What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Republicans? Lindsey Knows!
What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Republicans? Lindsey Knows!

HERE IS THE BENGHAZI CONSPIRACY THAT THE DEMS NEED TO TAKE UP IN THE SENATE…..and that all who want the truth told should spread far and wide.

There IS a Benghazi Conspiracy and Lindsey Graham is at the Center of it.

Laura Logan of CBS’s 60 minutes took part in an information laundering conspiracy with Sen Lindsey Graham creating a story for which there was no authoritative source. Graham PLANTED information with Logan for which he had no proof to put it on the most respected and most watched TV news magazine AND THEN that Senator used that TV story to as HIS source for his attacks on the Obama administration. Impeachable?

To be more specific:

1) The Right wants to trace the Benghazi attack to Al Qaeda.There is no evidence that this is so (despite 7 Congressional reviews, DoD and State Reviews, DOJ Reviews and two external auditors).

2) In October 2013 on 60 Minutes Logan reported on the leadnstory that it was “now well established” that the assault had been planned and executed by an Al Qaeda operational unit. The report went on to lay out how this likely happened spelling out how AQ operates, how the attack was probably organized and then how it was carried out. It is a clever report but it all hinges on proof of the AQ connection.

3) The next morning Lindsey Graham appeared on Fox News to say that he saw Logan’s report, was shocked and declared that it was the smoking gun proving that the administration was covering up “the well established fact” that AQ was the mastermind and the agent of the attack.

4) But Logan had provided NO source for that claim. None. So what was the foundation of her claim? She wouldn’t say but NY Mag has gotten to the bottom of the mystery.

5) HER SOURCE WAS SC SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM. The two met two or three times to talk about the Libya attack, with Graham telling Logan that from his point of view, it was “a fair thing to say” that there was a “build-up of Al Qaeda types” in the area—a major talking point for the right in arguments that the Obama White House tried covering up alleged terrorist links. Graham alluded to privileged information he had from the CIA, FBI, State Department and Department of Defense BUT said he could not be quoted as the source since this information was confidential.

6) Graham, citing his concern about the coverup, after his appearance on Fox, put a hold on all Obama Senate nominees.

7) He had to fold when Logan story was shot full of holes. But why did he fold so quickly? Now we know?

Graham told Logan that AQ did it.

Logan reported it on 60 Minutes.

Graham then used the 60 Minutes report as the platform from which to launch a major assault on the administration.

HAS GRAHAM OFFERED HIS APOLOGY FOR TRYING TO MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.? NOT ON HIS LIFE!

Read the full story here:  http://nymag.com/news/features/lara-logan-cbs-news…

Previous articleRepublicans Commit to Using New Language: Benghazian
Next articleVox Populi – 5-9-2014
Proud to be an Independent Progressive. I am a progressive- a one time Eisenhower Republican (from 1965 through 2004)who is now a Democrat. I live in a very RED STATE and am a community activist with a very BLUE AGENDA. I was a professor of history, and am now a researcher and gentleman farmer. My political positions are mixed - thus my preferred identification as a Progressive Independent. I am conservative on matters of military intervention, in regard to abortion, immigration, the public school system, gun rights, taxation, voter ID. But I am a traditional conservative, a Buckley, National Review, Eisenhower Republican..... I am a liberal on matters of health care care, funding education, taxation (yes one can be both liberal and conservative on this), civil rights, and alternative energy development/climate change.

52
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
46 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
KalimaescribacatNirekJuniorglennchoicelady Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
escribacat
Member

Benghazi is the new “where’s Obama’s birth certificate.” They lie to keep it bubbling in the same way they kept the birth certificate conspiracy bubbling. What it really means is that they’ve got nothing against the president, despite what must be desperate and rigorous efforts to find something of real substance against him.

NirekJunior
Member
NirekJunior

I heard on NPR this morning that there’s a committee investigating the Benghazi thing and it’s predominantly republican (lowercase Dad, out of disrespect) – yet the republican quoted on the news clip said that it’s about finding the truth and not about politics. Yeah…who, aside from rush limbaugh and his nutty friends believes that? It’s laughable, and yet they keep trying to make this a ‘scandal’.

Nirek
Member

NJ, you make me proud.
😉 🙂

EXFANOFARIANA
Member
EXFANOFARIANA

Graham is bipolar with the “plus” of not being courageous enough to come out …..Excellent as usual,MTS.

