Obama bin lying about embassy attacks

[Doc]

And how does the administration benefit from this elaborately covered-up deception?

Because they didn't have to look like the Carter Admin did before the 1980 election.

I guess you could make this comparison if Carter had deposed Gaddafi and shot Khomeini in the face.

Didn't have to answer about dead Americans burning to death in a foreign country.

Didn't hurt Bush in 2004, and he's responsible for far more dead Americans that Obama. Americans as a whole don't really care about that kind of thing.

Didn't have to answer questions about why they were claiming they had defeated AL Qaeda.

"Mission Accomplished"




Anyway none of that is tied to the alleged "scandal" here, which is that the administration said that the attack was tied to the film for about a week, then said that it was not. I'm waiting to hear what the motivation for that week-long deliberate lie and wide-ranging cover-up is, and why/how it would benefit the administration or be worth the trouble.

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

All fine and Well Ibrahim However you still have not address this:

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

I take it you just don't want to talk about it.

OH BTW You could respond that Obama was simple waiting for the drone to make it to Tunisia in order for the perp to be interviewed by a hellfire missile

[monster_gardener]

And how does the administration benefit from this elaborately covered-up deception?

Because they didn't have to look like the Carter Admin did before the 1980 election.

I guess you could make this comparison if Carter had deposed Gaddafi and shot Khomeini in the face.

Didn't have to answer about dead Americans burning to death in a foreign country.

Americans as a whole don't really care about that kind of thing.

Didn't have to answer questions about why they were claiming they had defeated AL Qaeda.

"Mission Accomplished"




Anyway none of that is tied to the alleged "scandal" here, which is that the administration said that the attack was tied to the film for about a week, then said that it was not. I'm waiting to hear what the motivation for that week-long deliberate lie and wide-ranging cover-up is, and why/how it would benefit the administration or be worth the trouble.

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

Didn't hurt Bush in 2004, and he's responsible for far more dead Americans that Obama.

Yes but Obama is Responsible for Infinitely More Dead American Ambassadors...... *

That and Obama is even DUMBER than a Bush because he is dumber than a Brick oops I mean Brit.........

Even Brits knew to get their Diplomat Boyz out of Benghazi.......

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

Because it is unfavorable to Obama???.........

* 1/0= Infinite..........

[Ibrahim]

And how does the administration benefit from this elaborately covered-up deception?

Because they didn't have to look like the Carter Admin did before the 1980 election.

I guess you could make this comparison if Carter had deposed Gaddafi and shot Khomeini in the face.

Didn't have to answer about dead Americans burning to death in a foreign country.

Didn't hurt Bush in 2004, and he's responsible for far more dead Americans that Obama. Americans as a whole don't really care about that kind of thing.

Didn't have to answer questions about why they were claiming they had defeated AL Qaeda.

"Mission Accomplished"




Anyway none of that is tied to the alleged "scandal" here, which is that the administration said that the attack was tied to the film for about a week, then said that it was not. I'm waiting to hear what the motivation for that week-long deliberate lie and wide-ranging cover-up is, and why/how it would benefit the administration or be worth the trouble.

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

All fine and Well Ibrahim However you still have not address this:

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

I take it you just don't want to talk about it.

Far from it, I want you to explain how any of this is indicative of a cover up or conspiracy, and how the administration would have benefited from the alleged conspiracy.

[Doc]

And how does the administration benefit from this elaborately covered-up deception?

Because they didn't have to look like the Carter Admin did before the 1980 election.

I guess you could make this comparison if Carter had deposed Gaddafi and shot Khomeini in the face.

Didn't have to answer about dead Americans burning to death in a foreign country.

Didn't hurt Bush in 2004, and he's responsible for far more dead Americans that Obama. Americans as a whole don't really care about that kind of thing.

Didn't have to answer questions about why they were claiming they had defeated AL Qaeda.

"Mission Accomplished"




Anyway none of that is tied to the alleged "scandal" here, which is that the administration said that the attack was tied to the film for about a week, then said that it was not. I'm waiting to hear what the motivation for that week-long deliberate lie and wide-ranging cover-up is, and why/how it would benefit the administration or be worth the trouble.

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

All fine and Well Ibrahim However you still have not address this:

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

I take it you just don't want to talk about it.

Far from it, I want you to explain how any of this is indicative of a cover up or conspiracy, and how the administration would have benefited from the alleged conspiracy.

I did ask you first and you ignored it completely. Quit diverting and give an answer if you have one.

[Ibrahim]

And how does the administration benefit from this elaborately covered-up deception?

Because they didn't have to look like the Carter Admin did before the 1980 election.

I guess you could make this comparison if Carter had deposed Gaddafi and shot Khomeini in the face.

