Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 19, 2018, 03:08:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!  (Read 14239 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #75 on: October 10, 2012, 06:12:56 PM »

Love this guy.  Spot on!   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12xvztg3v8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12xvztg3v8</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #76 on: October 10, 2012, 06:24:44 PM »

Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False (video)
 RealClearPolitics ^ | October 10, 2012 | RealClearPolitics

Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:19:50 PM by i88schwartz

Posted on October 10, 2012 Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False

Piers Morgan, CNN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge. And it's pretty unAmerican, pretty unAmerican to be putting up completely false statements before you know the facts, isn't it?

Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given --

Piers Morgan: That turned out to be complete wrong.

Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn't mean it was false. It doesn't mean that it was deliberate. It means that.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #77 on: October 10, 2012, 06:40:16 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU</a>


BUSTED!
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #78 on: October 10, 2012, 07:02:22 PM »


Posted on October 10, 2012


Krauthammer On Libya Cover Up: Hillary Clinton Told Video Story While Body Of Ambassador Was Next To Her



CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's beyond a disconnect, it is utterly damning. There are two scandals going on. The first is the coverup. We now know, and they knew earlier there was no mob, there was no demonstration, there was no incentive about the video. It was all a completely false story. This was simply an attack of our men who infiltrated and killed our people.

So everything that Susan Rice said was a confection, it was an invention. And as you showed, it was repeated again and again. You had Hillary Clinton speaking of the video as the body of the ambassador was lying next to her. Then you had Susan Rice spinning the tails. You had the president of the United States addressing the [U.N.] General Assembly more than two weeks later talking about the video, the insult to Islam, et cetera. You have this entire story going all along. They're trying to sell the video, they're trying to sell extremism and they're trying to sell all of this at a time when they know it isn't true. So that's number one. That's a scandal and I think it has to do with the fact that they were spiking the football over the death of bin Laden and al-Qaeda a week earlier in Charlotte and this is a contradiction of it.

The second scandal is the lack of security at the site before. So what happened before? And I think that what happened was the administration, it wasn't a lack of money that they withdrew all the support and they didn't put up the required barbed wire and the fences and all of that. It was under the theory which starts with Obama at the beginning; we don't want to be intruders in the area, we don't want to be oppositional, we don't want to have a fortress in America, we don't want to look imperialist. We want to blend in with the people and help them build. That's a noble aspiration and that was the motive for having very light security, but it was a catastrophically wrong decision to do it in Benghazi in a no man's land in Dodge City and it cost us the lives of the Ambassador and three other Americans. bret
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #79 on: October 10, 2012, 07:07:36 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q72Kt1VLWUo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q72Kt1VLWUo</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #80 on: October 11, 2012, 01:48:31 AM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Why The Obama Administration Lied About Benghazi
TalkingSides.com ^ | 10/10/12 | CaroleL
Posted on October 10, 2012 2:16:24 PM EDT by CaroleL

Today the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on diplomatic security; specifically the lack of security that facilitated the September 11 murders of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Most often these investigations center on the question 'What did a government official know and when did they know it?' but in this case we already have those answers.

Hours before the congressional hearing began, the State Department briefed reporters on the facts of the case saying it never determined that the deadly attack on the US consulate stemmed from protests over an anti-Islam YouTube video as administration officials claimed for over a week. So the question which needs to be answered is not what did Obama & Company know and when did they know it but rather, why did they blatantly and repeatedly lie to the American people?

The possible answers:

A. A terrorist attack on US soil that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador does not substantiate the administration's assertion that President Obama's foreign policy has been a success. The fact that four years of apologies and appeasements did not result in the new era of mutual respect Mr. Obama promised; but rather in more hate and terror will not assist the president in winning a second term.

B. The administration wanted to cover-up the fact that it denied and/or ignored requests for additional security in Libya. In the weeks after the Benghazi attack, multiple requests from US officials in Libya have been uncovered which show concern over the lack of security there. Ambassador Stevens himself repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi but his requests were denied. US Security Officer Eric Nordstrom asked his State Department superiors for more security agents months before the Benghazi attack but got no response.

