DescentBB

CUDA wrote:Funny how the administration apologist didn't address the fact that it took 15 months for the NYT to state they had a corespondent on the ground interviewing the attackers, DURING THE ATTACK. I guess it wasn't news back then when those same attackers were murdering an American Ambassador on the anniversary of 9-11.

Maybe it has taken their 'reporter' this long to find someone there in Benghazi who had heard about the video....

woodchip wrote:Better yet get the NSA because they prolly have the actual AQ conversations

Well, go ask them. I'm sure they'd be very forthcoming to anyone who asks so's we could all clear this whole mess up. And you know THEY know too.

CUDA wrote:please show me where Bush Lied and made **** up about ANY of those attacks

Show me where Obama LIED. Not waffled or hemmed and hawed, which they DID do, but outright LIED about it. The NYT has nothing to do with, nor even sides with, the Obama administration, yet their interviews with people involved in the attack, IN LYBIA, pretty much match Obama's and Rice's comments about the attacks and the video right after they happened. So what it took so long to report it? The NYT probably wanted to protect their reporters and verify people's statements. And why aren't you seething mad about Congress when they denied Hillary's request for more money for embassy security before the merde hit the fan in the first place? And why did Stevens try to open or run a consulate, which was probably a cover for some covert CIA op anyway, in a very dangerous and unstable location at the time, when protection for him was almost nil or dependent on people he couldn't even trust?

As for Bush and his consulate deaths, he managed to keep it covered up and out of the press for the most part. I can't even remember any major wall to wall news reports about them. Either that, or the press kissed Bush's ass and kept quiet during all that 9/11 blind psychosis Bush worshiping the entire country sucked into. No Republican whined about all those deaths when they occurred back then and no Democrat had the bawls, or the ability, to go up against and question the Bush/Cheney love-me-or-else machine either.

HOWEVER, it's been PROVED that Bush himself DID LIE about weapons of mass destruction and bobbled the capture of Bin Laden, all to get us into 2 unnecessary wars, which directly led to the deaths of 6,650 of our troops as of 2/2013. It's even more by now. That doesn't include the numbers of private contractors who died as well, estimates that put that number at or more than 3000. Where are you're priorities? "Funny" how that doesn't enter your or most other Republican's priorities. You get this false rage about those couple of people who died in Benghazi, which in itself is sad, but nada about all those kids who died for BUSH'S BIG LIE and all the consulate deaths during HIS administration.

tunnelcat wrote:... And why did Stevens try to open or run a consulate, which was probably a cover for some covert CIA op anyway, in a very dangerous and unstable location at the time, when protection for him was almost nil or dependent on people he couldn't even trust? .:

Lol!
You think Stevens is the one who decided to have State Department, US Army and CIA go gather missiles and ship them to Syrian terrorists?!?!

Are you really that removed from reality to sincerely suggest that kind of decision wasn't above his pay grade?

Or do you simply start your response with the premise that, in order to protect Hillary, (who was then Secratary of State,) and the whole Obama White House, what ever scenario you conjure up must leave them out of it?!? No matter how ridiculous that premise is?!? That's it? That's all you've got?

Well, which is it? Is that the limit of your intellectual curiosity on the matter of who, what, when, where and why?
Or is it simply an example of how far from logical reality you are willing to sink to serve as their lackey?

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Better yet get the NSA because they prolly have the actual AQ conversations

Well, go ask them. I'm sure they'd be very forthcoming to anyone who asks so's we could all clear this whole mess up. And you know THEY know too.

CUDA wrote:please show me where Bush Lied and made **** up about ANY of those attacks

Show me where Obama LIED.

