Benghazi Truth from the MSM

Slowly, the entire story is being revealed.  That's common with such cover ups.  Nixon's transgressions didn't come as a flash on the road to Damascus, but slowly the entire nasty story leaked out.

Incompetent as Carter and as sneaky as Nixon, what a combination.

how many embassies are attacked , annually?

how many people die during those attacks?

hint:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an ****nal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

In none of these attacks were requests for additional security -- requests sent directly to State, denied.  None of these attacks were sustained attacks over such a long period of time.  The president didn't repeatedly tell knowingly falsehoods about the attack.

According to the story there has only been 6 attacks in history on US Embassies where someone was killed.  That does not however excuse the fact that for four months there was warning with documentation my personel who were seeking an increase in security or moving/closing the embassy until things cooled down.  All of this was ignored by the State Department and the WH.  I was skepitacl until I heard the stroy from those who were there, but am now fully convinced that this administration let those people die there and did not send in help because of the way it would look and they did not want to get a "black eye".  They underestimated the forces they were going to encounter and had too many lax security problems at the embassy and CIA annex.  The other ****ing lie is that the administration and WH vehemently denied the fact that there were requests for help as well as predictions that this would happen.

what that last sentence say... under sept 17, 2008?

reading comprehension, not your strong suit.

What do you mean IF Hillary runs?  Anyone with any sense about them knows Hillary is going to run for her lust for power is unbounded so the possibility that she'll be the nominee is way too enticing to  her.  Everything she does from now until then will be calculated out and she will have HIGH Expectations that the biased media will overlook any of her failings such as the September 11th attack on the embassy.  It worked with Obama so why not Hillary.

EVERYONE involved in the DENIAL of assistance and in the ensuing COVER-UP should swing..... 

According to the 60 Minutes expose, al Qaeda bragged on their website they would attack the Red Cross compound,, the UK consulate and the US mission well ahead of time.  The UK consular was bombed and closed.  The Red Cross closed their installation.  The US State Department did nothing. 

Obama said his would be the most transparent in history.  Well, we can see thru him.

The mission did do something. They opened it after being told not to open it by the State Dept.

Proof, please.  Such a misuse of government funds would be a felony -- the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Stephens even warned others not to travel to the area. Stephens got himself killed along with three others despite his own warnings.

QD,

So far, you've stated the late ambassador opened a mission in Benghazi, despite, orders to the contrary from State.  And, traveled to Benghazi despite warnings.  Defaming the dead is a nasty business.  Proof, please, once again. 

QD, everything you just posted is contrary to the story told by the people who were actually involved.  On two previous occasions written requests for additioanl security were denied.  in the process of writing the thrid request, an edict came down from the powers that be at the State Department to not ask again.

Stephens was very concerned with the probelms at the embassy, and it was never closed and reopened. The blame lies at the feet of the State Departmnet and the administration.  They allowed it to happen.

T, you and dire continue to demonstrate your disposition for anything with a black face intent on fabricating concern for the victims of the Benghazi attack while it being so transparent you are using these dead people as cannon fodder. You two have no particular concern for them when your sympathy for millions living in poverty does not allow for that being a possibility. It is an inherent property of the ultra-conservative tea-baggers.

Ah, TD slings out racism -- the last resort of those incapable of marshaling their arguments in a logical rational manner.  I suppose I should use the term Loser to describe QD, but that would be too weak. 

anybody heard anything new on that 60 minutes story?

i think the entire story just proved to be a hoax. 

WOW! 60 minutes just recanted the story.... more on Benghazi from the rt. wingnuts to follow.

Wooooooooooooooooooo...

Been feverishly "Googling" for some tiny tidbit there...Crash?

Things just ain't lookin' up for you Obamabots lately. Isit'?

However, I understand.

Betcha NEVER...EVER...thought...wait, that would require a functioning brain, THAT!

1. He reported to the FBI that he wasn’t at the compound, because that is what he was INITIALLY TOLD TO DO by those behind the cover-up?

2. CBS must have gotten a call from "Valerie”?

3. The story he gave the FBI was the story the FBI gave him to give the FBI ? ( You DO know, they work for Holder???

4. Are they dismissing the entire report now, or just this guy’s contributions to it? Also, are they going to allow him a chance to explain the inconsistency?

