LIAR [Reader Post]

openid.aol.com/runnswim
instead of debating the fact that OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT , therefor responsible totaly for any one who denied the help to hopless 4 braves who are more worhy to keep alive tham the PRESIDENT WITH HIS OWN ARMY OF SECURITY GUARDING HIM DAY AND NIGHT, NOT BECAUSE HE ACHIEVE ANYTHING,
BUT JUST BECAUSE HE CARRY THE TITLE OF PRESIDENT ONLY, NOTHING ELSE OF VALUES TO PROTECT,
AS OPPOSE TO THE BRAVES WHO LOSE THEIR LIFE EVERY DAY IN THOSE HELL HOLES , SUROUNDED BY HATERS AND BEING DENIED REQUEST OF HELP IN EXTREMIST THE SAME DAY OF THEIR BATTLE TO HELP EACH OTHER SURVIVE IN A SITUATION OF HOPLESS EFFORTS TO SURVIVE,
YES INSTEAD OF DEBATING ON THE SIDE OF OBAMA, MAYBE YOU CAN BE USEFUL HERE BY TELLING US WHY ONE OF OUR GROUP WHICH WE RESPECT SO MUCH HAS BEEN WAITING SO LONG TO GET
HIS HEART TRANSPLANT, WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE BY ANY LOGIC WE TRY TO EXPLAIN,
AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE A FOOT IN THE ANSWER , MAYBE YOU CAN BE OF HELP IN TELLING US,
WHY THIS PERSON WE ADMIRE, SHOULD BE WAITING SO MANY MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN LINE PATIENTLY TO GET HIS NEW HEART,
THAT WOULD BE A NICE GESTURE FOR US TO APPRECIATE YOUR ENVOLVEMENT IN THE QUESTION
AND TO ACTIVATE THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.
BYE

@openid.aol.com:

OMG, and you believe what Panetta said? Not like they were able to watch exactly what was happening on the ground from the drone videos. Gee, Larry, do you think that the drone was not capable of giving a wide view of the entire area? News flash; they knew EXACTLY what was happening in Benghazi, and while you choose to give the POTUS a pass on this, the buck stops at his desk. He is the final word on any military action.

General Casey? Wasn’t he the one that said while the “work place violence” at Fort Hood was a tragedy, that the greater tragedy would be lack of diversity (i.e. Muslims) in the military?

Obama lied as Americans died. And you continue to support this error? Says more about you than I wanted to know.

Meanwhile, CNN ignores Benghazi completely, instead headlining that Harry Reid was in an auto accident and taken to the hospital.

Reid was determined brain dead by the ER physicians but released on his own recognizance.

I wonder if Gen. Carter Ham will be the one thrown under the bus?
He has an ”out,” in that he suffered from PTSD.
But I thought he was all better years ago.
Looks like Obama, Clinton, Panetta are all trying to shift the blame for inaction and thus deaths elsewhere.

Hey guys, can we agree that I’ve probably said all I can to convince you to be more circumspect about the whole thing, but that I’ve failed? I can live with that — gave it to the old college try and all that.

Gotta finish up some work, so that I can approach a weekend full of baseball and football (love this time of year) with deserved anticipation.

P.S. Aye — to my knowledge, there’s no indication at all that the (ex) Seals’ request for assistance got anywhere near Clinton, much less to Obama. As to why he’s not answering questions, a number of investigations are ongoing (including an investigation into the whereabouts of the perpetrators, as well as investigations into who screwed up and who knew about the screw ups and didn’t act) and Obama is still responsible for being President; he’s allowed to say “no comment” on matters relating to investigations, until all the information is in, lest he hinder the investigations.

– Larry W/HB

Hi Antics, I totally agree that something afoul is up. I just don’t know what. Nor do you. Nor does anyone else commenting on this thread.

I can think of simple, straightforward explanations which exonerate the President and I can think of frankly implausible, complicated, conspiracy-theory explanations, involving the Joints Chiefs and probably a hundred other people, which implicate the President. I am being circumspect. You are accusing the President of accessory homicide.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Hi Antics,

No. Here’s the clear explanation.

