Who Is Lying? Who Needs To?

The American Public Deserves Answers

Now granted the current Liar-in-Chief was in an extreme hurry to pack his bags, get a bit of shut eye and catch the red eye to Las Vegas for his constant, continual campaigning that has been the hallmark of his Presidency (I use that description loosely here). That was back on September 11th of 2012, not too far back and not covered by the Lame Stream Media adequately to this date. Finally got Hillary to some hearings where that political hack asked, "What difference does it make now" if four (4) Americans were allowed to be slaughtered by this pathetic administration. Ask the families of those slain for political exediency's sake you pathetic hanger on to the name of Clinton.

As an American citizen, voter and retired service member I want, no demand, to know the facts and all the facts that caused these deaths. I thought I had seen all the stonewalling, lying and despicable conduct out of an Oval Office when I watched the Watergate fiasco. That was tame compared to Benghazi. Obama lied, continues to lie, and people died. But that's alright because he is Obama? Horse hockey.

Obama is first of all a pathological liar followed up by being as fraudulent as a three dollar bill and capped off with being a coward. None of those three things are acceptable to me as a human being, not a one of them.

Out With It Obama...

There were enough ignorant voters, or shadow voters, to reelect this phony. We'll save that for later. Benghazi was covered up from the beginning. It was an inconvenient truth during a reelection campaign waged by a coward. Elections have consequences and one of them, at this point anyway, seems to be that some of those exiting stage left are pointing the finger at where it belongs. That is on Barack Hussein Obama. How so?

According to Obama he was right in the thick of the decision making during the approximately 9 hours in question. That's an outright lie and testimony by outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey tells a different tale. So who is lying? Who has the most to lose in the lie is my question? I sure never believe Obama because when his lips start moving he becomes immediately suspect.

How Leon Panetta got himself hooked up with the likes of Barack Obama is beyond me. Panetta is known to be a man of honor and Obama is not. Somehow the two don't mix well. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee on February 7th both Panetta and Dempsey testified under oath that no matter what Obama claimed, and he did claim it by the way, that after the pre-scheduled 5 o'cock PM meeting that day of September 11th there was no further contact between the three (3) men. Or maybe I should say the two men and a boy.

Catch any of that information on your Lame Stream Media channels viewers? Now according to the two testifiers, Obama will obviously remain absent, not one person and definitely not Obama called to get an update as the men were attacked that night. Not one order was given by either the White House or the State Department. So what difference did that make Hillary Clinton?

Obama has repeatedly claimed since the probe began that he was in the thick of the decision making process. After all he is the Commander-in-Chief. In October he said, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice." That's hedging folks. Panetta's and Dempsey's sworn testimony directly contradicts what Obama has said over and over again. Presidents don't lie you know...

According to these two men, neither the White House nor the State Department were willing to act as our people were slaughtered. So Obama went home and the State Department sat on their hands. Isn't that great? No one was in charge as they should have been. No one did a thing to help Ambassador Stevens and his people, not the President, nor the State Department nor the Defense Department. That my fellow Americans is pathetic and dereliction of duty.

So as the smoke clears the parties, except for those who forfeited their lives, are doing the CYA routine and all are lying through their chops. No one from the White House, the State Department or anyone remotely in charge was in charge. People died and Obama lied and continues to do so. Best to sweep his continued negligence under the carpet I suppose?

Obama claims he issued directives that Panetta and Dempsey now say never happened. The State Department wants to know "what difference does it make" and all this was a reaction to a You Tube video? Just how stupid does the White House think the citizens of this nation are? Pretty damned stupid evidently. They reelected Obama to continue his damage.

"Like"It, "Tweet" It, "Pin " It, "Share It" With Your Followers. Time to let em read it and keep reading it.

As Always,

The Frog Prince

NOTE: It would seem that some still want to immediately stray off topic. I don't write for you to discuss, or grind your ax, about what is tickling your itch. I write to inform. Now if you would like to discuss the topic of this HUB let us do so. Otherwise please don't waste my time talking about something less current than the subject at hand. That isn't productive to solving any problems as they currently exist.

More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...

Comments 50 comments

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

Sad event, but what about the 4,000 Americans lost in Iraq in a foolish, unnessary and costly war we were liked into by Bush, Cheney and Condolezza Rice of the famous "mushroom cloud,"

The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Since this isn't about Iraq Ralph get lost unless you want to try to justify this lying and incompetence.

The Frog

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

Bush is the incompetent liar.

"According to these two men, neither the White House nor the State Department were willing to act as our people were slaughtered. So Obama went home and the State Department sat on their hands. Isn't that great? "

The House Republicans are the ones who turned down the State Department's requests for additional funding for U.S. embassies and other facilities in the Middle East.

