Printable View
I just visited CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and Yahoo News websites ... not a single one of them has anything, in their "breaking news", not even a mention of Benghazi or Mr. Woods' statement today.
I begin to believe that this mainstream media is, indeed, complicit in this coverup ... I guess they can say that they don't think it should be politicized ...
I watched nbc not a word about Libya, all they talked about was the storm.
There's no indication that the military was involved...is there? It would be State or CIA that gave the order and they aren't subject to court martial.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonMallari
And this is a bombshell ...
If Hillary called a press conference or released this documentation to all the media, that's probably correct: the election is "game over" for Obama. I don't believe that the DNC would ever forgive her for that. And her political career would probably be over, too, since it would be obvious that she played along for as long as she did. Obama just said in an interview that he was unaware of any requests for additional security in Benghazi. The alternative explanation would be that someone in his administration denied the additional security, without informing the POTUS. Still, almost as bad for POTUS, that he would have chosen a staff member who would overstep his/her authority in a matter of this importance.Quote:
Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
BY CHRISTOPHER COLLINS
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.
Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-cl...#ixzz2AZ8OO9TR
From American Thinker ... based on reporting by Associated Press
At a total loss here ... did everybody keep saying "no" because nobody wanted to take responsibility if something went wrong if they said, "yes"?Quote:
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.Passing the buck back to DoD. But the Pentagon has denied it turned down any requests also, as did the CIA.
"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
[...]
But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."
"He's wrong," said Vietor.
Just who in hell is in charge over there?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2AbQTRRWS
What kind of message does this send to our soldiers putting their lives on the line every day?
BTW, it seems like the WH has been reading Fox and other conservative news outlets ... since they would not have made this statement based on what the rest of us are seeing in the mainstream media (i.e. nothing). Does this mean he acknowledges that what has been reported actually IS true? Or is the wording of the denial such that they can later spin it differently?
Plausible deniability
Quote:
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
Did any of you watch Meet the Press this A.M.?
They talked about Integrity,, and who the military and citizens could "trust"as the Commander in Chief.
The Republican participant(Carly Fiorina) in the discussion, tried to bring up the middle East,, particuarly Benghazi,, and the moderator
( David Gregory) cut her off at the knees, telling her they werent talking about that topic,, and moved on to another panel member..
I wonder if they had popcorn while they watched our citizens and soldiers BURN!!!
I said earlier I would serve today if called...........I have changed my mind.
I would NOT serve under the current Commander and Cheif.
And I most certainly would (and have) NOT hang my men/women out to dry!!
I would (and have) go get them!!!!
Those SEALS are true American hero's.
Those who watched are not!!
What a disgrace!!!!
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a sycophantic press. This same batch of FOOLS would be screaming for impeachment, had this been anyone but their installed messiah. Obama the Amatuer...at anything he's involved with that doesn't have a teleprompter to guide him as to what to say.
BTW, I suggest you get that book..."AMATUER" by Ed Klein. Helps to understand why this stuffed suit got in, and who put him there.
UB
Raises the ole BP just imagining the scenario...I hope the reports are wrong but I fear they are true, its almost like something out of the Harrison Ford movie ....Quote:
Originally Posted by road kill