C. Blaming the ridiculous YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi gave the president another opportunity to apologize for American values rather than defend them. The day after the murders, Mr. Obama condemned the violence but also condemned criticism of Islam. This attempt to morally equate murder with the exercise of free speech was such an obvious political disaster that the president had to quickly release a statement asserting that the First Amendment "is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I'm sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind."

D. They thought they could get away with it. With the mainstream media tucked comfortably in Mr. Obama's pocket for years, there was good reason for the administration to believe that if they repeatedly lied about what happened in Benghazi, the lie would be reported as the undisputed truth. In the most blatant case, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on numerous television programs stating the attack was "a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo" and that what transpired in Cairo "was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video." The dutiful media aired what we now know to be brazen lies without challenge.

As the State Department begins to reveal the truth and the Congressional investigation moves forward, it looks like the answer is most likely E. All of the above.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #81 on: October 11, 2012, 01:52:13 AM »

BUSTED.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/1892704860001

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #82 on: October 11, 2012, 02:02:31 AM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mother-slain-state-dept-official-tired-being-lied-and-stonewalled-obama-administration_654163.html


Obama lies people die.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #83 on: October 11, 2012, 06:07:11 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2RuF0xoDs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2RuF0xoDs</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6587


Getbig!


« Reply #84 on: October 11, 2012, 06:08:22 AM »


Funny how you dont give a shit when republicans start wars killing 1000 of americans.

Go fuck yourself
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #85 on: October 11, 2012, 06:11:32 AM »

Funny how you dont give a shit when republicans start wars killing 1000 of americans.

Go fuck yourself


So you are ok w the blood on obama's hands and his lies? 

Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6587


Getbig!


« Reply #86 on: October 11, 2012, 06:23:11 AM »

So you are ok w the blood on obama's hands and his lies? 



So you are ok with the blood on the hands of the GOP and their CONSTANT lies???
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #87 on: October 11, 2012, 06:31:39 AM »

So you are ok with the blood on the hands of the GOP and their CONSTANT lies???

Start a thread on it. 

Why do you keep covering for obama's deadly incompetence? 
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6587


Getbig!


« Reply #88 on: October 11, 2012, 06:55:56 AM »

Start a thread on it. 

Why do you keep covering for obama's deadly incompetence? 

I dont.

Obama is a dirtbag.

But you blame every issue on him despite the GOP is as bad as him.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #89 on: October 11, 2012, 07:37:52 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjO3_QWWgG8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjO3_QWWgG8</a>


Holy Shit 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #90 on: October 11, 2012, 09:07:40 AM »

President Obama and the "Intelligence Brief" Scandal
 http://townhall.com/columnists/paulkengor/2012/10/11/president_obama_and_the_intelligence_brief_scandal ^ | Paul Kengor
 
Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:15:42 PM by Kaslin

The last few weeks have produced many intriguing political moments, but none as shocking as the revelation that President Obama has been absent from the vast majority of his daily intelligence briefings.



According to a study by the Government Accountability Institute, Obama failed to attend a single Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in the week leading up to the recent anniversary of 9/11 and the chaos that erupted in the Arab world. The mere fact that we were approaching 9/11 was a crucial enough reason to attend not one but all the briefings. President Obama attended none.



Worse, this is apparently nothing new. Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his administration. For this year, he attended a little over a third.



This is stunning, and there’s no excuse for it.



Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, who worked for President George W. Bush, pressed NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor for an explanation. Thiessen reported:



Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail. “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”



That’s simply the White House covering for the president.



Similarly, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the PDB charge as “hilarious.” No, no, said Carney, the president “gets it every day.” By “it,” Carney was apparently talking about the intelligence briefing papers, not the actual meetings.



Pro-Obama journalists happily accepted Carney’s explanation. CNN posted Carney’s comments under a photo of a pensive Obama sitting at an intelligence briefing.



Sorry, but, once again, there’s no excuse for this, especially in the post-9/11 world. George W. Bush not only didn’t miss the PDB but actually expanded it to six meetings per week.



Consider, too, the case of Ronald Reagan, who liberals, ironically, portrayed as an uninformed idiot who didn’t pay attention in meetings or read anything.