Didn't have to answer about dead Americans burning to death in a foreign country.

Didn't hurt Bush in 2004, and he's responsible for far more dead Americans that Obama. Americans as a whole don't really care about that kind of thing.

Didn't have to answer questions about why they were claiming they had defeated AL Qaeda.

"Mission Accomplished"




Anyway none of that is tied to the alleged "scandal" here, which is that the administration said that the attack was tied to the film for about a week, then said that it was not. I'm waiting to hear what the motivation for that week-long deliberate lie and wide-ranging cover-up is, and why/how it would benefit the administration or be worth the trouble.

This entire issue is starting to look a lot like Birtherism to me.

All fine and Well Ibrahim However you still have not address this:

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

I take it you just don't want to talk about it.

Far from it, I want you to explain how any of this is indicative of a cover up or conspiracy, and how the administration would have benefited from the alleged conspiracy.

I did ask you first and you ignored it completely. Quit diverting and give an answer if you have one.

What question?

[Doc]

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

I take it you just don't want to talk about it.

Far from it, I want you to explain how any of this is indicative of a cover up or conspiracy, and how the administration would have benefited from the alleged conspiracy.

I did ask you first and you ignored it completely. Quit diverting and give an answer if you have one.

What question?

Quite right not a question but nearly everything I originally said which you have not responded too with anything but diversion.

Case in point. The one member of the attacking terrorists that was caught in Turkey Then sent to Tunisia was not interviewed by anyone from the US for 3 weeks because the Tunisian government refused to make him available. Then Sen Graeme called the Tunisians as and the perp was made available the next day.

So yes it is so obvious that the Admin was trying to hide it was a terrorist attack in order to track the terrorists. Yeah right... MOOOOve along folks nothing to see...

Doc

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:10 pm

Which you replied to with the diversion:

I like conspiracy theories with as many moving parts as possible. Not just the State Dept. and the White House, but including the Senate and Tunisia!

Oh, but Cui bono?

Now if you have something to say about it without diverting then great. If not MOOOO've along folks nothing to see here.

[Ibrahim]

I did ask you first and you ignored it completely. Quit diverting and give an answer if you have one.

What question?

Quite right not a question

So much for that claim, then.

but nearly everything I originally said which you have not responded too with anything but diversion.

No. I am simply waiting for you to explain yourself in greater detail.

So far you are only repeating that a detainee passed through Turkish and Tunisian custody before being questioned by American authorities. I'm not judging (let alone distracting from) your theory because you haven't articulated one yet.

[Doc]

I did ask you first and you ignored it completely. Quit diverting and give an answer if you have one.

What question?

Quite right not a question

So much for that claim, then.

but nearly everything I originally said which you have not responded too with anything but diversion.

No. I am simply waiting for you to explain yourself in greater detail.

So far you are only repeating that a detainee passed through Turkish and Tunisian custody before being questioned by American authorities. I'm not judging (let alone distracting from) your theory because you haven't articulated one yet.

I was originally replying to DOU's posted article on where "Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack"

If they were so interested in avoiding tipping off the terrorists so they could catch them the the idea of the claim they weren't being allowed to interview the only person captured when that is provably false is doubly deceitful.

Just another lie to cover up previous lies.

[Zack Morris]

But why would they have lied?

[Mr. Perfect]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

[Enki]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

The concept of America admitting it provoked a terrorist attack and that these attacks exposed failures is

Our entire foreign policy stretches our defenses thin, and provokes more terrorists with every son who grows with vengeance in his heart after his village is desecrated by a bomb.

The volume for me is turned down, way down around Benghazi, because it's just business as usual. This is normal for foreign policy. An Ambassador got iced, it happens, and yes, those in charge are responsible for it.

A Republican anti-war movement would be a welcome sight.

[Zack Morris]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

[Demon of Undoing]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

[Enki]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

Precisely.

[Mr. Perfect]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

Ask your fellow leftists, they say terrorist attacks are provoked.

It may have something to do with invading a sovereign nation, if you asked me.

[Mr. Perfect]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

We aren't even asking about provocation, just that they don't lie that it was terrorism.

[Demon of Undoing]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

We aren't even asking about provocation, just that they don't lie that it was terrorism.

Ok, but how is it some element of conspiracy or whatever this is supposed to represent when they come out and say it was terrorism a few days later?

I mean, they put our people in a stupid position, had them do stupid things, then hung them out to dry, that's a given. We could be prosecuting people from the last sixty years of American executive branch types ( at least) for the same thing if we wanted to. It's bad, there is no doubt. But I still don't see how this is any different than, say, the same thing we did in the whole of Iraq. It comes with the entire American FP territory.