1. Obama was never told about the request of the ex-Seals for reinforcements. The situation was reviewed at a level well below Clinton and a lower level State department official made the call not to ask for reinforcements.

2. As soon as Obama was told, he did everything correctly, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Joints Chiefs.

3. As to conflicting explanations in the two week aftermath, the scenario I suggested earlier (entrapment of the still at large terrorists) is straightforward and far more plausible than a conspiracy theory involving a hundred people, including the Joint Chiefs.

Here’s Obama’s statement today (the so-called “refused to explain” statement):

“I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Earlier today, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported that CIA agents in the second U.S. compound in Benghazi were denied requests for help.

In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/president-obama-begs-off-answering-whether-americans-in-benghazi-were-denied-requests-for-help/

The CIA spokesperson’s boss, by the way, isn’t Obama or Panetta, her boss is David Petraeus — who’s apparently also willing to risk his reputation to cover the President’s butt.

All you are quoting are the opinions of pundits; you aren’t quoting anyone with direct knowledge to contradict anything which the President has said.

Now, read the bold type quote above. He directly answered the question: THE MINUTE he first found out he said “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing everything that we need to do.”

You think that he’s flat out lying. This is a conspiracy theory. The security authorities, up to and including the Joint Chiefs, are all going to lie on his behalf, to assist in the cover up. All sorts of people, with knowledge of what happened but with no personal or reputational skin in the game, are going to go along.

According to your thinking.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@Aye:

Good catch.

Creative sarcasm of the week award (and the best, concise consideration of the charges against Obama I’ve yet read):

The day after Bell’s, ahem, creative repackaging of the CBS story, fringe conservative blogs found themselves off and running with the fantasy. Hate radio personality and probable Wikipedia entry self-author Lars Larson went on Fox News to more or less repeat the claim, thereby entering it into the conservative canon. You’ll now find stories at World Net Daily and on various smaller, fringe blogs, as well.

But mostly, you’ll find graphics polluting social media. They present images that, if indeed taken from the videos, were acquired three weeks later. They are presented with shocking text claiming it was watched live by a callous U.S. President who sat and… what? Cracked open a bottle of champagne, laughed diabolically and twirled his handlebar mustache? Thought about how the death of an American ambassador on his watch would surely seal his re-election and, therefore, his secret bid to turn America into a Muslim theocracy where white men are slaves to the African master race and white women are forced to abort their babies at eight months under penalty of sex change? I can only imagine so, as that is exactly the level of thinking we’re dealing with in these lies.

The following people were just as involved/culpable as Obama:

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
2. The Secretary of Defense (Panetta)
3. The Director of the CIA (David Petraeus).

The latter of whom has a sterling reputation with conservatives and who certainly knows the facts of the case and would never get involved with any sort of a cover up and certainly wouldn’t go along with having the CIA stand down, when the lives were at stake.

In addition to that, about 100 different people certainly know the facts of the case. It would have to be one huge conspiracy, with everyone gambling that no one with inside information will spill the beans.

Obama stated that, point blank, the very minute he was first informed about it, he told his security advisors that no effort should be spared to ensure the safety of those in harm’s way. If he’s lying about this, the Joint Chiefs of Staff know it and Petraeus knows it and about a hundred other people know it. This is not Clinton lying about sex; it’s the Commander in Chief lying about his decisions and orders. He may, in your view, be evil, but he’s not that stupid.

Now, Fox News and the usual conservative sources are painting this as a huge scandal, where Obama personally ignored warnings of inadequate security, for the alleged purposes of showing the world what a peaceful place Libya was. That’s totally false. It’s just more politics as usual. There’s a perfectly straightforward explanation for absolutely everything, including the changing stories regarding whether it was a terrorist attack or a mob reaction to that stupid anti-Islamic video.

There is no reason for any of us to be arguing this, right now. The facts will eventually come out, and then we can have a nice, calm discussion about how things went down and who was right and who was wrong.

In the meantime, as a political junkie, I’ll be interested to see what effect, if any, this has on the election dynamic.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com:

Nice try, Larry, but no cigar. Especially since you use the far left source, HuffingtonPost.

