…Because the Obama admin wanted to blame our Free Speech rights, our First Amendment rights, for the killings, because he doesn’t like free speech. …

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

This was my first reaction when the administration and, by extension, the LSM started blaming some video and apologizing for it. “WTF?” is all my simple mind kept screaming.

Once you realize the whole point of the report is to sell a particular version of what happened, you can really use it properly.

Start by asking “Who are they trying to protect?” Which is another way of saying, “Who does the report NOT blame.”

Then look for the parts of the narrative left unfollowed, as in, “Is there more to this story?”

Then question conclusions that seem a little hasty or ill-founded.

Finally, for every question you dig up from all this, demand an answer from Hillary Clinton directly.

If nothing else, the flood of “I do not recall” answers will be entertaining.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Oops. Er, inwarranted s/b unwarranted, of course.

I blame Bush.

Remember the undoing of Romney by the inwarranted intervention by moderator Crowley?

Obviously the media wasn’t about to interrupt the false narrative that Al Qaeda is decimated. They were already resurgent, and there is no way in hell that Ojesus and his minions did not know this. No way.

There was plenty of evidence for the media as well, but they chose to ignore it publicly.

Treasonous bastards are the media flunkies of the Ojesus junta.

When Pro Football players (or anyone else) gets a concussion they are taken to a doctor – when Hillary clinton gets a concussion she goes home / into seclussion without seeing a doctor (in an attempt to avoid testifying before Congress about Benghazi)!

Pieceing together what was reported:

We Know Ambassador Stevens’ people requested additional Security in Benghazi after 2 (TWO) previous TERRORIST attacks against them / their compound. We know at least 3 requests (3-4) were made & all were DENIED…neither did Obama/Hillary pull them out of Benghazi.

It was reported Hillary explained it was OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY TO MAINTAIN A LOW PROFILE after the ovwerthrow of Qadaffi & the start up of the new government. HILLARY SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT OBAMA POLICY THAT NO ADDITIONAL SECURITY WAS APPROVED!

We KNOW Stevens reported that Al Qaeda flags were beginning to be flown over the new Libyan govt buildings, that at least 10 new TERRORIST Training Camps had been started up in the weeks prior to the attack on 9/11/12, & we KNOW Stevens warned that they would NEVER SURVIVE a 3rd coordinated attack – AGAIN the request for more security was DENIED…and no attempt was made to pull them out!

We KNOW the CIA said they were in constant contact with the SEALs who responded to the attack on 9/11/12 until the time of their deaths, that they fought & used tactics which demonstrated they fully expected help to arrive (tactics, to include lasing mortar positions, & by some of their calls made)

We KNOW the CIA sent immediate messages – AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ATTACK – TO THE WHITE HOUSE WAR ROOM & STATE DEPARTMENT informing them of the attack & that it was DEFINITELY AN ACT OF TERRORISM! We KNOW someone in the White House MODIFIED – CHANGED – the wording of those messages, ELIMINATING ANY REFERENCE TO ‘TERRORISM’! We KNOW the WH, Obama, & Hillary LIED about every aspect of this attack, from the ‘video’ to the messages sent by the CIA, that Obama sought to prevent any facts coming out or to at least delay any investigation into this until after the election!

We KNOW General Ham, the AFRICOM Commander in charge of the Libyan area & who was stationed at Sigonella Air Base where several Spec Ops teams were also stationed, received the call for help from Libya …that Spec Ops response Teams (2hrs away from the attack that lasted over 6 hrs) were prepping to rspond, & that they received the ORDER from this Administration to ‘STAND DOWN’ – thereby BETRAYING/ABANDONING Stevens & the Americans under attack. We KNOW Ham voiced his intent to IGNORE that command & was immediately RELIEVED OF DUTY!

We KNOW Obama/Hillary/Rice never mentioned any of this until it leaked out, that they instead have LIED, maniulated reports/evidence, & now Hillary has FAKED AN INJURY IN ORDER TO GET OUT OF TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS!

THIS SCANDAL IS FAR WORSE THAN FAST & FURIOUS, FAR WORSE THAN THE AUTO BAILOUT PENSION SCANDAL…EVEN FAR WORSE THAN WATERGATE! HILLARY AT THE VERY LEAST SHOULD BE FIRED IN DISGRACE & IMO THIS EVEN REACHES A LEVEL WORTHY OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT!

Backside camouflage!

Yeah, he got a reply, but he didn’t answer the question you note.

I think he gave an answer to Infofe’s question “do you care”, too. The roundabout answer was, ‘Yes, which is why we are not going to tell you.’

Anyway, Inhofe’s question was “who changed the talking points”. Did he get anything like a reply?

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

He did. Apparently “Intelligence” changed the talking points. Happy to have cleared that up for ya.

Hillary will never testify or answer any question about Benghazi. O will never mention her name in relation to Benghazi and no one will ever ask him about it

drivingtheview on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

One thing you’ve got to understand. The testimony this week is all for show. The real testimony happened in closed session. Clinton has absented herself from that too but she never really was going to be nailed for her role in the whole incident. They’ve fired some lower level career bureaucrats and that will be the end of it.

I also think that she might try and run for President in 2016 but I’m not convinced she is electable. She’s turned into an old tired and ugly hag. She’d get her clock cleaned in the primaries by Michelle Obama (and don’t think this is the only time that the idea of Mooch running will come up).

“President Obama spoke to an act of terror”

WTF is that supposed to mean.

Anyway, Inhofe’s question was “who changed the talking points”. Did he get anything like a reply?

Well, if it is true that Obama, Clinton, and high-level officials knew immediately this was a likely terrorist attack performed by heavily armed militants, why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?

The video guy also said that Obama called it “terrorism” when in fact, as the Obama-Romney debate controversy pointed up, Obama DIDN’T call it “terrorism” in his speech. He mentioned “terrorism” in general. That’s an important point. So when the witness is lying right out of the box, I have to suspect his testimony.

Actually he might have hedged his words to match Obama hedging his words. I’ll have to go back and transcribe word for word the testimony.

Well, if it is true that Obama, Clinton, and high-level officials knew immediately this was a likely terrorist attack performed by heavily armed militants, why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?

I don’t care the reasons why. It was was not just incorrect, it was purposely and willfully incorrect and we should know who authorized the changes and who made the changes because they mislead the public. People, well intentioned or not, who screw up like that are just as unqualified as the ones who follow their directions and they should resign or be removed from office, too.

que the coconuts…