The Benghazi Lie in Black and White

[BuckSparkles]

I propose Bengazi threads just start getting instalocked for conspiracy theory horse shit.

Let's just make anything conservative or concerns of conservatives conspiracy theories.

I am sure some people in this forum would just -love- that.

[Narwal]

Yeah, this seems like an extremely tenuous connection to me. I don't remember Obama ever saying al Qaeda was dead. No one was talking about al Qaeda being dead at the time, and to anyone who was paying ANY attention to the world, it was clear that al Qaeda was NOT dead at the time. And even if that were a thing, the American public would have just been like, "Oh, I guess they're still around. Oh well, still voting Obama," which is exactly what they did. The idea that this was some major cover up and conspiracy to get Obama re-elected is just conspiracy drivel.

So you don't believe politicians should be held to account for their lying to the public? There is only ever one reason to lie, and that is for personal gain.

There's a reason money wins elections. A majority of voters are low information voters. They only hear the talking points put out by campaigns. Controlling the narrative is important for controlling those voters.

You're right though, after I go back and look at it, the Republican talking point was that the president said Al Qaeda was dead. That wasn't necessarily his narrative, he did say they were on the run, that he was winning, that they were decimated. To those statements, this attack was still a blemish on his record.

[Vyxn]

Of course you can. You already have. Probably many years ago.

But I'm also allowed to point out when your opinions are not based on fact.



I don't really have an opinion on why Hillary might have lied. I'm not even convinced that she did. It's just as likely that she was fed inaccurate information. It's much more damaging to lie about these events, then try to cover it up, then get caught. So why engage in that behavior?

A lie requires intentional deceit. I've not seen evidence of that.

then how in the hell do you square her repeatedly sayin it was caused by a video in public but in private the truth a terrorist attack and she went back in forth vid to the public terrorist attack in private

[enragedgorilla]

Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, adversely affected the lives of tens of thousands more, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the region and opened the door for the rise of ISIS.

But please, tell us how "lying" about how a riot started in Benghazi changes the course of human history.

Right and Wrong for a start...but we don't do that anymore I guess? Only matters what team you are on...the other guy is always worse?
Some such divisive,scapegoating /sluffing shit off on some one else?

[Teebone]

Ah, Vyx, the ultimate in sheep. Baaah.

It's funny how both candidates agendas are blatantly the same and yet the sheeple still try to crusade for one or the other. What's next? The Barber Twins vying for presidency?

[Reeve]

So you don't believe politicians should be held to account for their lying to the public? There is only ever one reason to lie, and that is for personal gain.

How about for national security reasons? How about to control the media message so as to confuse your enemies? Or really, just about any reason. Do you think there's never good reasons to lie to the public?

There's a reason money wins elections. A majority of voters are low information voters. They only hear the talking points put out by campaigns. Controlling the narrative is important for controlling those voters.

Controlling the narrative between "terrorist act" and "video related act of terror" was never going to convince anyone of anything, except apparently, a bunch of conspiracy theorists who decided this must be a cover up instead of something much more mundane.

You're right though, after I go back and look at it, the Republican talking point was that the president said Al Qaeda was dead. That wasn't necessarily his narrative, he did say they were on the run, that he was winning, that they were decimated. To those statements, this attack was still a blemish on his record.

A blemish which remains blemishy whether the attack was video-related or not.

[Kontinuum]

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us...e-iphone-share

[Noxx79]

then how in the hell do you square her repeatedly sayin it was caused by a video but in private the truth a terrorist attack and she went back in forth vid to the public terrorist attack in private

- - - Updated - - -


then how in the hell do you square her repeatedly sayin it was caused by a video but in private the truth a terrorist attack and she went back in forth vid to the public terrorist attack in private

Easy: Misdirection

It's possible they didn't want the perpetrators to know they were on to them and were feigning ignorance. Police do this all the time.

[Narwal]

Again. No evidence of blatant lies. No smoking gun. No emails or communications that say "I lied to the public about Benghazi so Obama could get re-elected." That's a smoking gun.

What we have is possible evidence of a possible lie, for unknown reasons. We can theorize as to why she would lie, and yes, political motivations are possible. But there's no evidence. Maybe if we spend a few more million dollars, we can figure out why.

It is hard to understand why she would lie and risk a cover-up over something like this, isn't it?! Especially when you take the most probable reason and automatically claim it's not the reason.

"No evidence of blatant lies."