Now, why don’t you answer this one question:

An attack on any U.S. facility in a foreign nation is an act of war. Who is the ONE person, the only person according to our Constitution, that can order troops into a foreign nation without the approval of Congress based on the necessity of securing American personnel and saving their lives (not considered a declaration of war)?

Answer that question and you have the name of the person who was totally responsible for the failure to send aid to a besieged American U.S. Diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

Hint: it is not #1, #2 or #3.

openid.aol.com/runnswim
it doewsn’t work that way, you know,
you stand by what you say, must not be if you where wrong to apologise
is it true or not, or not sure?
because that is just like what OBAMA IS DOING along all the administration,
you shoot some words and wait later with an apology to save your neck
but when you do it later that apology is losing your credibity,
so it’s better to be sure than sorry.
by the way , as a researcher, is that the way you work it when you find a protein
to build a drug
for curing diseases?
sound scary,

anticsrocks
hi,
I heard one GENERAL WHO IS TATION IN ITALY SAID
YOU DON’T NEED THE OKAY OF THE LIBYA TO GO TO YOUR AMERICAN SOIL AND PROPERTY,
HE SAID THAT IS NOT CORRECT, HE SAID WE DO IT ALL THE TIME, IT’S OUR PROPERTY,
BYE

@openid.aol.com:

Ah, the old political dodge. Sorry, Larry, major fail.

Now, you know, and I know you know, that the ultimate say about when the U.S. sends troops into any foreign theater lies with the president. And while it is true that only Congress can issue a declaration of war, you know, and I know, that in a situation like Benghazi, the president is the ONLY one who is in control.

But instead, you continue to make your snide remarks (although you left out your Etch-A-Sketch smear) about the usual conservative sources, which proves only that if it is not reported in the lapdog, Obama boot licking media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS) you discount any reporting on what did, or did not happen. You don’t even try to hide your bias anymore.

You have become as pathetic as Greg in your defense of this administration. Poor Greg, he doesn’t even realize when he is boosting the scandal when he posts a link to an article from CBS that states trucks used by the terrorists in Benghazi were marked with the logo of the offshoot of Al Qaeda. Perhaps you think that while the drone could see the entire compound, or the entire CIA annex, it did not have the ability to see the trucks that were sitting by those locations.

We know what happened and it is quite clear: our interests in Benghazi were under attack; Charlene Lamb of State testified they watched it in “near” real time; that same video was fed to the Situation Room in the White House where others could watch. At that point, it is up to the president to make the call whether troops were sent in for relief of those under seige or not. No one else. And we know the call to try to help our FSOs was never made.

Now, spin it anyway you want, there was not enough information (although they were watching the video in real time), others were responsible (although our Constitution is clear on who has the authority to send our troops to foreign soil under emergency situations without a declaration of war), yada, yada. So, you are left with one of two possibilities: either Obama did not make that call and actually denied assistance to those beseiged Americans, or he was not in control of the events on this side of the pond as he had abdicated a responsibility that was soley his.

Which is it?

@openid.aol.com: #123 Larry

There is no reason for any of us to be arguing this, right now. The facts will eventually come out, and then we can have a nice, calm discussion about how things went down and who was right and who was wrong.

So you have a sense of humor. Bob Beckel, on O’Reilly told him that the reason Obama won’t say anything about what ‘really’ happened now is because it’s only 10 days til the election. He was sure Obama will tell the ‘real’ story right after the election. Now I’m just gonna throw out here as pure speculation that if that is true, it might, it ‘just’ might be because he would think that it would NOT help his reelection chances. I’m sure tho that you probably think it’s just because ‘he hasn’t gotten all the ‘facts’ yet’. That’s it, right Larry?

@Openid.aol.com/runnswim: And there was a time when you posted thoughtful comments representing the liberal view of the issues discussed here. Over the last few months Larry, you have transformed into an Obama apologist who never can see wrong in anything the man does or says. I will give you that there are those on FA who apparently suffer from ODS, and thereby hurt their own credibility. However, for you to not even see ANYTHING wrong with the way this attack on our Embassy (which is the same as an attack on our sovereign soil), was handled, before, during and in the aftermath, is ridiculous.

His administration repeated denied requests for more security in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 Anniversary.