This is why I am all for the US military being more or less disbanded as an active duty force. The American politician and the people they represent have shown themselves incapable of using the military justifiably and moreover have shown themselves as incompetents in force management. You don't give cretins belt- fed machine guns.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ok, but how is it some element of conspiracy or whatever this is supposed to represent when they come out and say it was terrorism a few days later?

Because it was leaking like a sieve all over the place. Do you even follow the news?

I mean, they put our people in a stupid position, had them do stupid things, then hung them out to dry, that's a given. We could be prosecuting people from the last sixty years of American executive branch types ( at least) for the same thing if we wanted to. It's bad, there is no doubt. But I still don't see how this is any different than, say, the same thing we did in the whole of Iraq. It comes with the entire American FP territory.

Sure. So say and do nothing. Richard Nixon would have loved you.

This is why I am all for the US military being more or less disbanded as an active duty force. The American politician and the people they represent have shown themselves incapable of using the military justifiably and moreover have shown themselves as incompetents in force management. You don't give cretins belt- fed machine guns.

Good luck.

[Demon of Undoing]

It's not leaking like a seive when people are by design bringing out information as they are supposed to.

And you were calling people that were trying to do something in the last go- around ( Iraq) un-American. I just know when something is pointless. It's like this because Americans like you want it to be that way.

And I have no illusions that Imperial troops are going anywhere. We'll have starving people, collapsing bridges, completely uneducated kids and abandoned courts, but we'll still have entire useless armored divisions. Of that I'm sure.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sorry, just go back to the beginning of the thread, I detailed it all, the administration was denying it was premeditated terror as it was leaking all over the place, and the cia and state department have said they knew it was premeditated terror from day 1 and Jay Carney was denying nearly 9 days later. You have a long way to go as a Democrat apologist.

[monster_gardener]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

Thank You Very Much for your post, DOU.

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area........

Well that depends on how you figure things......

Way back at the Beginning the Republic, Tom Jefferson & John Adams thought that we Americans had done nothing to provoke the Arabs/Muslims on the Coast of North Africa.....

But those Arabs/Muslims/Whatever Type of Chaos Monkey they are didn't see things the same way.......

To them, our very existence was and in a provocation.....

Infidel Chaos Monkey like Uz who weren't infected with their strain of the Malignant Malicious Muslim Meme were/are an provocation so grave that they believe they have to kill or enslave us or at least make us pay protection money........

If it is in their power to do so....

From the Muslim Chaos Monkey's AmbASSador's Malign Mouth:

....that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

That is how provocation works in the Muslim world.......

What you are...........

As well as what you do......

[monster_gardener]

So they wouldn't have to admit they provoked a terrorist attack and the security failures it exposed.

How did they provoke this attack?

We haven't admitted that we provoked anything for the entire history of our involvement in the area. Why would that change now?

We aren't even asking about provocation, just that they don't lie that it was terrorism.

Ok, but how is it some element of conspiracy or whatever this is supposed to represent when they come out and say it was terrorism a few days later?

I mean, they put our people in a stupid position, had them do stupid things, then hung them out to dry, that's a given. We could be prosecuting people from the last sixty years of American executive branch types ( at least) for the same thing if we wanted to. It's bad, there is no doubt. But I still don't see how this is any different than, say, the same thing we did in the whole of Iraq. It comes with the entire American FP territory.

This is why I am all for the US military being more or less disbanded as an active duty force. The American politician and the people they represent have shown themselves incapable of using the military justifiably and moreover have shown themselves as incompetents in force management. You don't give cretins belt- fed machine guns.

Thank You Very Much for your post, DOU.

This is why I am all for the US military being more or less disbanded as an active duty force.

Been there. Tried that....

Had to pay Tribute & Buy Tripoli Trouble T-Shirts from the Turbaned Terrorist Killer Klowns .....

At the Beginning of the Republic........

Didn't work......

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [19]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[20] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.[citation needed] A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states would have amounted to approximately ten percent of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[21]

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

[Demon of Undoing]

Sorry, just go back to the beginning of the thread, I detailed it all, the administration was denying it was premeditated terror as it was leaking all over the place, and the cia and state department have said they knew it was premeditated terror from day 1 and Jay Carney was denying nearly 9 days later. You have a long way to go as a Democrat apologist.

So in your world, pointing out that Obama is generally as screwed in his FP as Bush and most everybody else in the WH was is being a Democrat apologist?

" Leaking". You really have lost your mind.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well yeah. That's what all Democrats are doing now. Just like you.

[Demon of Undoing]

Well yeah. That's what all Democrats are doing now. Just like you.

The Democrats are condemning Obama now. Make up your mind.