As if all of the White House lies surrounding Benghazi were not already enough, the Washington Times reports one more bombshell that came out of the 60 Minutes segment a few days ago:
“…sources directly familiar with the attack tell The Washington Times that a unit of eight special operators — mostly Delta Force and Green Beret members — were in Tripoli the night of the attack, on a counterterrorism mission that involved capturing weapons and wanted terrorists from the streets and helping train Libyan forces.
When word of the Benghazi attack surfaced, two members of that military unit volunteered to be dispatched along with five private security contractors on a hastily arranged flight from Tripoli to rescue Americans in danger, the sources said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the special operations forces’ existence inside Libya was secret.”
This is no small thing. Scarborough writes that this is the “latest to undermine a carefully crafted story line put out by the president and his aides in the weeks leading into the 2012 election. The administration has since acknowledged that parts of that story line were misleading.” That’s like saying that 9/11 caused a bit of damage and hurt some folks. The White House consistently claimed that the reason the men fighting for their lives at Benghazi got no help is because there was no one within range to help them. That, as you can see, is quite a lot of bull. In fact, those two operators received medals for valor in the battle, so it’s not like the administration can keep claiming no one was there. Read the whole article…it’s well worth it.
Here is the cold, hard truth about Benghazi:
This is the kind of thing that should have brought down a presidency. Instead, the administration covered it up until after the election to ensure that they didn’t get the black eye they should have, and they could stay around to keep furthering their agenda. It’s that simple.
And the sheep keep grazing.
Kevin says: Can you answer (or provide links) to the following statement:
1. What were they doing that required them to cover their own rear end? What was happening in Libya prior to the September 11 attack they were trying to cover up? I’m really curious as to what the conspiracy theorists are conjuring up.
I’m not going to bother asking you about how they lied or how the continue to lie because no matter what comes of their mouths are considered lies by conservatives. They could say “good morning” a conservative would call them a liar because it was raining outside.
Kevin,
If you’re still asking what they were doing in Libya, over a year after the event, then you have been too busy grazing to even read, apparently. I don’t see it as my job to spoon-feed you information that has been readily available for months, just because you were too brainwashed to see it and/or care. One more thing…it’s not the conspiracy theorists saying it, either. But don’t let the facts hit you in the rear on the way out.
As for the passive-aggressive fallacies you spout in the next paragraph…/sigh. You really need to learn how to debate without sounding like a petulant child. How you can even ask the question “How did they lie?” at this point is not only staggering but laughable. It’d be about like your boy Obama calling a press conference today to ask who knows what Fast and Furious is.
Kevin says: I do not know nor have I heard anywhere (on the mainstream media or Fox news) that our government was doing something covert that required the President, Secretary of State or anyone to cover-up something. When I do google searches, I don’t find anything.
One sentence … What were they trying to cover up?
No passive-aggressive fallacies, no being a petulant child. I’m not trying bait you into an argument. Here’s my promise to you … One sentence about what President Obama was trying to cover up and I will not respond to your post (or any other post about the Benghazi posting you posted). You will not hear zippo from me.
Catherine Wilkinson says: There are plenty of “links” (from both liberal, conservative, and politically neutral sources) to numerous articles that confirm that the State Department and more importantly, the White House LIED numerous times regarding Benghazi….there have been several posts here and elsewhere about most of these lies, which in some cases, have been ADMITTED to by both entities. Check the archives, as well as hundreds of other sources. It’s not Kit’s responsibility or her intent to revisit all of them in one blog post just because you have chosen this one blog to counter every single post much like the example you give…if a conservative says it’s raining, you’ll say, “no, it’s not”. It’s telling that you are willing to continue to argue in favor of the abhorrent and impeachable behavior of a Secretary of State and a President that led to the murder and abandonment of Americans at an American embassy. Even a liberal should be ashamed.
Jodi says: This ^^^
GWB says: Remember, Catherine, Kevin doesn’t read *any* blogs but this one. And, he’s out of his depth here……
Kevin says: I understand the blogosphere and all the talk on Benghazi. I know all of that. What I’m asking about specific to Kit’s posting was her point #1 “Our president, his secretary of state, and other top officials left men out there to die to cover their own rear end.”
That sentences (when deconstructed) says to me that there were people in the united states government who wanted to hide what they were doing so that’s why the top officials left them out to die … to cover up whatever they were doing (this is prior to September 11, 2012).
