jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (42 posts)

Benghazi-gate: Sex, Lies, and Videotape

  1. A.Villarasa profile image75
    A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago

    Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, the slow motion movie that is Benghazi-gate can now be sub-titled:  "Sex,Lies,and Videotape."

    The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Sept 11 and the continuing   obfuscation and lies  by  Obama  of what actually happened during that fateful day was never,  in the radar of the mainstream  media before the election. Now that Obama is now  safely  ensconsed, again, in the White House, the mainstream media has started to latch on to the story, not because 4 Americans (including  Ambassador Chris Stevens) were killed by terrorist, but because the affair has been tainted by the salacious element of Gen. Petraeus resigning from his CIA directorship resulting from his affair with his biographer.

    The video of the attack (taken by  security cameras in the consulate) clearly show that the attackers were not a mob incensed by an obscure movie about the prophet Mohammad, but were terrorist intent on inflicting the maximum damage to life and property. They succeeded brilliantly, because despite pleas for help by those inside the consulate, none was forthcoming, from the Defense and  State Departments, the  CIA, and the White House.

    Sex, Lies and Videotape may yet become the blockbuster that it could be, now that  more factoids continue to drip, drip, drip, from all sorts of sources. At the end of the day, Obama's electoral victory may yet prove pyrrhic.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      After your election predictions about the "sunset of Obama's presidency" it's hard to take your political predictions seriously, more to the point your claims of no help forthcoming are totally false as a quick response team of 66 men was there within 25 minutes.

      This story will go exactly the same way as the fast and furious scandal, right wingers will raise outcry about it and suggest many conspiracy theories before the facts are known and from complete ignorance (as seen above) then there will be a proper independent investigation and Obama just like Holder will be found to have no guilt in the affair and the issue will promptly be dropped once the righties see they can't wring a drop of political capital more out of the deaths they are currently exploiting for their own selfish motives.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image75
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @Josak:

        Don't celebrate quite yet. Obama's second term might yet prove to be one long, painful slide into fatuous oblivion.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Uhuh, just like he lost the election tongue

      2. A.Villarasa profile image75
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @Josak:
        Your assertion that a "quick response team of 66 men were there within twenty minutes." is belied by the ultimate ending to the terrorist attack on the facility...... 4 men are dead including the ambassador.

        If we assume that you are correct, then how were they not able to prevent these 4 men from being killed... 2 of them during the attack on the annex (a CIA facility), some 2  hours later after the main consulate building was torched to the ground? This implies that they  were not armed enough to be able to do anything to fight off the attackers.... or that what you are labeling a rapid response team is in fact  a figment of someone's imagination.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          4 people died because 150 heavily armed militia with, rocket launchers, anti aircraft weapons and mortar support attacked the embassy, that is simple mathematics, the quick response team is a matter of public record, by the time they arrived two were dead from the mortaring and two more soldiers were killed in the retreat and the annex, I don't know what universe you live in that losing three combatants and one civilian in an engagement with 150 heavily armed troops is some kind of unexpected catastrophe but that is nonsense militarily, the embassy was attacked by a militia, we suffered low casualties given the attack, aid was there in 20 minutes.

          All very simple.

        2. A.Villarasa profile image75
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          @Josak:

          Does it make military sense to you if you knew that the consulate was under attack by heavily armed terrorists,  then just send a team of 66 men who were apparently not able to repulse the attack. Why not send all that needed to be sent to actually be able to  extract heavy casualities to the other side. What exactly were these 66 men able to do? Evacuate the consulate personnel?...Given the history that the consulate had been attacked twice the previous months before the 9/11 attack, the evacuation should have been done at that time, when the ambassador was clearly telling the State Dept. and the White House that the consulate could not be defended.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Because 66 men is actually a lot and keeping more than that nearby as well as the defenders of the embassy is not economically viable, we were attacked by 150 men and lost 4 that is really not an unexpected result it's better than what you would expect actually. It's really not an issue, terrorists attacked our embassy and 4 people died, under bush 8 of our embassies were attacked and dozens died.

            There is nothing to discuss here, I am sure the independent investigation will make that clear.