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Responding to Ralph Deeds' comments? sounds like...http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7670464_f520.jpg

The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Ralph - You live in the past. Go ahead and bury your progressive head in the sand son. Your citing of Congress is about as lame as it comes. Hillary herself admitted in her testimony that funds were available. You live in a fairy tale world and this Hub has nothing to do with Bush. Grow up and live in the present. I don't have time for washed up hippies Ralph.

profile image

druhepkins 4 years ago

Several people die every day and heads of state know it. I agree, this was a sad and unfortunate event, but an event that happened during an election season and became just a trumped up and overly exaggerated party warfare issue. It was just politics: it was an obvious and somewhat desperate attempt to present something as a huge presidential blunder and intelligence failure.

Personally, I thought it was in historically horrible taste for McCain and Romney to run out making press conferences and politicizing their deaths before anyone was even sure about specific intelligence details. It didn't do much good because it was one of the things that backfired and played against the party's integrity and code of ethics.

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

"Several people die every day and heads of state know it" your implication "So what does it matter anyway?" - Well hello Hillary!

The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

druphepkins - Your rationale is a sad commentary indeed. Go ask the families of the 4 people who lost their lives. Your rationale is this side of being sickening. Because any leader is aware of anything doesn't make it acceptable.

The Frog

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Intersting isn't it,Frog Prince! The first ambassador to be killed since 1979 and a coverup of the facts that led to the loss of 4 brave Americans who were hung out to die, and druphepkins proclaims "it was just an obvious ... attempt to present something as a huge presidential blunder and intelligence failure and in horrible taste .... "???? Ditto my last comment for Ralph for druhepkins. Horrible taste? Where do these delusional people come from?

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

It would appear there is an invisible barrier surrounding Washington. On that barrier is a sign declaring "The Truth Stops Here." I wish someone could identify at least one Politician who doesn't lie to us. And the lies the Politicians don't tell are picked up by the media and spread from there.

If "Truth Day" were declared in Washington where nobody could lie for one whole day, we could hear the silence all the way out here in Arizona.

profile image

druhepkins 4 years ago

Not me, not Hillary--- no one ever said anything about those deaths being the least bit "acceptable". Currently we have many Americans growing exhausted still chasing their tails on issues that will never produce the slam dunk verdict of guilt and unspeakable evil from the president you're looking for.

Perhaps you should rediscover and evaluate the things that "sicken" you. Personally, I find contorting issues that distract the nation and undermine the nation's leadership internationally during dangerous times, all for political gain quite sickening. Apparently so did most of the country this election year. Making the intellectual decision to commit yourself to this "Obama is evil and did absolutely every wrong" mentality isn't going to get much traction. There are bigger questions regarding our presence in Benghazi.

And I have to agree with Ralph, Bush lied about everything under the sun from WMD's to Saddam Hussein blowing up the towers and then murdered him, to his "mission accomplished" idiocy ,and I don't remember too many angry rants about a lying commander in chief then. Imagine if 9/11, perhaps the biggest intelligence failure of all time, happened on Obama's watch.....

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Of course you'd agree with Ralph, tell us something we don't know. Delusional birds of a feather flock together. Frog time to put up the scare crow.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

druhepkins - You know for a fact that Bush lied, or is that what you have been told and now firmly believe? It makes a difference you know.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Thanks Bro, I forgot that part.

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Whoops deleted that one by mistake, this goes above your last comment OP: Makes no difference to them OP, if it did you wouldn't be having this conversation.

profile image

druhepkins 4 years ago

Delusional is definitely an operative word Dont Taze Me Bro, and your statement absolutely correct.

Poolman, do I know for fact that Bush lied? I'm not sure how you'd like me to answer that. Well, we do know there were no weapons of mass destruction after Bush said there was, which is one of the reasons why we were afraid and supportive of going into Iraq. That's been confirmed by every intelligence agency in the nation at this point. We also know Saddam Hussein did not blow up the World Trade Center, and Bush told us he did before he killed him. And no the mission was not "accomplished. " So to answer your question, its now American history and common knowledge that many of the things Bush has said during his presidency were not actually true from the war in Iraq, to his stance on taxes, right on down to what he remembers about his numerous arrest records. Process and interpret that however you'd like, as you will anyway.

Stu 4 years ago

There may be an explanation for Obama's handling of Benghazi. He may have been hoping that the Libyan police or military would intervene, and give the appearance of disproving the truth - Obama created a theocratic ally for Iran in Libya's Arab Spring, not a democacy as the Administration claims. Certainly, jumping in with US military force as he should have done would have had the effect of cementing the popular, and correct, belief the Libya's new government, which the US helped get installed, is even worse than the Gaddafi regime. But no such intervention by Libyan police or military was forthcoming, leaving Obama with a big PR problem. The world now clearly knows that the Libyan government is not a democracy, since they didn't attempt to put down the terrorist attack. So Obama's only way to try to defuse the situation was to say that a terrorist attack never took place - we are supposed to believe that Benghazi was a spontaneous mob riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim film. But we have a problem here. During 9/11-9/14, the period when the Benghazi attack occured, six other embassies were attacked. Later in the month, another 20 or so were attacked. These attacks occured in multiple countries, and many of the embessies attacked were not American. Clearly, this was a long-planned set of attacks in commemoration of 9/11/2001. It was a victory celebration for the attack on the Twin Towers. This could not have been a spontaneous mob riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim film made in America, since if it was, the embassies of nations other than America would have been spared. They weren't. In all truth, Benghazi was one of 25+ attacks waged against the embassies of multiple countries that various Muslim Brotherhood offshoots consider to be anti-Islamic. All attacks were successful, and none were put down by the host countries. Clearly, this was organized terror on a mass scale that the host coutries were in agreement with.

