"...we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include ..."

[I B Hankering]

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...-new-document/

A "force that could move" was identified and they were "spinning up", but that's not what Odumbo and Hildabeast told the American public, is it?

[IIFFOFRDB]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2610...iel-greenfield

Calling Out Islam Terrorism Truthers

Blame everything but Islam.

December 8, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
148
792250



Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Each and every act of Muslim terrorism is followed by a wave of denial. The politicians who have done the most to cause the latest disaster are the eagerest to blame it on something, anything else.

San Bernardino Muslim massacre was blamed on postpartum depression at CNN. Bill Nye blamed the latest Paris attacks on Global Warming. According to Hillary Clinton, Benghazi was a movie review with artillery. Islamic terrorism was blamed by the State Department on a lack of jobs, but Syed Farook had a good government job and his wife was the daughter of a wealthy family.

After rummaging through their big brass chest of excuses, Obama and his media allies have settled on gun control as their latest weapon of mass distraction.

California has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Unlike Ted Kennedy, the terrorists weren’t on the no-fly list that has become the latest desperate meme of mass distraction. And, despite Obama’s claim in Paris that mass shootings don’t happen in other countries because of gun control magic, they most certainly do. European gun control didn’t stop a Muslim mass shooting in Paris that killed 130 people.
Syed Farook and Tasheen Malik had built pipe bombs. The latest attack in the UK involved a knife. So did quite a few in Jerusalem. The Boston Marathon massacre used fireworks and a pressure cooker.

The Muslim mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 was carried out with box cutters.
If only we had some way to ban terrorists from buying pressure cookers, knives and box cutters.

Gun control is a distraction. A way to make something other than Islam into the problem that needs solving. If we banned guns, then the problem would be foreign policy. If we spent all our time working to aid Islamist political takeovers, then it would the weather. Obama has tried to aid Islamists and lower sea levels, so he has been reduced to blaming the inanimate objects of the latest terror attack.
Gun control, foreign policy and global warming are denialist gimmicks that reframe the problem.

Denialists will ignore the allegiances of terrorists like Nidal Hassan and Syed Farook to Jihadists to focus on individual pathologies. If that doesn’t work, they’ll pull back to a planetary focus and blame the weather patterns of the entire planet. They’ll zoom in with great detail on weapons purchases while ignoring the ideology that motivated the attacks. They’ll have a hundred different explanations for each attack that fail to account for the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism as a whole.

These aren’t reasonable arguments. Taken together they form a pattern of conspiracy theories.

The most basic aspect of the conspiracy theory is that it bypasses the obvious reasonable explanation and vanishes down a rabbit hole of complicated alternative explanations that make no real sense but allow the conspiracists to avoid dealing with the implications of the actual event that took place.

Leftists did not want to deal with the fact that JFK had been murdered by one of their own. So they invented a bunch of alternative conspiracies involving the CIA, Cubans and other “right-wing” villains. These conspiracies allowed them to avoid dealing with the violence at the heart of the left. But that violence continued to spill over anyway leading to riots and terror plots. In their alternate reality, none of it was their fault. The “Fall of Camelot” was caused by some “miasma of right-wing hatred” in Dallas.
Their response to 9/11 flirted with conspiracy theories.

A poll found that more than half of Democrats believed that George W. Bush had carried out the 9/11 attacks or knew about them beforehand. 1 in 4 Democrats believed that the World Trade Center attack was staged. 1 in 5 believed that the Pentagon attack was carried out by the United States government.

Democratic politicians, with some exceptions, usually knew better than to openly air blatant 9/11 conspiracy theories. But they instead embraced a “soft” left-wing Trutherism that shifted the focus away from Islamic terrorism to alternative explanations that were meant to distract Americans from what really happened by finding sideways angles for blaming the attack on Bush and Republicans.
Bush may not have masterminded it, but Republican foreign policy caused it. Or worsened it.

It’s 2015 and the Terrorism Truthers have been reduced to frantically scrambling for any explanation from postpartum depression to the weather to explain the persistence of Islamic terrorism.



Trutherism works best when the Truthers aren’t in power. Muslim terrorism can’t be blamed on the government when both France and America are run by ridiculously notorious leftists. All that’s left is a “soft” Trutherism that seeks alternative explanations without being able to consistently answer the central question of why these attacks are taking place.

And this lack of a plausible central conspirator is the weak point of leftist Terrorism Denial.

Leftist Truthers like Obama are forced to constantly substitute new “right-wing” villains. Today it’s the NRA. Yesterday it was a Coptic Christian who made a YouTube video. But like the USSR’s efforts to blame its economic failures on a shifting gallery of villains, these explanations are unsatisfying. And they leave even leftists, never mind ordinary Americans, uneasy about a crisis they don’t understand.

There is something of Orwell’s “We have always been at war with Eastasia” to these deceits.

