Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ludicrous Right Wing ‘Benghazi-Gate’ Fake Scandal Gets Even More Ludicrous (Barf-o-licious)
Little Green Footballs ^ | Nov 17, 2012 | Charles Johnson (Moonbat)

Posted on 11/17/2012 1:17:37 PM PST by Qbert

Yes, the right wing is still trying to turn the Benghazi attack into a cut-rate Watergate scandal, despite David Petraeus’s testimony backing up everything the administration said. Jennifer Rubin, the right wing hack masquerading as a Washington Post blogger, leads the charge with yet another determinedly stupid article: BREAKING: The President Knew the Truth About Benghazi - Right Turn.

For some reason, the right wing echo chamber is obsessively fixated on whether the President “knew it was a terrorist attack,” and they’re going to keep hammering away at this empty nothing-burger until it’s flatter than Mitt Romney’s approval ratings.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

It’s absolutely bizarre that people like Rubin continue pushing this false dichotomy. In actual fact, there is no contradiction here. This was a terrorist attack that was motivated by the anti-Islam video. And we know this because the New York Times reported it from Benghazi on October 15.

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. …

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. ‘We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,’ the spokesman said. ‘The response has to be firm.’

The right wing is trying to fool America into jumping aboard their crazy train, pushing a false line of attack that they know is false — that the anti-Islam video was not the reason for the attack, and that President Obama, for some reason (maybe he just hates America?), deliberately lied about this in order to cover for his jihadi friends.

It’s yet another attempt to demonize President Obama and make him out to be a dangerous secret subversive radical, who sympathizes with people who kill American citizens.

Really! That’s the conspiracy theory they’re trying to push here. It’s just beyond ludicrous, and it gets stupider and more deranged every single day.

UPDATE at 11/17/12 11:48:36 am Since Jennifer Rubin asked:

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

I don’t expect it to make any difference to the false narrative they’re pushing, but here’s the answer. It’s really not that difficult to figure out — in fact, Petraeus actually told the hearing yesterday why the assessment was toned down: Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists.

WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazicoverup; lies; lunaticrant; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
The little green, pony-tailed anti-Semite goes further down the rabbit hole...
1 posted on 11/17/2012 1:17:42 PM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Geez....didn’t he used to be on our side?

Did he figure the dark side is more profitable?


2 posted on 11/17/2012 1:27:06 PM PST by Aria ( 2008 & 2012 weren't elections - both were a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
The President purposefully let 4 men die to hide what he the President was doing as far as arms trade in Libya.
3 posted on 11/17/2012 1:28:14 PM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

This guy is a pathetic nutball. His site is as bad, if not worse than the DUmp. Sane people don’t post over there. I’m ashamed that I used to read it years ago. It was back during Rathergate. Over the years he has become nothing but a Muslim loving, anti-Semite.


4 posted on 11/17/2012 1:29:59 PM PST by beandog (All Aboard the Choo Choo Train to Crazy Town)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I wonder if Charles Johnson thinks Watergate was a “fake scandal”. Probably not, as it concerned a Repub and not his boy-king.


5 posted on 11/17/2012 1:30:42 PM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

This person things thinks these are the type of things that make for a fake scandal

1. obama administration ignored pleas regarding Benghazi security for months
2. Ambassador Stevens was requesting more security the day he died
3. No backup was sent after we determined the annex was under attack
4. We told people nearby to stand-down rather than help
5. obama claims we couldn’t respond in time (doesn’t even grasp the ramifications of our enemies knowing this might be true)
6. obama refuses to recognize in public what took place at the annex
7. obama has his people go out and lie
8. obama lied


6 posted on 11/17/2012 1:37:28 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Agent provocateur.


7 posted on 11/17/2012 1:37:28 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beandog

"This guy is a pathetic nutball. His site is as bad, if not worse than the DUmp. Sane people don’t post over there. I’m ashamed that I used to read it years ago. It was back during Rathergate."

Yep. Even before he "changed" there was something about him that didn't feel right to me- I could never put a finger on it, but it didn't surprise me what happened to him.

"Over the years he has become nothing but a Muslim loving, anti-Semite."

