Compared to you who doesn't have time to use capitalization?

This is very simple to explain. In the first forty-eight hours our government had no clue of what happened in Benghazi. Because the public demanded answers, they released a statement saying what little they knew or what they thought to be true.

At the same time, they carefully worded their statements - instead of coming out saying "this was a terrorist attack that demands a response from our military" and putting fifty thousand American troops on the ground in Libya which would have cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars, they downplayed it until we had all of the facts.

Which is exact what we want our government to do.

But let's keep investigating it.

fav thing to say to a lib: can you say anything with out mentioning GW Bush?

I showed you OVER AND OVER AND OVER where they said that YES they knew it was a terrorist attack.
The CIA knew it right away.

Do you follow the news at all?

No Rochard, they didn't tell anyone what they knew to be true. They LIED and said it was a video.

This is me pointing at a blue sky and saying "the sky is blue" ... and you looking up and claiming it's red. :disgust

From my own reading of the events, Clinton called it a terrorist attack before Obama did. She called it a terrorist attack on September 20th, roughly 9 days after the attack took place.

So what we're angry about is that she went with the Obama message, clearly absurd, that the attack was caused by a supposedly anti-Muslim film, and took 9 days to decide that her initial impression was correct and to tell the truth, and was not courageous enough to break with all the other Obama staffers and call them the liars they were before the 9 days?

damn... americans are really dumb ...:2 cents:

What it boils down to is the Obama administration is careful and measured about what they say. Why go shooting off your mouth and speculating before you know exactly what happened. This has been a major trait of this administration from the beginning.

You wouldn't get this from president Mr Straight Shooter Trump. He says what's on his mind with no filter. I'm sure that'll be great for our country.

Umm. BO is otr being interviewed about his lack of calling it terrorism. He intentionally avoided the term to describe it and always has. He downplays it and calls it an act of terror.

Actually she called it a terrorist attack that very night (the 11th) in an email to Chelsea.

And that indicates that everyone in that room (including Obama) KNEW what was happening.

We have also found out during the Benghazi investigation that the CIA was on the ground and was reporting back that it was a terrorist attack the entire time.

The President Of Libya was telling them that as well.

There never was a "protest" (another part of the lie) and it never had anything to do with a "video" (another part of the lie).

It was quite simply Pres. Obama wanting to play politics with the election only 56 days away (a point the Hillary made when she said the election was only 56 days away in her email).

Uh...they IMMEDIATELY (that very night) went on television in a press conference and said it was caused by a video.

How the fuck is that being "careful and measured"? Especially when they already knew exactly what happened from the CIA on the ground?

What is wrong with you people?

Robbie, the moment they killed people it was a terrorist attack. The press was calling it a terrorist attack as soon as they started reporting it. But in the first twenty-four and even forty-eight hours, we had no idea if there was a protest or not. You are trying to say they lied, and I am telling you in the first forty-eight hours they had no idea what had really happened. Again, little law enforcement, and a shaky government. The White House couldn't exactly pick up the phone and ask questions; There was no one there to answer if there was most likely the phones wasn't working.

President Obama himself said in a interview the day after the attack that they are trying not to call it a terrorist attack. It's very, very simple - The President didn't want to get the American public whipped up into a frenzy that would demand the United States put boots on the ground into yet another war we don't need to be in.

No one lied about anything. They had very limited information in the first few days. They slowly gave out information once the facts became clear AND they could verify them, which took weeks if not months.

Yes, Robbie, they said exactly that. The ONLY information they had was that a video was released, they were expecting a protest, they issued an alert, and an embassy was attacked. That was ALL they knew six to ten hours after the attack started, and that is exactly what they told us.

No one lied. They told us what they thought had happened based on what little information they had at the moment.

Not true Rochard.
I have quoted the email that Hillary sent Chelsea that very evening saying it was a terrorist attack.

I have pointed out that the CIA operatives on the ground were reporting in real time that it was a terrorist attack.

I can't understand why YOU don't understand that when they said it was a video that caused a "protest",,, they ALREADY knew that there was no protest and that it was a terrorist attack.

Why are you defending that lie?

You see...this is what causes so many people to dislike the Democrat politicians. They are never held to the same standards as everyone else.

You are sitting here defending the indefensible and trying to make it sound like nothing was wrong.

Well, I was raised to know that a lie is a lie. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But as Hillary said when asked by Congress about Benghazi: "What does it really matter now?"