His administration denied requests on the night of the attack, which admittedly may not have saved the Ambassador and Mr. Smith at that point, but it could damn well have helped those brave Navy Seals who DISOBEYED orders and attempted to render aid.

His administration has given numerous “reasons” for the attack, for their handling of it, etc…, not even being able to keep their stories straight between themselves.

Are you saying that given all that, you find absolutely no fault with the Obama administration on this????

Incredible.

I suppose it is easier to sit back and castigate us for wanting to know the truth and piecing together what happened ourselves as news becomes available.

Hi Antics,

We are talking past each other. It’s a failure to communicate, I guess.

When you talk about the “Obama administration,” what do you mean? Obama himself? Or everyone who happens to be underneath Obama, in the 3,000,000 member Executive Branch organizational chart?

With respect to “repeated requests” for “more security,” what I’ve read is that those requests were made (along with scores of other requests from other embassies, which are, reportedly, always asking for more resources in an environment where their budgets are continually being cut) to a State department security official several layers below Clinton. I’ve never read that any of those requests were ever actually forwarded to the White House, and if so, which White House official was responsible. I’d imagine it would involve communication with intelligence and military experts, as well. In the absence of knowing exactly how these “repeated requests” were handled, and at what levels. I think it’s irresponsible and imprudent (if politically expedient) to use this as a personal attack on Obama.

With regard to the events which transpired while the embassy was actually under attack, what we do know was that Obama was being advised by Panetta and two generals, and certainly by Petraeus, as well (the CIA issued its own statement on this). Obama was advised against intervention, for reasons which are entirely understandable to anyone who’s ever seen the movie “Black Hawk Down.” GOP politicians, when asked about how they’d handle armed conflict, are forever saying “I’d follow the advice of our military leaders.” So Obama follows the advice of his military leaders, as opposed to ordering in a Black Hawk Down rescue group, and he gets crucified by Monday Morning quarterbacks with a political agenda.

And it’s not just Lefty Larry making this assertion; it’s backed up by thoughtful conservatives, who actually understand these matters and withhold their criticism (I’m giving Romney some credit, here, as he is belatedly recognizing that flapping his jaw about matters he doesn’t understand is a bad idea) or else conservative true security experts who actually support the conduct and statements of the administration (e.g. Condoleezza Rice).

With regard to the changing story line (Rose Garden, Rice/UN, etc.), I think it’s not only plausible but probable that this was an intelligence-based decision. In the first day, they did know that terrorists were involved, but they didn’t know for sure who it was (the notorious email notwithstanding — after terrorist attacks, lots of people come out of the woodwork to claim credit and it’s initially impossible to vet the authenticity of these claims). So the President, not wanting to give away too much about what is known and not known (because they are trying to identify and track the perpetrators) just makes a vague reference to terrorism.

Then the whole pan-Islamic world erupts with violent protests over the anti-Islamic film. Intelligence sees an opportunity. Let’s just play along with that narrative to (1) lull the perpetrators into a false sense of security and/or (2) actually provoke the true perpetrators into claiming credit for a very successful act of terrorism (recalling that jihadists always want to be given credit for their actions). Hence Rice’s UN speech.

Is this what happened? It’s entirely plausible and, I believe, even probable. It’s much more plausible/possible that a looney conspiracy theory involving POTUS, Panetta, Joint Chiefs, Petraeus, and about a hundred other people.

As I said, we don’t know. One day we will know. Hopefully by then your new ticker will have you charged and rarin’ to go, for continuing battles with us evil socialist Obamaphiles.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com: Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA it’s great that you finally got all the details from the Administration, something all the News networks have failed to do. So now we know that Obama himself (according to you) made the decision to not send in help because he was afraid the terrorists would kick the US Military’s ass. (another Black Hawk down deal, you said) That may be the single dumbest excuse I have ever heard of. First, who said any Black Hawks had to be sent in. I think just 1 AC 130 gun ship could have eliminated about 90% of those attackers in about 1 minute of firing. You do know about the gunships’s capabilities don’t you. So Obama has now admitted (at least to your source, which few seem to be privy to) that he has allowed the US Military to disintegrate to the point that he is afraid 120 or so terrorists are to be feared. If that is true he can’t resign fast enough. The gross incompetence is a new standard for Zero and his crew.