Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Libya Lies: Worse Than Watergate
Rush ^ | October 10, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 10/10/2012 3:57:14 PM PDT by Kaslin

Edited on 10/10/2012 4:22:26 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

I made the point here that this is bigger than Watergate. If Watergate were to happen today and it was a Democrat president, it would be tolerated. It would be applauded and praised as brilliant political strategerizing and foresight in thinking if the Democrats did it. But folks, an American citizen is arrested, an American ambassador is dead, three other Americans are dead.

One of them, by the way, Mitt Romney. We got the audio coming up if you haven't heard this, knew one of the SEALs killed in the Benghazi attack. He met him by accident. Romney showed up at the wrong house in his neighborhood for a holiday party. He showed up at the wrong house, they let him come in anyway, and in the process he met a SEAL, admired him greatly. It turns out he was one of the four killed in Benghazi. We have the audio coming up. You'll hear this.

Remember that picture of the filmmaker all covered up, being dragged out of his house by sheriff's deputies out in California, trundled off to jail. Obama at the United Nations, Obama everywhere apologizing for this citizen, apologizing for our First Amendment, apologizing for freedom of speech, blaming the death our ambassador on the video. And we all knew the first time we heard that it was a lie. We all knew the video wasn't responsible for what happened in Benghazi. The regime said that there was a protest at the consulate and the protest got out of hand. We didn't have the proper security to handle it and it just escalated, and it was all brought on by the video.

No, there was no protest. That's the next thing the State Department says. There wasn't a protest. There wasn't anything that started innocently and got out of hand. It was a terror attack from the get-go. And the president and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney and whoever else they threw out lied for eight to ten days, maybe two weeks. I've put together audio montages of all of this for you to hear.


RUSH: Do you remember, the administration spent $70,000 running a television ad campaign in Pakistan featuring Hillary Clinton, featuring Obama apologizing for the video? Obama went to the UN and apologized to the world for the video. The producer of the video, a nobody, nobody has any idea now who he is, arrested at 1:30 in the morning. Plenty of cameras there and lights on a bank fraud parole violation. Seventy thousand ad buy, television, we played the audio for you from that ad. Where is Hillary Clinton? I haven't seen her. Nobody died in Watergate, let alone an ambassador. This is outrageous. It is unreal what has happened here. Knowingly blaming a video and insulting everybody's intelligence in thinking that people would buy this.

And in the process, what was Obama actually doing? Exonerating terrorists. The terrorists who killed the ambassador, who attacked our embassy consulate in Benghazi, is exonerated. It wasn't their fault. It was the video. You know why that is? Well, because Obama Killed Osama, and along with that he killed Al-Qaeda. So Al-Qaeda couldn'ta done this. It had to bed video because Obama, why, he killed Al-Qaeda. Obama's our hero. He's our dragon slayer. He got rid of the bad guys. There aren't any more terrorists. Uh-oh. Terrorists just killed our ambassador and attacked our consulate. Nah, nah, video did that.

From the Administration Press, the AP: "Al-Qaeda Making Comeback in Iraq, Officials Say." Right on schedule, Obama proudly proclaims the war in Iraq is over. We're out of there. It was an unjust and unnecessary war. And Al-Qaeda is making a comeback in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is making a comeback in Egypt. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are making comebacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the president of the United States blames the American Constitution, the First Amendment, and a guy that makes a video that was on YouTube in June. Here's the first of several montage sound bites about all of us.

OBAMA: I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.

HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

CARNEY: Let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.

CARNEY: The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.

OBAMA: A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

RICE: It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.

OBAMA: I know there are some who ask, "Why don't we just ban such a video?" The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

RUSH: In that montage you heard President Obama, you heard Hillary Clinton, you heard Jay Carney, who has not been heard from in a week or two, the White House press briefings. You heard Susan Rice, who said it was spontaneous, not premeditated. Wrongo. State Department. Now, you might say, "Why is the State Department coming clean?" They're showing up under oath today in front of a congressional committee. They will be under oath. They are decidedly not gonna commit perjury for Barack Obama. I guess they couldn't find Bill Clinton.

They couldn't find Bill Clinton because he's out on the campaign trail telling everybody that will listen that the real Mitt Romney was not the guy at the debate. The real Mitt Romney is the guy we're putting in the ads. (imitating Clinton) "I don't know who that guy was. That was a poser, a great impersonator, but that wasn't the real Mitt Romney. The real Mitt Romney is the one you've seen in our ads." So they couldn't find anybody to lie under oath. Clinton's on the campaign trail, State Department says, "Ahhh, we're not doing it. The video had nothing to do with it. There was no protest. It was premeditated by Al-Qaeda." Let's go back, Barack Obama, September 25th, United Nations General Assembly.

