Skip to comments.In the Name of National Security, Media Declares Libya a Non-Scandal
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 dont care....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s weird, until their boy, Barry Benghazi, came along, the state controlled “media” never cared about “national security” before.
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?
It isn’t JUST a scandal, it’s an outrage against human decency.
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!”
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.
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
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.
It’s not national security they’re interested in. It’s presidential security.
Going along with them isn't working.
"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".
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.
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.
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)
I don't believe it was an attack. It was a kidnap attempt.
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.
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.
WHO gave the order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?