Obama can clearly be seen to be a fool by thinking that propping up budding Islamic theocracies is going to buy us friendship with these soon-to-be or "already-are" Iranian allies. Bullies do not respond to appeasement with an olive branch; appeasement just proves to them that they can ratchet up their abuses to the next level with little fear of consequences. Sir Winston Churchill knew this instinctively in regard to Hitler. PM Chamberlain and the British Parliament thought the seizure of the Sudetenland and Rhineland should be ignored for the sake of "peace in our times." Churchill spoke before Parliament begging the UK to attack before Hitler's carnage intensified, as he knew a German escalation would occur as a result of appeasement. Parliament literally laughed Churchill out of the chamber. Shortly thereafter, Germany attacked Poland, and WWII officially started. Nobody was laughing anymore.

Stu 4 years ago

Ralph - Bush made some very bad decisions, but two wrongs don't make a right. Obama should have learned from Bush's mistake in Iraq that taking down a secular dictator will not lead to a Democracy if most of the population is subject to radicalization by Iran and its network of related terrorist groups. Yet Obama repeated the same mistake with several Arab Springs that he either fomented or abetted.

Dru - Our handling of the multiple US embassy attacks that occurred during September of last year WERE huge presidential blunders. Our absence of a response signals that terror can escalate with little or no consequence. I don't think anyone "politicized" any deaths - certain people in government and the media simply properly made the call that Obama and his senior staff were derelict in duty. As far as Presidential "evils and wrongs," can I have your opinion on the following actions Obama committed or supported:

-The detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA (violates Amendments (4)-(8) of the Constitution).

-The Marshal Law Executive Order (no Presidential EO can Constitutionally "make law").

-Supported the aborted Disclose Bill (violates the First Amendment).

-Is attempting to enact radical gun control (in violation of the Second Amendment and enumerated powers).

-Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (violates the First Amendment).

-Is clearly complicit (2nd degree murder conspiracy) in the killing of two US federal agents and over 200 Mexicans (Fast & Furious).

-Illegally stonewalled the Congressional investigations of Fast & Furious via "Executive Privilege" (because he's a co-conspirator).

-Purports that Barack Obama Sr. is his father (if true, then Obama can't legally be President because Obama Sr. never naturalized).

-Illegally diverted mountains of federal general fund cash to promote his own reelection campaign.

-Is using federal agencies (FTC/FCC) to squelch freedom of the press in the MSM (in violation of the First Amendment).

-Signed a National Health Care Act that violates enumerates powers, and contains massive unfunded appropriations.

-Let Harry Reid treat the PPACA as a budget resolution to end the Senate GOP filibuster, despite the bill NOT originating in the House.

-Usurped the powers of Congress by appointing over 100 "czars" to create regulations that violate the clear will of Congress.

-Illegally gutted the Appointments Clause of the Constitution via conventional domestic law (requires supermajority state ratification).

-Has engaged in COMMUNISM by fully taking over the student loan business in America.

-Has usurped the role of Congress by imposing a substantive "DREAM Act" by HHS fiat (Congress voted this down over 20 times).

-Wishes to create a "civilian security force" (a "personal army") in violation of Posse Comitatus.

-Permitted AG Holder to ignore THREE major cases of voter intimidation CAUGHT ON TAPE (ACORN, NBP, and SEIU).

-Cheated senior creditors in the auto bailouts by illegally diverting corporate ownership to union workers and their pension funds.

-Violated federal law by disseminating a fake birth certificate, a fake SSN, and a fake Selective Service Card.

-Has expanded hundreds of federal "alphabet soup" agencies that don't even possess an enumerated power to exist.

Bush NEVER said Saddam blew up the twin towers. Al Quada operatives trained in Afghanistan did that, and the reprisal for 9/11 was against the Taliban in Afghanistan who gave them safe harbor and training, not Iraq. The real reason Bush invaded Iraq was because he over-promised at GZ about how much damage he was going to deliver to world terrorists in reprisal for 9/11. This led to Kerry's soaring in the polls in 2003. Bush needed a giant military win to get his credibility back. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bush attacked Iraq for entirely wrong reasons (to get his poll numbers up and be reelected). Bush was also a profligate over-spender, and atrociously trampled the Bill of Rights with the US Patriot Act. But look hard at the list above. Obama makes Bush look like a choir boy.