OBAMA: That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, is a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

RUSH: They have to be laughing themselves silly at us. They have to be laughing themselves silly at Barack Obama. If they're not laughing at Obama and instead applauding Obama, then we got a bigger problem than anybody thinks. So we hope that the terrorists around the world are laughing at the guy, not applauding him. But my friends, this is almost indescribable, the scope of this. This is a scandal. I mean, nothing happened in the Bush administration that even approaches this. Watergate doesn't approach this. On and on and on, lying about a video, arresting an American citizen, $70,000 ad buy in Pakistan to advertise the lie.


RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, another reason that this scandal is so big and so important is because not only did they deflect blame after the terror attack to the maker of some video nobody saw and then arrest the guy without bail, keeping him in jail -- and going on television and running ads blaming the video for a week and sending everybody out. The fact of the matter is, there were threats. There was intel.

There were a number of threats of terrorist activity, planned attacks against our consulate and the embassy in Libya. They were ignored by the administration. Ambassador Stevens, now deceased, begged for help! We know this now. We know that he knew, or thought because of intel, that an attack was imminent. He wanted a barbed wire fence. It was refused! There was no acknowledgement that the threat was real.

There was no effort made to protect the ambassador, no effort whatsoever made to prepare for an attack. All that happened was on the day of the attack, our embassy in Cairo issues an apology before anything happens, an apology for this video, hoping that the apology for the video -- which nobody had seen and, frankly, few knew what the embassy was even talking about. I didn't know that this video existed when they apologized for it. I'd never heard of it.

I'm sure 99.9% of people in the world had never heard of it, and yet they're apologizing for it. We're told, "Well, we just want to make sure that they know that we're not the enemy and we don't wish them any ill harm and we don't want them to attack us." Right. Conflict Resolution 101. Express your guilt and then say you're sorry and then beg 'em not to do any more to you, and all they do is laugh at us.

Now, US News & World Report is saying that there's a damage control meeting at the White House this afternoon between President Obama and Mrs. Clinton. It's a Washington Post story today: "The fatal attack on a US diplomatic compound in Libya last month has become a test of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s leadership and a threat to her much-admired legacy as America’s top diplomat..."

What "much admired legacy"? This woman is the biggest hype job I have ever encountered, next to Obama. From the smartest woman in the world to this. She's never done anything. Everything she's put her hand to has ended up being blown to smithereens or botched. HillaryCare, you name it. The way she handled the bimbo eruptions with Clinton. The vast right-wing conspiracy on Today show.

And now this?

If she has time to meet with Obama, how come she doesn't have time to go up and answer questions before the congressional committee today? Anyway, there was a damage control meeting, a big meeting of Obama and Hillary, to figure out what lie they're gonna tell later today to explain all this. We have a rogue State Department saying: It wasn't us, and it wasn't a video, and we never said it was a video.

Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman before the spokeskid Jay Carney... Was there somebody between Gibbs and Carney? Maybe not. Doesn't matter. Gibbs was the first one. Robert Gibbs was saying, well, Susan Rice, the ambassador to the UN, went on all the Sunday shows but she wasn't lying. No. No, no! Susan Rice wasn't lying. She was relying on intelligence briefings.

Now, here's what to bear in mind about that.

The State Department is part of US intelligence community. There's a State Department intelligence division called the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The BIR. The BIR works closely with the CIA, the Directorate of National Intelligence, and the National Security Council, especially on intelligence matters related directly to US diplomacy. Now, if the State Department is now saying they never put out any info saying the movie caused the attack in Libya...

That's what they're saying -- there wasn't any video; we never said that -- and they're also saying this was not spontaneous. There was no protest here that led to this. State's part of the intelligence community that puts out intelligence briefings. How are we supposed to believe that Susan Rice was relying on intelligence briefings? There wasn't any intel that made this absurd movie claim. That's what the State Department's saying.

The State Department is part of the intelligence community. Robert Gibbs, in an effort to protect Susan Rice -- who's married to a producer at ABC's This Week, by the way, Ian Cameron. (I tell you, that town's incestuous.) So they're out there saying that the State Department, which is part of the intel community, never said there was a video. They never had intel saying there was a video.