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn’t include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.

Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name “Lindsey Graham” in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn’t prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn’t exhaustive enough. But one thing’s for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.

This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn’t the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn’t he provide additional security?

Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana’a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn’t even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I’d like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could’ve been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).

So we’re only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don’t even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of “truth” proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they’ll keep repeating “Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!” without any regard for history or reality. Like always.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

glenn
Member
glenn

Ex–we haven’t “met” before, so nice to meet you. Great post.

If I were a Dem on that “select” committee, here are the questions I would be asking:

After the embassy attacks on March 2, 2006, when the ambassador David Foy was killed, after three previous attacks on that same embassy, what did gwb, who was president at that time, do and say regarding the attacks? How was his response similar or different to what President Obama did? Was military assistance called for? Did it respond in time to stop the attack?

Then, of course, I would ask the same question about all of those attacks you cited in your post. In this way, all of those attacks, and gwb’s response, could be put in the Congressional record.

Next: Given that Congress reduced funds to the State Department prior to this attack, and given that this consulate “shared space” with the CIA, do you think that the CIA should be tasked to use some of its funds to help support the consulates in which they “share space”?

Next: Do you think that Senator Graham’s collusion with Lara Logan is the same or different from VP cheney’s and SOS (condoleeza)rice’s collusion with the Washington Times when they “leaked” the “yellow cake” story and then quoted that same story? (Note: I think it was the WT; please, Planeteers, correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m sure some of the people here at the Planet can come up with some other questions.

I am really getting tired of republicans being allowed to frame the conversation constantly, without Dems using some of their own tactics against them. There is no need to ask any of these questions in a rude or belligerent manner, but there is a need to get them out there. Perhaps in this way, we can get some historical context on these attacks, instead of the hysterical rhetoric of the republicans.

Nirek
Member

Glenn, I admire your writing ability. I also agree with the use of lower case letters for “gwb” I don’t use caps when writing the
“w” or “gwb” or “bush” out of disrespect for the guy. I do the same for “dick” and “cheney”. Same reason.

That said I respect you for your wonderful comments.

glenn
Member
glenn

Thank you, Nirek, for the kind words. The respect is mutual.

I also thought of more questions for each of the attacks under gwb. What was the SOS’s response at the time? How was that SOS’s response similar or different to SOS Clinton’s? How many times was the SOS hauled before Congress to answer questions regarding those 13 attacks?

I truly don’t understand why Dems aren’t asking these questions, instead of reacting to the repubs lies. As they say in football, the best defense is a great offense. I say it’s time for the Dems to go on the offense! And, just as the repubs keep asking the same questions, even though they’ve been answered, if I were a Dem member of Congress, I would be asking “my” questions over and over. And repeating them on every news/opinion show on which I appeared.

Nirek
Member

Me too. Why are the dems not doing that?

Nirek
Member

Glenn, I would suggest sending the questions to your Rep. .
If you don’t mind I will copy and paste them in an email to mine. Rep. Welch of Vermont. He could get them to whoever is going to be on the committee.

I’ll wait to hear from you before sending them. They are excellent questions and need to be asked.

Thanks Glenn.

glenn
Member
glenn

Nirek, I still am going to send my questions to my representatives in Congress–two republican representatives, and two republican senators. However, I am going to wait until the names of the people on the committee are announced, and then I will write to each of them.

I don’t know, but I’m pretty certain, that if I wrote to my reps now, I’d either get no response, or a dismissive one. So, I think I’ll wait until the committee members are announced.

glenn
Member
glenn

Nirek, great suggestion–although my rep is a republican, I think I’ll still send them.

Of course, I don’t mind if you send them to your rep. My intention in posting them in a public forum was to get the word out, so I appreciate you getting the word out.

Nirek
Member

Glenn, I sent the questions to Rep. Peter Welch , VT and Senator Bernie Sanders , VT. Asking them to get them to the people on the committee.
Both of them respond to me pretty well.
Here’s hoping we hear them on C-Span or better yet, the MSM!

glenn
Member
glenn

You go, Nirek!

Nirek
Member

Glenn, my Rep is a Democrat and he can get the questions to the right people. I hope.

glenn
Member
glenn

Thanks, Nirek.

All I would like to see is some Democrats framing the conversation with some facts for a change.

choicelady
Member

The major difference between the Bush era attacks and Benghazi is that Bush never offered an explanation. Never.