Reagan, in fact, attended the daily intelligence briefing. I could lay this out at length, but here I’ll offer just two Reagan sources, both still living, who can speak to this:



One source is Herb Meyer, special assistant to CIA director Bill Casey in the 1980s. Meyer told me: “Of course Reagan attended all those daily briefings. And after the briefers returned to CIA headquarters, Bill [Casey] would meet with them just to be sure the president (and Haig & Weinberger) got answers to whatever questions they may have had. In short, it was a very—very—serious business.”



Another source is Bill Clark. Clark was Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man in foreign policy. As his biographer, I know Clark well. He is 80 years old and lives in California. Clark told me this about Reagan and the PDB:



Bill Casey would, by courier, send the President’s Daily Brief each morning at about 5:00 a.m. to our war room downstairs in our [National] Security Council…. It would be delivered to the president in his residence before he came over [by 7:00 a.m.]…. He’d write questions all over the margins about things that weren’t clear in the briefing. And, of course, the agency [CIA] would come down with further explanations.



Clark recalls how Reagan craved that regular morning update. He would read it and then they would meet. Reagan ate up these briefings. He asked questions of his advisers. He probed for ideas. Reagan attended the briefings and used them as presidents should.



When Reagan finished his presidency, after two terms, genuine freedom and democracy were surging all over the communist world.



As for President Obama, if he’s in the process of finishing his presidency, after one term, he’s facing a surge of radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Can any of that be blamed on Obama’s failure to attend these routine briefings? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly can’t help.



In fact, as Marc Theissen and the Government Accountability Institute have noted in follow-up stories, Obama is now suddenly attending his daily briefing. That’s no doubt a response to political criticism. But could it be—on the heels of the eruptions in Libya and Egypt, which Obama initially blamed not on pre-meditated terrorism but a video—that maybe President Obama feels like he might have been missing something?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #91 on: October 11, 2012, 11:14:46 AM »

Cutter: Benghazi Is Only an Issue ‘Because of Romney and Ryan’
 Washington Free Beacon ^ | October 11, 2012 | Washington Free Beacon Staff

Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:09:24 PM by Snuph

Video at link...Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–


(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #92 on: October 11, 2012, 01:11:10 PM »

Did Stephanie Cutter Just Win The Foreign Policy Debate For Romney?

video

by Noah Rothman | 4:14 pm, October 11th, 2012



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-stephanie-cutter-just-win-the-foreign-policy-debate-for-romney



In case you haven’t seen the video, watch it. Drink it in. Obama campaign Deputy Communications Director Stephanie Cutter, in a craven and flailing attempt to salvage the White House’s ebbing credibility surrounding their response to the 9/11/12 attacks in Libya, said that it was her estimation that the attacks were only an issue because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made it one.
 

In effect, Cutter said that this attack, one of the most comprehensive and successful Al Qaeda attacks on American assets since September 11, 20001 in which an American ambassador overseas was killed for the first time since the Carter administration, was only on the media’s radar because it is an election year. Stephanie Cutter has just provided Mitt Romney a stronger argument against President Barack Obama’s handling of foreign affairs he could have hoped for. In a single bound, Cutter revealed the administration’s thinking about how to respond to this deadly attack – it is not about American security, it is about politics. Fair or not, that is how Romney will frame Cutter’s glib remark.



Stephanie Cutter must have known that the administration has been under fire for sending out high level officials to disseminate information about the origins of that attack that they were aware at the time was false. Cutter must have known that the State Department is in the hot seat for ignoring consulate and embassy requests for more security and reallocating assets that could have aided those threatened diplomatic officials elsewhere on the globe. There is no way Cutter could not have known that she was simply unqualified to discuss matters of national security or the president’s response to threats posed by global terrorism in North Africa and the Middle East.

But she ignored all that when she jumped out in front of the issue and brazenly accused the Republican ticket of politicizing the attack in Libya. She then dared to suggest that Romney criticized Obama on the Libya attacks before he had enough information. Even if he did, events have vindicated him. Cutter is a few news cycles behind the rest of us.

One of the president’s chief spokespeople has now handed a weapon for the foreign policy debate on October 22 that he could never have dreamed of having. Cutter has created a victim of Romney – a martyr, accused of politicizing an event when he is, as I expect him to say, seeking answers about a mishandled tragedy for the American people. He will cite the grieving families of the victims of that attack and the millions of Americans who are now threatened by an emboldened and resurgent Al Qaeda. Romney will be righteous and he will be justified in that righteousness.
 
The Libya issue has already decimated how American’s view Obama’s handling of foreign affairs — once a strong suit of the president. Two months ago, the Chicago team probably thought they could walk through the foreign policy debate. Now, less than a week and a half before the final presidential debate, Obama’s own staff may have already lost it for him.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #93 on: October 11, 2012, 07:46:15 PM »


Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security
 
Posted By Josh RoginThursday, October 11, 2012 - 8:06 PM Share
 
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_security




Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
 


"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.
 
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
 
"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway."
 
Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department's reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, "For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."
 
"We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met," testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.
 
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released the unclassified cables containing those requests.
 
Rep. Paul Ryan pointed out the testimony to Biden during the debate. Ryan also erred when he criticized the State Department for assigning Marines to protect the ambassador in France but not Amb. Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
 
"Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him, shouldn't we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?," Ryan said.
 
According to the U.S. Embassy Paris website, there is a Marine Security Guard Detachment in the embassy, but they are there primarily to protect classified information and are not part of the ambassador's personal security detail.
 
"The mission of the Marine Security Guards is to provide internal security at designated United States Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified material and equipment which, if compromised, would cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States; and to provide protection for U.S. citizens and property within the principal buildings of the Mission," the website reads, noting that in certain situations the Marines might be in a position to protect the chief of mission.
 
Ryan also criticized President Barack Obama for attributing the Benghazi attack to an anti-Islam video and he referred to comments today by Obama campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter, who said the Benghazi issue was only politically relevant because the Romney-Ryan campaign was pushing it.
 
Biden accused Romney of spouting off about the Benghazi attack before knowing all the facts and he pledged that the administration would pursue the investigation to wherever it leads.
 
 













Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5492

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


« Reply #94 on: October 12, 2012, 01:01:51 AM »

Benghazi: Multiple Requests for Increased Security Denied by Washington
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/02/Multiple-Requests-for-Increased-Security-in-Benghazi-Were-Denied-by-Washington?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


by John Sexton

2 Oct 2012, 9:43 AM PDT


 

The security lapses in Benghazi that led to the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans trace back to security decisions made in Washington. That's the message of a letter Rep. Darrell Issa sent to Secretary Clinton Tuesday. The letter indicates that the US mission in Libya made repeated request for increased security prior to the September 11th attack but that these requests were denied. Issa's House Oversight committee is planning a hearing on Wednesday, October 10, to investigate the failure.
 
Issa's letter is an effort to gather relevant information on security arrangements in Libya prior to the attack. In particular, Issa is requesting information on security requests from the Libyan Embassy and relevant documents on how those requests were handled. According to the letter, "multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11th attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."
 
The letter offers a partial timeline of attacks on western outposts in Tripoli and Benghazi which shows a pattern of targeting western diplomats and outposts. It also suggests the attacks were escalating in their boldness, i.e. late night attacks give way to strikes in broad daylight. What follows is summary of the incidents mentioned in Issa's letter:

 •April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.

•April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.

•April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.

•April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.

•April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.

•May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.

•May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.

•June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.

•June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.

•June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi.
No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.

•Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.

•August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.

•Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."

While the list suggests a clear pattern it is far from complete. For instance, in April a bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya as he traveled through Benghazi.
 
The letter requests a written response to three questions. Did the State Department know about all of the above attacks? What security arrangements were made in light of them? What requests did the Libyan Embassy make for additional security prior to September 11, 2012? Issa requests that a written answer be provided to the committee by Monday October 8th.
 

How about the nearly half trillion dollars the GOP waxed from embassy security.  Against the wishes of Sec. Clinton.  Huh moron?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #95 on: October 12, 2012, 04:43:00 AM »

How about the nearly half trillion dollars the GOP waxed from embassy security.  Against the wishes of Sec. Clinton.  Huh moron?

Hey idiot - the state department said funding played no role in the decision not to put more security at the embassy - like a typical stupid braindead 94er you know absolutely nothing on this topic. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #96 on: October 12, 2012, 05:53:27 AM »

Bam team’s bloody failure
Last Updated: 12:13 AM, October 11, 2012
Posted: October 11, 2012


 
‘What is the difference between chaos and control?”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) posed that question yesterday to a witness at a House Oversight Committee hearing into the State Department’s cascading security failures that led directly to the wanton slaughter of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

But the question also stands as an indictment of the Obama administration’s tenuous hold on the broader Middle East, where the influence and security of the United States are fading — and where al Qaeda is very much on the rise.

