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

Skip to comments.

In the Name of National Security, Media Declares Libya a Non-Scandal
Big Journalism ^ | November 17 2012 | John Nolte

Posted on 11/18/2012 10:25:31 AM PST by Bratch

After yesterday's closed-door testimony of David Petraeus on the Hill, we now know for a fact that for two weeks the Obama Administration repeatedly and relentlessly lied to the American people about what they knew was the truth behind the September 11 anniversary attack on our consulate in Libya. Unfortunately, we also now know that they're going to get away with it.

Within 24 hours of a coordinated assault that left four Americans dead, then-CIA Director David Petraeus was convinced the intelligence proved a local Libyan militia affiliated with al-Qaeda was responsible, and said so in his report.

Then the Petraeus report was edited (probably by Eric Holder's Justice Department) to remove the terror angle and pile the blame on a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video. Over the course of two weeks, this blatantly false Narrative would only grow and sharpen, even though all knew it was a lie -- and by "all," I mean the White House, the terrorists, the media, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

In other words, what critics of the White House narrative knew to be true months ago, has now been verified. There's no longer any dispute that for two weeks the White House knew Benghazi was an act of terror and that for two weeks everyone from President Obama to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to White House spokesman Jay Carney to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told us something the Administration knew wasn't true.

And still, the media and Democrats don’t care....

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: benghazi; obama; petraeus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 11/18/2012 10:25:37 AM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bratch

It’s weird, until their boy, Barry Benghazi, came along, the state controlled “media” never cared about “national security” before.


2 posted on 11/18/2012 10:27:43 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (We need Comprehensive Election Reform, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

So now the question is was that a media/election driven stance or were there legitimate security/behind-the-scenes covert action concerns where this was being said to confuse the enemy while useful action was being taken?


3 posted on 11/18/2012 10:30:39 AM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch; annieokie; penelopesire; maggief; Protect the Bill of Rights; thouworm; SE Mom; Nachum; ...

It isn’t JUST a scandal, it’s an outrage against human decency.

Ping


4 posted on 11/18/2012 10:30:59 AM PST by MestaMachine (TREASON!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

This and West and on a Sunday.

It’s like when Laz screams over the radio when he and E-Company are ambushed in Holland, “we are covered in infantry!”


5 posted on 11/18/2012 10:38:51 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
The regime knew the MSM would whitewash any scandal before they started lying.
6 posted on 11/18/2012 10:39:07 AM PST by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Who had to wait for Patraus to testify yesterday to know that Obama was lying??????? Some damned fool?

Any American with half an ounce of brain tissue knew he was lying the minute he opened his vocal orifice.

Obama voters are the most ignorant voters on the face of the earth.


7 posted on 11/18/2012 10:40:55 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

This all real nice, while everyone is asking who said what. How about the real question. WHO gave the order to stand down?

This is all a distraction


8 posted on 11/18/2012 10:43:47 AM PST by woodenickel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Imagine that you’re in the military and your pinned down and you call for help. You have to be asking yourself if you will receive help, or if Hussein will go to bed and leave you to die so he can be “ fresh” for a fundraiser.


9 posted on 11/18/2012 11:03:00 AM PST by 21st Century Crusader (August 26, 1191)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

It’s not national security they’re interested in. It’s presidential security.


10 posted on 11/18/2012 11:04:19 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
Cmon GOP - start calling a spade a spade and call out the partisan media on their hypocrisy.

Going along with them isn't working.

11 posted on 11/18/2012 11:10:47 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
That's really my biggest issue with what is going on. I want someone in the GOP -- anyone -- to say something that really "crosses the line". You know: there are somethings you just don't say --

"The president hates this country"
"The president is a crypto Muslim"
"The president left soldiers to die because he hates the military and supports jihad"
"The president was re-elected through massive voter fraud"
"The president is worse than Nixon"

I really don't hear anybody saying much of anything. I guess the GOP doesn't care about the country. I guess they figure the essential power structure is in place and so "it's all good".

12 posted on 11/18/2012 11:21:50 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: MestaMachine

What part of this whole business about Benghazi is NOT a scandal?

The sexual peccadillos of a former Army general, and some socialite wannabe, and a biographer of said general, are a trifling matter. Seemingly lost to sight of the media, is the unforgiveable lapse in Presidential judgment, and a determined effort to not merely fabricate a story, but to try to implicate a bystander who was exercising First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.

Not merely even for the fabrication, but the incident itself, where the lives of consulate personnel were put at risk, for no specified reason, and four deaths, PREVENTABLE deaths, resulted, because of failure to act on information that was available in real time. And not just failure to act, but inaction spurred by a callous calculation that this could all be covered up in the name of “national security”. Whatever national security interests were being protected, it was not in the UNITED STATES’ national security interests, it was in the interests of preserving the gains for the Worldwide Caliphate.

We know whose interests the Current Occupant of the White Hut represents, and much of the time, it is not that of the United States. The Current Occupant, as a believing and secretly practicing Muslim, is engaging in Taqqiyah, lying to non-Muslims, or to other Muslims of questionable loyalty, to persuade others not to stand in the way of “progress”.

If this be progress, then I would really hate to see what things look like when they regress.

And they will.


14 posted on 11/18/2012 11:27:21 AM PST by alloysteel (Bronco Bama - the cowboy who whooped up and widened the stampede.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Of course they're worried what the media will say about them - the nail that sticks up gets pounded down.

If all were to say something along the lines you've suggested, and refused to back down when bullied by the reporters, what more could the media do to them? Half of the country would enthusiastically agree.

The GOP are afraid of their own shadows.

15 posted on 11/18/2012 11:33:26 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Were there ANY people that survived the attack?

Has anyone attempted to get THEIR story of what happened?

(I know, I know,silly questions both)


16 posted on 11/18/2012 11:49:35 AM PST by hatter ( Cr*p. Just realized I'm still "it" from a game of Tag in 1969.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hatter
Who knows why no one else is talking.

I don't believe it was an attack. It was a kidnap attempt.

17 posted on 11/18/2012 11:51:23 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hatter
Who knows why no one else is talking. We should be highly skeptical of anything anyone in government says anyway.

And I don't believe it was an attempt to kill consulate staff, if it had been there would've been no survivors. It was a kidnap attempt.

18 posted on 11/18/2012 11:53:23 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

And how exactly is blaming a terrorist attack on a video, which ends up promoting more anger and terrorism against the US, improving National Security ? Seems like the White House wants to destroy national security for political gain.


19 posted on 11/18/2012 12:46:53 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

WHO gave the order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?

WHEN?

WHY?


20 posted on 11/18/2012 12:53:39 PM PST by John Galt's cousin (Constitutional Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 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