Shock News : Obama Lied About Benghazi, CNN Helped Cover It Up, And They Both Conspired For Election Fraud

The first Western eyewitness to the deadly Benghazi terror attacks has given an account of the seven-hour assault on the U.S. outpost in Libya and says Americans knew such an incident was inevitable.

The witness — a former British soldier who for decades helped protect U.S. diplomats and military leaders — told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Al Qaeda forces first attacked the U.S. Special Mission Compound in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed. Then they launched a second attack on a secret CIA annex about a mile across the city.

“They knew what they were doing,” the security guard told CBS. “That was a well-executed attack.”

“Inside the compound, they repelled a force of as many as 60 armed terrorists and managed to save five American lives and recover the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. They were forced to fight their way out before they could find the Ambassador” Stevens.

Report: First Western eyewitness in Benghazi to go public gives account of attack, warning signs | Fox News

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Shock News : Obama Lied About Benghazi, CNN Helped Cover It Up, And They Both Conspired For Election Fraud

  1. R. de Haan says:

    Soldiers inform about upcoming gun confiscation:

  2. R. de Haan says:

    Never bite the hand that pays you….

  3. De Paus says:

    CNN is a disgrace for the free press, it is what Pravda used to be in the Soviet Union. A news agency that lacks any criticism towards the government and that publishes only politically correct news. In the following link we can see the nadir of journalism, Christiane Amanpour interviewing some nutcase UN women about the wildfires in Australia, that “absolutely” are the result of global warming aka climate change.
    This is utter nonsense, wildfires have occurred in Australia lots of times before, and even a lot worse than the present ones (ignited by the way by the military during a careless exercise) in times when CO2 levels were far lower. Amanpour is a disgrace for journalism because of her lack of any criticism, she just takes this UN BS for the poltical correct science that nobody dares to question. “Doesn’t Australia have a long history of wildfires?”. Amanpour is either too stupid or too bias to ask that one simple question. CNN downplays the news about the recent blizzards in the US, but endorses the UN bogus propaganda that links Australian wildfires to climate change.

    • Being an Australian and also being acquainted with the history and science of climate change and bush fires, I can assure you that it has been predicted for a long time that global warming due to man-made climate change would worsen Australian bush fires. these predictions have been substantiated by the climate change science and the record of bush fires and their growing severity. the question isn’t whether Australia has had bush fires for a long time, which we have. the question is whether the incidents and severity of those bush fires are rising due to man-made climate change, which, according to the science and recent history of Australian bush fires, is indeed occurring. our Prime Minister, rather shamefully and embarrassingly, has just accused the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of talking through her hat and is being criticized and even mocked by anyone sensible enough to take a serious look at the matter. it’s not propaganda to deal with the facts of science and reality, so your claim is flatly incorrect. it is, however, propaganda to deliberately spout such things so as to assist corporations that have long denied climate change, contrary to the scientific evidence, and in order to deceive the public into not supporting much-needed legislation for combating global warming and man-made climate change, which is precisely what the current Australian Prime Minister appears to be doing by saying these nonsensical things and abrogating the carbon tax, surely one of the most sensible pieces of legislation passed in recent years. either that, or he’s simply and fantastically ignorant of the facts, which is a terribly troubling, though not too surprising, prospect given that he’s now my country’s political leader. it’s a dejecting day when people such as yourself make arguments to defend the propaganda with which corporations have manipulated and deceived you so that they can to continue to make towering profits while perhaps irreversibly harming the planet with few obstacles in their way thanks to the great success of their onslaught of induced ignorance against the world’s people. politicians in general, though conservatives especially, are and have long been in the pocket, or drawn from the ranks, of big business and therefore can’t be trusted to honestly discuss climate change, since they’re vested interest is to oppose it, regardless of the inconvenient facts. you ought to be careful when you appraise these claims, because climate change is serious and when ordinary people like you and I are deceived by propaganda surrounding this and other issues of similar importance, we’re all put in jeopardy. after all, as JFK said, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all”, though sadly he didn’t draw the obvious connection between his own statement and the profound propaganda campaigns in the US which tried hard to indoctrinate its public, hoping to leave behind a deluded and quiescent mob of unmeddlesome subordinates to wealth, power and privilege, which had indeed since been achieved

      • You provided zero evidence to back up your claim “man-made climate change would worsen Australian bush fires” and your subsequent diatribe shows that your belief system is about politics, not science or punctuation.

