What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

Originally posted by beezzer
Progressives don't care about the truth.

Progressives don't care about what is right.

Progressives only care about furthering an agenda led by Obama. They will dilute, obfuscate, detract, deflect any and all evidence that would illustrate that this administration is not above sacrificing the lives of people to further their political agenda.

It is nauseating to watch.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Time will sort things out.

reply to post by Flatfish


Guess you missed the above post of mine. Never in that speech did he directly tie the attacks to terrorist.

Pladuim

Originally posted by beezzer
Progressives don't care about the truth.

Progressives don't care about what is right.

Progressives only care about furthering an agenda led by Obama. They will dilute, obfuscate, detract, deflect any and all evidence that would illustrate that this administration is not above sacrificing the lives of people to further their political agenda.

It is nauseating to watch.

That isn't true. Progressive candidates will pretend to care and nail Hillary's ass to the wall over this in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

reply to post by Pladuim


At the 4:18 mark in this speech on Benghazi given by Obama on Sept. 12, 2112 he says; "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." What he NEVER did say in his speech was to refer to the attackers as protestors.

Probably not "specific" enough to satisfy your needs, but there's no denying that he referred to the attack as an act of terror right along with the 9-11 attacks that were committed on the same date 11 yrs. prior.

Here's the speech;

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by beezzer
Progressives don't care about the truth.

Progressives don't care about what is right.

Progressives only care about furthering an agenda led by Obama. They will dilute, obfuscate, detract, deflect any and all evidence that would illustrate that this administration is not above sacrificing the lives of people to further their political agenda.

It is nauseating to watch.

That isn't true. Progressive candidates will pretend to care and nail Hillary's ass to the wall over this in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

A common trait among politicians is that they do tend to be cannibalistic.

reply to post by Flatfish



Great, if you think that then he definitely lied in the UN speech.

Pladuim

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by beezzer
Progressives don't care about the truth.

Progressives don't care about what is right.

Progressives only care about furthering an agenda led by Obama. They will dilute, obfuscate, detract, deflect any and all evidence that would illustrate that this administration is not above sacrificing the lives of people to further their political agenda.

It is nauseating to watch.

That isn't true. Progressive candidates will pretend to care and nail Hillary's ass to the wall over this in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

A common trait among politicians is that they do tend to be cannibalistic.

Oh yes they do. Bit I just wanted to be clear that this will be big news, they'll be champions for truth and accountability, and they'll try to paint themselves as patriotic over this for a few months during the primaries.

And that will be it.

Has OP already been banned???


Oh well, there are others here who will pick up his slack.

bottom line ...they scewed up and people died!

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.

did any of you people possibly think that NOT COMING OUT PUBLICLY was the right thing to do????

1. why tell possible enemies who you think committed the actual attacks, and possibly thwart the effort to catch the real attackers?
and this:
thinkprogress.org...

rep. Jason chaffez (R-UT) revealing secret CIA base during hearing
THE IS EXACTLY WHY YOU DON'T TELL EVERYTHING PUBLICLY!!!!!!

where's the right-wing outrage on that?....yeah....silence......maybe there is a reason that republicans aren't told

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
bottom line ...they scewed up and people died!

no, bottom line is....people died because the ambassador went to Benghazi without truckloads of security, and was attacked by a large, organized, and over-whelming attack by terrorists. the ambassador screwed up, because he took this situation TOO LIGHTLY, and thought he had a handle on it. if he had stayed in Tripoli, he and the others would be alive today.

reply to post by jimmyx


Request for money to hire additional security was denied. Twice.

Notice that not a one of these Obama apologists has an avatar.

reply to post by jimmyx


Ahhh yes, is that the new plan here? Smear and blame the victims of the attack?

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Request for money to hire additional security was denied. Twice.

Notice that not a one of these Obama apologists has an avatar.

I've noticed that, which leads me to believe that there is a very strong possibility paid posters are visiting ATS. Did you also notice all the Obama suporters during the election, some of them just vanished? That may be stretching things a bit, I'll admit that. Who would have the time to dig through that mess to see how many disappeared? Not me.

Pladuim

reply to post by Pladuim


Further notice that OP has been banned.
I was wrong, it didn't take a few months. It took like a day.

Originally posted by Pladuim

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Request for money to hire additional security was denied. Twice.

Notice that not a one of these Obama apologists has an avatar.

I've noticed that, which leads me to believe that there is a very strong possibility paid posters are visiting ATS. Did you also notice all the Obama suporters during the election, some of them just vanished? That may be stretching things a bit, I'll admit that. Who would have the time to dig through that mess to see how many disappeared? Not me.

Pladuim

edit on 10-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)

I'm a Obama supporter, I have an Avatar and I'm not a paid supporter. Unless you're counting my monthly non-governmental pension check.

On the other hand, I too have noticed the decline in Obama supporters of late and I've even written about it just to have my threads deleted and/or moved to off-topic forums where they are rarely viewed. Part of the problem you are witnessing has to do with this site's Administration who may very well be made up of those paid posters/regulators you speak of.

The fact of the matter is, now that he's been re-elected, most of the Obama supporters no longer find the need to bash their heads up against the wall of ignorance being propagated by the right-wing nut jobs on this site.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Pladuim

 

Further notice that OP has been banned.
I was wrong, it didn't take a few months. It took like a day.

Banned, This is another reason that you don't see all the Obama supporters here on ATS anymore. Just goes to show how right wing this site administration has become. They can't handle the truth!

Edit to add; Just watch, this post will be deleted in 3, 2, 1....

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Great, if you think that then he definitely lied in the UN speech.

Pladuim

What don't you understand about this.

It being a terrorist attack and it being caused by the protests are not two mutually exclusive items.

What was it(Event): Terrorist Attack
Why(Motive): Protest

We now know that is wrong and it really is.

What was it(Event): Terrorist Attack
Why(Motive): Pre-planned attack to make a statement on 9/11


The Right Wing media has successfully twisted the two to make them interchangable and has confused the lot of you. But essentially you guys are all arguing and outraged over people not immediately knowing the MOTIVE of the terrorist attack.


That is what it is reduced to...you are all outraged because the initial motive that the CIA claimed was wrong, the Obama administration shared that intel with the public because that was the best they had. When better intel came in, guess what, they shared that as well and correct the initial reports.

It was always addressed as a terrorist attack...the motive wasn't clear for a few weeks. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama always called it a terrorist attack.

reply to post by DistantRumor


An attack against America on September 11th.
And you're telling us the motive wasn't known for Weeks??!
This is ludicrous. My 11 year old can see through this crap.

I mean seriously, this ish is too damn funny.