Benghazi is a phone scandal!

[Korriken]

Or at least that's what Obama WANTS you to believe. The irony behind this is the pressure from the CIA to its own operatives to stay silent on the matter.

It's been almost a year and how much information do we have on this? Not much. Doesn't seem like anyone is coming forward to talk to congress despite the head of the CIA saying that agents ARE allowed to, yeah right.

CNN even managed to get an interview with the man who is suspected of organizing the attack. Why can't we grab this guy then?

It's almost like the Obama administration is simply not interested in Benghazi, and would rather it go away than get to the bottom of the attack and get those responsible. Given that only republicans in congress are calling for the new head of the FBI to brief them on the matter and ZERO democrats signed onto it, it speaks volumes on about how corrupt our political system is getting.

Lie about what happened to hopefully sweep it under a rug, pass on some talking points about it being a protest about a movie that got out of hand, then send a loyal drone to repeat the message of the day on multiple TV shows, with the administration KNOWING It was a lie. According to Greg Hicks: We knew it was a terror attack from the get-go. With this knowledge, the only conclusion is that 5 days after the attack the Obama Administration KNEW it was a terror attack when they send Susan Rice to lie through her teeth.

But, hey, the accusation of a cover up after Benghazi is a phony scandal.

[supergandhi64]

one more fascist operation covered up! the obama administration has managed to spend an impressively large web of lies without it collapsing on them . . . then again they're spending enormous amounts of resources to keep this a secret taken directly from our wallets

--supergandhi64

[Korriken]

At 8/2/13 04:54 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: the obama administration has managed to spend an impressively large web of lies without it collapsing on them . . .

Give it time. Thinking you've gotten away with it makes you cocky, cocky people makes mistakes, and mistakes come back to haunt you.

The history books will be as kind to Obama as it is to Nixon... not very kind at all. Obama's legacy is going to be a fun read in 20 years.

[Light]

At 8/3/13 02:13 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/2/13 04:54 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: the obama administration has managed to spend an impressively large web of lies without it collapsing on them . . .

Give it time. Thinking you've gotten away with it makes you cocky, cocky people makes mistakes, and mistakes come back to haunt you.

The history books will be as kind to Obama as it is to Nixon... not very kind at all. Obama's legacy is going to be a fun read in 20 years.

I don't know if this whole Benghazi thing is what will define Obama's presidency. In the coming years and decades, he'll probably be known as the president most similar to Jimmy Carter, but encountering a little more success in passing important legislation since his party controlled Congress for the first two years of his term.

But hey, if this Benghazi stuff somehow blows up in his face and he's determined to have done something criminal, then yeah, he'll be right down there with Nixon in terms of the kind of legacy that he leaves behind in the eyes of history: a criminal one.

[BrianEtrius]

Hold on a second.

All CNN has reported is that the CIA is trying to keep things hush hush with their operatives on the ground during this time period. That sounds like something the CiA would normally do, because God knows what they were during in the area, perhaps scouting or intel or something. Either way, it doesn't sound completely like a scandal......more like the CIA trying to cover it's tracks. My guess? They were using Libya as a staging area to get arms over to Syria. And why not? It's naitive to think we haven't been helping the rebels for a while.........

[Camarohusky]

Reagan did NOTHING positive during his presidency, and yet he wasn't tainted by the Iran Contra scandal where he actively and intentionally caused a bigger mess than this. How would Obama be any more labelled by this extremely minor incident?

[Feoric]

At 8/3/13 03:50 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: My guess? They were using Libya as a staging area to get arms over to Syria. And why not? It's naitive to think we haven't been helping the rebels for a while.........

That sounds like a dumb enough idea for it to be a real possibility. Wars are good at clearing out old stockpiles, which Libya had many. This has been a game we've been playing for decades, though, so it's fun to watch this be woven as an anti-American conspiracy cover-up masterminded by Obama. The executive branch generally does not micromanage operations carried out by the military/intelligence agencies, but try telling that to Issa.

[Korriken]

At 8/3/13 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Reagan did NOTHING positive during his presidency, and yet he wasn't tainted by the Iran Contra scandal where he actively and intentionally caused a bigger mess than this. How would Obama be any more labelled by this extremely minor incident?

NOTHING positive huh? right, I'll just let you live in Liberal Candyland where the right goes no good and the left can do no wrong.

Also, it's not the incident that was the problem. It was the coverup. There is plenty of evidence that it was a preplanned attack. Greg Hicks even said it himself, "We knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack." FROM THE BEGINNING. Not a month later. Also, Greg Hicks wasn't just some guy, He was the #2 man on the ground. There were NO reports of a protest that day either.

so in essence, Obama lied, plain and simple for political reasons. THAT is the scandal. Our President lied to the American people and kept lying when people called him out on it, and only when he realized this wasn't going to go away did he finally tell the truth.

[Feoric]

Obama never said it wasn't a terror attack, soooooo I guess we go back to square one, except we stay there forever since we're arguing with talking points.

[supergandhi64]

let this tickle your brain . . . the words "i'm not a crook" in obama's voice

--supergandhi64

[BrianEtrius]

At 8/3/13 11:55 AM, Korriken wrote: so in essence, Obama lied, plain and simple for political reasons. THAT is the scandal. Our President lied to the American people and kept lying when people called him out on it, and only when he realized this wasn't going to go away did he finally tell the truth.