This sitting president cares that people know what is happening and why. Bush could not have cared less that we understood anything, and death and destruction were just business as usual. So he can’t be held to account because he gave NO account.

Must be nice to be so indifferent, Mr. Bush. Must be nice.

Nirek
Member

Ex, you deserve an A+ for that post! You aught to make an article out of all the information in it. Great facts! Unlike the Benghazi misinformation spread like so much fertilizer.

I ask why so much concern for four people who knew their job was dangerous when there was zero concern for the thousands of lives lost and destroyed in the ill conceived WARS under bush?

AdLib
Admin

Murph, this is a very revealing story about the fraud of the GOP and their cynical manufacturing of “scandals”.

What comes to mind is the Dick Cheney/Judith Miller scam at the NYT to spread lies and propaganda about Iraq building nuclear weapons.

It’s like watching two prostitutes service each other. Graham exploited Logan to spread lies and propaganda and Logan exploited Graham to promote her career and agenda. And both violated the trust and duty they have to their professions.

EXFANOFARIANA
Member
EXFANOFARIANA

Ad…my dear…MTS is asking me to tell you I plan to donate 25 bucks/week to the blog…..:) Starting tomorrow because I’ve found I can only do online transfer from my saving account 5 times/month…LOLOLOL, It;s MY MONEY and since when do I have to submit to the FEDS to transfer TO saving -UNLIMITED – BUT NOT TO MY CHECKING??? Ill try again tomorrow…Wells Fargo can be a major PAIN…..BEST OF LUCK TO YOU ALL.BTW PROGRESSIVES SHOULD BE PITCHING IN……..I’ve come to HATE HP…she was just another W****, obviously she “founded” the paper with Andrew LIE-HARD Brait….whatever…..Hugs.

Kalima
Admin

Hello ExFan, that is very kind of you as this site runs only on donations.

If you check out our donation widget on the right hand side of the page you will see underneath the Donate Button is the Subscribe Button where you can subscribe any amount, starting with $5, on a monthly basis.

If you have any problems, AdLib will sort it out for you. You can contact him directly at [email protected]

Again, a big thank you, it is very much appreciated.

EXFANOFARIANA
Member
EXFANOFARIANA

Just did it….Thanks all for this wonderful blog!Hugs

AdLib
Admin

exfanofariana, big thanks back at ya!

KillgoreTrout
Member

Benghazi Shouldn’t Worry Democrats
MAY 7, 2014 3:27 PM EDT
By Jonathan Bernstein

“Democrats seem to be hotly debating whether to boycott the House select committee that Republicans have said will investigate the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

The Democrats’ response one way or the other doesn’t matter for electoral politics. Barring any extraordinary revelations — and none is even hinted at in the public record so far — voters aren’t going to care about Benghazi in 2014 or in 2016. Scandals can hurt presidential approval (which in turn can hurt the president’s party in elections), but it’s hard to imagine a less promising “scandal” than this one.

Even as Democrats ponder whether participation would legitimize the committee and a boycott would discredit it, the evidence suggests that Republicans aren’t particularly interested in winning any arguments. In other words, the select committee is less about establishing wrongdoing than it is about creating a venue for saying “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” on Fox News. Oh, and to raise money.”

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-07/benghazi-shouldn-t-worry-democrats?cmpid=yhoo

AdLib
Admin

KT, I agree that the Dems should boycott the committee, best to let it be seen as a Republican propaganda tool which is all it is. Why should Dems participate? All questions have already been answered, nothing to be gained.

KillgoreTrout
Member

Oh, I agree. The dems not showing up really would make the Gopers look foolish and petty. Of course the right would immediately say, or shout from the air waves, that the dems are trying to hide something. I can see it now. But that shouldn’t stop the dems from boycotting. In the end, it will be the right that ends up with Bengahzi on their faces.

Nirek
Member

Hey Murph, thanks for bringing this to light. I knew he was shady but to manufacture his own set of “facts” (false facts at that) is colluding with himself to mislead the American people.

Good post Murph. It speaks to the misinformation machine that the GOP has built. They like to misinform, mislead, and outright lie to make their case that the black man in the White House is bad.

NirekJunior
Member
NirekJunior

The republicans have to make up their ‘facts’ because they have no legs to stand on – anti-black, anti-women, anti-veteran, anti-middle class, anti-poor – republicans are a sad lot and it’s baffling how any of them manage to get elected in the first place.