Monday, October 29, 2012

Exposing the Obama Administation Benghazi Cover UP...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


The Benghazi debacle and subsequent cover up requires, in fact DEMANDS answers from the inept administration who is responsible for it. From the Boston Herald.

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?

The Benghazi controversy is not one, but four separate scandals — each of which calls into question the president’s leadership.

First, Benghazi raises legitimate questions about Obama’s competence as commander in chief. In last week’s debate, the president said that his No. 1 job is to keep Americans safe. Then why did he not do so in Benghazi?

Was the president unaware of the threat in Libya? Or did he simply fail to treat it with the requisite level of seriousness? The British saw the danger and closed their consulate months earlier. Once the attack was under way, why did the president fail to send assistance?

Second, the president’s reaction to Benghazi reveals his utter lack of integrity. That he allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to fall on her sword rather than man-up and accept responsibility for his administration’s failure was not only despicable, it was cowardly.

Third, Benghazi reveals the president to be dishonest. It is now clear that the administration knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was a premeditated act of terrorism. But, in order to protect his own political hide, the president engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed at deceiving the American public.

And the president continues to lie daily in order to hide the cover-up... {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

32 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Really? Given the large number of ObamaBots in the nations I tend to believe otherwise.

      Of course rationally thinking individuals understand the realities. As to the far flung leftists, not so much. Since they constitute near 50% of the electorate, and a majority of the LSM there is a GREAT possibility they just might be able to get the cover up swept under the rug.

      Delete
  2. Okay guys, what is the cover-up?

    Give it a rest.

    I've read all of you apologizing for your partisan faves.

    That stupid video made for a convenient attack on the Benghazi embassy. Why won't any of you admit that?

    I hope this misguided "issue" costs Romney the election. I would just go to show...

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey said: "I hope this misguided "issue" costs Romney the election. I would just go to show..."

      There's no way. After all, Romney described it accurately early on days before Obama began to stop covering up the truth. The real question is the degree to which this helps Romney.

      Delete
  3. What did the president know and when did he know it?

    Did he order a rescue or not?

    If not, why not?

    If so, why was it not done? Why hasn't he fired the foot draggers?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're beating a partisan horse to death on this one, Les.

    "...the president said that his No. 1 job is to keep Americans safe. Then why did he not do so in Benghazi?"


    Why didn't Reagan keep 240 Marines safe in Lebanon, and why didn't GWB keep 3,000 Americans safe on 9/11?

    Remember when the GOP argued that both of those disasters were because Reagan and Bush were incompetent criminals?

    No? Neither do I.

    So tell us all how what happened in Benghazi is worse that what happened in Lebanon under Reagan, and on 9/11 under Bush? Remember the PDB report that said "bin Laden determined to attack the US?" The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Remember how, as CiC, GWB stepped up security at all our airports to prevent Al Qaeda from carrying out its threats?

    No. Neither do I. And as a result, 3,000 Americans died.

    And here we have another tragic event, but this time it happened under a Democratic president, so somehow there's a cover-up and and the president is treasonous?


    May I remind you of these statistics:

    Number of American embassies attacked and people killed under Reagan, Bush, and Obama:


    92 killed at American embassies under Reagan.

    33 killed at American embassies under Bush.

    4 killed at American embassies under Obama.

    President Obama has the BEST record of protecting our embassies.



    Apparently these stats, which clearly show that President Obama has kept our embassies safer than Republican presidents, interfere with your slanted opinions, so you've ignored them and gone right for the partisan .

    And you're the one who calls us Obamabots?

    Really.

    You and SF ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was only in my 20s at the time but I can remember vociferously criticizing Reagan over the Lebanon fiasco (and actually before it, too - we should have never been over there) AND I was opposed to the Iraq War from day one (this, as opposed to those idiots, Kerry, Biden, and Clinton who apparently didn't even read the summary of the N.I.E.), so your charges of partisanship are superfluous with me....The facts are the facts, Shaw. The President is either lying or he's incompetent in his handling of this. Yes, terrorist acts of mayhem in fact DO happen. But you have to be straight with the American people.

      Delete
    2. "Apparently these stats, which clearly show that President Obama has kept our embassies safer than Republican presidents"

      Tell that to the families of the victims of Obama willfully turning a cold shoulder to calls for help, and rubbing salt in the wounds by flagrantly lying about the situation for weeks.

      The fact that some more people died in Lebanon died under Reagan in the 1980s... yeah that will make them feel happy.

      Now I see your point. Shaw. It's OK for the Obama administration to engage in something close to negligent homicide by ignoring calls for help (the equivalent of a county 9/11 operator getting a call about an armed home invasion and saying "yeah, so what?" and hanging up.) as long as the number of lives lost due to this policy is something less than 33, the next highest number of deaths under Republicans.

