SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (681482)10/28/2012 8:18:58 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574606
 
I haven't proved it idiot, Blix proved it and Bush ignored it.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (681482)10/29/2012 4:23:42 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1574606
 
CBS Busts Obama--and Itself--in Benghazi Cover-Up









by Joel B. Pollak 24 Oct 2012
breitbart.com

CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obama’s attack on Romney that same night. Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

Obama's remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks.

CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama--not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant--first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.

According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson.

What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama’s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration’s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.

Obama said Romney “seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” That portion of the interview aired immediately, and drove the news for days. Obama’s comment suggesting that the attack had been premeditated was not aired.

Attkisson reported this week that emails linking an Al Qaeda affiliate to the Benghazi attack had been sent to the White House Situation Room just over two hours after the attack had begun. The emails suggest that the Obama administration knew from the outset that the Benghazi attack had been a terrorist attack--and that it knowingly misled the public when it repeatedly claimed there was no evidence of terrorist involvement.

When the video story unraveled, the White House tried to argue that President Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror all along. In the second presidential debate, the President famously pointed to his Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden as proof, though his reference to “acts of terror” on that occasion had been general and not specific to the Benghazi attack, which he implied had been provoked by the video.

The new CBS footage suggests that Obama did, in fact, describe the Benghazi attacks as premeditated terrorism--not in the Rose Garden but in the White House itself, in a portion of an interview that did not air until more than a month later.

During that time, both CBS and Obama could have referred to the interview, but did not--likely because doing so would have vindicated Obama at the cost of exposing his subsequent deceit.

The fact that CBS refrained from publishing the critical clip from the interview widens the political scandal surrounding Benghazi into a media scandal.

National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson criticized CBS on Fox News Special Report yesterday, saying that CBS ought to have made the entire interview with Obama available immediately, in the public interest.

Together with the president, CBS has much to explain.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (681482)10/29/2012 4:32:06 AM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations  Respond to of 1574606
 
Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi

October 29, 2012 - 12:01 am - by Roger L Simon
pjmedia.com


Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens?


If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times,

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez article at RadicalIslam.org,

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field.

Many questions remain to be answered. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (681482)10/29/2012 4:51:14 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1574606
 
Hume: Mainstream Media ‘Remarkably Reticent’ to Pursue Benghazi Cover-Up, Burden Has ‘Fallen’ Onto Fox News

By Brent Baker | October 28, 2012
newsbusters.org

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume upbraided the press for its lack of interest in pursuing the Obama administration’s misstatements and dissembling on what they knew before and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks, lamenting on Fox News Sunday that “one of the problems we’re having here is, that it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News and a couple others, to do all the heavy lifting on this story.”

A “couple of others” may be generous. CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson is about the only other major news outlet journalist showing any interest. The mainstream organs of the media that would be after this like a pack of hounds, if this were a Republican President,” Hume observed, “have been remarkably reticent.”

Audio: MP3 clip

That reticence extended to Sunday’s talk shows.
While Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace raised Benghazi, and the newest revelations about how requests for support by CIA operatives on the ground were rejected, with four U.S. Senators (Democrats Mark Warner and Mark Udall, Republicans Rob Portman and Ron Johnson), none of the hosts of the ABC, CBS or NBC shows bothered to bring it up.

Viewers only heard “Libya” or “Benghazi” when a guest mentioned it. And then the hosts moved on.

On ABC’s This Week, Newt Gingrich noted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s refusal to send assistance and chastised President Obama: “He’s canceling his trips over the hurricane. He did not cancel his trips over Benghazi.” Stephanopoulos moved on to another campaign question.

Carly Fiorina, a guest panelist on NBC’s Meet the Press as a surrogate for the Romney campaign, brought up Libya unprompted: “On the issue of trust, what is going on with regard to Libya. I mean, here we have an extraordinary thing where the President comes out on Friday and says I directed that everything possible should be done to aid our embassy under attack. That attack went on for seven hours, we now know that Secretary of Defense saying he denied requests for help over that seven hours.”

Host David Gregory cut her off, but promised: “We’ll get to Libya a little bit later.” He never did. Fiorina’s was the last word on Libya during the program.

It also came up, unprompted by a journalist, on CBS’s Face the Nation. Bob Schieffer asked guest John McCain: “In the last days of this campaign, if this storm turns out to be what they’re telling us it’s going to, who gets hurt the most by it?”

During his reply, McCain asserted: “I’ve been traveling all over. This tragedy turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or massive incompetence in Libya is having an effect on the voter because of their view of the commander in chief. And it is now the worst cover-up or incompetence that I have ever observed in my life.”

Earlier, some examples of the media avoiding Libya/Benghazi:

> Last Sunday:

Friedman Contends Benghazi Controversy ‘Utterly Contrived,’ Stephanopoulos Hails White House ‘Transparency’

> “
Incredibly, In Prime Time Interview Brian Williams Treats Obama as a Victim of Bad Intelligence on Benghazi

>
With a video montage: “Instead of Exposing Libya Bombshell, ABC Hypes ‘Mystery Monkey’ and Yawning Dogs

> “
NYTimes Forwards Fog-of-War Excuse for Obama’s Botched Libya Response, Ignores His UN Speech

> “
NYT on Why It Ignored Libya Debacle: ‘There Were Six Better Stories’”

> “
As Other Outlets Finally Take Libya Seriously, NYT Buries Hearings on A10 Under Dull Headline

From the October 28 Fox News Sunday:

BRIT HUME: One of the problems we’re having here is, that it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News and a couple others, to do all the heavy lifting on this story. And the mainstream organs of the media that would be after this like a pack of hounds, if this were a Republican President, have been remarkably reticent. And there’s been some good reporting, but nothing like on the scale and to the degree of specificity that you would expect by now.

Normally, you know, the big news organizations would have this thing out there. And we would know a lot more than we do, about what the President did, what he knew, when he knew it and what order he made, on what basis. We still don’t know that and to some extent a lot of the media, who are a combined potent force, have not done their job.

CHRIS WALLACE: What were you going to say, Joe?

JOE TRIPPI: I was going to say to Brit, what I think is going on, look, this is how it works, you have one or two news groups pushing a story like this, the opposition, asks a lot of questions, too, and, there's a congressional investigation, a State Department investigation and we find out the truth. The problem is, everyone wants to hurry up and find the truth out before the election, which is important.

HUME: Note this: On the morning after the testimony by the first witness who said on Capitol Hill under oath that this was a terrorist attack, the New York Times had zero about that. There has been real reticence here on the part of the major news organizations.



Read more: newsbusters.org