Today Muslim terrorists are attacking us because of the NRA. Yesterday it was because it was too hot. Before that, it was because of Israel. And before that, it was because of Bush.

But what if Muslim terrorists are attacking us because they’re Muslim terrorists?
What if we can’t beat them by banning guns, changing the weather, supporting Islamists or any of the other magical answers that completely fall apart at even the most casual examination?

The left’s response to Islamic terrorism has been built around a frantic effort to distract and divert us from exactly that question, blaming anything and everything but Islam, while sharply denouncing anyone who ignores the distractions and addresses that central question.

Attorney General Lynch responded to the San Bernardino terror attack by assuring Islamists that she intended to crack down on criticism of Islam. Criticism of Islam is dangerous, not because it leads to a mythical anti-Muslim backlash that we are constantly warned about as if it were more dangerous than Muslim terrorism itself yet never actually materializes, but because it destroys Terrorist Trutherism.
If Islamic terrorism is the problem, then the left and the Democrats who handed over their party to it are guilty of ignoring, minimizing and lying about a serious problem.
They have to go on lying, ignoring and minimizing, and even threatening to dump the First Amendment along with the Second, because they have long since become complicit in the crimes of their Islamist partner organizations.

Yesterday they blamed the weather. Today they’ll blame guns. Tomorrow, it’ll be something else.

We are always at war with Eastasia, unless it’s Eurasia. We are never however at war with Islam. The issue may be anything so long as it isn’t Muslim terrorism. Those are the words that no Democrat will utter. They will call it “man-caused disasters” or “violent extremism” or “hybrid workplace Jihad”.

It’s time to call this what it is, denialism, trutherism and conspiracism.
The famous epigram, “Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason”, expressed the absurd hypocrisy of a government of traitors. But what happens when there is a government of conspiracy theorists? Then conspiracies exist to divert attention from the failures and crimes of those in charge. The conspiracy theory itself becomes the conspiracy.

It’s time to take away Obama’s weapons of mass distraction and expose his Trutherism for what it is.

Islamic terrorism isn’t caused by a thousand different problems, conditions, conspiracies and excuses. It’s caused by Islam. Every attempt to distract from that is Denialism and Trutherism.

And we owe it to the victims of the latest attack and all the attacks to end the denial and the lies.

[LexusLover]

I believe those who are afraid of Muslim Terrorists are being revealed ... one denial at a time.

[JD Barleycorn]

If you are a real American, if you care about our military then this email is damning of Obama's entire administration. We had the assets that have made a difference and could have saved the lives of our people. So, once again, why did the Obama White House do this? Was it just laziness, lack of caring, or malfeasance? Something benign like that. Or was there a plan, some secret motivation that required the ambassador be taken hostage or killed by a pack of murderous thugs? That would be a criminal act requiring prison time for everyone all the way up to the White House. You on the left have either promoted to the Oval Office the most incompetent person to occupy the White House or the most evil and corrupt person to occupy it. Your only reasonable out is to claim that Obama is an innocent stooge and is taking orders from Jarrett, Michelle, or someone else.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A "force that could move" was identified and they were "spinning up", but that's not what Odumbo and Hildabeast told the American public, is it?

Do you honestly think that in a situation like that, they are going to be using EMAIL to communicate timely information? Goddamn, you are falling for it again. You also cite no source or any other pertinent info. I'm calling bullshit.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Do you honestly think that in a situation like that, they are going to be using EMAIL to communicate timely information? Goddamn, you are falling for it again. You also cite no source or any other pertinent info. I'm calling bullshit.

The email bears a date and time stamp that directly refutes what Odumbo and Hildabeast told the American public, you 2015 DOTY and "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[WTF]

Good or bad this story has not resonated with the majority of Americans. .. they just do not give a fuck.



.

[Guest123018-4]

No, the media is not reporting it. Had this been a Republican the media would be calling for the death penalty and it wold be on a CNN continuous loop. Hard for Americans to give a shit about something that is not carried in a sound bite on E.

[IIFFOFRDB]

The 0zombie King and the cankled cackling Queen are on a different track than us Americans...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Do you honestly think that in a situation like that, they are going to be using EMAIL to communicate timely information? Goddamn, you are falling for it again. You also cite no source or any other pertinent info. I'm calling bullshit.

You're calling bullshit? I'm calling YOU full of shit for calling bullshit! The source is cited in the opening post - are you fucking blind? Before you doubt an email's authenticity, you should at least open and read the link:

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511))....

“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Once again, sewer rat, you prove yourself to be a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT!

.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Do you honestly think that in a situation like that, they are going to be using EMAIL to communicate timely information? Goddamn, you are falling for it again. You also cite no source or any other pertinent info. I'm calling bullshit.