So how are we supposed to believe that Susan Rice was relying on intelligence briefings? Gibbs? It's just another lie on top of another lie. These people are amateurs at cover-ups. You know why? Because they've never had to cover up anything! They've had the media willing to do it for them, but the media isn't now. It's interesting. The media is turning on this bunch in a couple places.

The media is fit to be tied over the regime's use of the Big Bird ad. They're embarrassed. And from their standpoint, you kind of have to understand it. You can see why. They've gone out of their way to call Romney a felon. He doesn't care when some guy's wife dies of cancer, that he's not particularly fond of people that have less money than he has. You know, all this stuff. They've done it! They've carried the water every which way, and Obama's not stepping up.

Obama phones it in at the debate, and they have to cover for that by asking, "What went wrong? He's the smartest guy in the world, so what happened?" and they make up all the phony excuses. Now, as a means of trying to reclaim lost ground, they run a Big Bird ad. And to top it off there was a tweet. I thought this was a joke when I saw this yesterday. I ran this down to make sure this actually was said, and it was.

There's a White House or campaign press secretary by the name of I think Jennifer "Jen" Psaki. And when the hubbub over the Big Bird ad hit yesterday, you know what she said? (impression) "President Obama is the only candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo." In the midst of all of this, in the aftermath of Obama's dismal debate performance and the media turning on them, the Big Bird ad.

It's chump change. It's small stuff. I can't believe this. They're turning on him on that, and they're having problems with this State Department business. Anything they can't save him from is a problem. Anything they can't cover up themselves is a problem. So if they can't do the cover-up then it's left to Obama to do it, and I tell you: These people are a bunch of amateurs, 'cause now they want to say that Susan Rice wasn't lying. She got bad intel.

Well, the State Department, just to walk you through it again, the State Department is part of the intel community. They get briefed along with all the National Security Council people and all this, CIA. They have their Bureau of Intelligence and Research. That's their intel unit, and they're saying publicly there was no intel suggesting the video had rankled emotions in Benghazi. And they didn't ever say so. So Gibbs has to be lying when he says that Susan Rice wasn't lying, she had bad intel. The State Department says, we didn't have any intel like that; we didn't put that intel out. Gibbs says she got it from the State Department. The State Department doesn't want to lie 'cause they're going up under oath this afternoon before a congressional committee.

So there was no intel that made this absurd movie claim. The White House made it up, folks. The White House made it up and then they gave it out as marching orders to Susan Rice and to Jay Carney who, again, hasn't been seen in a couple weeks. Hillary Clinton, run the ad in Pakistan, got the audio from that coming up just to remind you. There was no intel that made this absurd movie claim. So Gibbs is lying about that. The White House made it up. So, see, Obama had a choice. Blame the movie or blame the utter failure of his policy in Libya, and he decided to blame the movie because what we have here is an utter failure in Obama foreign policy in Libya. And you know what it's based in?

It's based on pure liberalism, based on the phony concepts of liberalism, which states if you make friends with bad guys, the bad guys will love you. We got rid of Khadafy, Libya hated Khadafy, ergo, Libyans love Obama. Not the case. Not everybody in Libya hated Khadafy. But certainly not everybody in Libya loves Obama. Probably quite the opposite. So Obama is assuming, like he assumes here, that everybody loves him and everybody is in awe of him, The One. So he rolls the dice, the Libyans love him, they won't do anything.

Al-Qaeda behaves as Al-Qaeda will. A snake's a snake. A scorpion's a scorpion, you've heard the story. We have an utter breakdown in foreign policy and Obama can't say, "You know what, my policy was really bad and I blew it, and I'll get better." No. Blame it on a American citizen that had nothing to do with it, the maker of an obscure, wacko, amateurish video. Make sure the guy gets arrested. Apologize all over the world for it. And it all unravels because the State Department won't fall on the sword for The One.


RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. This is President Obama at the United Nations on September 25th.

OBAMA: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi. Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true Democratic spirit.

RUSH: The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, carrying on this lie, this cover-up that all of this slander of the prophet of Islam led to the death of our ambassador. Here's more.

OBAMA: In 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with a click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

RUSH: It's pathetic. It's a speech before the United Nations General Assembly. And it continues this mirage, this myth that a filmmaker is responsible for the death of an ambassador. This is profoundly embarrassing. We are surrounded by incompetence, lies. It's embarrassing. Here's the ad. We were attacked on 9/11. The State Department again, just to reiterate, there was no protest. It did not spontaneously erupt. It was a preplanned terror attack. We never had any intel that a video had anything to do with this, and yet this nation, the President of the United States, Hillary Clinton, voice a television ad broadcast in the Muslim world in Pakistan, apologizing for the video.