OP - There are a few in Congress that do tell the truth, but at great personal cost. They are thrown off committees, ostracized by the party leadership, and their bills get torn up before even being read. There are roughly five really good people in the Senate, and about 25 in the House. The GOP leadership has already become so "establishment" that there is a risk that the TPM could morph from a movement into a party. This would be a disaster because it would split the right wing vote down the middle, handing alot more wins to Democrats. People like Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor really should think about that - these are the primary culprits behind the marginalization of TPM members of Congress.

Hawaiian Scribe profile image

Hawaiian Scribe 4 years ago from Hawai'i

I agree that the administration should be as forthcoming about Benghazi (failure) as they were about Bin Laden (success). Just to let you know that you need to correct your first paragraph in this hub - Benghazi happened on 9/11/12, not in 2011. Aloha, Stephanie

Stu 4 years ago

Hey Frog,

Think the Druster has the balls to respond?


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - I would suggest that people like Dru actually do some research past MSNBC and look at the testimony both Panetta and Dempsey just made before the Senate committee. They won't bother because usually the type we are dealing with here don't want facts.

Instead they take an event that should probably never have happened and want to call it politics and cloak it as being in an election cycle. That's pure rubbish, and if so, would warrant impeachmnet now instead of later. Then they want to cite Bush who has nothing to do with this subject. This is about Obama and any criticism of Obama seems to illicit a stupid response on some people's part that this is all Bush's fault. Bush is gone and has been for years now.

They maybe also missed the interview Colin Powell just did with O'Reilly. Powell admitted intel errors that were made that caused him to give Bush bad advice. That's a fact which the left likes to ignore. Obama sent people out to intentionally decieve the American public on the Sunday talks. Susan Rice was the sacrificial lamb who got pushed under the bus. This went well beyound "faulty intel." It's called outright lying and deception.

The intel was that Libya was a hotbed of terrorism and the Ambassador hgimself had requested additional support months prior to 9-11-12 and it was denied and ignored. That is negligence. Obama likes to say the buck stops with him. That's where I'm stopping this one. It happened on his watch, not George Bush's.


profile image

Ghost32 4 years ago

Nicely done, Stu, as usual.

Yeah, Frog, your Hub ain't bad, either.

The Benghazi debacle remains absolutely unacceptable to any American with even the slightest clue, except of course for those with a very un-American axe to grind. I'm reminded of a time when I an assistant coach for a little league baseball team.

Not that the deaths of four Americans under fire, at least two of whom fought to the end and would have survived without a scratch if they'd received the support they deserved, are in any way a "game", but bear with me.

One fine evening in 1995, after a game we lost, the head coach informed the team that I would be in charge that weekend--which happened to be the first days of the District Tournament, but he had other obligations. Since I was going to be coaching, I spoke firmly to 2 of the players, both boys who were terrifed at bat. The aluminum literally never left their shoulders; the only times they reached base was when the pitcher couldn't find the strike zone.

I told them simply, "If you don't swing at the ball in your first at bats on Saturday, I WILL bench you. I don't care if you miss, don't care if you strike out, but you go down swinging OR ELSE."

Immediately thereafter, the fiery eyed mothers of these two boys accosted me, right up in my face, next thing to blowing spit, OUTRAGED that I'd DARED to speak so to their little darlings. I held my ground (though trust me, I was shaking inside).

On game day, both boys DID swing at the ball. One of them didn't do particularly well, but he clearly tried. The other one BLASTED a shot to right field during his first at bat, a clean single. Then he BLASTED a nearly identical shot to left field in his second time up, another clean single. Those singles helped us WIN that game, something we'd not been doing as often as we should.

After the game, the Mom of that boy came rushing up to me, ecstatic, gushing, "YOU MADE A HITTER OUT OF CHRIS!!"

Okay, I loved that, obviously, but I didn't "make a hitter" out of the boy. I just required him to TAKE A SHOT AT IT. He HATED me for that, probably does to this day (he'd be in his late 30's now), and that's all good.

In case you're wondering what I'm trying to say here, my point is this: When you're on a team where others depend on you, standing frozen at the plate is NOT AN OPTION. Obama and his inner circle stood frozen at the plate for the full 7 hours our people in Benghazi were under attack. Afterward, at the very least, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BENCHED.

Unfortunately, the crybaby mama 'Bama voters of 2012 kept him in the game...and all of America pays the price.

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

"Think the Druster has the balls to respond?" Who cares, why would you want the facts to be clouded with delusion. All I have to say is

Yeah, what Stu (Frog and Ghost) said. Right on!

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

"I agree that the administration should be as forthcoming about Benghazi (failure) as they were about Bin Laden (success)." Thank you Hawaiian Scribe!! One of the most profound observations you will never hear from Druster and it's ilk - no doubt they think your statement is "in horrible taste." How about a movie on Benghazi - go ahead Obama, give the movie producers access to classified info like they did for 'Zero Dark Thirty'. Naw, that would be in horrible taste.

Writer David profile image

Writer David 4 years ago from Mobile, AL

I think it's all rather simple regarding Benghazi. I think it was an incompetent president caught with his pants down in Benghazi. The situation was dire and the Ambassador himself was in dire straits, thanks to Hillary "What difference does it make" Clinton and her boss ignoring cables their subordinates warned them about. Rather than risk a "black hawk down" scenario, Obama determined these people were "expendable." Obama had an election to win. The resulting loss of life of U.S. soliders, along with the U.S. Ambassador was unacceptable to Obama. Therefore, he told the U.S. military to stand down (which we all know now). The loss of life of four Americans was the cost Obama was willing to pay to ensure his reelection as president. Now, you'll never see this in the MSM. But, that's the way I see it.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Fact is we will never ever know the truth about Benghazi. Clinton was willing to accept the blame, on her way out the door that is. Now, somebody owes her big time. The truth has now been buried so deeply it will never see daylight again.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen or read anything on the "Fast and Furious" investigation lately? I haven't, and I wonder what hole that was buried in. I think the investigation followed this one up the hill until they hit a door they couldn't open, then it died.

taburkett profile image

taburkett 4 years ago

Everyone involved must cover their mistakes over this one. The oath of office for President states:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution states:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,........."

107th Congress Public Law 40

From the U.S. Government Printing Office

DOCID: f:publ040.107

Page 115 STAT. 224

Public Law 107-40

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those

responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United

States. NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - S.J. Res. 23

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were

committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the

United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect

United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign

policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;


Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;


Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take

action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against

the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.


This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of

Military Force''.


(a) NOTE: President. In General.--That the President is

authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those

nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,

2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with

section 8-a-1 of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress

declares that this section is intended to constitute specific

statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5-b of

the War Powers Resolution.

Page 115 STAT. 225

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this

resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers


Approved September 18, 2001.

drbj profile image

drbj 4 years ago from south Florida

Jim - there is no question that we, the American public, deserve answers and the truth about Benghazi ... but do you think we will ever get them? From this administration? Doubtful!

tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Well of course drbj, I mean the "most intelligent woman in the world" has already told us (stupid unenlightened peons) "What does it matter now ?"

Truth is, when did the truth ever matter to Mrs. "vast right wing conspiracy" (whoops his semen proved it was Bill) who dodged (invisible) bullets in a combat zone ?

Stu 4 years ago

Frog - I agree with you. Facts are to progressives like Raid is to insects.

Ghost - Thanks so much. Your story reminds me of when I wanted to learn how to swim. My Dad was happy to teach me. We went to the beach, he walked as far as could into the ocean (about up his nose), and then threw me 3-4 feet farther into the water. I was a swimmer in about one second.

Tazer - I only hope for a response from Dru to see his reaction to the facts. Dru did (somewhat inaccurately) call Bush out on his faults; the accurate portions I was quick to admit to. But after my long list of proven Constitutional violations by Obama, it seems any sane person would admit that pro-Obama sentiments cannot be grounded in reality.

Writer - I think you're very close to being right. While I doubt the loss of life by defenders would be held against Obama, as this is one of the risks of being in the military, there is no doubt that letting the four people die in Benghazi was politically motivated. As I explained before, a fast and proper military rescue operation would be telling the American voter that the Administration doesn't trust the host country to provide the protection, i.e., that the Arab Springs Obama initiated or abetted were miserable failures that just created governments little different than the attackers themselves (which in fact turned out to be true).

OP - F&F is clearly stonewalled. The President's decision to impose Executive Privelege ensures that many if not most of the conspirators cannot be charged, because the evidence necessary to convict is sequestered.

Taburkett - A very important and salient issue here is the Necessary and Proper Clause (NPC) of the Constitution. Federally enumerated powers, such as military defense, are not "options for enforcement," but are affirmative duties. I admit that there may be tactical or strategic reasons why failure to respond may be justified, in the sense that it may under certain circumstances enhance the odds of winning a larger overall battle (e.g., sparing temporarily limited resources for a much more critical operation). But no such tactical or strategic reasons applied here. See my reply above to Writer David - the four deaths in Benghazi occurred for purely political reasons. And even the political strategy failed. Since the host countries of the embassies that were attacked did nothing to stop the terrorists, Obama's geopolitical failures in regard to the Arab Springs were highlighted for the world to see. Forcing the military to stand down was simply playing roullette with peoples' lives - Obama wins if the host nation intervenes, Obama loses if they don't. But Obama definitely loses (geopolitically) if he sends our military in preemptively, because immediate American intervention says he doesn't trust the host governments he himself propped up in Egypt, Libya, and other places. Essentially, four people were simply allowed to die to protect Obama's reelection odds.

Stu 4 years ago

Tazer - I agree with you totally on Zero Dark Thirty. While Seal Team identities are not legally classified, they are categorized as sensitive. The protocol is to never use a Seal's name unless the person you are talking to is a very highly trusted individual, and is mature enough not to spread the name around publicly. Seals are subject to retaliation by foreign agents due to the nature of their operations. I in fact have a Navy Seal that is a good friend, but I NEVER use his first or last name in any communications that aren't directly to him.

tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Hey guys, I heard that the reason one of the seals was killed was he thought or must have been told there was air support so he lit up the target. He thought there was cover. By lighting up the target he told the terrorists at the mortar positions where he was! They were able to find him, and it was that mortar fire that killed him.

Why would he light it up? Why would he paint it if there was no assistance? He clearly thought there was. Someone is lying.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Of course they are lying. They are covering their own butts, and their bosses butts. Many big favors will be owed over this tragedy and the coverup. When we see who starts collecting these favors we will know who the biggest liars were, but we will never know the truth.

Stu 4 years ago

What is so sad here is that the total fighting time at the consulate and CIA annex was about 6-7 hours. We have multiple military bases that are only 2-3 hours from the scene. At the CIA annex, one of the Seals had a laser pointer that could supply exact coordinates of the mortars being used against them. Were a special operations Spectre gunship dispatched immediately, the enemy mortars could have been taken out, and the three US soldiers that fought at the CIA annex might have been saved. These three soldiers saved about 30 lives at the consulate, and killed about 50 enemy attackers at the CIA annex. Rather than get operational support and medals, they were simply allowed to die because Obama could not admit that any of his "Arab Springs" went bad (it might have hurt his polls for 11/6). Obama is a traitor of the worst order.

Stu 4 years ago

Tsadjatko - if what you are saying is true, then the Administration purposely tried (and succeeded) in wiping out a witness to their misdeeds.

Stu 4 years ago

Frog -

"The intel was that Libya was a hotbed of terrorism and the Ambassador hgimself had requested additional support months prior to 9-11-12 and it was denied and ignored. That is negligence. Obama likes to say the buck stops with him. That's where I'm stopping this one. It happened on his watch, not George Bush's."

You are exactly right. Support requests were made both before and during the attack. Every request was ignored, in spite of the highly elevated danger level. Ambassador Stevens KNEW what was coming, but his requests fell on deaf ears, because Obama told State and Defense to ignore him. Now we have four dead heroes, and families that will never get any sense of vindication because the facts are being hidden by the "Annointed One."

It just makes me sick. It's like the effort in AFPAK. The ROG's are "don't shoot unless you can see their guns." So if the attackers are behind bushes, we can't shoot back Aren't we nice? I think I want to puke.

Stu 4 years ago

Hey Droooooooooooooooooooo, where are yooooooooooooooooo? I deserve a response. I replied to your inane drivel with facts. Let's have a little intellectual debate here , rather than you hiding under a rock.

Facts scaring you huh? Grow some balls. You set the stage for debate - back it up hombre.

Stu, RWNJ, TPM, AFP, Heritage, WND, Public Advocate, FRC, etc.

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

"Ambassador Stevens KNEW what was coming, but his requests fell on deaf ears, because Obama told State and Defense to ignore him. "

???Where did you get that???

Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

Dont Taze Me Bro 4 years ago from Tazeland Islands

Well, if state and defense were informed of what was going down they'd have gone to Obama for permission to engage - and engage they did not - certainly not above your pay grade to understand, is it Ralph?

tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 4 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

STU - here it is: Maybe opinion? sounds like fact...


"Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

taburkett profile image

taburkett 4 years ago

It does not take much logic to decipher the lack of support provided to those who died.

When there are 8 hours of armed conflict and no external support sent to aid those who are being attacked, the President has failed to do his duty.

This is also not a shock to anyone who comprehends the current agenda of the Administration.

The failure of the nation is totally due to the lack of proper leadership in the White House.

As the deceiver continues to irrationally bail, the nation continues down the path of failure.

better buckle-up - it is going to be a very rough ride.

profile image

druhepkins 4 years ago

I’m being summoned so what the hell. Not hiding at all Stu. I didn’t think you guys actually wanted to talk and debate about anything because it seems more like a support group for conspiracy theorists, in which little information gets through. Didn’t want to crash the party and spoil any fun for you guys. You guys seem to enjoy this.

Anyway, I know that we won’t get anywhere because there’s so much that we disagree on as facts. Also, for you to complain about Benghazi to no end, claiming the president knew of danger and did nothing, but then defend the president who had knowledge of Islamic extremists planning to hijack airplanes in order to fly to America and blow up the World Trade Center towers (and succeeded) completely eviscerates all validity of your position.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Americans actively interested in what our leaders are doing. But when our surplus was being dwindled down to an astronomical deficit, when we leaped head first into 2 long and expensive wars without justifiable provocation, and when we were being lied to about a myriad of issues daily, not too many folks had much to say. Now that we have a president pretty much on damage control duty since the day he sat in the Oval Office, everyone is an economist and an expert military defense strategist with a blog site telling us what this guy’s doing wrong and what we should be doing next.