GOOD GOD. Obama said the attacks were caused because of an internet video. testimony before congress specifically states that they knew it was an Al-Queda backed attack AS IT HAPPENED. try and keep up TC

we already did this dance MONTHS ago

Aaaaaaaaaaand I guess we won't know until the CIA spooks who were running the show in Benghazi tell their tale, will we? As for Stevens' role in the Benghazi incident, he KNEW what he was getting into and KNEW who he was dealing with because he KNEW the CIA was running the show and he KNEW we were arming Syrian rebels through the Libyan opposition covertly. And yes, Stevens KNEW that those Libyans were loosely affiliated with Al-Queda and STILL worked with them. So Stevens is not without culpability. Guess who else knew? Hillary.

Now did Obama know about the operation? Sure he did. I'm not a blind idiot, nor do I approve of most of what the CIA goes around doing in the name of national defense or at the behest of a president. But what president hasn't run some covert ops against enemies of our state and had it screw up royally? Obama's done nothing any different, nor had any different results than any other president has had in the past. Even Reagan ran his little covert ops through underlings and had things screw up and blow up in his face. He was never impeached for it either.

http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi ... ya-2012-11

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria ... z2B6CXFhPG

My point CUDA, isn't the fact this CIA job turned into a clusterf**k. There is no doubt that happened and it's a stain on his presidency just like the Iran Contra affair was for Reagan. My question is why are these deaths so much worse and deserving of so much outrage than all the other consulate and troop deaths under Bush, or any other president for that matter? Because a Democratic president you don't like is in charge? If that's the case, that IS THE most ludicrous and emotional reason I've ever heard to be pissed off at a president for what happened during a covert spook operation gone wrong I have EVER heard, period! GET OVER IT!

My question is why are these deaths so much worse and deserving of so much outrage than all the other consulate and troop deaths under Bush, or any other president for that matter?

they aren't, but apparently you haven't read what I have posted twice now

tunnelcat wrote:...
My point CUDA, isn't the fact this CIA job turned into a clusterf**k. There is no doubt that happened and it's a stain on his presidency just like the Iran Contra affair was for Reagan. ...

No TC, it isn't a stain because unlike Reagan, Obama is protected by the mainstream media, as is Hillary, their future Queen candidate who's fingerprints are all over the Benghazi attack and the secret CIA op MANPAD transfers to Syrian terrorists.

When the media hounds Obama and Hillary like they did Reagan and Bush Sr.
And runs stories for a few decades on Hillary's role in the death of Stevens and the other Americans who died with him there...and they and pontificate on her culpability for the duration of her tenure in public office and beyond.... THEN you will be allowed to make that comparison! Then you will be able to say
Obama and Hillary underwent the same scrutiny as previous administrations. then there will be a stain on them. In politics a stain isn't a stain unless the media says it is.
Until then it is the double standard of your party dominating the editorial process of the 'News' that is the story....and it is only being discussed honestly by those of us who don't drink from your Parties Kool-Aid pitcher. Until then it is outfits like the NY Times saying 'What stain? It was the video!' and lackeys like slick making posts like this one spreading the feces!

CUDA wrote:

My question is why are these deaths so much worse and deserving of so much outrage than all the other consulate and troop deaths under Bush, or any other president for that matter?

they aren't, but apparently you haven't read what I have posted twice now

You're still too preoccupied with the whole matter. It's obviously not the fact that several people died that's pissing you off, but that Obama has succeeded in whitewashing the whole thing with the help of the press. But don't discount the fact that the CIA doesn't want things known either, so there may be a lot of misinformation that's being fed to the press, even in that NYT piece for that matter.

Do you realize how many presidents have successfully stonewalled some secret op they've done, even with the press against them? The real problem is how much of what a president does in the name of national security should be kept secret. How much power should a president have? I'm more pissed off at what Obama's doing with the NSA and the spying on Americans than the Stevens incident. Far more nasty things are going on in secret that can no longer come under the scrutiny of the American people. Now the NSA's so bold, they're gloating about it. Don't think the Chinese won't retaliate for it either. THIS should be Obama's Waterloo.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/20 ... d_yfinance

Will, that's one of the reasons why I will NEVER vote for Hillary, amongst others.