He especially hates Jewish women (Pam Gellar, Jen Rubin, etc.)

8 posted on 11/17/2012 1:39:08 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

This still doesn’t answer the question why adequate action wasn’t taken that might have prevented the death of four victims of an attack by Muslim terrorists.


9 posted on 11/17/2012 1:43:16 PM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Holy cow. (shaking head)

LGF ignores the holes blown in the consulate walls weeks ealier
LGF ignores the policeman who photographed the grounds earlier in the day
LGF ignores the caliber of weapons that were available for this “spontaneous” attack

etc


10 posted on 11/17/2012 1:45:00 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

little green goofballs.


11 posted on 11/17/2012 1:46:05 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“the right wing hack masquerading as a Washington Post blogger”

How does one masquerade as a blogger? Either you are one or you’re not. It isn’t like being a reporter, which is supposed to be a profession. “Blogger” connotes amateurs sitting in their underwear in the basement of their mother’s house, if anything.


12 posted on 11/17/2012 1:48:25 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

The libtards know fake scandals....
....Iran/Contra....Rathergate....Valerie Plame..
....voter intimidation


13 posted on 11/17/2012 1:53:50 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

He tries to present scandalmongers as promoting a flaws dichotomy between the video and a terror attack by saying it was a terror attack motivated by revenge for the video. Either he hasn’t been paying much attention, has a learning disability, or woefully underestimates what it takes to win an argument. Because the real problem with the White House’s initial response is that they pretended it was a “spontaneous” outbreak instead of a planned attack.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t care what the attackers themselves said about the video. The fact that it took place on 9/11 is at least as important as any other motivation, if not infinitely more. Only an idiot can think otherwise.


14 posted on 11/17/2012 1:55:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I wouldn’t even bother to link him, he just wants attention. I guarantee he is reading these comments. Hey Charles, you’re irrelevant.


15 posted on 11/17/2012 1:57:13 PM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Until we get more people focused upon gunrunning from Benghazi to Syria, this “investigation” isn’t one. We have layered coverups here.


16 posted on 11/17/2012 1:59:45 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

Iran-contra was a real scandal, if not fully a presidential one. Not the contra part, but the negotiating with terrorists part. I often wonder why we conservatives pretend Ollie North is a hero or one of us. Except that it’s fun to watch congressional dog and pony shows be stolen.


17 posted on 11/17/2012 2:00:42 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot

"This still doesn’t answer the question why adequate action wasn’t taken that might have prevented the death of four victims of an attack by Muslim terrorists."

Exactly (both that night, and in the months leading up to the attack).

But the radical leftists have no concern for the truth here. Their real is trying to find some alibi they hope will stick- while simultaneously, creating enough confusion so that people forget the four deaths.

18 posted on 11/17/2012 2:01:22 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Leftwingers are proof that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.


19 posted on 11/17/2012 2:25:00 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (We need Comprehensive Election Reform, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
For the sake of argument let's say the attack was a protest gone wild. Is that any excuse to leave 41 of your own people to die at their hands? Is that the 'official' 0bama policy excuse?

"We will only defend the lives of our diplomats and other assets if they are being attacked by a terrorist group with official terrorist credentials." - 0bama Zombie Policy

20 posted on 11/17/2012 2:34:51 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I think you and a number of other people here, perhaps the majority see this differently than I do. And so, I face the fact that I might be wrong with these thoughts, but here we go anyway.

The move to support the rebels in Libya was misguided IMO. None the less, it was the decision of our government to do so. McCain was in. I believe Palin was favorable to our support for the rebels. I didn’t think it was wise to help destabilize the region.

I viewed Ghadaffi as vile, but more or less content to live out the rest of his years in relative peace with the West. What would replace him would be a crap shoot, something we had no way of knowing.

We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them. If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.

I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.

McCain, I believe Palin, and Obama seemed to agree with helping the rebels. Members of Congress must have too. There didn’t seem to be serious push-back to our helping them.

In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.

Do I agree with it? I don’t think we should have taken a position on these “freedom” movements to begin with. The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.

I’m just remain convinced our being involved at all was a mistake.