5. Logan may be right or wrong on this one individual……does not alter the fact we should have had a full and verifiable explanation of all the events at Benghazi LONG AGO……

6.  Suspect that CBS knew the guy was a fraud, planning an apology, and further obfuscating the truth. By putting out “fake” stories (keep in mind that more people will remember the incorrect story rather than the apology….it takes longer to “unlearn something” than it does to learn it the first time), they are intentionally confusing the public?

And ...yeah... Why haven't the "survivors" not been allowed to appear before Congress?????

Oh...I know, "rightwing" nutjob...I am?

Your most uttered "response/deflection".

How dare me challenge you to think...when...you're so full of the "Kool-aid"...

ok, anyone got anything intelligent to say?

exactly what am i being "fed by the handlers"? that the guy lied. it was proven to be a lie. and he knows he lied?

Nice try.

Ignorance at its most blatant...

You're a mind reader, too?  WHERE, exactly, did this 'proof' come from? It wasn't from sources controlled by the current administration, was it?  How many 'independent' sources have corroborated it?

right, because a news show, that's been on the air almost 50 years, would ruin its reputation just to "save obama". now, feel free to tell me how my "handlers" have "brainwashed" me. people in the real world will be laughing at you two, hysterically.

You CANNOT be this dense......can you?

Why limit it to a show when I suggest it's been done by the total Network news organizations.  All you have to do is look at the non-coverage of many stories or limited coverage of them.  Why wasn't this story totally investigated and highlighted immediately after it happened?   Maybe because of the upcoming elections and fear of what damage it might do to their preferred candidate or party affiliation?  

One only has to compare the coverages of the main networks (then add MSNBC or CNN) to Republican administrations and events during those administrations to those of Democratic administrations.  There's been historical differences in coverage between say Reagan, Carter, Bush, Clinton George W. Bush and now Obama.  After all that my question would be what reputation?   Does anyone remember Dan Rather and CBS running with the George Bush story?  In that case Dan paid the price but the culprits surely go into CBS management.  

And for anyone to refer to MSNBC as a news organization is surely misguided for while they may have some investigation type programming most of their programming is commentary and the same applies to some of Fox's shows such as Hannity which is also more commentary than news. But at least Fox does provide both sides (liberal/Conservative) of a story when there are various sides.

________________

says the teabagger idiot. try the next conspiracy theory. they all make you look like a fool.

Are you the 'pot' calling the 'kettle' black.......?

no, i don't support "conspiracy theories". but, whatever you need to tell yourself, is fine with me.

You apparently ARE incapable of THINKING FOR YOURSELF, though.

says the teabagger who keeps spouting teabagger talking points, in every post.

Hey, CO.......does B.O. tuck you in bed every night, or what?  Your loyalty surpasses fanaticism.

dog, you've been blinded by your hatred. at what point to you feel you lost touch with reality?

Just watched a special on History 2 channel called "Secret Access" where they talked about, discussed, and bragged about much of the currently (acknowledged) weapon systems and equipment that is in the US ****nal available for use.  More than once the statement was made we have these weapons because we need, and can, respond to ANYWHERE in the world if needed.

IF that is so, and I fully believe it is, why was there no help when our embassy personnel and people on the ground there in Benghazi were being attacked for they surely were calling and asking for help.

The only excuse is that someone in leadership dropped the ball or didn't do their job yet there seems great reluctance to totally investigate and determine who that someone at fault is or was.  WHY?

I have NO DOUBT had this very thing occurred under the Bush Administration there would have been such an outcry for Heads (Bush's) to fall that there would be no end in the hype around it until there was a resignation or impeachment .. but then that only applies to Republicans doesn't it?

gb, i've shown a LEAST a dozen times IT DID happen under bush! seems like a large amount of hypocrisy, to me!

Also missing with the other attacks mentioned are presumed lies and coverups and as hostile as the media is and was to George W. Bush there is no way that these attacks occurred under similar circumstances to those of Benghazi.  

I don't know where the blame lies or what actually transpired but there is little doubt (at least in my mind) that a significant portion of the blame lies at Hillary Clinton's hands and at least some at Obama's himself.   Either Obama knew and didn't know what to do or failed to do what he should have or he didn't know something that he, as President, should have known indicating serious deficency in his administration.  

Another deficiency, gross if I might say, is the performance of the Media at large for most considered it a non-story and frankly that would have never happened under George W. Bush so that is evidence that the Nations media, or most of them, favor a political side and either protect someone they show preference to or at least fail to report stories considered as damaging or potentially damaging.  This should be disturbing to anyone of any political leaning.  But that is my own opinion.