Lies,Lies, and Damn lies: Obama blames Benghazi on Congress

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
1.) Could the Benghazi murders be avoided?

No. Because America does not control the terrorists, nor does the Libyan govt.

America DID control the allocation of security on the days in question leading up to the attack. At the VERY LEAST they should have up'ed security as they knew there were protests in other countries AND that AQ splinter groups WERE in Benghazi. That's the Executive Branch's responsibility through the State Department. That the Obama Administration wants to blame others is laughable. The didn't take prudent precautions to protect our staff there. If we didn't have good intel in Benghazi then again, that falls on the Executive Branch.

I can't believe we have a President who seems to never take responsibility for actions of his Administration. At the least it means he's not paying attention or in control, at the worst it means he is willing to throw anyone under the bus to protect himself. Either outcome is unacceptable from a President of the United States.

The Lack of Security in Benghazi & any Intelligence failures rests solely with the Executive Branch, the State Department and the CIA. They knew of at the very least, increased chance of confrontations and made the decision to not ramp up security there.

Somebody dropped the ball and people died needlessly because of that;. The Buck stops.........where exactly?????

The Truth will get discovered.

reply to post by sonnny1


I was shocked to see "leg tingle" utter the truth too.

reply to post by pavil

I can't believe we have a President who seems to never take responsibility for actions of his Administration.

I don't get how that works:

Last one was responsible for everything, the current one is responsible for nothing.

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by cholo
No actually, because the GOP didn't seem to care all 50 times that
Embassies were attacked under Bushs regime.

You are confusing not having to beg, threaten, yell, and scream to get so much as a shred of requested documentation out of the admin for a lack of caring. Once again, let's bring this to the real world... in business, if your superiors (and yes, taken as a whole body Congress is the POTUS' supperior) asks for work related product you provide them what they asked for post haste. If you fail at that or, worse, do nothing but whine excuses to them... you are fired. That doesn't mean the boss cares less about what he asked for from Mr. Quality Employee who promptly gave him his request, it simply means his expectations were met. [/quote

In The world of business, a bank CEO is not chastised when a bank robber kills a branch manager during a robbery.

That is what you guys are trying to assert, in essence.

If the CEO insists that the bank guard be let go and the branch manager dies as a result, damned straight the CEO is held responsible.

Please post some examples of that happening, I am waiting so we can discuss the common place occurrence if that example

That's laughable. You present an imaginary hypothetical and then you demand evidence for your imaginary hypothetical?

Since I'm on a phone and cut and paste is limited, do yourself a favor and google "company sued for not providing security" and you will find many, many examples of corporations held accountable for failing to protect their employees.

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by cholo

 

No, sorry, Obama did not send in hundreds of thousands of Americans Established bases And overthrow the governments of Lybian or Pakistan.

Sure he did special forces on the ground with laser guided munitions, and intel gathering in both countries. with the addition of other countries.

abcnews.go.com...

www.cnn.com...

Then of course there was the 'escalation' in Afghanistan.

And again special forces were on the ground in Pakistan.

Sorry to say, America incurred into Pakistan, it did not invade Pakistan.

Fact

Fact: violation of sovereign airspace and attack of ground targets fits every definition of an invasion. One does not have to create based to violate this principle. When the Germans bombed Polish targets, the invasion was official, before a single boot was on the ground.

Do you know what makes me maddest about this?

You all blame Obama for the lack of security at the embassy.

The same people who think that we shouldn't have any security at home. The same people who are so up in arms about DHS, and TSA pat-downs are the same people who NOW are crying that we need MORE of what they are against.

The same people who think that every American should be packing heat, and that there shouldn't be police anywhere because all police are bad, are the same ones blaming the President for this.

The same people who shouted the loudest that we can't rely on the government for anything and that we shouldn't even have a government are the ones that NOW want the government to do something about something they don't really care about.

How do I know all the rage here is fake?

All the terror attacks on our bases, ships consulates etc during the Bush years. Not a single one of you fake rage posters uttered a single word. NOT ONE WORD. Cause it was Bush, so it wasn't his fault. (and it really wasn't) He didn't pull the trigger on any of them. And you acknowledged that fact. But here, you are all acting as if Obama did the deed himself.

reply to post by HauntWok


Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that people aren't upset about the attack itself, per se, but about the administrations response to it.