      • kbray in california says:

        The hyphenated last name reveals the tilt to the port side of politics.

        • Well, I could point out why my name has nothing substantial at all to do with my views on politics or anything else, but the more important point is that my view isn’t one based on the political spectrum. It’s a view derived from science and an appreciation for evidence as the only decent measure by which we can judge issues such as the potential of global warming as a result of man-made climate change. So even if I was a person of the political left, which I’m not saying I am, it wouldn’t have any bearing on my view whatsoever, because my view is one of science, not of political inclination. So unless you’re suggesting that no one except people from the left is interested in science or evidence, and that I must necessarily therefore be a person of the left, I’ll leave my reply there. Thank you. Also, you might want to see my comment which supports my first response against the personal attacks and skepticism toward global warming. It’s just above, in reply to another person who gave a similar but perhaps less rude reply than you.

        • kbray in california says:

          The people that I know that have hyphenated names are left wing hard core global warming democrats.

          Just my observation. If you think those facts are rude, then that’s your baby.

        • You can dispute whether or not you think it was rude, but in any event whether or not it was rude and whether or not people with hyphenated names are for some bizarre reason inclined to the political left are both irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, namely that global warming as a result of man-made climate change is a scientific matter, not a political one, so my political affiliation, whatever it may be, is totally beside the point of this discussion. If you need further clarification of the point I’m making, please return the reply I gave to the person who suggested that climate change is a political, not a scientific issue, and that my political views are somehow bound to the hyphen in my name, which is surely so clearly untrue that we don’t need to seriously entertain it

        • kbray in california says:

          You could benefit by a long session of “spooning” with another like minded left.
          Mellow out dude.

        • Thanks for the advice, but I’m perfectly mellow. I would be interested in seeing you respond to what I said rather than dodging it by suggesting that I ‘mellow out’, since that’s the only reason we’re having a discussion at the moment. But if you’re not willing to concede that science is the only gauge for whether or not global warming as a result of man-made climate change is true, and whether it’s contributing to the escalating frequency and severity of Australian bush fires, along with other catastrophes and natural disasters around the world, then you’re refusing to seriously address the point of our conversation and I don’t think we need to carry it any further. Thank you, dude

        • kbray in california says:

          “Goodby spoon”.

          Ps: That is also a healthy activity for obesity.

      • Fred from Canuckistan says:

        Gurgle, gurgle, chug-a-lug . . . . What flavour to Eco Greenie Nutbar Kool-Aide are you enjoying today?

        Your nonsense level of thinking is very entertaining. Number too difficult for you?

        • I’ve posted a comment above in reply to someone who also replied to my comment. Much of it relates to your ad hominem arguments and skepticism, so you might want to read it to see how I responded. Thank you

        • Australia has always had bad bush fires. A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

        • Yes, it has. But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not they’re becoming worse from global warming as a result of man-made climate change, a notion which is supported by the logic and evidence I just provided. Let’s not try and equivocate our way out of dealing with the facts. I live in Australia, or at least have done until I’ve recently gone to volunteer overseas, and am well aware of the bush fire situation and the science which describes its current trend and the likely causes of that trend. if you are interested in concerning ourselves with the facts, you’ll address the evidence I just now presented, otherwise, we have no further need to continue our discussion. Thank you

        • Ivan says:

          The issue is whether or not they’re becoming worse from global warming as a result of man-made climate change, a notion which is supported by the logic and evidence.
          Worse that what?
          Worse than this example in August of 1936?
          N.S.W. SWEPT BY GALES
          Rain, Dust And Bush Fires

          Gales swept New South Wales today blinding dust storms raged in the inland districts; high seas lashed the coast and driving rain fell in parts of the southern areas.
          The city was encircled by bush fires, outbreaks occurring in practically every suburb.”