My question is, What were they trying to cover up? (Not the leaving men to die, not calling the military to send in troops, not providing adequate protection … none of that.)
Before the Benghazi incident happened (prior to 9/11/12), what were they trying to hide.
Or, do I misunderstand Kit’s point when she refers to a cover up?
GWB says: OK, I’ll take up the banner here.
Possibilities:
a) They are covering up their failure to secure the Benghazi site. There were numerous requests to provide better security (from the Ambassador, himself), and they were rebuffed.
b) They were attempting to hide that the second site was a CIA facility.
c) That they were playing (poorly) some version of Iran-Contra or Deal Of The Century with weapons provided to the terrorists insurgents.
d) All of the above.
e) A and B
f) A and C
A and B are well-documented. The last is supported by some data, but isn’t as obvious as A and B.
Consider the gauntlet thrown.
Don’t forget that President Derp was MIA throughout the evening, and was so distraught that he made sure he was on time for his flight to Vegas to hang with Jay-Z and Beyonce while getting sweet, sweet campaign cash.
GWB says: Well, BIW,IC, I was restricting myself to the narrow question that Kevin posited. Though, I suppose that sits in a gray area in-between the “what would they lie about?” and the lying about the cover-up, itself.
*sigh* They make this so hard to keep all black and white…… /s
GWB, it was more a matter of pointing to the many things we know about the entire episode that do not make any sense. But we’re not supposed to think too hard about that, because Harpy doesn’t think it makes any difference.
BTW, am I the only one who is troubled at the idea of a President who always seems to be finding out about his administration’s failures, gaffes, and outright screw ups when he reads about them in the newspaper or hears about them in a legacy media outlet, but continues to tell us that we need to quit reading “the bloggers” and listening to “right wing” radio? It sure looks to me like the difference between a disconnect and a CHASM.
I’m still amazed that people want to give him a pass. He’s our employee. Would we tolerate this level of disaster from someone we hired to be a manager of our own business? Why is this any different?
Deebow says: Kevin needs to open the window in his basement and let in some more internet.
I am reaching a point that I will no longer argue with liberals. It is like arguing with toddlers. Every time you say “here is the evidence” their answer is “Because Obama.”
Kevin’s intellectual honesty test is “how mind alteringly pissed off would I be, along with all of my enablers in the Lamestream Media if this was happening and the President was Mitt Romney.”
Methinks he would fail.
Jodi Giddings says: Yes ^^^ And the fact that Kevin continues to support Hillary Clinton, despite overwhelming evidence that she belongs in the Special Housing Unit of a federal prison, is frighteningly telling.
I’m not going to bother asking you about how they lied or how the continue to lie because no matter what comes of their mouths are considered lies by conservatives. They could say “good morning” a conservative would call them a liar because it was raining outside.
I searched posts I have written over the last several years about lies from this President and his administration. The sheer volume is amazing. Lies about the health care takeover (my personal favorite was the President claiming to be God’s “partner” in getting health care “reform” passed. Lies about the gulf oil spill (the entire event a study in government mendacity and incompetence), lies at the SOTU where the Constitutional Dunce-In-Chief wagged his finger at the Justices present as he berated them for overturning a “century of law” that wasn’t with the Citizens United ruling. Lies about Cambridge Police “acting stupidly” in the same breath as President Derp’s admission that he didn’t have all the facts, to an obscene Spendulous Package that was going to bring unemployment down under 8% within a year, to “Recovery Summer”, to a “new tone” in civility, to an “honest conversation” about racism, to lying about phone calls to health insurance execs to shake them down for payments to help the HHS and its takeover of healthcare, to not knowing about wiretaps of reporters, to not knowing IRS officials were colluding with White House staff on non-profit status approvals for Tea Party Groups, and on and on and on…
The issue is not reporters starting to openly laugh at Spokesclown Jay Carney, its that they waited so long to do it.
GWB says: ^^This ^^
Eleanor in Hell says: If the Nation elects Hillary Clinton as #45 after her mishandling of Benghazi, kiss America good-bye. Be sure to turn out the lights. 🙁
GWB says: Too late for that, Eleanor. But, heck no, I’m leaving the lights on! If we go down, I’m taking the whole planet with me due to globull warming!
18 Comments