Obama Refused to Call Benghazi 'Terror,' CBS Covered Up

[Stephen Eisel]

For the record, I like Jim. When we see each other, we always have a laugh or two.... If I see Jim on his porch, I usually beep or sometimes stop by and say hi..

[Jim O'Bryan]

I've been watching this thread for days and this has really degenerated into the worst kind of discussion that can happen on the deck. Between this tit-for-tat, which has included photos of the president walking over the graves of soldiers, as well as charges of racism and demands for apologies here and elsewhere, I'd like to remind everyone flaming-out that it looks really bad all around. I don't post on this part of the deck often because I think it's best that I don't engage in public political forums as a city employee. But watching what has happened on this side of the deck lately makes me question what value the whole conversation has in the first place. Is Benghazi an issue? Sure. Whether or not it means anything in the larger context of politics is worth considering, but as long as people are talking about it, as evidenced here, it is an issue. But for the good of the intelligent conversation that usually pervades our discussions, and sure there have been other examples of the degenerative impulse of heated debate, I'd just like to say that this whole side of the deck could use some perspective. IMHO.

"IMHO"

Everyone is entitled to one, and the Deck celebrates that fact.

This thread has degenerated into racism? It was my belief when I came back to this section
the entire section had degenerated into baseless attacks that could only be fueled by racism.
You have a President, that is attacked nearly hourly, by a small group that spent 8 years
here and elsewhere explaining about honoring the office of the president, how date anyone
question Haliburton, declaring war on Afghanistan, no Iraq, no Iraq and Afghanistan for
a political/religious group hiding in Pakistan. etc.

No a Democrat becomes Presidents and runs programs Republicans and "Independents"
would have loved except? What could the reason possibly be? He has increased employment,
taken the country from the edge of failure, saved the auto industry, and most of the plans
he put in place have been repaid, or will at least break even if not make the country some
added capital. He has gotten us out of two unfunded, unneeded wars, restored America to
such a place in the world that Canadian flag patch sales have fallen to an all time low, as
an American no longer has to act like a Canadian when abroad. And now he is working on
a plan that would have made America equal with the rest of the civilized world with health
care. Made it easier for students to get educated in college and not loose their shirts upon
graduation, which will keep us in the tech race.

Yet day after day he is attacked and slandered by the very same people that demanded
we honor and respect the President, that most historians credit with breaking the world.

If it is not his color, give me a hint. It certainly is not his policies.

As I said early on, investigate Benghazi, we, as Americans have a right to know. But if you
are hard core R calling for it, gain some respect and some credibility by demanding the
investigation into the Bush 8 years which broke America and the world. Of course this was
made harder to do the first week he came to office when by Presidential decree added 50
years to the length of time before his "private" papers can be viewed by the public.

Kate is not a racist, and I did not call her one. Eisel, is Eisel, a hardcore Republican/Tea Bag pot stirrer of the highest order who hides under the cloak of "independent."

Grandma said never talk about religion of politics at the dinner table. I always figured it
was because things based in faith not facts lead to heated discussions on all sides. It is
not bad.

.

[Stephen Eisel]

Eisel, is Eisel, a hardcore Republican/Tea Bag pot stirrer of the highest order who hides under the cloak of "independent."

Jim, there are more than two colors in this world. The black and white world that you live in must be a scary place.

[Jim O'Bryan]

My world is only scary, when closed minded people refuse to see the truth.

All people are equal. It is only by their words and deeds do they start to become good
or bad. It is not based on color, religion, gender, or place in life.

All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince.- Plato

Twist my comments as you will, you will not paint me into your corner of hatred.

.

[Stephen Eisel]

twisting would include accusing some of being a racist just because they disagree with your opinion JOB..Also, this constant labeling of others is getting old..

[Stephen Eisel]

All people are equal. It is only by their words and deeds do they start to become good or bad. It is not based on color, religion, gender, or place in life.

You talk the talk but you rarely walk the walk...

[Jim O'Bryan]

Kate, Stephen

I know you realize Obama is black, the first thing you probably noticed.

When it comes from people that demanded respect for the office of the presidency, but not need to roast the black man, is disgusting.