          Worse perhaps than August 1895 when most of coastal NSW was on fire?

      • Global warming is a man made SCAM; in the 1970′s it was global freezing and now the speak is we are going back to global freezing…The “scientists say whatever is the zeitgeist of the politico who pays them….

      • You’re also in the wrong thread for the topic. You FAIL IT!

        • I’m aware of the article’s topic, but my comment related to another comment made by someone else before me, so I didn’t begin this direction of discussion and I’m surely not responsible for the comments that have carried it this way. In any case, it doesn’t seem necessary for you to police the comments and the direction they take, so even if it was diverting the conversation, it’s hardly your place to confront me about it and tell me to do what you say, which I’ll admit you more implied than outright declared. But in any case, I’m tired of this thread, I’ve made my points and you can reply to me if you want, but I won’t reply in return. Thank you

        • gator69 says:

          What points? That you make a great parrot?

  4. Global warming is a man made SCAM; in the 1970’s it was global freezing and now the speak is we are going back to global freezing…The “scientists say whatever is the zeitgeist of the politico who pays them….

    • Okay, well you’re proposing that there’s a silent conspiracy involving the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists and a fair portion of the world’s scientists from other fields as well, which is prima facie a paranoid and extremely implausible notion, especially since some governments and politicians, particularly conservative ones from the pockets of big business, give stiff opposition to scientists, far from abetting them. You’re proposition is, I think, so wildly implausible that I don’t need to seriously address it, or even address it any further at all. Thank you

      • You’re still in the wrong thread. the topic here is treason.

      • gator69 says:

        It’s not silent…

        “We need to get some broad based support,
        to capture the public’s imagination…
        So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
        make simplified, dramatic statements
        and make little mention of any doubts…
        Each of us has to decide what the right balance
        is between being effective and being honest.”
        – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
        Stanford Professor of Climatology,
        lead author of many IPCC reports

        I prefer to listen to those who side with honesty.

  5. Charles says:

    If the average temperature in your home was raised 1 degrees C for a period of 2 years how much would this increase the chance of catatrophic damage from a fire. OR would one even notice.

    • I don’t know if that figure is true, and even if it was a person familiar with statistics would always be wary of relying on averages, since they tend to gloze a great deal of important, or at least potentially important, nuance and variation. For the purposes of now, though, let’s assume that what you said is exactly true. It may seem implausible to you, but your opinion doesn’t influence the reality of things, and neither does mine. If that’s a correct figure, regardless of how unlikely it seems to you that such a small human-induced temperature increase could have devastating consequences, the science on the matter is remarkably unambiguous in showing that these predicted consequences may occur, and indeed currently seem to be occurring. I don’t pay heed to what your intuition says is likely or unlikely, nor to anyone’s intuition for that matter, since he only thing which counts is the evidence, and the evidence indicates quite clearly that global warming is occurring as a result of man-made climate change and is exacerbating the already dangerous situation surrounding Australian bush fires. Thank you

      • The only things clear about what you are saying are that you are superstitious and hysterical

        Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device

        • Well, I base my view on science and evidence, so I can’t see from where you’ve summoned my superstition and hysterics. But getting back to the real purpose of this thread of comments, presumably the fact that you still haven’t addressed the things I said earlier, which provided evidence that flatly contradicts what you were saying, is a reasonable indication that you can’t respond, which makes sense because the fact is that the scientific evidence is on my side, meaning that I am far more likely to be correct than you are. Unless you are going to produce some decent evidence that contravenes what I’ve said and is part of the scholarly body of recognised and respectable research on the topics we’re discussing, I have no further reason to bother to respond to these comments, and I think it’s best if we finish the back and forth now that the facts of the matter have become clear. I hope that you can accept that you’re wrong about this matter and confront the necessary consequences that follow. Thank you and all the best

        • You sound like a typical religious fanatic.

          Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device

        • gator69 says:

          Matthew, you simply parroted false claims, and have given zero evidence.

          Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          That would be evidence.

        • My other comment already addresses why this allegation is totally false. To see why, please consult the other comment. Other than this, I won’t reply again. All the best and goodbye

        • gator69 says:

          Paper please, I’ve had enough rhetoric. No science, no respect.

  6. gator69 says:

    “In that interest, this is a link from a NASA website which provides evidence of climate change”

    NASA is no longer a reliable source for climate change data. Proof of this is their reference to the bogus 97% claim, and claims that CO2 levels and rates of warming are anything out if the ordinary.

  7. gator69 says:

    And on the claim of unprecedented rate of warming, again NASA does not know its facts from a hole in the moon…

  8. gator69 says:

    Matthew is just another in a long line of zealots who appeals to authority while ignoring hard data and history. Yawn.

    • You can make this claim if you choose, but bear in mind that your information comes from obscure and utterly disreputable sources, while mine comes from internationally recognised bodies of prestigious and respectable science. You allege that NASA has proven itself wrong about the 97% claim, presumably referring to the recent study that was done of scholarly research on the area of global warming which found that 97% of the scientific papers concluded that global warming is occurring as a result of man-made climate change. You seem to base your supposed confutation on evidence which you dredge up from undependable sources, thus trying to discredited reliable sources by using unreliable ones, the folly of which is obvious enough that I don’t need to pursue it any further. You also do the same thing with CO2 emission levels, meaning that your contention is again next to meaningless, since it’s simply not supported by good science or decent evidence. But in addition to these points I think you should consider one further thing. NASA has nothing to gain by lying about the information or by being cavalier about reporting science. It is among the premier bodies of science in the world and would surely not jeopardize that standing when it had nothing at all to gain in doing it. So when you make this claim I think you should ask yourself this question, is it more likely that NASA, one of the most highly revered institutions of science in the world, is incorrect in its understanding of the evidence and the scientific practices, or is it more likely that NASA is correct and your spurious sources are as undependable and false as their obscurity tends to suggest? My answer to that question is obvious enough, but I’ll leave it to you to reach your own conclusion. Please don’t bother to send any more of these sorts of objections to me, because they’re a waste of my time, time which I am currently spending volunteering with underprivileged children and which I therefore can’t afford to fritter away frivolously. If you do, it will stand to reason that the new objections will more than likely meet the same fate as your initial ones, so if you send them, even when they go unanswered, people who’ve read the comments should appreciate that it’s because they’re not contentions worth any serious attention. So thank you and goodbye

      • Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

        Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device

      • gator69 says:

        Matthew, my brother is a major player at NASA, don’t give me your bullshit.

        “NASA has nothing to gain by lying about the information or by being cavalier about reporting science.”

        NASA receives massive funding for its climate change research and cannot afford to admit that climate change is natural. You claim to be a champion of the little guy, and yet support a global cabal that starves humans to death, all for power and money.

        A reputable source is one that does not lie. My sources give accurate data, if you bothered to check. You are a zealot with an agenda, and have failed to make your case.

      • Gamecock says:

        “bear in mind that your information comes from obscure and utterly disreputable sources”

        Who is ad hominemming who?

      • I would say it is rather nasty and unpleasant to wander into an unrelate thread and flood it with reams of tedious diatribe and unsupported allegation. Please take your brush fires into a thread which speaks of them.

