60 Minutes Exposes the Benghazi Coverup | Page 3 | The War on Terrorism Homeland Security | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
60 Minutes Exposes the Benghazi Coverup
Avatar
toeg
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 19
Member Since:
September 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
December 24, 2013 - 12:59 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"toeg" wrote: I still can't believe this was such a big story. It just shows how main stream Fox News is.

This is what I said. The many lies, backtracks, repeats, requests, "he said, she said" recorded conversations, headlines and headlies, were ALL because of continued and continual pressure by Fox news, and then other agencies, to paint Obama in a bad light. If someone is calling this a cover up, then it is the most talked about, reported on, filmed, recorded, and testified "cover up" in history.

What happened was a tragedy. What happened in other attacks was a tragedy as well. You could just as easily mount the same type of investigation, with all the lies and innuendos and backtracks and everything else on any of the other ones. But Fox doesn't want to do that on the other ones. Why not? Because they didn't happen right before an election.

Again, what happened in Benghazi has happened elsewhere without the fanfare. The ambassador was present at Benghazi, even though he was the one who wrote about the problem there. NO ONE wants to discuss why HE thought it was okay to be there, because that would ruin the made up conspiracy. You don't mention why he was there. Why?? Did he want to commit suicide??

Avatar
toeg
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 19
Member Since:
September 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
21
December 24, 2013 - 1:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Okay, I quickly reviewed some of your points and I see your concern. I have to admit that I totally disagree. Whether it is labelled a "terrorist attack," a "mob initiated attack," or "kids out to kill Americans," it happened. The ambassador was there which obviously means that he felt nothing was going to happen. There was no "cover up" because the news was out every hour on the latest "scoop". Ever hear of Watergate? The cover up there lasted until after the election before leaks started to occur, not two hours after the event.

This is made up, pure and simple. There are plenty of things Obama does wrong, but this ain't one of them. Go after him on drone strikes, Gitmo, forcing the poor to spend money on healthcare rather than food, attacking countries and killing innocent civilians, letting wall street get away with the wealth of the nation, etc. But one single strike in Libya, a country we helped destabalize? In a town that the ambassador thought had little chance of attack? No.

Avatar
blackvault
Admin
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
August 26, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
22
December 24, 2013 - 1:52 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

*shrugs* - I am always open for good conversation - but this:

Whether it is labelled a "terrorist attack," a "mob initiated attack," or "kids out to kill Americans," it happened.

Shows me you have H. Clinton's standpoint - "At this point, what does it matter?"

So -- no worries 🙂 You fell for it - in my humble opinion. You fell for the company line. They lied, and changed their story, and had motive, means and opportunity to pull off a cover-up - and they got caught. But in the end - who cares, right? I mean, the people are still dead regardless.

Yikes... sorry you feel that way.

Lastly, you ask me did I ever hear of Watergate? If I understand you correctly, you are comparing a 1972 media and a 1972 event about a scandal that involved a Republican President, with the 2012 media and a 2012 event that involved a democratic President -- one of which the mainstream media IDOLIZED in the beginning. And that proves there isn't a cover-up?

Uhhh -- you're joking, right?! Laugh

-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com

Avatar
toeg
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 19
Member Since:
September 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
23
December 24, 2013 - 2:16 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Your question is a bit convoluted. I am comparing a cover up in 1972, where Nixon said he had no prior knowledge of the break-in, with the "so-called cover up" in Benghazi where Obama didn't use the word "terrorist" properly. The whole Benghazi scandal is over the word Terrorist, as you pointed out "1.Q: Why is the Benghazi incident important?

A: Benghazi is important because the Obama Administration has had a long, controversial history, of not labeling attacks on America as "terrorism" even though evidence shows to the contrary."

Your quote, not mine. "Benghazi is important because the Obama Administration has had a long, controversial history, of not labeling attacks on America as terrorism."

Really??

This whole thing isn't about what happened there and why it happened? It isn't about "blow back" (see Chalmers Johnson)? It isn't about how the US has become one of the most hated nations on the planet? It isn't about how we got to the point where there are "Benghazis" happening around the world more and more frequently? It isn't about American hegemony and why there are people who would be willing to die just to do that?

This whole "scandal" is about Obama's use of the word "terrorism"!!!

Really???

Avatar
blackvault
Admin
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
August 26, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
24
December 27, 2013 - 5:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Actually, yes really. But you seemingly are stuck that this is "a word." No, it's about the meaning of the word, the meaning of the event, and the meaning of how he covered it up.

You can think this is all about the word-usage of the "t-word" all you want. You fixate on that one line I typed, but ignore all the others. You also ignore the 100+ pages of emails back and forth editing that line which I obtained under the FOIA. You also ignore the blatant ignorance by the State Department and Hillary herself on how this could all happen, and how we didn't send help.

You ignore so much -- but try to say I am making it about one single word.

Really? Yes, really, but it does involve the ability to digest what the "word" means.

No worries, like I said above. But again, you are still holding the belief that much of the mainstream media did in the BEGINNING. You are failing to now recognize what even they are admitting to. This IS a scandal... and this IS a cover-up of some kind. WHAT? That's the question.

