They Were Left To Die
-
Axelrod is just another paid stooge. Reid, Higgardly, Pelosi, Carney...the list is very, very long.
But if disaster strikes our country across the board in terms of civil and economic strife... the little stooges will hide,
knowing that their corrupt self interest damaged our entire country.
won't be the first time in history....
-
The CIA knew within 24 hrs that it was an attack by MILITANTS, not any kind of reaction to the stupid video.
ObaMao lied, four people died.
Meanwhile, why WAS Stephens there?
rumor has it, that it was in regard to secret arms sales... to the militants. Al qaida.
By... ObaMao. We'll have to wait and see what the truth is, if ObaMao lets it be known...
-
The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20121020/NEWS02/310200025/CIA-knew-about-militants-attack-US-embassy-Libya?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
Both Obama and Hillary played politics with this and now they are still lying
-
The CIA knew within 24 hrs that it was an attack by MILITANTS, not any kind of reaction to the stupid video.
ObaMao lied, four people died.
Meanwhile, why WAS Stephens there?
rumor has it, that it was in regard to secret arms sales... to the militants. Al qaida.
By... ObaMao. We'll have to wait and see what the truth is, if ObaMao lets it be known...
The CIA knew within 24 hrs that it was an attack by MILITANTS, not any kind of reaction to the stupid video.
ObaMao lied, four people died.
Meanwhile, why WAS Stephens there?
rumor has it, that it was in regard to secret arms sales... to the militants. Al qaida.
By... ObaMao. We'll have to wait and see what the truth is, if ObaMao lets it be known...
Cal - awesome to see what the A.P. stated, vs what the regime came out with later Friday afternoon regarding the CIA "talking points"
my bet thinks the CIA is protecting themselves by releasing this!
-
Well at least Hitlery fell on the grenade and took some responsibility, as the secretary of state. I think it was weasley of Obama to slip slide out of any responsibility but what else can you expect?
-
Well at least Hitlery fell on the grenade and took some responsibility, as the secretary of state. I think it was weasley of Obama to slip slide out of any responsibility but what else can you expect?
Well at least Hitlery fell on the grenade and took some responsibility, as the secretary of state. I think it was weasley of Obama to slip slide out of any responsibility but what else can you expect?
I can expect better.
No??
-
Well look what we are finding out in the news....... Obama wanted a hostage situation to boost his rating for his reelection and it backfired and Americans were murdered.
President Obama’s once seemingly unstoppable march toward re-election hit what he might call “bumps in the road” in Benghazi, Libya, late on Sept. 11, 2012. It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander in chief.
Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).
Read more: GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate/#.UIdhzDA7ZuQ.twitter#ixzz2ABY98bG6
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Obama reminds me of the smiler from 'transmetropolitan' I don't expect you guys would know that and its too bad because its appropriate. I expect something bad to happen to someone "important" to him just in time for election day.
-
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal SAINT
***************
Exactly what I alluded to earlier. More security would have not kept it a hush hush op.
Dirty tricks demand a limited scope of people involved.
-
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal SAINT
***************
Exactly what I alluded to earlier. More security would have not kept it a hush hush op.
Dirty tricks demand a limited scope of people involved.
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal SAINT
***************
Exactly what I alluded to earlier. More security would have not kept it a hush hush op.
Dirty tricks demand a limited scope of people involved.
Nice color. Is the gipper here?
-
CIA told to stand down.........OP-... they were left to die
-
If a lib had a son who was a Navy Seal who died that way.....
what would you think of a VP who says "Did you son always have balls the size of cue balls?" ???
And a president who won't look you in the eye, and offer up a limp-wristed handshake and walk away?
And send out form letters to you?
Serious replies maybe?
-
Will Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Succeed?
Barack Obama’s prospects for re-election have been fading for some time now. As Mitt Romney surges, Obama flails, embarrassing himself with silly trivialities that are often summed up as Big Bird, binders and bayonets. That’s what happens when your record is so bad that you can’t talk about it; not truthfully, anyway. So it has been clear for a while that Obama’s re-election hopes can’t absorb another blow. Which the Benghazi story, to the extent the facts get out, surely is.
That is why Obama made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obama’s main campaign themes, that through his own personal heroism he had al Qaeda on the run. Instead, Obama chose to pretend that Benghazi was an unfortunate but essentially meaningless mob uprising, prompted by a YouTube video. So we got the nauseating spectacle of Hillary Clinton hugging the father of one of the murdered SEALS and assuring him not to worry, the Obama administration would prosecute the guy who made the video to the fullest extent of the law.
But, with a little over a week to go until the election, the lid was blown off the administration’s cover-up by Fox’s story yesterday, alleging that the administration turned down repeated pleas for help over the course of the seven-hour Benghazi battle, and by the white-hot anger of Charles Woods, who has repeatedly called Barack Obama and his White House “cowards” for failing to come to his son’s aid.
If the allegations of Fox’s story prove to be true–still an open question at this point–and if voters know about them, Obama has no chance on November 6. So how will the media formerly known as mainstream, which have done their best to try to drag Obama’s sorry campaign across the finish line, deal with the Benghazi story?
The New York Times, for one, has dealt with it by not mentioning the current allegations. This is what you get if you search the Times site for “Benghazi:”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/will-obamas-benghazi-cover-up-succeed.php
Freedom of speech has also become a crime under the Obama/Stalin regime
-
I wonder what Petraeus thinks of this snafu.
(I mean really)
WSS
-
Obamao threw Higgardly and Petraeus sp? under the bus.
But it backfired. Now he's running from any press that might dare
ask him about what he really knew as it happened, and why he
would not approve a rescue by the Seals on the ground.
And, why, in August, the big security team was still brought out of there,
despite the ambassador, and the COMMANDER of that heavy duty security team's
requests to extend their stay out of increasing violence toward the embassy.
It's a gut wretching scandal that ObaMao needs to own up to, or he surely will
lose the election by a greater margin.
Obamao is now a disgrace, even to the dems.
-
Benghazi scandal demands answers Prez shows utter lack of integrity, leadership
Last week, in the final presidential debate on foreign policy, Mitt Romney made a deliberate decision not to go after the president on Benghazi. Romney’s task was to present himself as a plausible commander in chief. To do so, he needed to remain above the fray and avoid getting into a spat with the president over the details of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.
Romney was right (politically) to avoid a tit-for-tat with Obama on Benghazi. With the White House changing its story daily, any attempt by Romney to criticize the president on this issue would only have left him with a major case of whip-lash.
But the public and the media must demand answers. What exactly happened this past Sept. 11 in Libya? And why was the Obama administration unable or unwilling to prevent it?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login