            1. phion profile image60
              phionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Your intel is off

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Nope that is what the CIA report says.

                1. phion profile image60
                  phionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually No it doesn't. That was the sit temp, but not what was carried out. There was teams chomping at the bit to go in 76 min into the situation, but they were told to hold fast.  AFRICOM had people ready, Italy had assets ready, and so did other N. African locations. Why did it take over 2 weeks to get any investigation into the area? Are you that gullible?

                  1. phion profile image60
                    phionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh... and yes...your intel is still off. Good job using talking points though, at least you can remember what the White House wants you to. It's funny how these things corruptions are not possible in an "obama" admin. Bush, Obama, ... whatever they are all pitiful puppets steering us towards a NWO of tyranny.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image75
              A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              @Josal:

              We will soon find out won't we, but if Obama continues to stonewall, and the   mainstream media continue to protect him, then the truth would be the  ultimate  victim of this tragedy.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                The truth would be the ultimate victim?

                http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/melodrama.jpg

                1. A.Villarasa profile image75
                  A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  @MM:

                  The above picture has become emblematic of  the Obama presidency.....all drama, consisting of feigned  indignations, irrascible  confrontations,  indefensible concoctions, and  all too transparent obfuscations. Whatever happened to the Obama of 2008... you know the one that was labeled by his adoring fans in the mainstream  media as the " no drama Obama".

            3. A.Villarasa profile image75
              A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              @Josak:

              "..... not economically viable..." is a stunning statement and if it was the REAL REASON WHY THE CONSULATE WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED, then the Obama presidency is complicit in the death of the 4 Americans.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                The simple truth is no one can afford to have a 100 men defending every embassy in risky countries, it's just not feasible, we had enough men available to suffer only 4 casualties one a civilian one and 3 of them due to the mortaring which no amount of men would have prevented (that includes the ambassador) you can keep playing their deaths to make political scandal but no one is falling for it an there is no scandal.

                1. phion profile image60
                  phionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Josak~
                  You’re confusing me, one minute your saying “your country” as though you are not a part of it, and the next, you are saying “we”, like you are a part of it. Are you an American in name only? Are you a doctrinal dissonant of American doctrine( the documents that created America and brought a second age of human advancement, both good and bad)?
                  Who, by the way suggested we put 100+ men at every high risk embassy? FAIL! Last I checked the Libyan crew should’ve been on the top priority list leading up to 9-11-12, considering the circumstances. Have you no real sources of intel besides talking points from the media and propagandist sources? The internet is a great thing, and even those without clearances can get just about any intel you want with a simple request.
                  We had enough men available to suffer only 4 casualties…? you honestly look at it like that? Again I begin to wonder your roots. Have you sacrificed for America? Or do you consider your sacrifice “because of American policies”?
                  There is no scandal? Coming from a self-proclaimed reformist and social injustice advocate, I would think you would be less susceptive to the sheep dog’s bite. I know deep down you aren’t so naïve as to not question the possibilities. My hope as a card holding AMERICAN, that this matter is fully investigated, no matter who may get burned. I know the usual suspects would love nothing more than Petraeus to be the only one to get burned, but that isn’t going to happen. Even if the truth about the gun running to the Muslim extremists isn’t told, the results will be.
                  Not to go too far off topic, but how is the country that you hail from doing these days? Have the unions done anything other than raised cost of goods to the people lately?  I’m sure you’re proud with the current events throughout the world, as unions unite to demand more and the world struggles to meet their demands.
                  I enjoy opposing points of view, and hope that you don’t take my comments as anything more than a conversation starter.
                  Markets free of government control but not regulation, right to work, and blind ballots= Freedom…

                2. A.Villarasa profile image75
                  A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  @jOSAK:

                  The veracity of the "simple truth" that you mentioned is again belied by the facts  i.e Obama wasted close to 500 million dollars of tax payer's money  doling out  to his supporters in the now defunct and bankrupt company called Solyndra. If he spent all that money in securing the consulate and protectiing those that work within its walls,  then you and I   would say  that the money  would have been well spent, and 4
                  AMERICANS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY.