OBAMA: Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification of this type of senseless violence. None.

HILLARY: Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

RUSH: What, did she think everybody in the audience is five years old or something, the way she's speaking? Anyway, this is a coordinated lie continuing to be told, planned, and executed by the administration to cover up for an absolutely failure of American foreign policy, failure of Obama foreign policy. So he brings Hillary in and they discuss how to do this, and they corrupt everybody. Well, I think this bunch is corrupt before they got there. Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and any number of other Democrats who join the chorus that it was the video. Folks, I'm making a big deal out of this because this is a huge deal.

I can't believe this has happened. The State Department is throwing Obama under the bus. There was no video. We didn't say it was a video. We had no intel blaming the video. There was no protest. The State Department is saying: everything that the administration has told you, we didn't tell 'em. They made it up. We have to assume that.

Here's Susan Rice, by the way. She was all over the Sunday shows on September 16th. This is Meet the Press, David Gregory. The question: "You talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on our consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was spontaneous? Was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?"

RICE: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

RUSH: Oh, of course. Of course, prompted by the video. And Robert Gibbs is saying today that, (paraphrasing) "Well, yeah, she wasn't really lying. She just got bad intel at the State Department." Again, the State Department, they're part of the intel community. They've got their own intel division. They say, "We didn't have such intel." Folks, they're literally just making this up. I want you to hear this montage again of all the top level regime figures spreading the lie that's now been exposed.

OBAMA: I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.

HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

CARNEY: Let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.

CARNEY: The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.

OBAMA: A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

RICE: It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.

OBAMA: I know there are some who ask, "Why don't we just ban such a video?" The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

RUSH: If they will lie to us this brazenly, this blatantly in the face of contradictory evidence, what else will they lie about? What else have they been lying about?


RUSH: Now, the State Department intelligence division. They have their own intelligence division. Just like the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency. The State Department has their own, and you would assume that it reports to the White House like the all the others do. The CIA reports. That's when Obama cares, by the way, about getting a briefing. But his national security director is a guy named Clapper.

So you would assume that the State Department's intelligence agency is reporting to Clapper at the White House. The BIR has to report someplace. It probably is James Clapper who is the Director of National Intelligence. In fact, Clapper and Hillary had a private meeting with congressmen and told them that what happened in Libya was not premeditated. It was spontaneous. It was brought on by the video.

September 20th, 2012, from "Clinton Fails to Convince Republicans on Administration's Account of Libya Attack -- Republican lawmakers left a closed-door briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials on Thursday still unconvinced by the administration's assessment that last week's attack that killed four Americans in Libya wasn't a premeditated act of terrorism. 'They're trying to cover their behinds,' Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) told The Hill upon leaving the House briefing with Clinton..."

"They're trying to cover their behinds."

Which they were.

They were lying to members of Congress. Now, the hearings are underway. If this were a Republican administration that had done this, these hearings would be on every television network, and there would be a demand to get to the bottom of this. An American ambassador is dead! Now, I don't know what you call it. You can call it a failure of foreign policy or a refusal to acknowledge repeated warnings. I don't care what it's called.

We have glaring incompetence, and the reason for it is political. The reason Obama... I'm sure it was Obama who sent word out to ignore all these terrorist warnings. The reason is 'cause there aren't any terrorists left. He killed Osama! Do not discount this, folks. Do not allow yourselves to not appreciate the importance of this. Killing Osama Bin Laden carried with it the notion that Obama had wiped out Al-Qaeda as well.

We'd cut the head off.

Why, without the head, there's no body!

So the whole notion was that our brave, young president -- the first black president who was supposedly a military pacifist -- look, this guy is tougher than Bush! He's tougher than anybody. When the time came, he took out Osama, and, with it, all of Al-Qaeda. Well, if that's your story line, then Al-Qaeda can't be responsible for any terrorist activity in the Middle East, in Cairo or in Benghazi. So that's why you lie about.

That's why you ignore it.

And you roll the dice that they're not gonna do anything, and then you roll the dice that if they do do something, the media will cover for you, because they always do. So you roll the dice, something happens, and an ambassador dies. "Oh, no. Eh, well, we'll blame the video." They sent people out all over television for two weeks blaming the video, and the media dutifully covers this as though the video's responsible.