But first, that hearing from yesterday.
 


AP

 Eric Nordstrom

Eric Nordstrom, the State Department’s regional security officer for Libya, twice sought to enhance security for US missions there in the wake of cutbacks in the months before the 9/11 attack.

But Nordstrom says his requests were ignored by Washington “because there would be too much political cost.”

Instead, he was given a “danger pay” hike when 16 US soldiers from a Site Security Team and 18 members of three Mobile Security Deployments were yanked.

Clearly, the hazardous-duty pay means the State Department recognized the increasing risks in Libya.

Yet State Department official Charlene Lamb — who refused the manpower requests — testified yesterday that “we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11.”

That’s self-evidently false — to say nothing of insane — but it also telegraphs the administration’s cluelessness about the region.

After the 16 soldiers were removed, “there was a complete and total lack of planning for what was going to happen next,” Nordstrom said. “There was no plan, there was just hope that everything would get better.” It didn’t.

 The Benghazi mission was sacked, four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens — were murdered and the White House sought to cover things up by calling the well-coordinated strike an “impromptu” protest against an obscure online video.

In fact, there was never a protest at all — just a premeditated paramilitary assault which totally surprised Washington.

No shock there.

The White House’s attention has been elsewhere: Eager to proclaim victory in the War on Terror, President Obama spent a year celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALs — claiming that al Qaeda was “devastated,” “decimated” and “on its heels.”

That’s not true in Iraq, where the number of al Qaeda fighters has more than doubled, from 1,000 to 2,500, since Obama withdrew US forces last year — and where there are now 20 al Qaeda attacks every single day.

And it’s not true in Libya, where Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, the former commander of the State Department Site Security Team there, told Congress al Qaeda is on the rise.

“Their presence grows there every day. They are certainly more established there than we are,” Wood said yesterday.

Of course they are.

Just as all but the sunniest optimists said they would be as the administration’s “leadership from behind” fell quickly to pieces after Moammar Khadafy’s inglorious fall.

Osama may be dead.

But al Qaeda is very much alive.

Another Barack Obama failure.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #97 on: October 12, 2012, 07:01:08 AM »

Benghazi's Real Scandal? Uncle Sam Joined the Jihad
 DianeWest.net ^ | 11OCT12 | Diane West

Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 10:35:05 AM



Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?

The question has yet to come up in House hearings, but I think it holds the key to the Obama administration’s betrayal of the American people in “Benghazi-gate.” To an American with common sense not subverted by advanced degrees, the thought of putting Islamic “martyrs” in charge of American “infidels” in Benghazi – which, fun fact, literally means “city of holy warriors” – would trigger the inevitable “heck, no.” And that’s without even knowing what is significant about Feb. 17.

But I’m talking about Washington, D.C. Here, placing the lives of Americans in the hands of a thug-army linked to multiple atrocities and drawn from jihad-epicentral eastern Libya disturbs no collective brain wave. No matter that Benghazi and nearby Derna sent more men, per capita, to Iraq to kill Americans than anywhere else in the world. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, putting local boys in barracks inside the consulate compound was a great idea. Why not? President Obama’s ambassador, the late Christopher Stevens, was, as they say, “reaching out” across the jihad spectrum on official business.

Meanwhile, Ansar al Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law”), the al-Qaida-linked militia believed to have led the consulate assault in September, is a spinoff of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, but that didn’t scratch the lacquered political surface, either. And even as reports remind us of ties among February 17 Martyrs Brigade leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood and the web of jihad-poison spun by Qatar’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Libya’s Ali al-Salabi – the latter having been tapped by the Qatari dictatorship to distribute $2 billion to Libyan “rebels” – the focal point remains elsewhere.