Like I said earlier: where in your conspiracy soup does this connect back to Obama? In your link there's no connection to the executive branch at all, this is a internal manner within the CIA that's seems reasonable given what the CIA does.

It's like calling "fire" when there's no smoke. There's no scandal here yet to make that claim.

[Korriken]

At 8/3/13 02:16 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Like I said earlier: where in your conspiracy soup does this connect back to Obama? In your link there's no connection to the executive branch at all, this is a internal manner within the CIA that's seems reasonable given what the CIA does.

It's like calling "fire" when there's no smoke. There's no scandal here yet to make that claim.

Riddle me this. who sent Susan Rice out to lie on television? Oh that's right, the Obama Administration. Who head the Obama Administration?

I'll put it like this. If there was a protest, no one noticed it. There was no reports of a protest that day, at all. surely the government could have checked the reports that day to see if there was a protest (there was no protest) Somehow, despite there being a lack of ANY evidence of any protest that day, they still came to the conclusion that the attack was a protest that got out of hand.

There is no tactical advantage to lying to the people, unless you think of a political advantage. There is no tactical advantage to keeping the Benghazi survivors hidden and out of Congress' reach, unless you consider the political ramifications of them testifying. Once you consider that, it makes perfect sense to keep them hidden and intimidated with constant polygraph tests and threats of retaliations of they speak up.

Naturally, nothing will come of this. Even if a republican wins in 2016, he won't do anything. Neither side is going to attack the other side in such a way as to get their predecessor arrest and put away for criminal offenses because that would open the door for retaliation from their successor.

[Feoric]

At 8/3/13 09:12 PM, Korriken wrote: Riddle me this. who sent Susan Rice out to lie on television?

What makes you think she was lying, as opposed to just being wrong?

[BrianEtrius]

At 8/3/13 09:12 PM, Korriken wrote: Naturally, nothing will come of this. Even if a republican wins in 2016, he won't do anything. Neither side is going to attack the other side in such a way as to get their predecessor arrest and put away for criminal offenses because that would open the door for retaliation from their successor.

So basically:

Unrelated CIA report about Libya and Benghazi,

It's an Obama conspiracy! Let's bring up all that nasty political arguments from a year and a half ago, which, by the way, have all ready been disproven!

That's what your argument is boiling down to, which makes zero sense. Come on Korriken, you're better than this.

[Korriken]

At 8/3/13 09:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

What makes you think she was lying, as opposed to just being wrong?

Well, SHE may have not known better. However, those who told her what to say did. When I first heard about the "protest that got out of hand", I simply shook my head and said, 'I smell bullshit."

At 8/4/13 12:03 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Unrelated CIA report about Libya and Benghazi,

Is it now? You mean the CIA doing polygraph tests on the same people over and over who happened to have been involved in the Benghazi attack to detect possible leaks to the media is... unrelated? You're seriously grasping at straws here.

It's an Obama conspiracy! Let's bring up all that nasty political arguments from a year and a half ago, which, by the way, have all ready been disproven!

have they? Has it been disproven that it was a terrorist attack? Has it been proven that there actually WAS a protest? I think not. Has it been proven that the government's assertion that there was a protest, when there was not does not constitute lying? I doubt it.

Do you REALLY believe that the whole 'protest gone wrong' scenario was an honest mistake?

Also, the attack didn't even happen a full year ago so how could the arguments be a year and a half old?

[BrianEtrius]

At 8/4/13 08:54 AM, Korriken wrote: Is it now? You mean the CIA doing polygraph tests on the same people over and over who happened to have been involved in the Benghazi attack to detect possible leaks to the media is... unrelated? You're seriously grasping at straws here.

Okay Korriken, what's more likely here:

A) CIA knew the attack was going to happen, let it happen, and cover it up by trying to silence over 20 operators they had on the ground, or

B) CIA had other things going on in Libya that they don't want other people (I.e.congress, the president, etc) know, like arms trafficking to countries in the mists of civil war?

There would have to be a major huge conspiracy for A to happen. B, much more likely.

have they? Has it been disproven that it was a terrorist attack? Has it been proven that there actually WAS a protest? I think not. Has it been proven that the government's assertion that there was a protest, when there was not does not constitute lying? I doubt it.

Hey, here are all those emails and reports I remember the GOP callIng for last year, didn't this shut them up then too?

Do you REALLY believe that the whole 'protest gone wrong' scenario was an honest mistake?

What is the phrase, military intelligence is a contradiction? My guess is that they couldn't get an accurate picture what was happening on the ground at the time and waited. I also remember when Susan rice went on she had the phrase, " based off our current intelligence", though correct me if I am wrong.

Also, the attack didn't even happen a full year ago so how could the arguments be a year and a half old?

Year, whatever. Point is, if you think I'm grasping on the CIA part, you're grasping to try to pin this on someone. At this time, what's the point? Rice got most of the blame already, Hilary got out for the most part scratch free so she's still game for 2016, and again, this really had nothing to do with Obama. This is witch hunt, no less, and I'm surprised that you Korriken aren't smart enough to see that. You're better than this, come on.