    2. GNelson profile image83
      GNelsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This whole thing is political BS, typical of a dysfunctional Washington DC.  What do we do to protect our diplomats is the important question.  All this second guessing is useless.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image75
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @GNelson:

        It is the guesswork (even second-guessing) in any invistigation that usually leads to the uncovering of the truth. It is the responsibility of the media (invistigative or otherwise) to sort out the morass, and to be able to come up with some logical conclusions as to the what, why, and  how. of the events that they are invistigating. Unhappily the current mainstream media is not at all interested in uncovering the truth about  Benghazi because they are so invested in the Obama presidency.

        Now if this happened during anybody else's presidency, the mainstream media would be like hounds, sniffing for clues here, there, and everywhere.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Is there a topic you wanted to discuss, or just listening to yourself pontificate?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image75
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      @MM:

      I'm so sorry  that you think  my post is nothing but an exercise in ego-induced pontification. If you find nothing in it that  deserve your rebuttal... then don't even waste your precious time.

    2. phion profile image60
      phionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Miggggthy MOm~ just as sweet as ever I see. Congratulations on Obama’s win by the way. I hope he meets your wildest expectations. Oh and that you haven’t raised yours any time since you were 12. How is foreign policy shaping up to be? You know the whole terrorists on their heels deal?
      I wonder what the next few years hold with his policies. Wait I know you can blame it on Bush and the GOP! At least the great job creating Obamacare got passed before they took complete control of the government in 2010….Thank Goodness. Now I can plan on waiting 10 months for my colonoscopy when I’m 40. Wait I’m responsible, so I’ll have my own insurance…maybe if it’s not outlawed by then.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    My prediction is that everyone will see the truth by 2020. Thats the year people will say, maybe we do need a more realistic approach to government. Maybe we need to let the people have the power that Gov. Romney tried to give them. Maybe they will listen to those who believe in supply side economics and stop fighting what works. When will we all get on the same page and realize that too much government intervention is detrimental to the people.  People are naturally wound up... just let them go! and don't get in their way.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      We have been living supply side economics and it doesn't work.
      And listening to people who believe it works is never going to change that.
      And what power is that that Governor Romney was going to give us again?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Only the school of hard knocks will convince anyone at this point. Let your utopian based policies fail... and they will.  I just watched Precious.  What was the point of that movie?  The mom on welfare insisting that her daughter forget about school and go get on welfare too???? I did not get it.

        I wish my friend on the ten dollar bill would reincarnate already! He began  his lifetime on the Island of St. Croix as a poor child with nothing, lost his mother and pretty much raised himself. He was surrounded in poverty and  eventually worked really to hard to make sure this country would become a prosperous one.
        The government can only transfer money. Where does the money come from? From those who are inspired to make the money. That inspiration is the force that will make this country successful. Our hard work and the inspiration   and will-power that   m o t i v a t e s   us.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          "The government can only transfer money." This comment right here proves you don't understand basic economics, the transfer of wealth is what creates money, as in the only reason an economy grows is because money is transferred! So what you just said is all that government does is do the one thing that creates economic growth.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The government does not run a business, therefore it must  t a k e  the money from its citizens who earn it by working their tails off...  (take is a much better word than transfer! I stand corrected. Thanks!)
            But even tax payer money is not enough for all the government funded programs.  No, the government must borrow from China. The interest we pay China is enough to fund all their military operations.

            I wouldn't mind the government funding all of its' programs, if the government could  generate its' own money.  Why doesn't it???? It could produce and market something and then fund all the wonderful programs it wants. Let's see, what could the government sell... Oh, I know... health insurance!  But, oh wait, no, we are going to be forced to buy that...  Hmmm... Maybe pet insurance!

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Or maybe people will look around the world see that all the supply side economies are being out competed and that the vast majority of nations have already moved on from that. Take a look at the fastest growing economies or if you prefer the nations with the highest quality of life, you won't find  single supply side nation amongst either and they are becoming increasingly rare.

      Just another model that will soon be entirely abandoned. Let's take a look at what is working in the top rankings economically and by quality of life.

      Mongolia is communist and large government, growth: 11.5%

      Turkmenistan socialist, large government, growth: 9.9%

      China planned economy, large government, growth: 9.5%

      Argentina, socialist, big government, growth: 8.8%

      Laos, communist, big government, growth: 8.3%

      India, socialist, big government, growth: 7.8%

      To find a small government supply side country on the list one has to go down all the way into the high 50s on the list in Taiwan and even that is not very small government and IS a small nation.

      Now let's look at quality of life:

      #1 Iceland: Big gov

      #2 Norway: Big gov

      #3 Sweden: big gov

      ad infinitum.

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Since GDP is a figure that includes the amount of government spending, the biggest governments are naturally going to have greater GDPs. GDP as a measure of economic wellbeing is completely meaningless. Neither does GDP reflect whether this spending and consumption was productive, i.e. that produced things that improved the population's quality of life.

        So yes, quality of life is a much better indicator. However, the difference between Iceland, Norway and Sweden and the countries in your growth list is that the former countries have much freer markets. Check out the Economic Freedom index and you'll find that there is a general trend between countries that are economically free and those with higher qualities of life.  A free market doesn't guarantee quality of life, as there are lots of things that contribute to it, but it is definitely a pre-requisite. So it is possible that you can have a big government and high quality of life, but after all, the reason the governments get so big in the first place is because they make money off the amazing productivity of the market.

        In conclusion, it's all about how free your markets are.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The figure given is GDP GROWTH as compared to itself so the size f the nations are utterly irrelevant fr example n that list we have 40 million strong Argentina and several Billion strong China. GDP is an excellent litmus test for how an economy is faring for example we now that China is a powerfully growing economy and the GDP bears that out perfectly while sometimes weird conditions can create an economy producing lots but squandering it or giving it only to a tiny portion of the population those examples are very rare and not applicable to the cases given.

          Quality of life is not correlatory to free markets it is universally related to government distribution in the form of healthcare, education etc.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            total nonsense.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
              Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Your socialistic beliefs are obvious and obnoxious. Why do you bother us with them? Not even Mighty Mom wants this country to become socialistic!
              Our country is about power for us, the people. Freedom, (within the laws of justice) gives us power. Government regulation, taxation, interference with states rights, and the federal bureaucracy of the department of education, all mostly just prevent the states and the people from keeping their money and having volition.
              Do you even know what the word volition means? It means will power.
              And where does will power come from? From people willing to wake up and go to work everyday. We need freedom to pursue our dreams and earn livings for ourselves and our loved ones!
              You need to wake up.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                You are still utterly incapable of making an actual reply based on facts or figures rather than empty rhetoric. Until you can it's not really worth discussing, my facts are proven and stated, you have none.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, but do you know what I mean?  Do you understand what makes this country tick? There is not much to argue with, if you really  t h i n k  about it.
                  (I guess that's the hard part.)

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry just because you are incapable of constructing a proper reply to the fats doesent make anything nonsense.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                The fats.... you said it... not me.   LH (laughing hard) do you know the results of too much federal bureaucracy? One does not need fats when one must understand the social science behind all the fats. LOL.
                Thats a pretty fancy word: "construct"  for strings of keyboarded words. Is that what you offer us: "constructions" of socialistic propaganda?

                Don't work too hard!

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  *sigh* your maturity and knowledge is astounding, my c k is screwing up unfortunately. Still no actual response I see obviously you don't have one, how surprising.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    There is more to life than fats. Important, but too much of the wrong kinds cause excess cholesterol to build up in the bloodstream eventually causing a stroke.
                    Another reason for you to take it easy.
                    * sorry about your c k.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dear Forum Leader,
      Sorry I jumped in and brought this discussion even more off track. Keep up the good work per usual, A. Villarasa. It will be interesting to watch the results of this incident unfold. Hopefully the truth will be revealed. Unfortunately, sneaky government officials are experts at keeping the real facts buried in very remote, faraway places. Like at the bottom of the deepest ocean. How much hope is there that a skilled underwater team will bring it up...?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image75
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @K.Hill
        Interesting question... unhappily the mainstream media is so into protecting Obama at all cost, that nowhere are we going to see the likes of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein  (of "All the President's Men" fame) again that would  and could  dig deeper and deeper into the morass that  Benghasigate. has  become.

 
working