The only person pointing out color or race in this thread is you Jim.. Do you have a problem with race?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... e%20baiter

race baiter

One who insinuates that racism or bigotry is a dominant factor with regards to an event that either does not involve race or in which diverse cultures are involved are simply a minor element.

Not race baiting (race was a primary factor): The U.S. Civil War was fought by white supremacists who wanted to maintain slavery.
-
Not race baiting (statement of facts): A white kid and a black kid got into a fight at school today.

Race baiter (insinuating race): A person of color was abused by a white at school today, just another day in the U.S. of K.K.K.A.
-
Not race baiting: When the Europeans came to America, vast differences in culture led to numerous conflicts with Native Americans on a broad number of issues, most of which the Europeans won.

Race baiter: When the pilgrims landed, they proceeded to exterminate the defenseless Indians from the land.

Stephen

I just saw this while looking for a Kate Parker post.

A couple people at the meeting last night at Gypsy Bean were hoping to meet Kate. I
had assured them she is not only very real, but at 5' 4" or so can probably kick my ass.

Race baiting no.

As I have pointed out in numerous threads, since day one Obama has been a complete
failure because he did not clean up the last Republican's president mess fast enough for
you. Never mind what he did do, many of the plans Republican in nature, well at least
before Obama became President. Yet nothing but BS personal attacks, and a call for "broken
promises, and failings since day 1.

So you have left little else in what possibly be wrong with core of the man, the president,
which I believe makes the question or thought somewhat legit in this discussion. If this
was merely a post about Benghazi, it should have outraged. But do a search for Eisel and
read the past four years of your posts, and it is quite stunning the amount of loathing you
have for the Office of the President you used to demand deserved respect. Though not to
the point of some calling it treasonous.

So do you hate Democratic Presidents? Black Presidents? Democratic Black Presidents? or
what is your core dislike of EVERYTHING Obama does?

I mean I thought GWB was an idiot and the worst president ever, which it would seem
most historians and the Republican Party agrees with. But I was still able to find something
good to say once in awhile. I had no problem calling him President Bush. I never thought
he was anything less than our President?

It is fascinating your extreme stance.

From an "Independent." (to keep Gary interested)

.

[Stephen Eisel]

Al Sharpton wrote: So do you hate Democratic Presidents? Black Presidents? Democratic Black Presidents? or
what is your core dislike of EVERYTHING Obama does?

From another thread...

Dave Duke wrote: Let's take a look at the harm done by the non-businessman president / community organizer. Canddidate Obama in 2008 promised to cut the National Debt in half. Instead of cutting the National Debt in half, he increased it by over $6 Trillion in under 4 years. Candidate Obama promised us low unemployment. Instead , high unemployment has become the norm. He promised not raise taxes. So, he gave us a healthcare tax that will cost this country about 800,000 jobs according to the CBO... and cost the uninsured poor people of this country more money in the form of a tax (penalty)... Obamacare doesn't provide health insurance. It just provides another revenue stream for the government.

[Mark Moran]