      In fact, that is your main point. Why else would you bring up the others?

      Delete
    3. When the shoe fits, wear it Shaw...

      Delete
  5. I just wrote this on Leticia's blog and I'll repeat it here:

    "Obviously very bad decisions were made regarding the Benghazi attack, but what conspiracy theory you guys are chasing is beyond me. What are you talking about?

    A stupid anti-Islam video provided cover for an attack on a US embassy that was mishandled by the administration. It seems to me there's a chance it would never have happened without that stupid video.

    Do you disagree???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    JMJ"

    Answer that, cons.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A stupid anti-Islam video provided cover..."

      If not for this video (itself a heroic expression of the basic human rights protected by the Constitution), there were still 35,000,000 negative depictions of the creator of Islam on the Internet.

      Delete
    2. jmj, Yes I do. Read Silver's comment as it about sums up the critical issues.

      Delete
    3. No, I disagree vociferously. This same embassy had been attacked several times in the months prior to this stupid video and, so, too, was the damned British embassy.

      Delete
  6. Finally got you to shut your racist mouth
    Ahhh silence is golden

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong again asshat, I have been extremely busy, as a result I have given you the opportunity to rest your brain and give it time to formulate more delusion sand lies.

      Delete
  7. And I will repeat here. If there wasn't that video, there are 35,000,000 other negative depictions of the founder of Islam on the Internet.

    When will you stop bashing freedom of artistic expression?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer, the demigods of progressive collectivist BS with strong fascistic leaning never will. It is an entirely hopeless delusion to think they ever will.

      One only needs to read the Anon bullshit comments to know this is true.

      Delete
  8. It seems so obvious to me you guys only care about your ideology, ambassadors be damned. The administration was caught off guard. It happens. What bothers you guys is that a few sleazy videographers are getting blamed for it. And they shouldn't be. You're right about that, and no one, no one in the Obama Admin or the "MSM," is saying that. Only your conscience is saying that.

    Lay it off on Islam. A lot of our people are in tough spots over there. Let's not make it worse.

    Let's be responsible patriots.

    We all know the differences between peoples, we don't need it ground into our heads all the time.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  9. Having fun shithead
    I am
    Just knowing I chased you off the blogs
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wrong?
    Where are your foaming hate posts
    No Nazi comparisons to Obama
    No CULT releases
    Face it shit head
    you LOSE
    You Lose to me
    HA HA HA HA HA HA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon, whoever the sick Asshat you are, you lose, and lose big time you have.

    You see, you can not point to one hate piece ever written by me, nor can you point to a single piece I have ever written that defends Nazism or any other totalitarian dictatorship.

    You do a real disservice to the honorable left because some might think you are representative the left. When in fact you are a total aberration, and a VERY disturbed one at that.

    Now, go play your mind games elsewhere Anon. You are truly a very sick MF'er.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Missing 5 year old boy alert
    I sent the cops to your house

    ReplyDelete
  13. I won't respond to dmarks, who slandered me. He is a liar. Nothing he says, IMO, has any merit. He owes me an apology. Until he delivers that apology, he's a non-entity to me. He doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Shaw that is why I will henceforth no longer respond to one of yours.

      Delete
    2. Calling somebody a "vengeful partisan" - that ISN'T slander?

      Delete
  14. Hey Shaw (and, yes, this is like a fine wine and so I'm going to savor it slowly), according to A.P. (10/17, and later on on the McLaughlin Group - 10/19), the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington (and ultimately directly to the A.P.) within 24 hours that there WAS evidence that the embassy bombing was carried out by militants and not by a spontaneous mob (which I've already told you on numerous occasions never even existed) that was seething due to some American made video which ridiculed the prophet, Mohammed. The fact that somebody in the White House apparently sent Ambassador Rice and Secretary Carney out to peddle this video nonsense is exceedingly troubling, Shaw.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And yes, Shaw here is actually defending the deaths of these innocent Americans. They are also "non-entities" to her, acceptible losses as long as their total is less than that under George W. Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jersey, why won't you admit that your spammed question about the video, with its zillion question marks, is nothing more than a demand by you to give some filthy savages in a cave halfway around the world veto power over artistic expression by Americans in America?l

    ReplyDelete
  17. A little quick research found that Shaw was disingenuous in reporting the number killed. Either she is lying, or she is grabbing stuff from Andrew Sullivan or some other such person who cooks "facts" like a master chef.

    I found a reference to another innocent American murdered trying to protect a diplomatic mission... also under Obama's watch. This person is not counted as one of the 'non-entities' in Shaw's total of "hey, its less than under Bush so it is fine" deaths under Obama. But I can see why she left him off. She spotted him 32 total diplomatic deaths (less than under Bush) before any accountability is required.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.