You criticize the Benghazi situation as abject failure. However, Bush failed to protect Americans right here within our continental borders with extremist blowing up iconic American buildings and the Pentagon, bodies floating away in New Orleans dead waiting for assistance, and thousands of our American soldiers dead after fighting in the wrong country. Sure there are things here and there that I disagree with in this administration, but it’s quite a different presidency in which we've improved our international appearance and respect, which is why Obama gets ovations and Bush got shoes thrown at him.

I get it, you hate this president, but you’ll have try harder. On the bright side---you have 4 more long years to find something else.

The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Drupekins - Facts are facts so you got off to a bad start. Then you start citing Bush again. That's the left's fall back position when they lost the argument. What I cited in this Hub is factual testimony. That testimony can be reviewed and/or heard right here on the internet. The Lame Stream Media isn't going to utter a word because it points out that Obama was derelict in his duties as Commander-in-Chief. His focus was lying to get reelected and not the lives of those four men.

profile image

druhepkins 4 years ago

I understand what facts are. My statement saying we disagree on facts was oozing with sarcasm. I was making the point that we could both read the same information and still draw different conclusions. Furthermore you don’t have fact on your side but you don’t seem to realize that. Your hub is instead filled with angry speculation and recycled assumptions. Choosing to believe the president lied about the details leading up to a spontaneous, disorganized attack by religious Islamic nutcases, an attack in which even local people from that region weren’t exactly sure what went down and why, isn’t forming an opinion in fact. In fact, it’s just forming an opinion. You actually compared Benghazi to Watergate. All I can say to that is wow. In clear and certain what exactly was “the lie” other than the fact some people feel he received intelligence that things were heating up and more security might’ve be needed?

Secondly, I’m not from “the left” and would rather not be labeled. I left the GOP years ago (before the madness) and I’m a true Independent, and I don’t choose to affiliate myself with either party.

As for Bush---I understand it might be frustrating when people refer to Bush when you trounce on Obama, and I know it could be seen as a cop out----but personally I only do it as a point of reference. For example, you get to know someone when they’re consistently angered by the same things. However, if someone gets angered by something that comes from one person but looks past the same thing in another person, it exposes more of an agenda, or a more directed and personalized disdain for a specific person or entity. With that said, the person who feels that the Benghazi situation was abject failure simply cannot be the same person who excuses the many intelligence failures and calamities of the previous administration without exposing himself. Bush W. has the death of thousands on his hands. If you think the Benghazi situation is so horrible and impeachable, where were you then? Instead you leave Bush alone entirely and call Obama a pathological liar and a coward with characteristics you don’t accept in a human being.

It’s common sense and a common expectation; every president has had a situation where maybe something should’ve been done better or differently including and especially Saint Reagan. But grandstanding on this Benghazi issue only seems like another attempt to make another thing stick against one of the most demonized presidents in American history. It never ends. The Right has been dragging us backward through the rocky mud forcing this president to over explain everything deemed not optimal, they sit and block everything he wants to pass, undermine him, and celebrate and rehash his mistakes. Again the Benghazi issue was unfortunate, but the powerful scrutiny and focus hurled on this issue was obviously politically motivated. We should be looking at the situation and learning things from it objectively, what were we doing there, what are we trying to achieve etc…instead of looking at the situation from a 2 dimensional stand point solely trying to figure how we can say Obama screwed up.

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

Watching Clinton testify actually made me feel ill. Her lying, her vicious ugly voice screaming, "what does it matter" should have inflamed every single person asking her questions regardless of party. What happened in Benghazi matters. We still don't know the truth and judging from the way things are going, we never will. Clinton and Panetta never talked during the Benghazi terror attacks. How is that possible? Great hub and voted up , up, up.

The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

druphekins - The use of facts always seems to point to a logical conclusion. The use of nonsense when appearing on anyone's article is just that. Now go back up to what I presented, using the testimony (sworn BTW) of both Dempsey and Panetta. They said what they said. There was no contact with either the White House or the State Department after their pre-scheduled 5 o'clock meeting. Did you understand what those two men said? Do some research about the testimony rendered.

As to Bush, or any other subject no pertinent to Benghazi, you are off topic. I moderate my own Hubs and one of the rules of blogging is "remain on topic." Obviously you need to pay attention.

Stu presented you facts. Refute those facts with verifiable sources. taburkett gave you a long list of facts. Do the same with what is presented there. Otherwise I have to believe you "think" you know how to debate but so far I haven't seen anything close to that on your part. Bush has nothing to do with Benghazi nor do WMDs or all those other crutches you want to use to prop up your arguments. Use facts pertinent to Benghazi. I did.

poetvix profile image

poetvix 4 years ago from Gone from Texas but still in the south. Surrounded by God's country.

The ongoing lies, passing of the buck, and flat out, blatant disregard for the lives of our people should be beyond a national embarrassment. The fact that Hilary said "What does it matter?" should prove beyond any doubt just how much the current administration cares about the lives of Americans. Some have compared this to Watergate. It's so much worse. If our leaders don't care about high ranking, important persons being slaughtered, what makes anyone think they will care one iota about the average Joe Blow citizen? Anyone supporting this administration should think about that!