The greatest trick of a magician as I've stated before is look at the right hand because he doesn't want you to see what's in the left. You can fixate on that right hand all you want -- but I guarantee you, you're missing a lot! 🙂

-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com

Avatar
Cole_Trickle
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2731
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
25
December 28, 2013 - 4:12 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I posted the what part a long time ago as per those who actually work in the intelligence community. These things can not be learned about by viewing TV or listening to certain radio programs. Mostly only learned about via outside the country news sources. The initial lie about it being an embassy should have convinced everyone that the truth would never be told via the MSM.

Stevens was " most likely " running a CIA op that was completely against International laws. This is why they were turned out and the aim goal was to ruin Obama's re-election chances by the fact that this was, without question, an orchestrated event. Romney's camp gaffed and said that they had " real time access as the event unfolded "....yes this was reported and very very quickly covered up as it would mean that the attack was indeed planned by people who were working for...................this is where the trail goes very very cold.. but intel sources claim that it were those who wanted Obama out and Romney in.....thankfully it didn't work or the U.S would most likely be bogged down in Iran as I type.

Anyway...it's all water under the bridge now. The focus is now on the Zionist and their pending demise. Obama has isolated Israel over the Iran negotiations yet some in congress still expose themselves with insane suggestions of more sanctions for Iran. These congressional members are without doubt working on behalf of Israel and probably the Saudi's. never for the good of the average American citizen. The best part of this is that tons of people are waking up to this as absolute fact.

Cole

Avatar
gudskepteacal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 621
Member Since:
June 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
26
December 29, 2013 - 1:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Again, Cole, your assertion that the Romney Campaign was behind the whole thing is baseless and completely fictional. If that quote does exist, quite possibly they meant they had real time access to news reports coming out of the area. In this day and age of nearly instantaneous news reporting and digital communication, not one damning email, phone call or data transfer has been found implicating Mitt Romney or the people in his campaign. If I am in error about that one fact, please show me your evidence. Also not one leak about this 'covert operation' from anyone involved in the campaign...or anywhere else, come to think of it. I remember when you first posted this fantastical c.t. and, after I had responded, you went on to personally attack Mitt Romney claiming he had somehow broke the law in some of his business dealings and you predicted that he would very soon be facing criminal charges. You and Harry Reid-two peas in a pod; at least you're not a U.S. Senator who should know better. Where are the charges, Cole? When will the proceedings against Romney commence, Cole? Some of that there hot air we discussed is getting away from you with this little fairy tale. 😛

Why did they continue to use the anti Islam video explanation days after they knew better, toeg? Why did the State Dept. ignore security warnings and have Ambassador Stevens in that area; especially on the anniversary of 9/11? Why wasn't help dispatched immediately after the attack was reported? It's not just about the absence of the terrorism connotation to me either, toeg. It's the lack of transparency and willful evasiveness by the Obama Administration throughout the entire thing that makes me question whether Cole isn't actually right about some kind of ongoing covert operation being the reason for all the misdirection, stonewalling and secrecy. I heard one about gunrunning and how Ambassador Stevens was supposed to just be kidnapped for an exchange at a later date for the 'Blind Sheik'. I DK but pretty sure all the people that actually do know aren't telling it to the rest of us.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

Avatar
toeg
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 19
Member Since:
September 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
27
December 30, 2013 - 1:15 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

blackvault, you wrote this: "Actually, yes really. But you seemingly are stuck that this is "a word." No, it's about the meaning of the word, the meaning of the event, and the meaning of how he covered it up.

You can think this is all about the word-usage of the "t-word" all you want."

Yep, I sure can. This "War on Terror," that makes it important that the president use the "t-word" within a given amount of time, is about as real as the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs." BTW, when did we win those? Americans seem to fall for the same bs over and over.

What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy. When the president used a particular word doesn't bring those guys back to life. It's doubtful that anyone could have done anything to change the outcome of that tragedy. I prefer to focus on preventing the next one, not on fantasizing on a details that seem to move and change like sands in a wind. Oh, did you hear the latest addition to this absurd mind-f**k? This is from the New York Times, though no one is really focusing on this part: "It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.
'Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.'”

It's a good thing they took his advice.

But, you're right. Rather than figuring out how we got in this mess worldwide and trying to save future lives, let's just keep hating on this president and go over and over this historical endpoint ad nauseum.

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10322
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
28
December 30, 2013 - 5:11 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I guess you are a firm believer Bush rigged the 2000 election, and Bush planned 911, you would dream up a plot that Romney was behind Benghazi. If he was than why did Obama and Hillary lie through their teeth about it?

Avatar
toeg
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 19
Member Since:
September 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
29
December 30, 2013 - 5:53 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

No, greeney2. Bush and Gore did their rigging, Bush came out on top. We'll never know what happened on 9/11, but the official story is so full of holes that Swiss cheese looks solid in comparison. Romney didn't need to do anything about Benghazi, he had his cheerleaders, Fox News, do all they could to promote a nonstory as usual. Obama and Hillary are doing what their owners tell them to do. If it's lying, then they lie.

I'd like to see America do better, but right now, I don't find many who agree. Most seem to be worried about Reps v Dems, two sides of the same coin, and the rest either think Obama was born on Mars or that Zionists are really lizard people from the third planet revolving the star Sirius. If it's said on Coast to Coast, it must be true.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online:
54
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10322
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
hellova
William
161pell
Nate
Levi Morgan
joe bag o doughnuts
Ballbon
emoji
L Stone
Jessica
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9308
Posts: 124815

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25068
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault