Benghazi: Question & Obamaism — #1

With the recent Congressional hearings about the attack in Benghazi, there are several questions that have come back to the forefront in my own mind about what happened. The White House has also reiterated the same “Obamaisms” about what they said happened that night.

Question: What caused that attack to happen?

Obamaism: The attack was a spontaneous protest to an anti-Muslim video.

 There are so many problems with this from a purely logical standpoint. The video had been posted on YouTube several months before. The definition of spontaneous is basically “spur of the moment.”

So, the White House is saying that they waited several months to have a spur of the moment protest about a video that is supposed to denigrate their religion. There are too many examples to list of almost immediate violent reaction to events where non-Muslims attempted to make fun of Islam, Allah, or the prophet Muhammed.

Then the liberals will counter with the typical — “It’s another attempt to conduct a political withchunt.” I am not even going to bother attempting to answer that since the “kool-aid” has infected their brains preventing them from creating an independent thought. However, I am going to pose another question and dare a liberal to respond.

On NBC News, Ann Curry did an interview with the Libyan President where he said the idea of a spontaneous response to a YouTube video had “nothing to do with this attack.” He also said that the September 11th attack was done on that day to “carry a certain message” and believed that the terrorists had training and experience.

So, a world leader with no political aspirations in this country, is clearly saying that it was terrorist attack. Why is that?

As for the spontaneity of the protest, CBS News reported

“…150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”

“…set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns…”

“But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film.”

“…the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack…”

 The CBS News article even quoted from an AP article substantiating these quotes and where the AP even went as far as to name the lawyer.

So much for spontaneity, huh?

Some liberals will still cling to the Obamaism — It was the video — but the White House has now moved onto Benghazi is old news.

Negligent homicide is defined as

is the killing of another person through gross negligence…

If that is what happened here, then Benghazi will never be old news since there is no statute of limitations.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Benghazi: Question & Obamaism — #1

  1. Chris in VA says:

    Since this “Obamaism” is the story they want to go with, ABC News has reported that the cause of the attack was revised 12 times before the talking points went public. From the article —

    State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

    “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

    In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

    The paragraph was entirely deleted.

    Here’s the link — http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

  2. Pingback: Obama, Scandals, and Chicago Politics | The Conservative Warrior

  3. Pingback: Obama: The Worst President — PERIOD!! | The American Journalist

Let me know what you think.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s