- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, I can't describe what the international consequences would be. I really don't care either. We are living in the year 2012 (almost 2013). If other countries haven't learned how to be humane to each other, then let them duke it out. Why should we keep sacrificing our own money, resources, and people?
Yes, it would be wonderful if we could just all go home, everyone would put down their arms and political ambitions, and all the problems of the world would magically disappear.
But this is not the world we were born into nor the world we will leave behind us.
It was a lie... they could have had troops there in time, and since when do we not even try?Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR
According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.
also:
Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?
(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Okay, so if we get up in arms about 4 dead Americans, will you ask for Bush's head over 3000?
I asked the question in another thread concerning the apparent cover-up what Republicans (Rep. Issa) hopes to gain here. Yes, the death of an American on foreign soil is unfortunate if not tragic depending on the circumstances surrounding their death, but we're talking about 4 people who lost their lives not merely because of inaction by State Dept. officials but under funding by Congress as well.
The one thing folks continue to point their finger at is "who changed the talking points"? Quoting some Republican officials, "La-De-Dah and Whoop-De-Doo!" So, the rational given for the attack was changed so as not to....what? Give more credibility to a terrorist organization that remains fractured? IMO, continued attempts to "get to the truth" as it were only aids to embolden THEM and cause an even greater divide among US. And it's unfortunate that many of you can't see that. Still, I'll play along mainly because I do believe the Obama Administration should own up to the changes for whatever reason they did it. But that doesn't change the fact that certain members of the Republican Party have spent the last 8 months fussing over the death of 4 people and the consequential ineptness of certain members of the Obama Administration when they really should be focused on so many other things of far more importance.
What's the Republican's (Rep. Issa's) end-game on Benghazi? What exactly do they (he) hope to gain here?
Yeah.....hopefully you will figure that part about those still serving in such a position and being able to trust in their Government. So that the Direct and personal incompetency does not Ever take place again. As well as those managerial failures leading to Consequences. Also so that Democrats understand those Big Warning Signs that they refused to accept as such. Like prior attacks upon the Same Consulate and the Attempts to kill other Ambassadors. Such as the Brits and Italians.
As well as the Attack being in direct correlation with the Anniversary of 911 and 23 Muslim Countries Rising up due to a Sunni Cleric in Egypt using Social media.
That would be those common sense warnings that Team Obama refused to acknowledge.
Course then figuring out what actually took place and that why after 8 months the investigation still hasn't brought anyone to Justice. Which was what Obama promised to do. Back then when the attack occurred and then just the other day. After he said he didn't know about any Whistleblowers. Or that people that were survivors wanted to testify.
So, essentially what you're saying is Rep. Issa's on a witch hunt.
Look, while I can appreciate the search for truth here (i.e., who did or DIDN'T do what and why?), I don't think the answers that ultimately come from these continued inquiries will yield any more information than that which we already know. So, what do we know?
- Congress didn't appropriate sufficient funds to station U.S. security forces at our embassies abroad, specifically in troubled "hot spots" like Libya.
- Request by low ranking State Dept. personnel for increased security were denied, ignored or otherwise downplayed.
- The attack on the Libyan Embassy were falsely blamed on a spontaneous uprising initiated by an anti-Islamic video.
- 4 Americans died as a result of inadequate security forces at the Libyan Embassy.
- No contingency force was deployed on-station in sufficient force levels to push back against the uprising.
- The Obama Administration's "response-time" by most accounts was inadequate or non-existent to tackle the uprising.
I don't disagree with the majority viewpoint that mistakes were made all around (and I haven't even touched on the errors made by the CIA or the Defense Dept), but if folks are looking for something impeachable to hang around this President's neck over the Benghazi raid, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree. It's highly unlikely any concrete evidence will be found that points to ineptness by this President over Benghazi. If anything, the majority of the blame rests with State, Defense and intel (CIA). Other than changing the talking points (which I believe weren't changed by WH officials if I've read recent articles concerning the matter correctly), there's really nothing that points directly to him.
Democrats say the Oversight committee’s investigation — and the focus on Clinton — are politically motivated. A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday found that Clinton would garner 65 percent of her party’s support if the 2016 presidential primary were held now, far ahead of Vice President Biden’s 13 percent.
“The meta message that they’re trying to get out there is that this is a failure in judgment that goes to character,” Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a senior Democrat on the Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels, told The Hill. “It didn’t work with Obama, so [they’re hoping that] maybe it’ll stick to Clinton.
“They’re trying to bring her numbers down. That’s what this is all about.”
Re: Embassy funding debunked
The articles and emails I've read said differently, but I'll concede that the funding storyline given wasn't accurate. Still, even you concede there likely won't be anything new that comes from the hearings that would change things for the President. Regardless, I think it's now clear what Rep. Issa and the GOPs end-game truly is concerning their Benghazi witch hunt:
STOP/DISCREDIT HILLARY before she's able to get her feet firmly set for a 2016 presidential run.
Read more: New Benghazi probe evidence puts spotlight back on Clinton - The Hill's Global Affairs
Good Luck with that.
A poster put up an amazing video earlier this week. I can't find it. It showed individual soldiers being taken out from an airplane . . . with what looked to be short-burst strafing. (I know nothing, remember. Ha!) You could see the guns in their hands and slung across their backs. It was amazing.
Edit: Not that I don't understand what you're saying, by the way. I just had a thought though. Why doesn't the U.S. military have tear gas they can disburse across a large area to handle mobs like that? If we don't? We should.
I attended an air show once in Stockton, CA. The pilot of an F15 flew off to the East and in about 12 minutes he returned and told us Lake Tahoe was quite beautiful. I'm not a geography expert in the Med but I'm guessing the air craft we have stationed in Italy could have been over Benghazi within the first hour, now they might have caused a civilian casaulty or two, but at least we would have responded. And just where is the justice this loser in charge promised us for those who were murdered by the rioting looters oh I mean terrorist? And why is there no outrage that a US Ambassador didn't even have a single body guard on site to help him?
The real problem is that we were lied to for over a week. The administration knew it was a lie, Hillary knew it was a lie and people in Libya knew it was a lie. People who defend that are simply without credibility. The President should be questioned under oath, Hillary should be fired. Not hard to figure out. But, too many I suspect will buy into Rep. Elijah Cummings asinine comment about 'death being a part of life' and move on to important issue like the NBA playoffs.
What was the lie? Be specific
Hillary should be fired.
The Administration stated it wasn't a Planned attack. Obama, Clinton, and Carney. That the Team Obama stated attackers joined an angry Mob that had formed due to anti Muslim Video. That had triggered attacks In Egypt and Elsewhere.
We can start with those.
The Administration stated it wasn't a Planned attack. Obama, Clinton, and Carney. That the Team Obama stated attackers joined an angry Mob that had formed due to anti Muslim Video. That had triggered attacks In Egypt and Elsewhere.
We can start with those.
BFD
That has nothing to do with whether or not the victims would have survived.
That airplane was almost certainly not a jet fighter moving at supersonic speed
BFD
That has nothing to do with whether or not the victims would have survived.
Yeah, I can see how Rice and her statements caused the FBI investigation to get held up.....would be such a BFD!
Moreover Sarcogito kinda explained that all out to you already.
Indeed...it has to do with what did the President know and when did he know it...the administration lied
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?