And if you watch that video footage of those hurt and angry family members...you would know that it matters a lot to them.

Not so much to you.

I commend you for continuing to try to educated him, don't know how you have the stamina for that. He is by far the most uneducated "expert" on these boards.

You are trying to achieve the impossible with your mission though. Good luck!!

You just outlined the lie then claimed it's not a lie.

Wow...you read nothing in this thread or on the news before making that comment.

The attack was a pre-planned, carefully coordinated attack by Al Queda.

There was NO protest happening at all.

And no video was involved (The State Dept. under Hillary Clinton admitted that months later)

P.S.: I love quoting you and removing your estrogen-filled pussified "Plum" colored text. Man up bitch. :1orglaugh

So Bush gets a pass.

Obama has to show his birth certificate, Trump doesn't have to show his tax returns. Bush goes to war on a lie, Bill gets hounded for a BJ.

Seems fairness is one way.

+1

:2 cents:

I am confused. Since the first second the news of the attack happened who didn't think this was terrorism? I mean really. I am not even taking Hillary's side here as it should have been called that from the beginning, but who here thought that was just an out of control crowd? And we all knew it wasn't the state of China, Ireland or Canada attacking. Obviously terrorism. This seems to be such a non-issue. Just as the thread said.

I mean the Donald is a walking contradiction and yet he is fit to be president, hahahaha.

Ok, so let's say that true. Who the fuck cares? What does it change in the end? The people are still dead and Hillary did not kill them. You act like there needs to be a murder trial for mis-characterizing. Is that what you want?

We should investigate it again. 11th time is a charm!

So Benghazi is handwaved off as no big deal but trump doesn't volunteer tax returns and woah, the outrage.

Ahahahahahahahaahahahahaha.

No, I don't think she should be tried for murder.

I simply think you should recognize that she is a pathological liar. Her history is replete with huge lies. And almost all of them were for no good reason.

Like when she lied about being under "sniper fire" and CBS news showed the footage of her smiling and taking pictures with a classroom of little girls where she said that she was running for her life. :(

She is very much a puppet to whomever pays her. No different than BUSH. No different than Obama.

And just like Bush and Obama she will lie straight to your face while your loved one is lying in a casket right in front of you.

Haven't you had enough of that kind of shit from lying politicians yet?
You STILL want some more?

I don't.

This brings up an interesting point. Here we have Hillary caught in what is an obvious lie, yet the Republican party is pushing investigations in Benghazi (which is about nothing) and the email crap (which was common practice at the State Department)...

Nah. Let's launch another investigation into nothing.

This is what I don't understand about the attacks on Hillary. She has a rather unimpressive track record as Senator and then the State Department, but instead of focusing on that the Republican party is pushing Benghazi and the emails.

Trump is clearly much better. I mean, it's not like he out right license his name to other companies for a profit.

I think in this case on the evening she made an assumption based on the information she had, as I did, and probably everyone else with a brain, that it was terrorism. That is a natural assumption. She wrote that to her daughter. Even when an explosion or attack is not terrorism, people assume it is. In an Islamic country, I think rightly so, because there is a good chance it is. Then, when Obama came up with that absurd justification, she went with it for two reasons:

1. Loyalty to her boss
2. She didn't want to make a contradictory statement until the facts on the ground were known.

Number 1 is bad, yes, and perhaps she should have gone public before that. But she did go public eventually. Does someone who tells everyone something they suspect might be a falsehood for 9 days get called a pathological liar?

A pathological liar, as I'm sure you know, is someone who "consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless."

Pathological Liar

Under no definition of the word is Hillary Clinton a pathological liar.

Further, I suspect the real motive for waiting was that she wanted to be sure (good), and to be in a group (bad). To publicly break with Obama would have been called stupid by people close to her, in whom she placed trust. To publicly break with him and then be ruled incorrect, well, that would have put her in the dustbin of history.

This is just my opinion, and I'm sure some will see it as uninformed, self-interested, or possibly even naive, but many, many people also hold this opinion.

To the people that denigrate your opinions by saying 4 lives lost vs. the 5000 that the lies that led to the Iraq war cost the USA, I disagree. 4 lives or 5000, they matter. And the ridiculous justification and team mentality that created the scenario that played out is reprehensible.

I personally, though, read the situation as attributable to the administration, and a part of the thoroughly inept strategy of attacking semi-stable Muslim states while claiming that Islam is a religion of peace.