Death And Deceit In Benghazi - Did Obama Admin Try to Hide The Truth?

YouTube/Fox News ^ | Oct 19, 2012

[TigersEye]

I’m thinking it might be simply a generalized denial...what does the world think of us

Why would anyone in the world think the U.S. gov had anything to do with making a 3rd rate (and that's being kind) 13 minute Youtube video with dubbed in dialogue? Why would a generalized denial be pointedly repeated a half dozen times or more? It doesn't make sense to me.

[littleharbour]

That’s my question too. There is not a single document supporting the contention that anyone in the American intelligence community ever made any connection between the video and the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi. That lie was made from whole cloth. The Administration saw an opportunity to blame it on the video so that it would permit them to once again grovel before the islamic terrorists and justify their complete failure to intervene to repel what is essentially an act of war against America. Obama, Biden, Clinton, Rice and Lamb should all be charged with criminal negligence.

[lentulusgracchus]

Circulateds your vidlink. Thanx, FRiend.

Ironic I can’t stream it myself! And I wish to hell Fox would unbend and start providing their b/c affiliates with more of their cable content — even as rissoles.

[lentulusgracchus]

It is inconceivable to me that someone called a “commander”, as in commander in chief, does not have in place a standard procedure that requires serious situations to be immediately reported to him....

They must have had indications, omens, warnings .... that their deal was about to go sideways. That they went ahead suggests that they had a deniability option in the folder all along -- and they just went to it as soon as the first crow appeared on the telephone wire.

Deep denial, deepest darkest deception. Deepest dishonor.

[lentulusgracchus]

“....apparently the lurid stuff being passed around about Ambassador Stevens being raped was just nonsense.”

How do you know? Does Fox explicitly deny/debunk it, or did they subject their material to “family suitability” editorial standards that, in days gone by, left lots of stuff on the police blotter and out of the story? I never saw a JFK autopsy photo, for example, until after my 40th b/d. I was 15 when he died.

Can’t stream video/audio, just asking,

“LG”

[Marine_Uncle]

I feel your pain. I have had a problem viewing supposed Fox specials, other, after some Freeper would say tune in at some hour for a repeat.
It can piss one off after a while.

[Marine_Uncle]

Whoops sorry. If you are referring to not being able to few the close to one hour Fox special I would suggest you go here.
It should provide you the whole segment.

[unique1]

Sounds right. I just wonder if some political operatives were just sitting around trying to come up with a connection that would not reflect badly on the Obama administration or Islam radicals - so, let’s blame it on an American ‘source’ - say that video that was posted on YouTube!

Every time I think I have become jaded beyond the capacity for surprise or deeper disgust, this administration digs down to a new level of OMFG!

[RitchieAprile]

well I did say ‘apparently’. none of the news stories I read
contained any autopsy findings indicating such a thing occurring. I did read one which specifically says that he
was uninjured except for smoke inhalation.

[Dave Mellon]

I have examined all of the publicly available videos of the Ambassador’s retrieval and there is an apparent wound near the base of his neck. If it is a gunshot wound, it is most likely a couple of hours post-mortem as there is no blood on his t-shirt. All publicly available photos do not show this apparent wound because the Ambassador’s t-shirt covers the area. I also have a large number of other important video stills and photos that have not been shown in the USA that shed new light on 9-11-12. I do not know how to place them here for discussion. I am working very hard on a video of what I have learned. I will keep you posted. Sorry for the lateness of this post but I was out of country until late last night.

[Diamond]

The bottom line is that it lasted long enough that one wonders if a readiness team from the military couldn’t have reached there if someone watching “real time” at a higher level had given the order to save those guys’ lives.

That has been my question, too. Were there any American 'assets' close enough to have arrived in time to do anything? I don't suppose there is any way to find out.

Cordially,

[Just mythoughts]

I am interested to learn what you have discovered. Would you ping me when you are able to post. Thank you in advance.

[Just mythoughts]

It DOES sound stupid for them to repeatedly declare that the government had nothing to do with the video. But there’s clearly some kind of method to their madness. Your question of “who are they trying to convince”...ie WHO are they aiming for when they utter this denial, is on target, and in your reasonings you seem to discount every possibility and so, are left with a mystery. I’m thinking it might be simply a generalized denial...what does the world think of us (even though “the world” isn’t likely to think they were complicit in the video), what is in the media that we need to answer, etc. In other words, general PR. But that has to be tied in with the fact that they are claiming - and this is key - they are CLAIMING that the Arab street is aflame BECAUSE of the video. Therefore as a government (engaged in that fictitious claim about the video) they think it’s pro forma, it’s expected of them to deny the U.S. government had anything to do with it. I put it in the same category as their tv ads on arab media apologizing about the video. And condemning...don’t ever forget...CONDEMNING the video. And sympathizing with the poor little Muslims who have their feelings hurt by the video. All their actions are part of the same piece. I doubt they thought they were talking to anyone in particular when they denied complicity with the video. It was part of their phony “narrative” that they wanted to get out there, for one and all. It was that apologetic attitude they took, that caused Mitt Romney to come out with his statement...because the State Dept. people in Cairo issued a very apologetic statement in response to the violence on our embassy there, soon to be followed by Steven’s death in Benghazi from a military assault. And in all of it, the video was being held culpable. Which is hogwash. But it IS being used for propaganda and to whip crowds up after mosque worship services. And, ayman al zawahiri has issued a call for all Muslims to attack America everywhere in revenge for that video. That is true, he has done that. But it’s the tail wagging the dog, at this point.

We Americans have nearly a four year history of means and methods of how Obama views US. What to me is bizarre, is how Obama and Hillary set the stage to speak to US and the world after an American Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally slaughtered.

Their response of blaming an unknown video, followed immediately by the need to say repeatedly they, the US government had nothing to do with this video is beyond bizarre.

Who exactly were Obama and Clinton speaking to? It never entered my mind even as they were blaming an 'offensive video', and as much as I am repulsed by the both of them, they would have any connection to the funding, producing of an offensive video. Now neither Obama nor Clinton can say they played no part in the largest most prestigious effort on earth to an advertising and promotion campaign of said 'offensive video'.

All the while we have now learned that both Obama and Clinton knew in real time, as the attack took place there was NO 'video' reaction going on, it was a planned assault.