      • Andy Oz says:

        It appears that Michael just got sacked along with the Climate Commission. He’s a little miffed that his funding has evaporated on the heat of climate reality. Time to return to washing windscreens at the traffic lights mate. If you really are Australian, reading your diatribe puts you with the 7% who voted Green. They lost the election mate. Lost means we don’t need to listen to them anymore. Hooroo!

        • Andy Oz says:

          Matthew. See I forgot his name already.

        • Ivan says:

          I’m a little doubtful that anyone who “worked” for the Climate Commission would have the requisite skills for washing windscreens at traffic lights. Do you have any evidence to support this?

  9. Well, to try and divert this thread back onto track (which is something far too late for that trainwreck called 404Care), here is a link to the transcript of the 60 Minutes story. It is incredibly damning, yet even at that, CBS couldn’t get up off its knees enough to even mention the president or secretary of state. Not once.

  10. rw says:

    When I linked to this posting, I should have known from the number of comments that a warmist had alighted. One of the telling signs is that these people make comment after comment – it’s the most predictable effect in the entire AGW controversy. It is obviously done to (i) smother the opposition with argumentation, of whatever quality, (ii) to always get in the last word. I don’t think it needs to be a conscious strategy; it’s the mark of a certain mentality, that Plato identified when he depicted the sophist. And this tells us something about the sort of person who acts a footsoldier in the AGW campaign.

    Incidentally, Mr. W-S, the severity of Australian forest fires is due to the amount of wood and bark in the forest – you have noticed that eucalyptus shed their bark? Ever wonder why? It gives them a selective advantage because eucalyptus regenerate very quickly after forest fires. (I think I read this on JoNova, but I remember very well watching and hearing the bark fall off eucalyptus trees in an Australian forest – that’s how pronounced the effect is.)

  11. De Paus says:

    My remarks about bad journalism by CNN Amanpour started quite a discussion. There has been no global warming for at least 17 years now (even longer considering data have been “adjusted”)
    So how can something that is not happening cause wildfires to increase? This Spooner guy says with a lot of words: more CO2 means more vegetation. More bush, more bush fires. But that is what we call regressive reasoning, meaning that you are only looking for anything that can be considered some kind of evidence, ignoring everything else that points out in another direction. The original concept of global warming, now called climate change, is an earth getting warmer and less humid, endorsing desertification. So that would mean less bush and thus less bush fires. Have temperatures increased? No. Have CO2 levels been increasing? Yes, but only a few percent of that increase is caused by human activities. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is for more than 90 percent coming from the oceans that have warmed in the past. Have bush fires in Australia increased? There is no proof of that. Even now there is more bush, because of more CO2, the trees evaporate less, their leaves can hold water longer. So what evidence is there that global warming (which is not happening) causes more and more severe wildfires (for which there is no evidence that they are increasing)? Nothing at alle. Some of these fires were ignited, not by global warming, but by the Australian Army:
    What good would a carbon tax do to prevent these bush fires from occurring? Nothing at all. My point is that, even if Amanpour really believes all this nonsense (she looks stupid enough to do that), a good journalist would still have made some critical remarks. Tony Abbott was not elected without a good reason. What Amanpour did was not journalism, informing the public of both sides of the debate, it was pure one-sided propaganda for the global warming bandwagon. The free press is supposed to have a watchdog function, the Pravda was only one-sided Soviet propaganda. CNN is becoming more and more the Obama Pravda.

    • Ivan says:

      So how can something that is not happening cause wildfires to increase?
      Good question. It’s not hard to understand how early Christians flocked to have themselves nailed up on crosses and fed to the lions. Similarly, there is no known way that all these AGW bed-wetters are going to change their belief that something that is not happening is causing all these problems that we are not experiencing. Things have never been better in the entire history of humanity – and that is probably the root cause of this social problem. However, the hysteria is rising to such a level that we are approaching the point where state-sponsored Kool-Aid will soon have to be administered as a more humane substitute for hungry lions.

    • Andy Oz says:

      +1. Very eloquent.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s