Benghazi: People Died Obama Lied

During the Dem campaign in 2008, they asked the question, who do you want taking the call at 3AM? Now we know, you don't want either Obama nor Hillary.

towermonkey wrote: What we learned is that it is okay for Obama to lie now because the shrub did it first. Nice to see that we are setting higher standards for our elected officials.

Interesting that the basis for that argument is an admission that "The guy we voted for, TWICE, was a liar and a screw-up, so you should pick someone who isn't as bad as OUR guy."

But then, you knew that...(And it isn't new information.)

So while an American ambassador was begging for his life in Benghazi, Obama was begging for campaign donations in Vegas. Priorities, right? The eternal campaigner.

As usual, John Stewart nails it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-m ... d_facebook

So, while the "mission"...(Not an Embassy, not a Consulate) was asking for air support, the military was telling them the same thing that has been explained more than a hundred times, "It was not possible to get there in time because they had no in-air refueling capabilities."

The facts haven't changed... And FauxNews/WorldNutDaily "spin" doesn't change them.

Yep... Repeating it with different spin doesn't alter the fact that the right-wing lies are still lies.

Soulshiner wrote: As usual, John Stewart nails it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-m ... d_facebook

:thumbsup:

But, but, but.........the hearings.....surely they found the "smoking gun".....surely they got to the bottom of this blatant cover-up, surely someone explained how Obama and Hillary, with malice aforethought, tried to cover-up.....uh what? what were they covering up?.....not the fact that the Ambassador and 3 others died....not the fact that the Embassy was attacked and there was not enough protection to save their lives (duh.....if they died, then we didn't save them, and we knew that immediately), oh, yeah, they were covering up the fact that they didn't know immediately that this was a terrorist attack and who did it.....of course we still don't know who did it (can you cover up what you don't know?), perhaps they did cover-up that it was a terrorist attack? Do we have the timeline of when it was a CONFIRMED terrorist attack and when Obama and Hillary used the term terror to describe the attack. (come on conservatives, we need that info).

So, again, what exactly did Obama and Hillary cover-up? hmmmmmm, maybe they were covering up the fact that protection was weak because funding was cut.....nah, why would they cover up a GOP pet project of cutting funding? What they didn't cover-up were the varying theories from CIA, and others about possible causes of this attack. THERE IT IS......Obama and Hillary and Rice said too much before all the facts were in? They are guilty of being TOO transparent......shame on them, the GOP hates transparency and will punish you for it.....

This is nothing more than a dog and pony show to mobilize their base (who are listening to right wing radio, according to the numbers, and absorbing all that outrage) and to tarnish the image of Hillary. Tarnishing Obama is just gravy at this point.

Raees wrote: Broadwell told an audience at DU that there was a secret CIA prison at Benghazi?

"Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted," she said.

The CIA denied her statement, but what would you expect them to do? She also may have leaked classified info in that statement.

She also said "The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position he is not allowed to communicate with the press. So he's known all of this, they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."

[youtube:281ixeo6]

[/youtube:281ixeo6]

(the interesting stuff is about 35 mins in)

Having reviewed this ENTIRE thread....THIS piece of information appears to be PERTINENT, now that the C-span hearing from
yesterday has been completed....I would like to see ADDITIONAL media leg work on this factor.....I believe it is an important MISSING
link that would explain away alot of what the WSJ reported in Nov. 2012.....JMO

So, the disgraced Broadwell, who was apparently mouthing off about things that were above her pay-grade, is the new source of outrage-of-the-day material?

archer wrote: But, but, but.........the hearings.....surely they found the "smoking gun".....surely they got to the bottom of this blatant cover-up, surely someone explained how Obama and Hillary, with malice aforethought, tried to cover-up.....uh what? what were they covering up?.....not the fact that the Ambassador and 3 others died....not the fact that the Embassy was attacked and there was not enough protection to save their lives (duh.....if they died, then we didn't save them, and we knew that immediately), oh, yeah, they were covering up the fact that they didn't know immediately that this was a terrorist attack and who did it.....of course we still don't know who did it (can you cover up what you don't know?), perhaps they did cover-up that it was a terrorist attack? Do we have the timeline of when it was a CONFIRMED terrorist attack and when Obama and Hillary used the term terror to describe the attack. (come on conservatives, we need that info).

So, again, what exactly did Obama and Hillary cover-up? hmmmmmm, maybe they were covering up the fact that protection was weak because funding was cut.....nah, why would they cover up a GOP pet project of cutting funding? What they didn't cover-up were the varying theories from CIA, and others about possible causes of this attack. THERE IT IS......Obama and Hillary and Rice said too much before all the facts were in? They are guilty of being TOO transparent......shame on them, the GOP hates transparency and will punish you for it.....

This is nothing more than a dog and pony show to mobilize their base (who are listening to right wing radio, according to the numbers, and absorbing all that outrage) and to tarnish the image of Hillary. Tarnishing Obama is just gravy at this point.

Yep....

LadyJazzer wrote: So, while the "mission"...(Not an Embassy, not a Consulate) was asking for air support, the military was telling them the same thing that has been explained more than a hundred times, "It was not possible to get there in time because they had no in-air refueling capabilities."

The facts haven't changed... And FauxNews/WorldNutDaily "spin" doesn't change them.

Yep... Repeating it with different spin doesn't alter the fact that the right-wing lies are still lies.

You still haven't adressed why they continued to lie about Al Qaida's involvement when their own Libyan diplomatic staff told them it was.