" I'm calling .. " . As if YOU, YOU LYING LIBERAL , ODUMMER-DEFENDING POS has anything that anyone ( other than your WK , EKIM ! ) will believe, YOU 2016 DOTY AWARD WINNING ( IN A LANDSLIDE, WITH ALL YOUR GRASS ROOTS EFFORTS !! ) It's just like when YOUR lying liberal / socialist ASS said " I DON'T THINK.... " !!! POBRECITA PUTA !! MENTIROSA ! ( AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T SPEAK SPANISH. I'M CALLLIN G THIS LYING POS A LYING BITCH WHEN I CALL THE EUNUCH A MENTIROSA . SPANGLISH TEST AT THE END OF THE MONTH ! )

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're calling bullshit? I'm calling YOU full of shit for calling bullshit! The source is cited in the opening post - are you fucking blind? Before you doubt an email's authenticity, you should at least open and read the link:

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511))....

“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Once again, sewer rat, you prove yourself to be a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT!

.

the schools in Arcansaw are little behind times

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If you are a real American, if you care about our military then this email is damning of Obama's entire administration. We had the assets that have made a difference and could have saved the lives of our people. So, once again, why did the Obama White House do this? Was it just laziness, lack of caring, or malfeasance? Something benign like that. Or was there a plan, some secret motivation that required the ambassador be taken hostage or killed by a pack of murderous thugs? That would be a criminal act requiring prison time for everyone all the way up to the White House. You on the left have either promoted to the Oval Office the most incompetent person to occupy the White House or the most evil and corrupt person to occupy it. Your only reasonable out is to claim that Obama is an innocent stooge and is taking orders from Jarrett, Michelle, or someone else.

Just made it to this party. Can you get me up to speed? What were those assets that could have made a difference and saved the lives of our people?
Why do you ask questions, that so far the documents don't answer, and then supply politically motivated answers as if they were facts?
Then you apply your "facts" as a binary solution set for an answer that would more likely be found on a bell curve?
And finally, you ask a question in which you unreasonably claim the only reasonable answer is derived from your opinions as opposed to the available facts.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A "force that could move" was identified and they were "spinning up", but that's not what Odumbo and Hildabeast told the American public, is it?

Looks like I was asking the wrong person about the assets.

What time frame could they actually reach the target? No duration is given and no ETA.

How effective would they be when they reached the target? No estimate is given

What kind of collateral damage or how many friendly fire deaths would result from deploying this "force"? Again, no estimate is given.

What if the force referred to is a squadron of B-2s? Even if armed with nothing but GPS aimed weapons?

"Spinning up" is a term frequently applied to the readying of weapons such as missiles or torpedoes among other uses. Were they planning on launching Tomahawks from a sub or surface vessel?
No information is supplied if there was a redacted list or a redacted item. No information supplied about any composition of forces or whether they were human or machine.

The only info given is something had the range to make it to the target. Nothing more.

Yawn. No reason to read further. This topic received no new info that changes anything from this email.

Please let me know when something germane to the discussion occurs.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Just made it to this party. Can you get me up to speed? What were those assets that could have made a difference and saved the lives of our people?
Why do you ask questions, that so far the documents don't answer, and then supply politically motivated answers as if they were facts?
Then you apply your "facts" as a binary solution set for an answer that would more likely be found on a bell curve?
And finally, you ask a question in which you unreasonably claim the only reasonable answer is derived from your opinions as opposed to the available facts.



Looks like I was asking the wrong person about the assets.

What time frame could they actually reach the target? No duration is given and no ETA.

How effective would they be when they reached the target? No estimate is given

What kind of collateral damage or how many friendly fire deaths would result from deploying this "force"? Again, no estimate is given.

What if the force referred to is a squadron of B-2s? Even if armed with nothing but GPS aimed weapons?

"Spinning up" is a term frequently applied to the readying of weapons such as missiles or torpedoes among other uses. Were they planning on launching Tomahawks from a sub or surface vessel?
No information is supplied if there was a redacted list or a redacted item. No information supplied about any composition of forces or whether they were human or machine.

The only info given is something had the range to make it to the target. Nothing more.

Yawn. No reason to read further. This topic received no new info that changes anything from this email.

Please let me know when something germane to the discussion occurs.

How many of those " weapons " have YOU " spun-up " outside of a gloryhole at a men's restroom , munch ? I ask, because I have done it !!! Is that germane enough for you POS ? Are you woomby's cousin, or newest " beau " ? GFY

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What were those assets....

What time frame....

How effective....

What kind of collateral damage....

What if....

Were they planning....

Yawn. No reason to read further....

All good questions, munchkin, but you left out the most important one.... why have we still not been given all the answers 3 years and countless investigations later?

Do you concur with Judicial Watch when they say "The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi”?

Or are you in the camp that shrugs and yawns and bleats out "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

.