Partly, that’s because the breathtaking lies the Obama administration has told us post-9/11/12 distract our attention from the disastrous policy previously in place. Plus, there remains a lingering confusion over good guys and bad guys. After all, Uncle Sam isn’t supposed to support bad guys. The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

Whether, as the Daily Beast reported, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade may have been ordered by a pro-al-Qaida Libyan politician to “stand down” for the attack remains to be verified. Meanwhile, the State Department reminds us not to forget the service of two brigade members who were beaten and two who were shot defending the compound. “But there were some bad apples in there as well,” one intelligence source told the Daily Beast.

How could there not be? And here is where the significance of Feb. 17 comes in.

John Rosenthal, an independent journalist based in Europe, wrote early on that the Libyan rebellion wasn’t led only by al-Qaida commanders. This anti-Gadhafi movement was symbolically also an Islamic jihad on Western liberty itself. We know this because, as Rosenthal reported, the “Day of Rage” called for Feb. 17, 2011, to kick off the Libyan civil war was the fifth anniversary of another assault on the West, also in Benghazi.

Following Friday prayers on Feb. 17, 2006, thousands of Benghazians attacked the Italian Consulate to punish the temerity of an Italian minister, Roberto Calderoli, who several days earlier had publicly defended free speech in the West. The world was then experiencing another cycle of Islamic violence, this one orchestrated to punish a tiny Danish newspaper for publishing a sheet of Muhammad cartoons and, in turn, Denmark itself for refusing to punish the journalist-transgressors of Islamic law, which outlaws any critiques and all depictions of Muhammad.

Calderoli didn’t merely defend free speech. During his TV interview, he dramatically unbuttoned his shirt to reveal a T-shirt featuring a cartoon of Muhammad. Referring to Islamic rioters worldwide, he added: “When they recognize our rights, I’ll take off this shirt.” He was forced to resign from his post the next day, a sacrifice on the altar of Shariah (Islamic law) by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. It wasn’t enough.

“We feared for our lives,” the wife of the Italian consul later told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, describing the attack in which the consulate was set on fire. All personnel were safely evacuated. Libyan police used tear gas to try to disperse the rioters, later opening fire and killing 11 attackers.

These are the “martyrs” who serve as role models for the security team that was defending the U.S. Consulate. Symbolically, they figure into the wider war in Libya, which is often called the February 17 Revolution. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the Islamic war on free speech, the basis of our liberty, was an inspiration of “regime change” in Libya. And we supported it.

That’s the real scandal.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #98 on: October 12, 2012, 07:37:01 AM »

Obama Campaign Spokesman Abruptly Ends Radio Interview After Being Asked About Obama 'Lying' About
 The Blaze ^ | 10/12/12 | Madeleine Morgenstern

Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 11:20:22 AM by Nachum

Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt abruptly ended a heated radio interview Thursday after being pressed on President Barack Obama’s differing statements on the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

LaBolt insisted on Cleveland‘s WTAM that the White House has been sharing all the facts as they’ve come in from the intelligence community. Asked whether the president should make a statement disavowing his past comments blaming the assault on an anti-Islam video, LaBolt pushed back.

“The president called it an act of terror within 24 hours, he again updated the American people on the incident in Benghazi in his interview on ABC News last night and he — ” LaBolt said.

“So which time was he lying, when he called it a terror attack or when he called it a video problem?” WTAM’s host interjected. “Because he said two different things.”

“Thank you for having me this morning, I’ve gotta move to my next interview,” LaBolt said, ending the conversation.

Listen to the full interview below; hangup occurs around the 11:05 mark.


(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19428


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #99 on: October 12, 2012, 08:18:49 AM »

Biden adds more confusion to Libya story with debate claim on security
 fox news ^ | 10/12/2012 | fox news


Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 12:16:14 PM


Vice President Biden's claim at Thursday's debate that the administration wasn't told of requests for more diplomatic security in the run-up to the Libya terror attack added only more confusion to an already muddled narrative.

In addition to raising eyebrows over that comment, the vice president went a step further and threw the intelligence community under the bus -- putting the blame squarely on their shoulders for the faulty narrative, pushed for more than a week by the administration, that the attack was a protest spun out of control.

The exchange on Libya, which opened the debate in Kentucky, was among the toughest in a persistently confrontational face-off. But Biden's comment on security was drawing widespread condemnation from Republicans Friday, with Romney adviser Dan Senor saying Biden "continued the administration's pattern of misleading" on Libya.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!