Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Obama Freak-Out on Benghazi 'Sideshow': 'There's No There There'


Recommended Posts

President Obama insisted that the brewing Benghazi story was nothing but a “sideshow” and that “there’s no there there.” But the substance of new findings and growing public sentiment are at odds with the president.

 

see video here:http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52062-obama-on-the-benghazi-attack-sideshow-theres-no-there-there/

 

The president stammered repeatedly as he lashed out at critics of the meager security at the diplomatic outpost, the ineffectual way the crisis was handled, and the White House’s obvious cover-up in the aftermath:

 

 

The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow. We have been very clear about throughout that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.

 

It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. And the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees.

 

They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there is something new to the story. There is no there there.

 

 

 

The findings from the Benghazi whistleblowers’ hearing were manifold in their import for what actually took place and what the American people were told. There was State Department intimidation of the second man in charge in Libya not to cooperate with a House investigation into what happened. When Gregory Hicks disregarded the warning, thereby putting his career on the line, he was demoted to a desk job.

 

No flyover authority for armed U.S. aircraft in Libyan airspace was ever requested, proving how disinterested the White House’s response to the nearly 13 hour crisis was. Gregory Hicks also backed up the crucial point that a stand down order was issued from somewhere in the Chain-of-Command, possibly AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA, to “furious” U.S. soldiers available in Tripoli, Libya — just hours away.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa responded to the attempt by the president to keep the Benghazi developments buried:

 

 

 

“Only the president could tell us with a straight face that there’s never been any confusion and that from the beginning they’ve said the right thing. … As you go through the facts as they were, yes, in real-time, we knew this was an al Qaeda backed terrorist attack and everything else in between is simply revisionist history.”

 

 

 

 

An increasing number of the literate public disapprove of the president’s handling versus those who approve. According to a Huffington Post/YouGov poll:

 

 

 

The poll found that 42 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way it has been handled, while 27 percent said they approve. In another HuffPost/YouGov poll 
conducted last October
, respondents disapproved by a similar margin, 41 percent to 32 percent. [...]

By a 42 percent to 33 percent margin, more said the Obama administration “deliberately misled” the public on the issue than those who said the administration “shared facts as they became available.” Another 25 percent said they weren’t sure.

 

 

 

Beyond what informed people know, there are certain to be more learning about the story in the coming weeks:

 

 

 

 

The new poll was conducted before new information 
came to light Friday
 about the State Department pushing for revisions to the initial talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after the attack occurred in September. [...]

The new poll also suggests that many Americans are paying relatively close attention to news about the attack and its aftermath. Fifty percent of respondents said that they’ve heard a lot about it, 33 percent have heard a little, and 12 percent have heard nothing at all.

 

 

 

 

The president shows up at a press conference to talk about the Benghazi terrorist attacks and the main thing he has to say is that ‘there is no there there.’ But that isn’t giving the American people answers about what happened that deadly night of September 11th, it’s telling them that there are no good answers.

 

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52062-obama-on-the-benghazi-attack-sideshow-theres-no-there-there/

 


 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress needs to start impeachment process now... I have written my senators, congressman, and spineless house speaker Boner to do so!! I'm sure it has had a affect. Ha 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

President Obama insisted that the brewing Benghazi story was nothing but a “sideshow” and that “there’s no there there.” But the substance of new findings and growing public sentiment are at odds with the president.

 

see video here:http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52062-obama-on-the-benghazi-attack-sideshow-theres-no-there-there/

 

The president stammered repeatedly as he lashed out at critics of the meager security at the diplomatic outpost, the ineffectual way the crisis was handled, and the White House’s obvious cover-up in the aftermath:

 

 

The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow. We have been very clear about throughout that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.

 

It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. And the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees.

 

They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there is something new to the story. There is no there there.

 

 

 

The findings from the Benghazi whistleblowers’ hearing were manifold in their import for what actually took place and what the American people were told. There was State Department intimidation of the second man in charge in Libya not to cooperate with a House investigation into what happened. When Gregory Hicks disregarded the warning, thereby putting his career on the line, he was demoted to a desk job.

 

No flyover authority for armed U.S. aircraft in Libyan airspace was ever requested, proving how disinterested the White House’s response to the nearly 13 hour crisis was. Gregory Hicks also backed up the crucial point that a stand down order was issued from somewhere in the Chain-of-Command, possibly AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA, to “furious” U.S. soldiers available in Tripoli, Libya — just hours away.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa responded to the attempt by the president to keep the Benghazi developments buried:

 

 

 

“Only the president could tell us with a straight face that there’s never been any confusion and that from the beginning they’ve said the right thing. … As you go through the facts as they were, yes, in real-time, we knew this was an al Qaeda backed terrorist attack and everything else in between is simply revisionist history.”