You ask me how you look in a dress, I say pretty. I immediately text our mutual friend you look horrible in the dress you're wearing.

If you later saw my phone, would you accuse me of lying to your face, blatantly?

[For_The_Horde]

An incredibly partisan report from a republican led committee which openly ignored people who didn't support their own politically motivated and damning narrative of what happened is by no means a credible source of information. Nobody should take these clowns seriously anymore, especially when they've had two years to polish up this turd to a high shine, to hide the fact its still a pile of crap they're hoping to throw at Hillary.

And I honestly don't care if she did lie, name one person in higher government who has never lied, lying just comes with the territory. Rather than being focused on that, you should look at the impact it caused. It kept us from creating an excuse to send an armed force into Libya (on another wild terrorist hunt), possibly declaring war on yet another middle-eastern country we cant back out of, and costing thousands and thousands of lives, not to mention trillions and trillions of dollars.

The more I read these forums, the more I'm convinced Vyxn is just a conservative troll-bot that escaped from a testing lab to terrorize the internet with wild conspiracy theories and half baked republican nonsense.

Infracted

[Nathreim]

Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, adversely affected the lives of tens of thousands more, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the region and opened the door for the rise of ISIS.

But please, tell us how "lying" about how a riot started in Benghazi changes the course of human history.

Bush lied.

Not the CIA, UN, and half a dozen other spy agencies from allies who all reported the same thing.

[Annoying]

So you don't believe politicians should be held to account for their lying to the public? There is only ever one reason to lie, and that is for personal gain.

There's a reason money wins elections. A majority of voters are low information voters. They only hear the talking points put out by campaigns. Controlling the narrative is important for controlling those voters.

You're right though, after I go back and look at it, the Republican talking point was that the president said Al Qaeda was dead. That wasn't necessarily his narrative, he did say they were on the run, that he was winning, that they were decimated. To those statements, this attack was still a blemish on his record.

So all the lies we tell in the name of national security aren't actually for national security, they're for someone's personal gain? Yeah, not so much. Plenty of reasons politicians lie, and without having been in the meetings that ascertained what and why it happened, it's pretty hard to say exactly why they withheld who was responsible. Perhaps they had some sort of clandestine or covert OP that would be immediately put in jeopardy, who knows?

[Narwal]

Easy: Misdirection

It's possible they didn't want the perpetrators to know they were on to them and were feigning ignorance. Police do this all the time.

Wouldn't they come out and tell us that now?

[Nathreim]

Why does it even matter what caused the attack? It's not like Clinton did anything to cause it. We typically try to avoid giving terrorist any credit because that's what they want. They use that to recruit more terrorist. I'm not sure why people don't understand that.

She didn't do anything to prevent it when they asked for more security or stop it when it was in progress. Thats the problem.

[Vyxn]

Why does it even matter what caused the attack? It's not like Clinton did anything to cause it. We typically try to avoid giving terrorist any credit because that's what they want. They use that to recruit more terrorist. I'm not sure why people don't understand that.

It matters that she wants to be president but will blatantly lie to the public on something as important as a terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans

[Narwal]

So all the lies we tell in the name of national security aren't actually for national security, they're for someone's personal gain? Yeah, not so much. Plenty of reasons politicians lie, and without having been in the meetings that ascertained what and why it happened, it's pretty hard to say exactly why they withheld who was responsible. Perhaps they had some sort of clandestine or covert OP that would be immediately put in jeopardy, who knows?

Except the committees in congress would have been informed on this, and it wouldn't have been such a talking point. National Security are typically "no comment" topics, not blatant lying to the public.

[TZucchini]

then how in the hell do you square her repeatedly sayin it was caused by a video in public but in private the truth a terrorist attack and she went back in forth vid to the public terrorist attack in private

Violence caused by a political reaction to a video is still an act of terrorism, Vyxn.

[Blur4stuff]

It matters that she wants to be president but will blatantly lie to the public on something as important as a terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans

then you aren't voting for trump either, right?

[Reeve]

It matters that she wants to be president but will blatantly lie to the public on something as important as a terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans

She never claimed it wasn't a terror attack that took the lives of four Americans.

She claimed that some people might try to justify the attack because of an internet video. Lying about whether or not a video incited the thing is about as important as lying about what kind of car she drives to work, particularly when we know there will be a subsequent investigation (as there always are after these incidents) which will show the true reasons.

[Grogo]

Quit trying to make Benghazi happen, it's not going to happen. Fuck sakes.