I think that's how I know that your outrage at the outrage is fake...because you continually go back to the attack itself, not the response. See what you've done? I'm outraged at your outrage at the outrage. That's a triple-outrage...that's just not healthy for anyone.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by pavil

 

I can't believe we have a President who seems to never take responsibility for actions of his Administration.

I don't get how that works:

Last one was responsible for everything, the current one is responsible for nothing.

I guess one has to be a LEADER to be responsible. I guess that's why he get's a pass from his constituency.

reply to post by HauntWok


Once again the go to 'argument' Bush!!!!

Once again Bush didn't try to cover it up or blame videos for it.

All the more reason for 'Americans to pack heat' history has shown they can't count on support from government especially if it get's in the way of politics.

ETA:

Bush didn't bomb the hell out of Libya either.

reply to post by neo96


It doesn't matter. They want to defend the untenable position and the only way to do so is to attempt to deflect back to Bush.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSH

Originally posted by HauntWok
Do you know what makes me maddest about this?

You all blame Obama for the lack of security at the embassy.

The same people who think that we shouldn't have any security at home. The same people who are so up in arms about DHS, and TSA pat-downs are the same people who NOW are crying that we need MORE of what they are against.

The same people who think that every American should be packing heat, and that there shouldn't be police anywhere because all police are bad, are the same ones blaming the President for this.

The same people who shouted the loudest that we can't rely on the government for anything and that we shouldn't even have a government are the ones that NOW want the government to do something about something they don't really care about.

How do I know all the rage here is fake?

All the terror attacks on our bases, ships consulates etc during the Bush years. Not a single one of you fake rage posters uttered a single word. NOT ONE WORD. Cause it was Bush, so it wasn't his fault. (and it really wasn't) He didn't pull the trigger on any of them. And you acknowledged that fact. But here, you are all acting as if Obama did the deed himself.

edit on 16-5-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are quite incorrect. Bush was soundly criticized for security lapses that led to other incidents. The major difference is that Bush did not stand down/turn away response teams.

If you cannot tell the difference between violation of 4th amendment rights of citizens on our soil and providing security for our citizens in hostile territory, then there is not much we can educate you about. As an "independent voter" there is not much independent about your positions.

reply to post by neo96


did you really think that he would say "ok you got me" get a grip.they are serious charges.even Nixon wasn't ignorant enough to say "ok you got me I give up"

Originally posted by dellmonty
reply to post by neo96

 

did you really think that he would say "ok you got me" get a grip.they are serious charges.even Nixon wasn't ignorant enough to say "ok you got me I give up"

I wish Obama would get in front of a camera, make those hand signs, and 'say I'm not a crook' !

That would be epic

Originally posted by HauntWok
Do you know what makes me maddest about this?

You all blame Obama for the lack of security at the embassy.

The same people who think that we shouldn't have any security at home. The same people who are so up in arms about DHS, and TSA pat-downs are the same people who NOW are crying that we need MORE of what they are against.

The same people who think that every American should be packing heat, and that there shouldn't be police anywhere because all police are bad, are the same ones blaming the President for this.

The same people who shouted the loudest that we can't rely on the government for anything and that we shouldn't even have a government are the ones that NOW want the government to do something about something they don't really care about.

How do I know all the rage here is fake?

All the terror attacks on our bases, ships consulates etc during the Bush years. Not a single one of you fake rage posters uttered a single word. NOT ONE WORD. Cause it was Bush, so it wasn't his fault. (and it really wasn't) He didn't pull the trigger on any of them. And you acknowledged that fact. But here, you are all acting as if Obama did the deed himself.

edit on 16-5-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

Jeez, get it through your ears..... We aren't upset that AQ attacked, we are upset that

1. We knew AQ was in Libya and in Benghazi. The Black Flag of AQ was flown in Benghazi in October of 2011. We also knew AQ fighters were in Libya.
2. We knew Sept. 11th was coming up. If AQ were to attack, that would be the timeframe.
3. We knew that there were protests in other countries over that stupid video. At the VERY LEAST, security should have been upped in all Muslim countries.
4. We knew that Benghazi was basically a lawless town still. There were tons of armed milita types still wandering the City.