 

 

 

 

An increasing number of the literate public disapprove of the president’s handling versus those who approve. According to a Huffington Post/YouGov poll:

 

 

 

The poll found that 42 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way it has been handled, while 27 percent said they approve. In another HuffPost/YouGov poll 
, respondents disapproved by a similar margin, 41 percent to 32 percent. [...]

By a 42 percent to 33 percent margin, more said the Obama administration “deliberately misled” the public on the issue than those who said the administration “shared facts as they became available.” Another 25 percent said they weren’t sure.

 

 

 

Beyond what informed people know, there are certain to be more learning about the story in the coming weeks:

 

 

 

 

 

The president shows up at a press conference to talk about the Benghazi terrorist attacks and the main thing he has to say is that ‘there is no there there.’ But that isn’t giving the American people answers about what happened that deadly night of September 11th, it’s telling them that there are no good answers.

 

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52062-obama-on-the-benghazi-attack-sideshow-theres-no-there-there/

 

 

 

Why is this only politics aimed at Hillarious and Obama?

 

Answer:  In 911, 3000 people died, and since that attack, 33 people died in embassy and related attacks around the world under Bush/Cheney. No Repugs stood up and whined about all those attacks. All under Republican watch.

 

Pathetic.

Nuff said.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this only politics aimed at Hillarious and Obama?

 

Answer:  In 911, 3000 people died, and since that attack, 33 people died in embassy and related attacks around the world under Bush/Cheney. No Repugs stood up and whined about all those attacks. All under Republican watch.

 

Pathetic.

Nuff said.

 

I don't make up the news I just bring topics here for us to discuss!!

 

You seem to have a problem with about every post I make!!  

 

You're correct:

Pathetic

Nuff Said

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this only politics aimed at Hillarious and Obama?

 

Answer:  In 911, 3000 people died, and since that attack, 33 people died in embassy and related attacks around the world under Bush/Cheney. No Repugs stood up and whined about all those attacks. All under Republican watch.

 

Pathetic.

Nuff said.

 

The majority of those 33 attacks happened in Iraq while we were still at war.  You liberals tend to forget how often you cried then, and now, about Bush, and now when it is your side screwing up, you still try to pin everything on him.  Definately pathetic.

 

-

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of those 33 attacks happened in Iraq while we were still at war.  You liberals tend to forget how often you cried then, and now, about Bush, and now when it is your side screwing up, you still try to pin everything on him.  Definately pathetic.

 

-

 

:twothumbs:  :twothumbs:  Can't even bring an article in for us to discuss without being attacked!!

 

I will go and see if I can find an article on Jefferson Davis or some other Ex-President so we can discuss what he did wrong.....  WOW!!

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't make up the news I just bring topics here for us to discuss!!

 

You seem to have a problem with about every post I make!!  

 

You're correct:

Pathetic

Nuff Said

 

Ah dont worry about it bumper Professor hame always takes the progressive road.

Bottom line for me I could care less about the talking points. I knew they were full of crap from the moment they came up with the stupid video scenario 

What I want to know is could have those men that died could have been saved. Or were they just given up as sacrificial lambs for slaughter to 

ensure that the rhetoric coming from the white house( al-quida on the run) would not be disproved .   Thats the problem here hame. Why are Hillarious and obama targeted.

BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CHARGE .  HE and SHE HAS LIED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION


IS TO LIMIT


THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT


NOT


THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!


 


 


Demoncrats and Liberals will DENY this truth!!!


  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah dont worry about it bumper Professor hame always takes the progressive road.

Bottom line for me I could care less about the talking points. I knew they were full of crap from the moment they came up with the stupid video scenario 

What I want to know is could have those men that died could have been saved. Or were they just given up as sacrificial lambs for slaughter to 

ensure that the rhetoric coming from the white house( al-quida on the run) would not be disproved .   Thats the problem here hame. Why are Hillarious and obama targeted.

BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CHARGE .  HE and SHE HAS LIED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. 

 

:twothumbs:  :twothumbs:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this only politics aimed at Hillarious and Obama?

 

Answer:  In 911, 3000 people died, and since that attack, 33 people died in embassy and related attacks around the world under Bush/Cheney. No Repugs stood up and whined about all those attacks. All under Republican watch.

 

Pathetic.

Nuff said.

 

Professor please don't take this as a personal attack. (every now and then me and you actually agree) 

BUT you know I have this nephew that has a IQ off the charts. No seriously he is like a walking internet

He has read every classic , historic , government ,  sci-fi , geography book in existence. You can ask him anything about anything and 99.999999% of the time he`s right.

I call him Google. He`s 50 years old now never worked a day in his life. lives with my sister who`s 75 years old. sits on the couch and plays video games 24/7. 

While his 75 year old mom is cutting the grass in 80 degree heat. I have literally grab yanked the plug on his play station grab him by the hair .

Drug him out of the house and place the lawnmower in his hands and told him next time I catch your mother having to mow the grass I will beat you.

I call it intelligence over load. 

I guess what im saying Professor is there is a difference between

Intelligence and wisdom

You need to work on that. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.