BOMBSHELL! Obama Administration Heard Terrorists Using State Dept. Phones During Benghazi Attacks

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5


I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds with more people available to give context and background for the big picture here.

My bottom line is...when there is a terrorist attack, you guys go after the President, whilst the President goes after the terrorists.

Benghazi 'mastermind' captured without a single shot fired
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

But don't you know this "captured" terrorist is just a scapegoat and possible agent?

Don't you know the Administration is in the process of changing the music?

The psy-ops to cover the lies about Benghazi is in full swing.

The investigations are exposing the Progressives and their ilky silky agendas.

November elections and 2016 are coming up quick and fast.

They have no choice now but to lie more and hope enough naïveté still exists.


Hillary Clinton claims she had doubts about the "Benghazi" video

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5

The investigations are exposing the Progressives and their ilky silky agendas.

Ilky Silky? You do keep me smiling even when I think you are full of it!

So the latest rumors floating out there are that the Obama administration went out and apprehended a Benghazi "suspect", who apparently wasn't hiding and has done multiple news conferences. Why you ask? They are going to trot him out and have him say they attacked the embassy because of... wait for it... a youtube video. Ahahahaha

a reply to: Indigo5

If this President went after the terrorists...I wouldn't publicly and figuratively "go after" him. Where precisely did the President "go after" these terrorists? Almost 3 years later, we hear they captured one. Well.. golly.. That's special. I recall the BBC contacting some, and persistent statements that they were still operating in and around Benghazi, all this time.

Woulda been nice to see the FBI on the ground for more than a few hours, one time, to investigate the scene itself. It would have been even better to see actual and real pursuit far far sooner than this.

We can't have it all though...and citizens can't do anything in the end. We can just demand action through our reps..and trust me....many of these reps won't let it go because WE WON'T LET IT GO ..and they are reminded of it. Several times a month, every month, by both Email and at least one paper reminder sent snail mail. Like clockwork. I'll personally be sending the same until I feel it's been investigated as *I* see that as being legitimate ...I die of old age...or no one in the top National Command Authority on the night of the murders in Benghazi are still in any position to be held to account.

It's one of those things we'll likely never agree on, even a little bit.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

If this President went after the terrorists...I wouldn't publicly and figuratively "go after" him. Where precisely did the President "go after" these terrorists?

We do disagree there. I read extensively on the hunt for OBL. Bush vs. Obama was night and day. The Bush admin saw it as an opportunity to exert their will in the Middle East...Afghanistan and Iraq..with OBL being an afterthought. Pres. Obama gathered the leads in finding OBL together within days of taking office and gave them all the resources they asked for and made it a priority.

Also...you can't bemoan the drone program, while at the same time claiming this Admin hasn't gone after terrorists...and specific people...not regions and countries, like his predecessor.

Pres. Obama did not want to add inmates to Guantanamo. That meant that his choices were to drone/and or black ops the folks responsible for Benghazi or actually arrest, rapid extradition and try them in US courts. Time will tell if black-ops took out some of the smaller players in the attack, but Abu Khattala was a candidate for actual trial...he was public, had given interviews, was a known entity...disappearing him wasn't a subtle matter...and the Admin wanted to make a statement about actually making the leader stand trial in US Courts. This meant they had to build a legal case before apprehending him (much more difficult than pulling a trigger in the shadows). This took time to amass evidence and make sure the sources of that evidence were safely out of harms way. It is the fact that they are prosecuting him in US courts that delayed his apprehension...they opted to have the leader of the attack stand trial.

a reply to: Indigo5

Okay, first? George Walker Bush isn't the United States President. He has not been the United States President since Jan. 20 of 2009. He will never be the President again. He's a mere private citizen and it's gotten years beyond where bringing up the last guy does anything but show extreme past fixations. It'd be like blaming Bill Clinton because he didn't plant Bin Laden in a grave when UBL was at a Falcon camp during the second term. Clinton didn't want to risk hitting a Gulf royal whose plane was parked there as well, ergo, in the line of fire. BAD Bill... HE did it! Blame him for it all! (tongue in cheek)

That too could be said to be behind every decision President Barack Obama has made relating to Afghanistan and the Terror wars beyond (Including Libya). It COULD be said...and it would be as absurd as running to Mr. Bush to blame or seek shelter with for every bad decision the sitting President (of near 6 years now) chooses to make.


On the actual matter? in my view, Barack Obama isn't sympathetic to terrorists. He'd be a suicidal fool to be that way, as any of them would consider him a prize beyond all dreams to target as an enemy. Few with a logical mind could debate THAT point. Hence, I don't see Obama being corrupted to favor any terrorists. That's important to note.

At the same time, I believe this President is an "Ends justify the means" man, at *ANY* cost short of sacrificing his OWN policy and legacy goals. It's not that I think he wants to see us hurt by NOT chasing down the terrorists. I just don't believe he sees it advancing his personal and direct objectives, and so, not worth caring TOO much about either way.

In many ways, being personal and actually LIKING the terrorists would be a better thing to consider. At least it would show concern and hands on control of policy. That is what I think is most lacking here. Policy runs itself, and we get chaos and disaster when policy runs itself. We've had it for years now.

a reply to: Indigo5

Supporting 0bama has really got to display the biggest action of hypocrisy ever.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

Okay, first? George Walker Bush isn't the United States President.

And Barack Hussein Obama was not the First President of the United States. Comparing a President to others that have held the office seems rational. Pretending that he is the only one to have ever held that office does not.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

and it would be as absurd as running to Mr. Bush to blame or seek shelter with for every bad decision the sitting President (of near 6 years now) chooses to make.

I am confused where you think I displaced blame or responsibility to Pres. Bush?

I was responding very clearly to your claim..

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

If this President went after the terrorists...I wouldn't publicly and figuratively "go after" him. Where precisely did the President "go after" these terrorists?

And I cited why that claim seemed to fail by both current reality standards...from OBL, to Drone strikes, to Benghazi...and I cited the previous administration (the only other to deal with the volume of terrorism this one has) as a comparison. Not blame.

Absent taking into account the present or the past realities...by what standard do you think the President has not gone after terrorists? Perhaps an ideological, partisan standard, but certainly not by any other I can see or that you have communicated.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Supporting 0bama has really got to display the biggest action of hypocrisy ever.

That was a useless post, but not unusual.

a reply to: Indigo5