Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

Benghazi is, yet again, being used as tool to launch political attacks. However these "new"
attacks ignore the truth or any information that is contrary to the agenda of the attackers. The
current claims are that Obama is shirking his responsibility, however here is proof that he assumes
blame, presented in the English language, on primetime television.

Obama admitting to being responsible for the Benghazi attacks, unequivocally so.



The previous line of attack for this dead horse was that; Obama failed to recognize that Benghazi
was a terrorist attack.


Obama called Benghazi an act of terror the day after the incident.



Benghazi is a political ploy, that is being used by the conservative/neocon alliance because
they are being shown up by Obama's performance.

The truth is that hatred and blind rage is the real story here, Benghazi is not.

Since Obama has assumed the blame, can we move on with life?

Benghazi is a political ploy, that is being used by the conservative/neocon alliance because they are being shown up by Obama's performance.

What performance would you be referring to? That's a head scratcher. His "acting" job as president?

Originally posted by Maluhia

Benghazi is a political ploy, that is being used by the conservative/neocon alliance because they are being shown up by Obama's performance.

What performance would you be referring to? That's a head scratcher. His "acting" job as president?

Do you have anything to mention about the subject of the thread? Which is Benghazi

Obama assumed responsibility during a debate last fall...

To quote the SoS: "What does it matter?"

reply to post by cholo


Well, the subject is Benghazi in relation to Obama - I just picked door #2. Actually I think Hillary has blood on her hands here. Obama's too disengaged to care..

Originally posted by BobM88
Obama assumed responsibility during a debate last fall...

To quote the SoS: "What does it matter?"

How about the notion that US embassies were attacked over 50 times between 2000 and 2008

or that 13 US personnel were killed in those attacks.

Funny that this particular attack is getting so much attention

reply to post by cholo


Let me clarify what I mean: He can assume responsibility or deny it, it doesn't matter, he's the President and it's his regardless. As for what happened in Benghazi, I have no idea at all.

reply to post by cholo

cholo, you've taken an interesting position. If,as you say, Obama has announced that he is responsible for the Benghazi attacks, then he should be impeached, convicted, and executed for four murders and the destruction of the Consulate. But I don't think you really meant what you said.

As more information emerges, the criticism of Obama changes and increases. At first, it was over the statement that it was "an act of terror," not quite the same as a "terrorist attack." Then it was two weeks of "The YouTube video made them do it." Now, with more information, the charges have become lying, and purposely stopping available aid from reaching the troops, among other things.

If you knew that four American diplomats were killed because the President decided it would look bad for the upcoming election to land troops, wouldn't you have some rage? Benghazi, deaths, and high level failures, are the stories and have to be corrected. It's not about politics.

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by cholo

 

Well, the subject is Benghazi in relation to Obama - I just picked door #2. Actually I think Hillary has blood on her hands here. Obama's too disengaged to care..

I grew up believing that the man who pulled the trigger is responsible, not the gun manufacturer.

Obama and Clinton did not kill anyone last I checked.

May grandfathers friends was shot in WWII, he was under my grandfathers command, is my grandfather guilty?
Was FDR?

reply to post by cholo


Let me ask a counter-question, and feel free to ignore it.

Was LBJ guilty of all the deaths in Vietnam that occurred post-Tonkin?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo

 

cholo, you've taken an interesting position. If,as you say, Obama has announced that he is responsible for the Benghazi attacks, then he should be impeached, convicted, and executed for four murders and the destruction of the Consulate. But I don't think you really meant what you said.

As more information emerges, the criticism of Obama changes and increases. At first, it was over the statement that it was "an act of terror," not quite the same as a "terrorist attack." Then it was two weeks of "The YouTube video made them do it." Now, with more information, the charges have become lying, and purposely stopping available aid from reaching the troops, among other things.

If you knew that four American diplomats were killed because the President decided it would look bad for the upcoming election to land troops, wouldn't you have some rage? Benghazi, deaths, and high level failures, are the stories and have to be corrected. It's not about politics.

I feel the same way, it seems to me that he withheld needed help, just so he would look better for the upcoming elections, knowing full well landing troops and all that, would be impossible to hide or put off until later, where as letting them die, and blaming it on some dumb a-hole over a video is easy to put off until after the elections.

It seems as though it was about political expedience, not what was right, and not about doing his job of defending Americans, and American territories.

I haven't really been participating in any of these discussions, but could not hold my tongue this time.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo

 

cholo, you've taken an interesting position. If,as you say, Obama has announced that he is responsible for the Benghazi attacks, then he should be impeached, convicted, and executed for four murders and the destruction of the Consulate. But I don't think you really meant what you said.

And what about the 54 embassies that were attacked during the Bush Administration? Or the 13 dead?

Are you trying to be absurd?

As more information emerges, the criticism of Obama changes and increases. At first, it was over the statement that it was "an act of terror," not quite the same as a "terrorist attack."

What is the difference, with some logic please to actually distinguish the difference in the English language.

Then it was two weeks of "The YouTube video made them do it." Now, with more information, the charges have become lying, and purposely stopping available aid from reaching the troops, among other things.

This is only true if you pretend that there is a difference between acts of terror and terror attack.
If Obama used the phrase "terrorist attack" in that speech, he would have been grammatically incorrect as it relates to the language of the speech itself.

reply to post by cholo


We always knew he was responsible, he is the commander in chief and one of his subordinates was killed on his watch.
That said, let's investigate the whole event and see if anyone else needs to hang with him.

Originally posted by cholo
Since Obama has assumed the blame, can we move on with life?

No we cannot move on that easily.

If Obama would like to repeat that, now, after so much B.S. has been slung by his direct representatives like Susan Rice and that kid they have playing press secretary? I'd be interested in hearing it. After all, A LOT was slung. If we forget what they sounded like, lying to our faces, here is a part of what was thrown around. Many other statements exist....but this isn't my thread to fill multiple pages with.



The fact of the matter is, Obama can claim it, and again, if he does clearly and to the facts we know them to be now ...vs. the garbage then? I'd actually respect that.

The functionaries and bureaucrats who repeatedly turned down pleas for more aid, are still in the State Department, as far as we all know. The people who decided to use local security from a Militia in Benghazi and not United States Marines for the defense of a U.S. Consulate? Are still there. The people who read and who generated the reports about the explosion that blew out the wall of the compound, well before Stevens was killed? Are still there.

This was a systemic failure. I've yet to hear ANYONE take blame for anything but the broadest 'concepts' and that's no responsibility at all. Nothing is even said about the outright lies, as the video above repeats for all to hear.

Nope.. We can't, as a nation, move on and especially not when those who physically did this thing are still living large in the city they did it in. The best the FBI has managed? grainy, blurry, black and white garbage that wouldn't identify a Hollywood celebrity looking right into the Camera. NOTHING like the full color, crisp and clear photos the attackers took themselves of the event and what happened there.

Cover-Up is self evident. The outcome is all we don't know where that is concerned. Now, the nation has a RIGHT to know why this has happened and who, directly failed those men and over 20 civilian staff who only lived because two of the men who died, went to rescue them before the compound fell to the attackers.

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by cholo

 

Let me ask a counter-question, and feel free to ignore it.

Was LBJ guilty of all the deaths in Vietnam that occurred post-Tonkin?

You are mixing apples and oranges. Can you tell me the difference between Vietnam and
an embassy attack? Please answer.

reply to post by cholo


Nixon took responsibility for Watergate too.

reply to post by cholo

Since Obama has assumed the blame, can we move on with life?

What can that possibly mean? The next time I drive my car over somebody else's head, or blow up an entire county, can I tell the judge "I assume the blame, now let's move on with life?"

That is nonsense. Does uttering those magic words absolve you from all judgment and punishment? Why not assume the blame for everything in the world, if you can brush it off in the next breath with "Now, let's move on?"

They just arrested a former Nazi guard. He is 93 years old. Can he say "That was a long time ago, can we move on with life?"

I really hope I'm misunderstanding you completely.

Originally posted by charles1952
If you knew that four American diplomats were killed because the President decided it would look bad for the upcoming election to land troops, wouldn't you have some rage?

Wow, you bet I would. Did that happen?

reply to post by cholo


I was responding to your own logic that questioned FDR's responsibility for your grandfather's friend's death in WWII. What did that have to do with an embassy attack?

I respect your canniness in refusing to answer the LBJ question. Well played.