1) Before the attack, why were requests for increased security ignored?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?
2) During the attack, did Obama really give orders to relieve the consulate and, if so, who failed to carry out those orders?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?
3) After the attack, who gave Susan Rice those ridiculous talking points for the Sunday morning shows?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?
How many more months of investigation will it take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do?
How do you know what did or did not happen as there has been no investigative report?
I believe...
If the assets just were not available by now we would have every single detail of how e tried very hard to respond in time. Of course assets were available. They just were not deployed.
You failed to address the systematic lies by this regime. Rice went on five different TV shows to blame a video. Obama blamed a video and had the man arrested and kept in prison through the election.
We deserve to know way more about Obama's Benghazi Massacre and the Abandoned Four.
=Cardinal;1061257795]You have to start with the facts first, not what you want to be true. It didn't work before the election and it won't work now.
I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.
Correction, how much more time before all the facts come in? I don't know, and neither do you.
I base what I say on the timelines that point to widespread communication, resource and bureaucratic problems. These things of course need to be addressed. Once an investigative report is finished we'll know more and what needs to be corrected, but until then all you'll continue to be able to do is imply through asking questions, not because of any facts you have.
FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline
Irrelevant. You can't start with the motives and build out from there. You have to start with the facts first, not what you want to be true. It didn't work before the election and it won't work now.
Half true. If a country of our capabilities has a problem with strained resources, it's usually because of where they're currently deployed, as this timeline shows.
Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com
You see lies because that's what you want to see. I see confusion as is clearly demonstrated by the timeline, which shows ever changing stories from one hour and day to the next, which was caused by everyone in the administration having a different set of facts. If Obama had handled this well he would gotten everyone in his administration on the same page and held a press conference stating, "here's what happened, we don't know a whole lot else, and we'll let you know when more facts come in." Obama has jumped the gun before, unfortunately. Maybe this time he'll finally learn his lesson.
This is the kind of hyperbole that tells me I'm not dealing with someone particularly rational.
I know this sounds far out but lets take Hills fainting spell to the next level. What if some shadowy group under white house control went into a school and shot up a class room full of kids. They get some local misfit kid, put a gun in his hand and shoot him to take the rap. For the next month the massacre is all the media talks about. I'm not saying this happened, just sayin...
I will break this into smaller chunks to make it easier to follow each thread.I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.
My first issue is with a timeline that was provided two months after the attack. There is plenty of time to get everyone on the same page in two months.Half true. If a country of our capabilities has a problem with strained resources, it's usually because of where they're currently deployed, as this timeline shows.
Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com
I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.
Hillary not hospitalized. Tough woman.
Hillary Clinton faints, has concussion - CNN.com
"She is being monitored by doctors and is recovering at home. She was never hospitalized, Reines said...A senior State Department official added that the fainting occurred earlier in the week and the concussion was "not severe."
All she needed was just enough to get her out of testifying.A tough woman? Maybe. But the concussion was "not severe".
Nonetheless, if she was injured, I'm sure we all wish her well.
All she needed was just enough to get her out of testifying.
I feel the same way, just as she was overseas as the Benghazi scandal was at its height. It seems she waited until it cooled down before returning. But who knows? The left will support and make excuses for her anyway.
I can never forgive Hillary for the way **** let Bill treat her like **** after all his affairs....She just opened her mouth and swallowed it strictly for political reasons.....No woman would take what he did.
So...instead of giving Bill head, she gives it to the floor. :lol:
I will break this into smaller chunks to make it easier to follow each thread.
Where did you see evidence of bad communications between agencies? It appears that all relevant agencies were working from the same data at the same time. This is NOT the first time something bad has happened. State, Defense, CIA, NSA, and the White House all had the same information. None of it pointed to a protest over a video.
The president said as soon as he heard he told Defense (Panetta?) to make sure those people were safe. Here is a quote from the president, "“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. "
The president debunks your claim of bad communications. It was clear to him, according to his quote, that he knew Americans were in danger. There were many other indicators, almost immediately, that everyone in WADC, was getting information as the attack was ongoing.
What resources were strained?
Given all that had occurred in Libya I am confidant we had lots of other intelligence gathered before, during, and after the attack.
This attack lasted roughly seven hours. Confusion is for amateurs. It lasts for just a few minutes. Not seven hours.
So what is the regime hiding?
My first issue is with a timeline that was provided two months after the attack. There is plenty of time to get everyone on the same page in two months.
How come air cover was not provided? There is no explanation. And yet the first jets could have been overhead about two hours after direction to go there.
Why didn't we ask any of our allies for help?
It has been three months. When will we know what Obama did or failed to do?
The bad communication I'm referring to is one agency's inability to communicate its needs to another agency, or, if you like, one agency's inability to appreciate the needs of another agency. One or both of these scenarios is clearly what happened here.
I don't see how the president debunks my claim at all. He was aware that our personnel were in immediate danger. That was never in question by anybody.
They were not well allocated....again.
If not who has been fired for incompetence? It is unbelievable that we did not and do not have substantial intelligence gathering going on against Libya. From my experiences I noted resources nearby that would very likely be gathering information to turn into intelligence.Maybe, maybe not.
I may have an advantage based on my earlier experiences as an intelligence officer. We were there. We were gathering. We were reporting. I have absolutely no doubts about it. If we were not then who was fired for incompetence?I don't know and neither do you.
But apparently arriving at conclusions before the facts are in is for professionals. The attack according to both timelines lasted for over an hour and a half.
You are free to participate to whatever level keeps you comfortable.I'm also deleting all of your other questions because, as you're a full blown conspiracy theorist, an infinite number of dots are connected and in your mind deserving of consideration. I'm not falling into that rabbit hole as it has not bottom.
This question is nonsensical.What are you hiding?
They did get on the same page.
Maybe you should have just said that you are uncomfortable holding the One accountable for anything?How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Does God have feet?
How many wars will it take til he knows that too many people have died?
See, I can ask infinite unrelated questions too.
Stay classy.
As the brits say, "Oh for ****'s sake, come off it you miserable ****."
Yes, I made a joke about a woman who had a concussion. Oh. My. Lawd.:shock:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?