They follow along while the producer of the video is arrested at 1:30 in the morning, dragged out of his home in California, dragged off to "interrogation" and jail on a parole violation on a bank fraud charge. But everybody knew. And then after that happens, Obama goes and takes a victory lap at the UN and runs an ad in Pakistan: "We're not gonna put up with this kind of blasphemy!

"We're not gonna tolerate the prophet being made fun of even we have a First Amendment. We're gonna put people in jail that do this, and we want the world to see that we'll put people in jail. We want the Muslim world especially to see that we will jail American citizens who make fun of the prophet." Blah, blah, blah, blah. But then the State Department yesterday said none of it was true.

There was no intel citing the video.

There was no protest.

It was not spontaneous. It was preplanned. It was premeditated. It was an Al-Qaeda terror attack. And so now Mrs. Clinton and President Obama are having an emergency meeting in the White House this afternoon to try to imagine up the next phase of the cover-up. Let's keep on with the audio sound bites. Let's go back to September 26th on the Today show. Ann Curry, who had been fired, was somehow brought back to interview the Libyan president.

She said to the Libyan president, "What is your evidence that it was a preplanned act of terrorism?" See, this guy was out there saying, "It wasn't a video! The video didn't cause this," and the media was outraged. What do you know? You're just the president of Libya! Our president says that it was a video and that it was just a spontaneous protest, and you say it's not? How do you know?

MAGARIEF: Number one, is choosing the date, 11th of September, has all the significance. If we take the facts about the way it was executed, there is enough proof that it is a preplanned act of terrorism.

CURRY: This was a preplanned attack, not a reaction to a controversial movie?

MAGARIEF: Yes. I have no doubt about this.

CURRY: Do you think the movie had anything to do with this attack on the consulate?

MAGARIEF: It has nothing to do with this attack.

RUSH: "It has nothing to do with the attack." This is on September 26th. Ann Curry did her best to carry the water for the regime, but the Libyan president wouldn't play ball. The Libyan president didn't blame it on the video. By the way, the Heritage Foundation on their Foundry page... We ought to link to that. I just told Koko to put the Heritage Foundation Web link up. It is a great timeline.

It's an incriminating timeline of the Obama administration and Libya, and it puts all this in context. And when you see it this way, in a timeline, the folly of this administration trying to blame this on anything other than Al-Qaeda is instantly obvious. So if you have a chance, go to and find the link to the Heritage Foundry page for this timeline.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections

1 posted on 10/10/2012 3:57:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


2 posted on 10/10/2012 3:58:55 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping, gay bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

No reminder needed here. It is a fact

3 posted on 10/10/2012 4:00:52 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Rush at his very best.

OK, Mr. Romney. Here is your free lunch. Own it.

4 posted on 10/10/2012 4:03:38 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m beginning to think there is something much bigger beneath all this. Obama must’ve cut a deal with a terrorist group and it backfired. What was the deal? Who knows, could’ve been told to hold off on violence until after the election. Perhaps hat’s why he didn’t put security there, maybe that’s why the movie thing was trotted out so quickly to blunt a probe into causation. Either that or everyone in this administration is simply and plainly naive, including the people in the embassy, and I don’t buy that. We might not find out what happened for another decade, just like Harding and the teapot dome scandal. But something bigger than a security lapse happened here that involves Mack-Daddy directly.

5 posted on 10/10/2012 4:07:29 PM PDT by gotribe (He's a mack-daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

6 posted on 10/10/2012 4:11:22 PM PDT by potlatch (~~And the truth IS what counts, RIGHT ? ~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yes, Obromance, Democrats can have SCANDALs!!!!


7 posted on 10/10/2012 4:11:25 PM PDT by uncitizen (SCANDAL SCANDAL SCANDAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I liked the point brought up by a caller:

CALLER: I was calling because I'm listening to the stuff about the intelligence on this terrorist attack and everything, and it reminds me of when the Democrats and liberals came down so hard on Bush about 9/11, and the failure of intelligence and what a big debacle it was, and now that the tables are turned --

RUSH: You know what? This is an excellent point. And how about the intel failure of weapons of mass destruction?

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: That was worldwide intel. That was the CIA, that was MI5, it was MI6, it was Interpol, it was everybody. Everybody said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It was intel. And they ripped Bush a new one for listening to the bad intel, for having bad intel, for not having good intelligence. And now this bunch is using bad intel as an excuse. In fact, I just got audio sound bites from some of the stuff that's happened since the program began. They are trying to bail Susan Rice out at this State Department hearing by saying, "Well, it was just bad intel," even though they've got their own intel unit at the State Department, they report to the White House. This cover-up is inept, but it's underway.

