Time will tell and with luck the truth will be known......



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


What was covered up?

The chronology of the incident.

What did the WH, et al, lie about?

Who did what and when.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by 48e18
 


If, as I suspect, stand down issues were ordered in an effort to create an aroma of fear on the anniversary of 9 11, and those orders resulted in the loss of life of military soldiers, I cannot think of a better example of treason.

Deriliction of Duty would be perfectly sufficient for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
He takes the same oath any soldier takes and is applicable to war crimes. Same as any soldier.

Whats next on your handy talking points list, stooge?


Sorry, but just because you think it sounds good doesn't mean it is true.

Treason:
www.law.cornell.edu...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


There are some key words in there for you, specifically "ONLY". Unless somehow you can contort your logic enough to try to prove that Obama levied war against the United States or giving aid to the "enemy" (you must first define who the enemy is), there is zero treason involved.


As far as Dereliction of Duty, Obama is NOT a service member of the military. This is basic Constitutional knowledge.

So, I'm sorry, but it is still laughable.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Ok from what I know about the topic A the official story was a lie from day one after the story broke ie the stupid youtube video wasn't the cause of it "Knowing Lied to the public". B: they had drones in the air watching the thing go down and didn't send enough men to help "understandable if any action could of caused a war" C: the ambassador who died was denied money for security repeatedly"no excuse for this"

.D: Hillary got sick "twice" right before the trial and needed to be afforded time for get on the stand to be questioned "looks bad". E: The Obama administration used the FBI to ruin a generals career because who didn't back the story" purely an educated guess but it does fit". These are my reasons for thinking it was a cover up while its not substantial evidence it does paint a very bad picture of this Obama administration.

You can pick theses examples apart if you would like I'm not here to argue with you all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious as my perspective is different from yours. I would expect your answers to be A: it was bad intel which would be a lie B: it could of caused a war C: the money was better used on chevy volts for an embassy in Europe D: she is old she gets sick doesn't prove a thing E: totally not what happened the general just got caught with his pants down literally.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Stand down orders, when people were being attacked and called for help IS giving aid to the enemy.

Sorry you cannot see that. But I wouldn't expect better, honestly.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
But I would like to thank OP for providing us all the definition of treason.


Maybe your next thread should be about how we aren't committing treason when we funnel money to Al Qeada.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
What was covered up?

A terrorist attack in Benghazi, then lied about a video to cover up their incompetence

To wit:




To the buck stops 'here'



Guess the buck doesn't stop there, but the blame comes from there.


edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by 48e18
 


Stand down orders, when people were being attacked and called for help IS giving aid to the enemy.

Sorry you cannot see that. But I wouldn't expect better, honestly.


Really? So every combat decision that is made that denies reinforcements is a treasonous act???


But if you are so confident of this, please provide the following information.

1) When was the "stand down" order given?
2) How long would it have taken for reinforcements to get to Benghazi
3) How would are you guaranteeing that these reinforcements would prevent the two additional deaths (Stevens and the computer expert were already long dead...dead within the first hour of the attack).



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



What was covered up?

A terrorist attack in Benghazi, then lied about a video to cover up their incompetence


It was?

I don't believe they ever denied an attack happened. I don't believe any information they released made a difference about covering up trying to prevent it...doesn't matter if it was a "terrorist attack" or a "protest gone bad"...end result was the same, having it one over the other wouldn't matter in regards to prevention.

In fact, it would look worse if it was a protest that went bad because then they would have had some warning of gathering people, but they didn't, it was just a surprise attack that really had no chance of being stopped.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


After reading every post thus far, I'm still not sure just what you are asking and what answer would be acceptable... if any answer at all would be acceptable.

cover up
Web definitions
concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So are you asking what evidence there is of acts of concealing the truth? I find that hard to believe. We know we were given false information from the start, as proven by the admin's retraction of that false info. We also know that the identities of the survivors and/or witnesses were kept secret by the admin. We now also know that they were not only prevented by officials from speaking publicly, but were also prevented from speaking to investigators and Congress, and their Constitutional right to legal representation has been impeded by the admin. All of which is by definition acts of concealing the truth in an attempt to prevent something scandalous from becoming public.

Or are you asking what the scandalous something is that is being covered up? Have you really not read any of the possibilities put forward? It could be as simple as hiding their incompetence and bad judgment, or perhaps their cowardice. Other possibilities suggested are far more sinister. Perhaps a dirty deal gone bad (they kidnap our ambassador and we exchange him for the blind sheik), or maybe to hide another illegal gun running operation, or to conceal other covert CIA operations. I certainly don't know, and I certainly don't think you or anyone else here knows either, one way or the other. The best anyone can do is make an educated guess, and you must know that.

But what we do know is that there is more than enough shady activity thus far to know major efforts have been made to conceal the truth. We obviously disagree that it warrants further scrutiny and investigation, but the efforts to conceal the truth is what it is.

For my part, I am indeed outraged that we put people in harm's way in service to our country, and then refused them the security and protection they needed and deserved before, during and after the attack. I get that this isn't a big deal to you, but your complacency does not make my (or anyone else's) outrage false.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Boadicea
 


There was absolutely nothing about the actual attack that was covered up. They acknowledged the consulate was attacked, they acknowledged that there were 4 dead including the ambassador, they acknowledged all of this up front and right away.

What they initially got wrong was the motive and what led up to the attack. In the end, Hillary Clinton's comment is correct...at this point what does it matter that the initial reports were wrong? It is all corrected now, they no longer are saying the video was the motive, they are no longer saying there was a protest...they have now declared it a pre-planned terrorist attack.

So honestly, what does it matter? In all honesty, if it was a protest that went bad...that looks a lot worse on the administration than a pre-planned attack. In a protest, they would have least known there was an angry crowd that had the potential to get out of hand. If they didn't act on that, then they would have had issues with incompetence. But that didn't happen...it was a pre-planned surprise attack that they had ZERO intel on beforehand.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


except that there wasnt an angry mob or protest..........thats been proven, did you even watch the hearings?

I watched them both , in full.....

You should really educate yourself on this subject with the testimonies in full from both of these hearings before you start running off about it...

Even the links you share directly dispute everything you have posited that its kosher........

Go watch both of the hearings in full, then come back and engage in the debate, and stop trying to use talking points, because those wont work with people who have watched the whole thing unfold......






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join