21 posted on 11/17/2012 2:36:10 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
David Petraeus’s testimony backing up everything the administration said.

I thought Petraeus said (it was behind closed doors, I guess only the people in the room know)that we were trying not to let on that we knew that it was Al Quada , somehow to fake them out, to what end? Like there was going to be an immediate counter-strike? Where was it by October 15 ( five weeks after the fact) when the NYT had finally put together the umpteenth cover story that Green Footballs quotes? Can't take the stain out of Obama running off to Las Vegas as though nothing had happened; his reference to "bumps in the road;" (one is reminded of Braddock's final resting place courtesy of George Washington on the retreat from the disastrous battle of the Monongahela, 1755); nor overlook the fact that the Fort Hood shooting has been called "workplace violence" over the obviously pre-meditated terror attack it was. It has been Obama's trademark throughout his Presidency to refuse to call "the war against us, " "Moslem extremist terror." If you missed that , Green Footballs, then no wonder you have no idea what happened here either, so just shut up.

22 posted on 11/17/2012 2:37:15 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Maybe he contracted syphilis. I hear it can really screw up your mind. Moral of the story, be careful who you lay down with.


23 posted on 11/17/2012 2:45:20 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (bahits.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

So, Obama & cohorts played down the after-action report by CIA that this was an organized AQ associate attack on our Mission at Benghazi. The cover story was a demonstration incited by a video. Ooooookay.

How did anyone from Obama to Susan Rice to Hillary plan to play down this central, unchanged, decisive fact, known by Obama on down within 24 hours of the attack:

Two Americans were KIA by mortar fire at 0400.

Why isn’t the media, McCain, and everyone hammering that fact home at every opportunity?


24 posted on 11/17/2012 2:49:18 PM PST by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Obammy promised to “get the guys responsible” for it.

How’s that manhunt going? Do we even have their names yet?

Obama got Osama and Hillary bragged about the war crime murder of Gaddafi.

LGF has gone RATsh!t crazy.


25 posted on 11/17/2012 2:51:11 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Charles, can I just call you DICK for short. Whether THE FOREIGNER knew it was a TERRORIST ATTACK or NOT is about what a HEADLINE READER socialist fraud like you knows about the screw-up. I would expect nothing less from THE MORONS on the LEFT who believe obama’s fraudulent birth certificate is REAL.


26 posted on 11/17/2012 2:53:28 PM PST by spawn44 (moo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
"Fake Scandal Gets Even More Ludicrous"

Can you imagine the shrill cry of the MSM and The Left if the president was a Republican, and the following breaking headline sprang-up:

US Administration falsely imprisons US resident filmmaker on US soil to provide cover for a botched clandestine operation on foreign soil, having four preventable fatalities.
27 posted on 11/17/2012 2:53:47 PM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

We disagree. I think Iran/Contra was an overrated joke
with Democrat politicians trying to run US foreign
policy.


28 posted on 11/17/2012 2:54:07 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
The right wing is trying to fool America into jumping aboard their crazy train, pushing a false line of attack that they know is false — that the anti-Islam video was not the reason for the attack

Stuck on stupid and still whoring out the White House meme that this was caused by an unseen Youtube clip.

29 posted on 11/17/2012 2:55:42 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Little green pooballs.


30 posted on 11/17/2012 2:58:45 PM PST by Fresh Wind (Cut the cable today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

"David Petraeus’s testimony backing up everything the administration said."

"I thought Petraeus said (it was behind closed doors, I guess only the people in the room know)that we were trying not to let on that we knew that it was Al Quada , somehow to fake them out, to what end? Like there was going to be an immediate counter-strike?..."

And this spin runs completely contrary to the claim Obama and his minions were making after the second debate: That POTUS was saying all along that it was a terrorist attack ("Say it louder Candy!") from day one.

If the leftists are trying to argue that everything is hunky dory because Petraeus, or whoever, wanted to "tone down" the terrorist rhetoric, why would you have the president make a big Rose Garden speech the day after and claim that it was an "act of terror"? That would only amplify things- not tone them down (if we are to believe the president). Do Al-Qaeda members not watch TV, or have access to the Internet?... Hussein Obama can't have it both ways.