8 posted on 10/10/2012 4:17:29 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Either the Obama administration is woefully ignorant and out of touch or this was a cover-up of monumental proportions that failed miserably.
9 posted on 10/10/2012 4:19:08 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gotribe
I have been posting similar speculation almost from the beginning. I think that this may have been meant to be our “October surprise”. My theory was that the ambassador was suppose to be kidnapped not killed and then held ransom. This would have given Obama an excuse for bold action which would have demonstrated his foreign policy acumen.

If they were planning on killing the ambassador why did it take six hours for this thing to play out? It appears that they had the ordinance necessary to flatten the consulate. Instead it looks a little like they tried to “smoke” the ambassador out of his hiding spot and inadvertently killed him with the smoke.

We will never know if this has any relationship to reality unless people from the other side start talking which is highly unlikely.

10 posted on 10/10/2012 4:21:48 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama and Hillary are properly protected. They did not protect the Ambassador properly.

11 posted on 10/10/2012 4:23:04 PM PDT by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fireman15

Yep something big is amiss. And some canary somewhere will sing.

12 posted on 10/10/2012 4:35:04 PM PDT by gotribe (He's a mack-daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It may be worse than Watergate, but it will not be treated as such by the MSM. No way!

Always classify the MSM together with Al-Qaeda.

13 posted on 10/10/2012 5:03:11 PM PDT by 353FMG (The US Constitution is only as effective as those who enforce it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama keeps lyin, citizens keep dyin’. It needs to be his official slogan.

14 posted on 10/10/2012 5:31:35 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark

>RUSH: That was worldwide intel. That was the CIA, that was MI5, it was MI6, it was Interpol, it was everybody. Everybody said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It was intel. And they ripped Bush a new one for listening to the bad intel, for having bad intel, for not having good intelligence. And now this bunch is using bad intel as an excuse.

That’ll be the lead-in to the next excuse. “Well, Bush got bad intel and 3,000 died. I got bad intel and a few people died. Ergo, I (zero) shouldn’t be held to account for this. Did I mention recently that I inherited a difficult situation? It’s all Bush’s fault!”

15 posted on 10/10/2012 6:19:29 PM PDT by No.6 (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

I think we need to have jihadi guards for Hillary and Obammy. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anyone remember Dempsey joining this circus and calling Rev. Jones and warning him about the “movie.” I do. Dempsey needs moderate jihadist guards, too.

16 posted on 10/10/2012 6:32:25 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. This increases the difficulties ten fold; and those who pursue these methods, get themselves so involved at length, that they can turn no way but their infamy becomes more exposed. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." - See "Letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785," in Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1984), pp. 814-815.

On another thread today the author of an article there said that such a person must be listened to with a "skeptical ear." Those words prompted my memory of Jefferson's wise advice to the young Peter Carr.

Tens of millions now are listening to the utterings of this President with a "skeptical ear," as they have seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears and felt in their own families the consequences of broken promises, empty words, and a false ideology as old as mankind itself--an ideology which substitutes itself and its wisdom for the Creator and "Sovereign Ruler of the Universe" (Madison) whose Divine Providence was said by America's Founders to be the source of life, liberty, and rights.

The little lies are merely part and parcel, and essential support, to the "big lie" which exists when men of arrogance substitute accumulation of coercive power for themselves for adherence to the principles of liberty underlying America's Constitution and its limitations on them.

Had so-called "progressives" not practiced decades of censorship of those ideas of liberty from textbooks and public discourse by their own dishonest methods, resulting in an electorate which could be fooled by the chicanery of "hope and change," with its accompanying denigration of the Constitution, America might have been spared from the consequences of 2008.

The President is correct: elections have consequences!

Technology makes it possible to rediscover almost every word the Founders wrote and spoke publicly, and measure the words of the redistributionist enslavers against the "self-evident" truth upon which our liberty was obtained.

17 posted on 10/10/2012 6:50:45 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obama Lied -- Benghazi Fried!

18 posted on 10/10/2012 10:35:12 PM PDT by garjog (We do not want another four more years of the last four years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gotribe

WHY did they want Stevens KILLED??? What were the SEALS doing there?? WHERE are the MANPADS!!!

19 posted on 10/11/2012 3:08:04 AM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hillary Clinton is the she in shenanigans.

20 posted on 10/11/2012 6:18:12 AM PDT 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]

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
Topics · Post Article

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