Im going to regret this….But what I think is really, really obvious is that you want there to be a scandal about Benghazi. Stephen, I think you are excited about the prospect of a scandal, because it will confirm what you are already believe about our President, regardless of what the truth is about a murky situation that probably amounts to some ass-covering by forces on the ground that were responsible for preventing this kind of attack.
I voted for Obama but not enthusiastically. Im not a progressive (I favor a single-payer healthcare system, but I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned; Im agnostic about global warming; Im bored by gay politics; I think people should be allowed to have all the guns they want.) But the Republican Party today is repellent. This President was handed a 40-pound sh---t sandwich to munch on by the previous administration and now gets blamed for the incomplete success of emergency measures that were undertaken in an acute crisis that he didn’t create. And the opposition has been more interested in destroying him that in governing and trying to solve problems.
But on one point you’ve raised I’m really very, very intrigued. You’ve posted a couple of times expressing some outrage about the drone war and the fact that Obama has ramped up this aspect of the war on terrorism. I’m sincere when I say that moral outrage about war—any kind of war—by people who aren’t actually participating it, is usually to be applauded; most of us have no idea what its like to be in a war zone, so none of us has any business celebrating it as anything but the most depressing kind of necessity. And so its especially refreshing to hear this from someone on the right, which typically loves to flex its muscle about war, and has made so much of the fact that Obama “apologizes to our enemies.”
So what is Barack Obama doing killing terrorists (and also some civilians) in Pakistan? Well, of course, 11 years ago we were attacked on our soil by religiously inspired fascists or nihilists, of whom there are an unknown multitude still being trained and indoctrinated in camps and madrassas all over the Islamic middle east. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country whose government and intelligence services are enfiladed with Al Queda and Taliban sympathizers (so much so that Osama bin Ladin was “hiding” not in some cave in the mountains but in a major city) is a particular problem. Christopher Hitchens, who got more things right than you or I ever will, wrote a lot about the danger that Pakistan poses. And in one very interesting column back in 2008 during the presidential campaign, Hitchens noted that only one of the candidates seemed to understand this problem.
Can you guess who the candidate was? I will give you a hint: he used to “pal around” with—gasp!!!—William Ayers. (See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oblem.html)
Is drone war that kills civilians morally problematic? Of course it is. So is waterboarding. So are “extraordinary renditions.” So is detaining suspects for years in Guantanamo without legal counsel. (I used to bore people with postings about the moral outrage of torture, and once bored the readers of Lakewood Observer with an entire column about it, see http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2007/06/10/outrage) So, for that matter, is almost everything related to any kind of response that is going to be remotely effective against this terrible problem.
So how do you propose to solve the problem of religiously inspired fascism or nihilism? It wasn’t solved by either of our trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I wonder if you are in favor of “soft power,” humanitarian aid and cultural exchanges with problem countries so as to try to build alliances with moderate and moderating influences. I love that idea but it’s been horse-laughed into oblivion by the neo-con right whose solution for everything is to look for someone to invade. Its what Obama is practicing when he talks to Arab audiences and tells them that maybe, just maybe we could be more aware of Arab suffering—but then of course he is lambasted by the right for “apologizing” to our enemies.
I don’t know you and you’re probably a swell person. And the left is way too quick to call everything racism. But I do believe that there is something irrational in the hatred that this president inspires among people on the right. http://blackdogsnow.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... y-and.html
Happy Thanksgiving, y’all.

[Stephen Eisel]

But what I think is really, really obvious is that you want there to be a scandal about Benghazi. Stephen, I think you are excited about the prospect of a scandal, because it will confirm what you are already believe about our President, regardless of what the truth is about a murky situation that probably amounts to some ass-covering by forces on the ground that were responsible for preventing this kind of attack.

At least, you did not call me a racist... Is this page 2 of the liberal playbook???

Thanks for the intelliegent reply Mark.. Happy T-Day


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

■There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

■Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.


■Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

■Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -down.html

Refuting the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's claim yesterday that there simply wasn't enough information to responsibly deploy forces to Libya at the time of the attack, sources on the ground claim that communication was open throughout the attack.


Indeed, one member of the CIA team who was on the roof of the annex was in possession of a laser to guide aerial targets including drones and repeatedly requested backup from a Specter gunship to take out an attacker firing mortars.


According to sources familiar with the situation, the operative had visual contact with the Libyan mortar team and in addition was able to pinpoint positions from where the consulate attackers were firing from.

[Stephen Eisel]

An independent review of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi cites "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at high levels of the State Department.

The review also concluded that "there was no protest prior to the attacks."

U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Statements by U.S. officials after the attack sparked political debate over whether the Obama administration has been forthcoming about its understanding of events.

Follow coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, http://CNN.com and CNN's mobile apps.

>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Follow developing stories with the CNN App.
Download it today from your app store and
http://www.CNN.com/Mobile

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/dod ... ry-clinton

[Stephen Eisel]

945062_10151655195077640_1240441734_n.jpg (42.26 KiB) Viewed 22170 times

[Sandra Donnelly]

We need to learn from this tragedy so that we can avoid similar incidents in the future. It's a shame that some seem more interested in exploiting Benghazi for political gain instead of being truly interested in the welfare of Americans serving abroad.