31 posted on 11/17/2012 3:04:36 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Fox News is reporting this afternoon that the WH is now saying that no one in the WH changed the CIA intel report. So we’ve added a ‘spontaneously changing intel memo’ to the ‘spontaneous protest turned riot’ to the long line of WH lies.


32 posted on 11/17/2012 3:05:18 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All
One of the excuses that pubbie congresscritters are buying into is that the riots in Cairo were because of the video. Don't let that BS stand either. They weren't.

Brian Lilley: The MSM is lying about the muslim riots video 12:01


33 posted on 11/17/2012 3:08:57 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups

I'm pretty sure the attackers already know who the attackers are, so tipping them off shouldn't have been an issue.

34 posted on 11/17/2012 3:12:23 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You are right about the logic of aiding Libya leading to an arming of Syria. Some are, but I don’t think most people think intervening in Syria is a scandal in itself. It may be wrong, but covertly arming rebels around the globe is boilerplate US foreign policy.

The thing, and I assume the reason the earlier poster brought it up, is that if the White House is lying about the attack to cover up gunrunning to Syria then we won’t figure it out unless we dig in that ground. If that is in fact what’s happening, first of all the whole business makes sense for once, and just maybe people will see how it us like Watergate. Because it is, I just don’t know why yet.

Remember, in Watergate the “coverup was worse than the crime.” This had to be drummed into our ears because the burglary itself was meaningless on a national scale. We don’t know for sure to this day what was the point, and Nixon versus McGovern was like the little league world champs against the Yankees, anyway.


35 posted on 11/17/2012 3:19:41 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

"So, Obama & cohorts played down the after-action report by CIA that this was an organized AQ associate attack on our Mission at Benghazi. The cover story was a demonstration incited by a video. Ooooookay. How did anyone from Obama to Susan Rice to Hillary plan to play down this central, unchanged, decisive fact, known by Obama on down within 24 hours of the attack: Two Americans were KIA by mortar fire at 0400. Why isn’t the media, McCain, and everyone hammering that fact home at every opportunity?"

This is what the left and the MSM always do. There were more MSM stories in one day about McCain missing the meeting the other day, than about Obama's direct knowledge of the Benghazi events, combined, in the months since they occurred. They want to distract people from the real horror of what Obama let happen that night...

36 posted on 11/17/2012 3:21:17 PM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Who's gonna believe that cad Petraeus anyway? wink...wink. If he hadn't figured it out before, and apparently he hadn't, he ought to tell the whole truth now.
37 posted on 11/17/2012 3:25:43 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Little Green Footballs???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That Islamopandering turncoat f*ckwad has no real following.


38 posted on 11/17/2012 3:26:01 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

“with Democrat politicians trying to run US foreign policy”

That was half of it, and the half I’m fine with. You can’t bring down a presidency through an overly ambitious law—the Boland amendment—which came at the end of seemingly endless back and forth over whether or not to fund Nicaraguan rebels. I am not at all convinced they violated the law. Congress can control how the White House spends Congressionally appropriated money, not necessarily private donations or CIA profits.

The half that bothered me was negotiating with Hezbollah for the release of hostages. Unlike funding or not funding the contras it was longstanding US policy not to negotiate with terrorists, and I believe in it.


39 posted on 11/17/2012 3:30:21 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
There are other CIA personnel, including the interim director, that can be questioned. Will they support the new WH line that 'someone along the line changed the report?'

CIA's language on Benghazi was barely edited, White House says

40 posted on 11/17/2012 3:30:41 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I didn’t think it was wise to help destabilize the region.

Not without a workable alternative executable within our means. Agreed.

We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them.

Nor I, but to what end? There I have my doubts when closet anti-Semites like Zero and Hillary are involved.

If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.

Well, no. Syria is a rather different kettle of fish. First of all Erdovan of Turkey hates Assad to pieces, and he is Zero's buddy. Second, it is a Russian client State with a port open to them on the Mediterranean. So to go supporting the rebels there is stepping on Putie's shoes rather heavily. He reportedly called it a "red line in the sand." I have little doubt he took a very dim view of it unless the Syrian "rebels" we were helping were hard line communists, which is always possible with this crew. In either case, I wouldn't want to be risking WWIII just yet. Third, Syria is at least nominally a secular state, as were Egypt and Libya before Zero got the Mubarak and Ghadaffi respectively. The policy has replaced those secular thugs with religious zealots with messianic and eschatological aspirations.