Sir Frog, great job as always and thank you for it.

Stu 4 years ago

Ralph - Do you read the news? If the MSM only, you won't get any of this. You need to read independent news on the internet published by companies that don't own broadcast stations (the FTC/FCC threats of fines and license renewal denial on TV stations can be triggered by "off-limits" news published in print or on the internet).

Tsadjatko - If assets really were already deployed, this makes Obama's dereliction/crime even worse.

Taburkett - Right on.

Droopy - That long list of Obama crimes I listed is not a conspiracy theory. They are things he really did, and you can look them up at any UNBIASED news source. Bush had no knowledge that the WTC was going to be attacked. There were intercepted messages indicating that an attack was likely around 9/11/2001, but the Administration didn't know where it was going to occur. This differs from Obama in that Obama was warned months in advance of a possible attack at Benghazi, and was notified during the attack when there was ample time to send in help. Obama ordered State and Defense to do nothing. The financial cost of defending Benghazi and multiple other US consulates and embassies that were attacked during 9/2012 pales in comparisaon to the debt Obama himself built up during his first four years in office (about $6 trillion, plus unknown trillions of dollars more of fiat money printed for stimulus and bailouts that will be highly inflationary once loan demand picks up). We have not "improved our international appearance." Our enemies rightly view us as having no will, and numerous breaches of responsibility (ending the fight against international Shiite terror, abandoning Israel, and waffling on the Southern Europe ABM promise) have cost us virtually all of our historical strategic allies. And if you want to complain about Katrina (which I admit was handled atrcoiously), why do you give Sandy a skate (very late delivery of aid, and giant portions of the appropriation dedicated to earmarks having nothing to due with storm rememdiation). Yeah, I hate Obama, but I have good reason to. "spontaneous, disorganized attack by religious Islamic nutcases?" Over 25 embassy attacks in almost ten countries in one month (9/2012) is coordinated terrorist celebration of 9/11/2001, not disorganized mob violence. You call Ambassador Stevens' reports that AN ATTACK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY A "LIE." For what conceivable reason would he lie about that? Regarding Bush, I already admitted to several of his faults that made his Presidency a bad one. But that hardly justifies the far worse Presidency of Obama. The "Benghazi issue was 'unfortunate'"? Purposely letting four Americans die is "unfortunate"? WE HAVE MULTIPLE MILITARY BASES WITHIN TWO HOURS OF BENGHAZI THAT COULD HAVE OFFERED MILITARY SUPPORT BEFORE THE THREE US SOLDIERS WERE KILLED, BUT KING OBAMA ORDERED THEM TO DO NOTHING BECAUSE HE NEEDED TIME TO INVENT A REASON FOR THE ATTACKS OTHER THAN WHAT IT REALLY WAS, TERRORISM. As I say to Frog below, any US intervention would be admitting in advance what Obama knew to be the truth - the host governments were going to do NOTHING to protect our consulates and embassies - proving Obama's complicity in the Arab Springs was a failure. Obama was merely posturing for time to invent "plausible deniability." It came in the form of that anti-Muslim video, which even the feds now admit was not the catalyst for the numerous embessy attacks that occurred during 9/2012.

Frog - "His focus was lying to get reelected and not the lives of those four men." - EXACTLY. Obama was FROZEN. Any US intervention would be admitting in advance what Obama knew to be the truth - the host governments were going to do NOTHING to protect our consulates and embassies - proving Obama's complicity in the Arab Springs was a failure. Obama was merely posturing for time to invent "plausible deniability." It came in the form of that anti-Muslim video, which even the feds now admit was NOT the catalyst for the multiple embessy attacks that occurred during 9/2012 (many of the embassies attacked were NOT American).

Bpop - "what does it matter" is code for "there are no words to excuse what the Administration did." She knows the Administration blew it, so her only defense can be deflection or lying.

Stu 4 years ago

PoetVix - Amen, beautifully put. Stu

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas

Benghazi is a smoking gun...election year or not. The Ambassador was up to his ears in gun running for this administration...gun-running which was going just as badly or worse than that seen in Fast n' Furious. What seemed like a good idea in the "Arab Spring" was coming home to roost as weapons with U.S. connections were showing up in the wrong hands in Syria. Stevens knew too much as he had been the point man in the earlier dealings. He and the diplomatic representative might have been the only victims had the Seals followed the orders they were given to stand down. No one anticipated the calls for help and the whole thing began to come unwound. If Stevens had survived, there woul have been questions and more questions....really messy questions that lead to bad places. It was evident to those in Washington that only the appearance of attempts would be carried out....too much actions and others begin to come out of the woodwork with even more stories to share. The heat from four deaths was nothing in comparison to that aftermath. Now we have a Congress with the power to investigate and hold people either responsible or in contempt but there is no will on their part to act. ~WB

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article