Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 8 years ago

Is Obama losing his Dem support on his Benghazi spin?

Reference - Steven Lynch D-MA (House Oversight Committee)

Dutch Ruppersburger D-MD (House Intelligence Committee)

Democrats No Longer Willing to Defend Obama Benghazi Lies

May 7, 2013 • 8:59AM

"It seems that the lying from the Obama Administration has gotten to be too much for some Democrats to defend. In Sunday talk shows yesterday, two leading Democrats, Congressmen Stephen Lynch (MA), member of the House Oversight Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both refused to defend UN Ambassador Susan Rice's lying statements, made on five different talk shows within days of the 9/11-Two attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that they were not, in fact, terrorism.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace interviewed Stephen Lynch and fellow Committee member, Republican Jason Chaffetz (UT) on the upcoming hearings with administration whistleblowers. After reviewing charges of "witness intimidation" by the administration, Wallace turned to Lynch and asked him, point blank, about the Rice "talking points."

Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript:

"CHRIS WALLACE: Congressman Lynch, weren't the talking points the administration put out in advance of Susan Rice's appearances on those five Sunday shows, weren't those talking points scrubbed?

"STEPHEN LYNCH: They certainly weren't accurate. I don't know what the process was there, but absolutely they were false, they were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the — you know, the — the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies, that was not this type of case.

"WALLACE: So briefly, ... Congressman Lynch, how do you explain the fact that that Sunday, UN Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows, never mentioned the al-Qaeda extremists, which had been scrubbed from the — from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points?

"LYNCH: Well, it was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. You're absolutely right. There's no excuse for that. It was false information. What they tried to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East, and part of that was wrong."

Lynch's statements are all the more pointed, since minutes earlier in the interview, he had defended the administration line that there had been no witness intimidation and that any security lapse was due to Republicans having cut the budget.

Update:

@ Kevin - another "great answer" from a lib who cannot (or will not) ans the question!

Update 2:

@ Stand - "Big deal? Try... lying, distortion, cover-up and just plain old "incompetency!" Not to, mention four unnecessary American deaths!!! And THAT IS ..... A BIG DEAL!!

Update 3:

@ Night -ever get the feeling that the libs on here are in complete denial - even when you put the information in front of their noses! Their own fellow Dems are jumping ship - and they can't SEE that!

Update 4:

@ J M - the CIA new from day one that it was a planned terrorist attack and said so in their report that was so carefully changed (by the administration) to the "video" scenario! J M - this is not really a "secret!"

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Losing popularity, perhaps, but the BIG question is how can the F'ed up left wing support their position to re-hire his a$$-clown ?

    Oh, its ok to swoon over whines and cry's from victims of sandy hook or any of the others to make a political push for more gun control laws (which we have enough of)

    But no one on the left seems focused on the governments cavalier attitude toward enforcing the laws already on the books. As USUAL, they don't hold government accountable for their failings for fear that they might not get their government cheese in the future.

    Its ok to demonize Bush for not having clairvoyance to see 9/11 before it happened........OH, but Obama and his administration directly getting involved with terror attacks on our embassy....telling people to stand down, to do nothing ? Oh, that's ok.........all because.......what ? He's black ? He's a Democrat ?

    Because the fake media has created an impression that America likes this fraud in Chief ?

    Obama Failed big time. he didn't keep our people safe, they denied added security, they didn't have adequate security to begin with and actively and knowingly sent these people to their deaths by denying help from the SAS and telling our own troops to stand down.

    THIS FRAUD PIECE OF CRAP ISN"T WORTHY OF REPRESENTING AMERICA

    I guess why the loser left doesn't get the clue why its important is because these F'ers aren't going to pick up a gun and defend our country over seas, these pricks aren't going to put themselves in a position that the presidents decisions are going to adversely effect them. They think they won't have to worry over any future decisions that come from the white house.

    what selfish, stupid bastards

  • J M
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    No.

    It would have been extremely irresponsible to mention al-Qaeda at that time because there was no confirmation of the exact cause. At the time, Susan Rice mentioned the theory that it was related to a protest. Lacking more definitive information, that was the only responsible thing to do.

    Lynch also admits he does not know what process was used to vet the statements. In retrospect, maybe it wasn't accurate, but at the time, it was never presented as being the absolute cause, and there was no compelling evidence that it was anything else.

    What is the question? Did Rice knowingly lie? No. Did anyone know for sure the day after the attack the exact cause? No. Do we even to this day know all of the events that led to the attack? No.

    To this day is there any definitive evidence that the attack was pre-planned by al-Qaeda? No there isn't.

    So what burning question is going unanswered?

  • Mark F
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    In 2012 President Obama erroneously blames a Youtube video for the deaths of 4 American's. You would think the sky had just fallen. The result has been an endless series of Congressional hearings, partisan news coverage and calls for impeachment from people who have never apparently read the constitution.

    OTOH - In 2003 George W. Bush unilaterally and illegally decided to enforce a U.N. Resolution without getting the required authorization to do so from the U.N. (for the simple reason he wouldn't have got it). The result was the deaths of 6,000 American's, 120,000+ Iraqi's and the loss of a few trillion dollars of American treasure, and all based on what? A fantasy of non-existent WMD programs and non-existent ties to terrorist organizations. It was all made-up! Fabricated. A deliberate distortion. Every bit of it. And we know it was deliberate because the administration had all the correct information but decided to run with their version of reality-distortion instead.

    Sound familiar?

    When do we get Congressional hearings about that? When do the families of those dead soldiers get accountability on that? When do the taxpayers?

    And why is blaming the deaths of 4 American's on a video the biggest scandal in American history but we get not a whimper about lying to start an illegal war that killed 6,000 Americans? Heck if only attacks on diplomatic stations count and not wars during the Bush years you have 11 of those and 60 deaths - no Congressional hearings, no endless coverage on Fox News.

    I have a beef with those who turn a blind eye to atrocity when its from their side but go ape **** crazy when the Obama administration gives some faulty information. I see no moral consistency. I'm perfectly happy to condemn anyone who lied or covered up facts that led to the death of Americans.

    Are you?

  • Kevin
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    I was really getting worried, it had been 8 minutes since the last question about Benghazi, I thought maybe something happened to all the Republicans. Glad you're OK.

    Benghazi question count: 1,000,000,517

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Mark
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Yes he should be impeached.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    No, that is wishful thinking on TeAtarDs part.What;'s the BIG deal about Benghazi anyhow?

  • John
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Obama isn't running for office.

  • team
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    yes he is

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.