I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.

Rationalized, yes, reasoned, no.

In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.

Then why isn't anybody in the press or in Congress addressing it? Here's why: the people getting the guns hate our guts, and have said so. They want us dead. Zero is running guns to our enemies, just as he did for the Sinaloa cartel. That's high treason.

Oh, but these Islamic-terrorists-that-hate-our-guts aren't as bad as AQ! This is the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course makes them "our" friends (Huma, Huma, Huma). What with Morsi hanging in Gaza this week while they rain missiles on Ashdot, that should get your attention.

I think the reason the consulate was attacked is that AQ wanted sole control over the use of those weapons. Yet there is also the possibility that they were acting on behalf of the Russians to S-T-O-P that flow and chasten the CIA but good. That's why I think Zero didn't respond while our people were dying. He didn't dare take that chance with Putie and knew that he had to take his lumps for his play on Syria. Stevens' visit with the Turkish ambassador was the delivery of the "goodbye and good luck" message.

The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.

Are you now?

41 posted on 11/17/2012 3:34:33 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aria
At first, he thought the pro American side would be profitable after Sept. 11 2001; however, when the Democrats took over congress in 2006, Chucky betrayed his posters and readers and started smearing and banning a whole slew of them (myself included).

He also tried to smear Jim Thompson of Free Republic of advocating violence.

Charles of LGF was too lazy to even get Jim Robinson's name right.


The Official Underzog website

42 posted on 11/17/2012 3:36:53 PM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Like LGF just found out, they’re not going to be able to keep up with the stories.


43 posted on 11/17/2012 3:41:41 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; DoughtyOne

re: Syria
I would argue that you are trying to insert the USA into a fight in which we are not really involved or relevant. The rebels are being aided by a coalition of Turkey and the Gulf Arab states.

While we may be providing some surplus weapons, the control of them will be those guiding the rebels.

Not only that but, there is no need for us to be involved. We have trained special forces in all those nations noted above. Using well known Green Beret principles, they are advising the rebels and making headway.


44 posted on 11/17/2012 3:50:21 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kidd
LGF ignores

Evil is as evil does. Four men died and CJ wants to protect his messiah.

45 posted on 11/17/2012 3:53:01 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
The spin and excuses keep coming but they get thinner and thinner and are shorter-lived all the time. They aren't going to be able to outlive the horrible truths of Benghazi.

There are three major scandals here that can't be answered with goofy excuses and transparent lies.


46 posted on 11/17/2012 3:53:30 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
The Nytimese reported: "Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers [said]. . . ."

The Nytimese reported: "[The] fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video . . . ."

The Nytimese reported: "[A] spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah [said] . . . ."

Well if the Nytimese patented anonymous sources said it then it must be true.. the puzzle is solved.

47 posted on 11/17/2012 4:18:33 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

that’s enough (3)—I’m sure there are more.


48 posted on 11/17/2012 4:26:39 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bert
I would argue that you are trying to insert the USA into a fight in which we are not really involved or relevant.

You would argue wrong. All I am describing is what the USA has already done. As to relevance, Putin made it clear that he believes we already are.

While we may be providing some surplus weapons, the control of them will be those guiding the rebels.

What we were providing were Ghadaffi's weapons by the boatload (literally): including 20,000 hand held SAMs, RPGs, heavy machine guns, and possibly chemical weapons. In the hands of Hizbullah, that is something not to be disregarded.

We have trained special forces in all those nations noted above.

We have Special Forces in Syria without Congressional authorization? News to me. Sources please.

49 posted on 11/17/2012 4:28:52 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

No, you little green nerfball. It’s avout why o hussein allowed 4 Americans to be murdered and would have allowed over thirty more to be murdered right along with them...you stupid jerk!


50 posted on 11/17/2012 4:41:35 PM PST by MestaMachine (TREASON!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson