Posted on 10/18/2012 11:30:32 PM PDT by onyx
I can understand the need for secrecy in some situations. Military intel is important during ongoing conflicts where we don’t know if there may still be an imminent threat; on 9/11, the government knew quite a few facts that they didn’t immediately disclose because they weren’t sure if the attack was over yet.
What they didn’t do on 9/11 was try to tell us a lie.
Bush was very measured in his immediate response when Andrew Card rushed up to him in front of the second graders at Emma Booker Elementary School to tell him that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. Liberals make fun of it, but I know better. There are quite a few things that I didn’t like about George W. Bush, but the look on his face told us everything we needed to know about the man. He was not going to tolerate what was going on, and when a course of action was decided the action itself would be swift and decisive. He didn’t lie that day to protect a belief or make us feel better – he called it a premeditated attack, which is exactly what it was.
Obama didn’t do that. As Candy Crowley was so giddy to point out, Obama did use the words “act of terror” during his remarks in the Rose Garden the day after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi. He wasn’t referring to the attack itself, however, and it took a full two weeks before anyone in his cabinet agreed that it was a premeditated terrorist attack timed to coincide with a protest in Egypt. In the immediate aftermath, Obama and his entire staff tried to claim repeatedly – even vehemently on occasion – that the attack was spontaneous and split off from a protest over the video “Innocence of Muslims”. Coincidentally other riots broke out in the Middle East and the MSM began painting us as the insensitive jerks of the world for so offending another culture that they’d riot and call for our destruction (as if jihadists the world over haven’t been screaming for American blood for a couple of centuries).
There are a number of reasons why Obama wouldn’t want to admit that the attack was carefully planned and executed, and none of them should be taken lightly. First, Obama and his liberal followers want America to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and there is no jihad. Unfortunately for that narrative Americans have been victimized by jihadists since the early days of our country, during the Barbary Wars. Second, they want America to believe there’s no reason to be at war – I might believe that when the TSA stops groping people at airports. Third, Obama hopes that by profusely apologizing for everything that offends Muslims he might be able to fix his legacy and win peace.
Worst of all is the now-known security issue. A month before the attack, Ambassador Stevens and his head of security, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, requested more security only to be told that not only would they not get the added security they were requesting, but American security was being reduced at the embassy. Violent activity in the area had all of the people at our embassy worried, and Stevens himself raised concerns that the Libyan militia security had been compromised.
What on Earth could possibly make Obama and his staff do such a thing? Why would they carry out a security drawdown when the seasoned professionals at the embassy were sending warnings that it was almost suicidal to do so? When is the press going to wake up and start asking him the tough questions about this incident that they have, so far, refused to ask? When will they stop covering for him, and how many have to die before they admit he was a poor choice for the Presidency?
We the people should be outraged that a sitting president would be so flippant as to appear on The Daily Show and say that “if four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” We should be beside ourselves that he would characterize the attack as a “bump in the road.” We should be hearing both sides of the aisle demanding to know the truth, but liberals are protecting him. This is hardly Obama’s first scandal. Governor Palin was derided by liberals as having no executive experience, yet she had been a mayor, a commission chair and a governor. Obama had nary a day’s executive experience and not a single congressional accomplishment to his name and somehow he was the better choice. During his Presidency, he has proven just how inept he really is. How can liberals possibly still believe in this man?
It seems to me that Obama is making quite clear that he does not love America and wishes to see her destroyed. If we are so divided that we can’t agree on the fact that Obama needs to go, he may very well get his wish. The jihadists will get theirs, too. We cannot let that happen.
Benghazi ping
You’re kidding of course.
"The future does not belong to those who insult Islam" -- Barack Hussein 0bama
Obama plays word games and loves to muddle his message. Let's rephrase the above to be "The future belongs to those who do not insult Islam".. Same message but a bit more shocking!
Can you rule out the possibility that this man wasn't hired as a bit player in the staged hostage-taking gone awry?
Yeah, you’re right. The Marxist and Crowley played word games, but Americans watching at home, KNEW he lied and that’s what counts.
He’s since dug himself an even deeper hole.
“Four Americans killed is not optimal.”
Two weeks of lies. Now more lies at the debate.
The Coptic Christian, whose obscure film played no part in the Benghazi slaughter of four Americans?
You betcha, he can be ruled out.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912
“...........The “Innocence of Muslims,” the film blamed for provoking the violence, was the work of a California-based Israeli filmmaker Sam Bacile, according to a report by the Associated Press.
It portrays Mohammad as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake and in one clip posted on YouTube, he was shown in an apparent sexual act with a woman. For many Muslims it is blasphemous even to show a depiction of the Prophet.
Bacile, who described himself to AP as an Israeli Jew, spoke to the agency from hiding on Tuesday. He said that the film, which cost $5 million to make, was intended as a political statement and was financed by more than 100 Jewish donors........”
____________________________________________________________
Then there were claims he was not Sam Bacile, but, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian Coptic Christian... and then there is this blog that says he is
http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/24/one-anti-muhammad-film-a-terrorist-financier-and-fbi-failures/
“......Based on an Arabic media interview with Nakoula, the producer freely admitted that he is neither a Christian nor a Jew.......”
You’re right. At both Biden’s and the Marxist’s debates.
The Benghazi slaughter of four Americans had nothing to do with that obscure film that nobody watched.
I’m not into conspiracy theories. Thanks very much.
If I recall correctly, the video was on youtube for six months prior to the attack.
Your recollection is correct. It was first posted in July, 2012.
Check out this report.
I did not say and I do not believe the ‘video’ had anything to do with the Benghazi slaughter. But we do not know ‘yet’ what the real purpose of that ‘video’. There are reasons why the Obama administration advertised that video for weeks, knowing that Americans died over from a terrorist attack. WHY? Ultimately the intel was too readily available to any and all that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
It is not a conspiracy theory. Thank you very much.
Obama wanted to appear to be normalizing our relationship with Libya, and be the great hope of the middle east?
Who knows?
This “man” believes his own lies.
“So let it be written, so let it be done.”
Except he thinks if HE says it true, it must be so.
Watch the video. It has clearly been overdubbed with words not spoken in the original movie. Even an actress in the movie said the word ‘Mohammed’ wasn’t even in the original script. So, do you know WHEN this trickery was done and for WHAT REASON? Until you do.. Sssshhhhhh
He should’ve gotten Congressional approval to war on Libya. He can’t blame Congress for this one..
I don’t believe terrorists plan ahead to use a youtube video as cover in any plot.
That is just plain silly.
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.