Skip to comments.Bam hides terror truth
Posted on 11/18/2012 10:07:26 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Until Friday, there were two possible explanations for why the White House failed to immediately call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. One was incompetence, the other was worse.
Now there is only one, and it is the worse one. Based on the persuasive testimony of ex-CIA boss David Petraeus, it is clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people.
The repeated claim that the attack was spontaneous and grew out of a demonstration against an anti-Islam video a claim made by the president and secretary of State as they stood next to the bodies of four dead Americans was a monstrous lie. It was vile and done for the basest of reasons.
Because we now know the truth of what happened CIA reports were edited to remove the names of al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath we also know the motive. It was political self-preservation, meaning the president and his team put politics first.
The timing helps tell the tale. Just days removed from his Charlotte convention, where he danced on the grave of Osama bin Laden and boasted that al Qaeda was decimated, Obama couldnt bear to admit that affiliated groups were thriving in North Africa. And he certainly couldnt admit they had carried out a murderous attack on our consulate on the 11th anniversary of the most awful day in American history.
To do so would be to acknowledge the failure of his decision to ignore hard-line Islamists and that his team had erred egregiously in rejecting pleas for more security from Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
obama is a LIAR????? WHO KNEW????
Some people still aren't getting it. Obama's decisions have not failed. His policies have not been unsuccessful. His goals just aren't the goals that some people assume them to be. He's a different kind of president.
Bor-ring!! Just send me my free sh!!t, and keep up the good work! (Signed, The 51%)
I thinks it’s way more than that...
That annex was hugh ..
what were they doing there?
google was bengazi a torture facility ..
I wouldn't call her a slut...that's bad...just an ordinary whore spy...old world style.
Bet she did half of West Point....half....because she was selective.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
I bet more than once she heard “Wow, that is a broad well”
P.S. Im not given to salacious chatter here, but it was right there.
He WILL say 'act of terror', however. Act of terror can describe any malicious assault, including a man stabbing his wife in the kitchen.
Obama only mislead Obama voters.
Everyone else was smart enough to know he was lying.
The curious thing is if he had told them the truth-—that he sat and watched the whole thing in live action and did nothing, they would still vote for him.
0bama’s lies would not have been effective buit for the complicit media who covered for him. And still does.
All these Benghazi stories now make me sick; it’s too late to change the outcome of the election.
Broadwell seems to have been more of a self-server than a loyalist of any party. She had looked into running as a candidate - for either party, both of which were interested in her. Also, I suspect she really was smitten by Petraeus, since her book was one long hero-worship (although the brief affair didn’t begin until after he had left the military).
I also think Obama held this over the General’s head, and it was because Petraeus wanted to protect Broadwell that he didn’t just tell Obama to stuff it. Bear in mind that Petraeus was very PC, and also always did the bidding of whoever was in charge, like any good US military man.
The true Obama loyalists were the nutty Lebanese twins, who seem to have compromised half the US Central Command. In what sane world would they have been allowed that level of access?
But that’s because under Obama, the US has become nothing but a giant celebrity culture, where rap divas rule, 4 star generals are panting for a chance to be seen at the parties of self-promoting Kardashian look-alikes (who also got access to the White House), and nobody really cares about anything except powdering their wig, applying that charming little mole, and pulling up their silk stockings so they can turn a comely leg.
You’re right, it would have made no difference. Obama voters don’t care about what is theoretically their country or anybody in it. They live in this special place called Obamaland.
This is all going to crash down around us before too long.
“al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath “
Patraeus was not under oath
I think that because lying to Congress is a felony, all such testimony is tantamount to being under oath. That said, I don’t think anyone has ever been found guilty of lying to Congress.
Think I found the guy who edited the CIA talking points. Here is a picture of him in the act of modifying the assessment.
WHO gave the order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?
Finally, someone raises the impeachment possibility.
The transition from "media" to "ministry of propaganda" is complete.
That's it in a nutshell. Huge billboards should be made with that statment and put up all over the country.
The following link is to an old FR thread, about an even older conservative booklet called “The Revolution Was”, written in 1938 about FDR and the New Deal. It is ALL happening again - amazingly, chillingly so. Only worse.
Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.
But it could not be so embarrassed and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme. It took off from a revolutionary base.
The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technic it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake......
Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technic; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse.
The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.
The end held constantly in view was power.
Yes indeed. And that is why fewer and fewer people are watching Teev and why venerable big newspapers are laying off, firing, downsizing and the like.
Thanks for the ping and excerpt.