Given those 4 facts, please dispute any of them, if you can, we should have taken precautionary steps to protect our embassy and diplomatic stations throughout the Muslim world during that time frame in question (video protests through Sept. 11th). Correct me if I am wrong but I would have ventured to say that Libya was the most unstable place in the Muslim world where we had diplomats and that Benghazi was probably the most lawless place we had diplomats and yet we didn't provide them with a proper security detail.

Please tell me in a logical train of thought, how you don't increase security for your diplomats in Libya and especially in Benghazi during that time frame, knowing all of the above details.

That's why we are blaming the Obama Administration. It might not have been President's Obama's total call of it, but it's his Administration. If he gets the glory for getting OBL, he sure as hell should get the blame for the events in Benghazi. His lack of owning up to mistakes there is what is really the issue. With proper, prudent security increases, given the situation, the attack could have been deterred/prevented/repulsed.

The Senate Roots of the IRS Scandal

High-ranking Democrats in 2010 began egging the agency to investigate conservative nonprofits.

The Obama administration finds itself in perilous political waters amid three unfolding scandals.

First came last week's congressional testimony by three highly credible officials, plus some excellent reporting, which showed that the Obama administration consciously misled Americans after the Benghazi attacks that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The White House and State Department knew the attacks were the work of terrorists, not the spontaneous reaction of viewers to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube, as they insisted for two weeks.

If the author of the fanciful yarn that a video provoked the attacks works in the West Wing or on the State Department's fifth floor, powerful heads should roll. Already, officials in both buildings are quietly suggesting someone in the other building is at fault.

Then, on Friday, IRS official Lois Lerner revealed that the IRS had been investigating the president's political opponents. Congressional hearings will soon follow. As Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has said, "we've only started to scratch the surface of this scandal."

The abuse of power may not be confined to the IRS. It might also involve high-ranking Senate Democrats who pressured the IRS to conduct such witch hunts and threatened action if it didn't.

In September 2010, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus wrote to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, requesting that the agency survey major nonprofits involved in political campaign activity for their possible "violation of tax laws." In February 2012, Sens. Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote a similar letter to Mr. Shulman, and promised to introduce legislation if the IRS failed to "prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups." In July 2012 and again in August, Sen. Carl Levin complained to the IRS about its apparent passivity.

Finally, earlier this week the Justice Department admitted it secretly obtained phone records for dozens of Associated Press editors and reporters in order to investigate a leak investigation. Most voters may not be angered by this assault on the First Amendment, but it has turned the press corps on its White House handlers. As National Journal's Ron Fournier said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show on Tuesday, "We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi for months, we were lied to by the IRS for months and now they're sending a clear message to our sources—don't embarrass the administration or we're coming after you."

The controversies are likely to demoralize Democrats who already are depressed by the collapse of Mr. Obama's gun control package, the failure of his political manipulation of the budget sequester, and the quick death of his budget.

The controversies will also further stir up Republicans for the 2014 midterms, adding to their anger about spending, debt and ObamaCare. Even before these firestorms, Republicans were getting keyed up. There was the unexpected opportunity for a Senate pickup when Mr. Baucus announced his retirement last month. And top Democratic choices announced they wouldn't run for open Senate seats in Georgia and South Dakota.

These three big controversies might also sap Mr. Obama's remaining strength. Swing voters who re-elected him in 2012 after punishing his party in 2010 clearly like the man. But evasive White House answers on Benghazi, the IRS's thuggish behavior, and the media's willingness to more aggressively challenge the White House could all undermine Mr. Obama's likability among this group.

How does the president get his sea legs back? The best option would be to get the truth out fully and swiftly and then hold people accountable and punish wrongdoing. Mr. Obama has called for doing so with the IRS.

But generally the president's instincts will more likely lead him in the months ahead to circle the wagons and become more prickly and self-pitying. On Monday, for example, Mr. Obama lamented at a New York fundraiser that his "thinking was that after we beat them in 2012, well, that might break the fever" among Republicans and end "hyper-partisanship" in Washington. That hasn't happened so Mr. Obama again blamed—seemingly for the hundredth time—Rush Limbaugh for the president's failure to achieve nirvana.

Is Mr. Obama up to overcoming the most serious scandals of his presidency? Count me skeptical. These controversies will stretch on and probably be joined by fights over the debt ceiling, the budget and ObamaCare's implementation.

By Karl Rove
May 16, 2013

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by HauntWok
Do you know what makes me maddest about this?

You all blame Obama for the lack of security at the embassy.

The same people who think that we shouldn't have any security at home. The same people who are so up in arms about DHS, and TSA pat-downs are the same people who NOW are crying that we need MORE of what they are against.

The same people who think that every American should be packing heat, and that there shouldn't be police anywhere because all police are bad, are the same ones blaming the President for this.

The same people who shouted the loudest that we can't rely on the government for anything and that we shouldn't even have a government are the ones that NOW want the government to do something about something they don't really care about.

How do I know all the rage here is fake?

All the terror attacks on our bases, ships consulates etc during the Bush years. Not a single one of you fake rage posters uttered a single word. NOT ONE WORD. Cause it was Bush, so it wasn't his fault. (and it really wasn't) He didn't pull the trigger on any of them. And you acknowledged that fact. But here, you are all acting as if Obama did the deed himself.

edit on 16-5-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

Jeez, get it through your ears..... We aren't upset that AQ attacked, we are upset that

1. We knew AQ was in Libya and in Benghazi. The Black Flag of AQ was flown in Benghazi in October of 2011. We also knew AQ fighters were in Libya.
2. We knew Sept. 11th was coming up. If AQ were to attack, that would be the timeframe.
3. We knew that there were protests in other countries over that stupid video. At the VERY LEAST, security should have been upped in all Muslim countries.
4. We knew that Benghazi was basically a lawless town still. There were tons of armed milita types still wandering the City.

Given those 4 facts, please dispute any of them, if you can, we should have taken precautionary steps to protect our embassy and diplomatic stations throughout the Muslim world during that time frame in question (video protests through Sept. 11th). Correct me if I am wrong but I would have ventured to say that Libya was the most unstable place in the Muslim world where we had diplomats and that Benghazi was probably the most lawless place we had diplomats and yet we didn't provide them with a proper security detail.

Please tell me in a logical train of thought, how you don't increase security for your diplomats in Libya and especially in Benghazi during that time frame, knowing all of the above details.

That's why we are blaming the Obama Administration. It might not have been President's Obama's total call of it, but it's his Administration. If he gets the glory for getting OBL, he sure as hell should get the blame for the events in Benghazi. His lack of owning up to mistakes there is what is really the issue. With proper, prudent security increases, given the situation, the attack could have been deterred/prevented/repulsed.

edit on 16-5-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Don't forget that it was Obama who stopped deployments of carrier battle groups and MEUs to the Med (the first time since WWII) and thereby hamstrung our contingency response capability.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kashai

 

Tell me another 'story' please:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

Wait what was that?

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this? LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

Oh dear.

The plane needed to refuel the plane for support for that area was not available so why?

This is the fault of budget cuts and congress holds the money

Get over it

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by pavil

 

I can't believe we have a President who seems to never take responsibility for actions of his Administration.

I don't get how that works:

Last one was responsible for everything, the current one is responsible for nothing.

It works because
1. people side with their political party no matter what
2. There is no accountability nor jail time for any of them (wallstreet, bailouts,war,etc)
3, its an endless cycle between republican candidates and democrat candidates hand picked by the RNC and the DNC that are approved by special interest groups and hobbyist.
4. It has a proven track record to deny ,deny, and blame the other party.


Basically they do it because they have proven that they are for the most part , the law and hence above the law . In addition the majority of the American population blames the other party for everything and feel the answer is switching back to their party (The good one, which is above the billions thrown to them annually).

Then you have those who care more about Bradjolie

reply to post by Kashai

This is the fault of budget cuts and congress holds the money

Once again since someone did not want to read:

Oct. 10, 2012 hearing: QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there? DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir. *** QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this? LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

May 8, 2013 hearing: QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she [Lamb] said? REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.

Tell 4 dead Americans to 'get over it'.

State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.

reply to post by neo96


Excuse me but the refueling plane was not their. So in relation to the issue of what the difference is between BS and the bottom line? Why was the aircraft not available???

The rest is

Congress killed those people by cutting funding as sure as they has pulled the trigger.

Any thoughts?