SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Why didnt the get more security? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1351024806 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 13:40:06

Title: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 13:40:06 Its clear now that people were asking for more security. They didnt get it. 4 died. oFISHYal story was it was a riot because of some stupid video,I saw thru that real quick,, but, kinda odd, really, if ya think about it,,The timing of that video & the oFISHYal story about the attack & murders as a result Of that video, denials about requests for security, all the while they had known about the need & denied the requests,,the Multiple requests. Now, the question in my mind is,, WHY? Why did they deny them additional security? I believe I already know, but I'd be interested in knowing why others think they didnt do what was asked. So,, why do you think they chose to ignore the requests for security?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Paraquat on 10/23/12 at 17:41:24 Honestly I hadn't heard of it until Web posted it. I could see it as an attempt to "alleviate a burden". --Steve

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 18:56:20 Alleviate a burden? Im afraid I dont get it..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Paraquat on 10/23/12 at 19:17:55 I'm not up to speed so I'm filling in blanks in my head. But if you knew something bad was going to happen to someone you didn't like and stood back and let it happen. Like that. --Steve

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Starlifter on 10/23/12 at 19:31:48 Oh come on JOG, Bush ignores specific intelligence in September of 2001 that Osama is about to launch a terrorist attack against America by using commercial aircraft to do so,,, ...Bush tells his national security advisor that "Okay, you've covered your ass, now beat it."...Then he goes on yet another vacation, and 9/11 happens. And so now you are worried about this currant little incident that occurred well below the office of the POTUS, While twice that many Americans are being killed every day in the war for one tenth of the pay these guys get?? Now you are so very worried about these four guys? Oh please, stop pretending that both sides don't matter to you JOG. Of late you have proved that you are a 100% far right conservative Republican.. So stop pretending otherwise and start championing your man's bullsh!t.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 20:24:54 First, wrong is wrong. & if youre gonna run & hide behind what Bush did or didnt do in order to justify your guys misdeeds, thats a sad case of intellectual dishonesty. But, thank you for self identifying. You didnt disappoint. Now, Ill be needing you to drag up whatever evidence you have that would indicate I prefer Romney,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 20:27:21 No, Steve,, thats not even close to what Im thinking,, Im seeing a much more devious way to use allowing them to be attacked & killed PROviding the cover story held. Once their cover story was exposed, they lost the edge Ibelieve they were angling for.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/12 at 20:36:17 JOG; i do not believe obama would allow them to be killed on purpose for some farfetched political reasoning. i think it's what I told you, they simply couldn't believe in their own minds things were that bad. When the first calls came in about an attack, they assumed a minor event was being blown out of proportion by guards who didn't understand things they way they do. When the worst happened and they were killed, they freaked out and came up with a story about a protest gone bad and stuck with it for far too long. Notice that Hilary has been all but absent the past couple weeks. I'm sure she is pissed as all get out. I'll bet she grabbed obama's balls and had him squealing before she let him go.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/23/12 at 20:44:50 I would agree, but for 2 things. The timing of the video & the initial cover story,, if they had straight up admitted there had been multiple calls asking for help in the weeks leading up but decided it wasnt realistic,, okay,, major screwup..( but whats new?) BUT, they lied & lied, & LIEDS, until the lies were blown away by the realities.. Now, one other thing, We had Professional there, embassies arent just staffed with idiots in hot spots. We arent talking about an embassy in Monaco, we are talking about a war torn area, with hostilities ongoing, & someone chose not only to Ignore pleas for security, but they didnt even send anyone in to evaluate the situation. Come ON,, we can spend HOW much getting the First Lady to a vacation spot safely? We cant afford to send a small team in there for a coupla weeks? REally? Lets be reasonable,, Tomorrow, Ill tell why I think it was allowed to go down,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 04:47:31 Tomorrow, Ill tell why I think it was allowed to go down, JOG: make sure you factor in the latest news this morning regarding the emails.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 05:42:56 I havent seen them yet, do they just describe the attack or do they say anything about WHY there was no security help sent?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 05:50:02 the articles I've read say the emails inform the white house the attack was a miltary style attack and a known group was claiming responsibility. i've not seen the emails reprinted. perhaps that's being witheld to protect the sources who passed the emails along. not sure. however, assuming they are true, the white house knew within 2 hours of the attack that it was a coordinate attack. now, tell me your theory why did they come out with the cover story of a protest gone bad ; why did they stick with it so long and why did they not provide security despite numerous request?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Paraquat on 10/24/12 at 06:15:27 647B7D7A6760516151697B773C0E0 wrote: No, Steve,, thats not even close to what Im thinking,, Im seeing a much more devious way to use allowing them to be attacked & killed PROviding the cover story held. Once their cover story was exposed, they lost the edge Ibelieve they were angling for. Sacrificial lamb? --Steve

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 06:28:24 Webby, Why they held onto the lie was they wanted that cover to work out,,&. heres my opinion on why, & Steve got it,,sacrificial lamb, But, just to see the lamb die wasnt what was needed. It had to be the right people killin it.,Now, the "right people" arent the ones who did it. While it was "A protest over a video gone wrong", then it was the "JOhn Q Publics" of Libya who killed our people. That would paint them as irrational, hostile, dangerous & would start the ball rolling toward a media blitz to dehumanizing them, in order to rile the American people up & make it easy to justify boots on the ground. Now,, what do we have? We have a military style attack, on our embassy & by what forces? Was it Big Al? Does anyone know yet? * Note. I am playin by ear, here. Its sketchy, even to me, Im goin way out on a limb with this & I dont have anything solid for support, just a gut feelin. Its been off dead center a few times, but I cant remember being totally off the mark in a long time. Last time I totally missed it was about 8 years ago I predicted Iran would be the next country we invaded. I Still dont see why they didnt just straight up say "Al Qaeda attacked us",, most people dont know we armed them & helped them in Libya & would expect them to attack us. I figure we are gonna want to try to throw them out of Libya one day, anyway..so,, I still dont fully understand it from a perspective where "all the pieces come together", but I am fully aware we got lied to & IF in fact the Bubs denied support, That woulda been front page news,.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 08:11:36 that obama and the WH lied by using protest as a cover is a given, no one disputes that anymore, but i'm losing you on your other points. Are you saying obama wanted that particular ambassador, Christopher Stevens,  killed off?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Paraquat on 10/24/12 at 09:18:27 5C4345425F5869596951434F04360 wrote: We have a military style attack, on our embassy & by what forces? Was it Big Al? Does anyone know yet? State Department emails from day of Libya attack show Al Qaeda-tied group on radar By Chad Pergram Published October 23, 2012 FoxNews.com A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows some of the initial assessments of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya, including one email within hours of the attack that noted the group Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility. The emails provide some of the most detailed information to surface about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a 'spontaneous' reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film. Ansar al Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia. The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence. Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told. The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU…which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).” “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads. Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack. The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack. The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).” “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. "The operations Center will provide updates as available.” The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)" “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.” Consider the source though. Quote: In a follow up, Senator Saxby Chambliss R-Ga. was on Fox and Friends this morning. At the end of the interview, he ask Steve Doocy for a copy of the emails. He said "We've been asking the White House for those emails for weeks and they have refused to give them to us". http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 You know, because email is so unsecure these days. --Steve

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 09:40:03 oted the group Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility. Yea.Well,, people have used My email to send email, heck, Ive found emeils Ive sent to myself,, I never did any of it,, If people didnt die, we couldnt justify boots on the ground, Why they lied about who did it, IDK, but they Let these people die..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 09:40:37   Additional personell would not have helped, unless they had heavy armor, tanks ect.. Terrorists had RPG's and mortars.. Obama called the attack the day after an act of terror, then again called it an act of terror the day after that! Why is it always a conspriracy with the right wingers?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 09:44:13 Obama called the attack the day after an act of terror, let's be clear on this point, he did not.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 09:49:34 083F2E283F3B3E5A0 wrote:   Additional personell would not have helped, unless they had heavy armor, tanks ect.. Terrorists had RPG's and mortars.. Obama called the attack the day after an act of terror, then again called it an act of terror the day after that! Why is it always a conspriracy with the right wingers? Oh, its Okay that he didnt send help,, because, even if he had, it wouldnt have helped.. I see.. When was the first request? Why didnt he send a team to evaluate the threat? WE are a MILITARILY EQUIPPED nation. We have Professionals in the field, assessing threats, determining the amount of manpower & equipment to defend our positions is what we DO.YOure so desperate to not see your sainted pres as the political puppet he really is,,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 10:00:35 the word terror as used, in the 10th paragraph, is used as a generic term, not as a specific description of the attack against the ambassador. You have no leg to stand on in this argument and you would be best to punt and play defense. 10:43 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger. Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers. The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died. It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps. Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity. We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children. Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 10:02:31 655750414657407F534059320 wrote: Obama called the attack the day after an act of terror, let's be clear on this point, he did not. Lets get your facts together HE DID!!!!!  http://www.whitehouse.gov/   Then again in Colorado and Nevada the day after that! Get your facts before your bull crap!

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 10:12:57 Everyhting is a terror attack, even IF its an organic , spontaneous riot. They LIED & Tried & tried & tried to get us to believe it wasnt a pre planned, military style attack, they tried to get us to believe it was a riot that went a little crazier than they were able to deal with, He LIED,, didnt he,, come on,, you can do it,, admit it,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 10:31:12 2F3036312C2B1A2A1A22303C77450 wrote: Everyhting is a terror attack, even IF its an organic , spontaneous riot. They LIED & Tried & tried & tried to get us to believe it wasnt a pre planned, military style attack, they tried to get us to believe it was a riot that went a little crazier than they were able to deal with, He LIED,, didnt he,, come on,, you can do it,, admit it,   You admit it.. If you have ever been in a a firefight you would understand the confusion and fear that goes with it.. If anyone is guilty of lying, it is the media, reporting over twenty riots in countries across the middle east, then trying to separate Benghazi.. The President said it was a act of terror the day after, and the day after that, and the day after that! How many times does he have to say it before all you crazys believe him??????

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 10:33:35 no Retread. Terrorist attack is a very specific phrase that should have been used with no doubt about it's meaning. they did not do this. Hell, this is the administration that still has a hard time calling the Ft. Hood terrorist attack a terrorist attack.     The question is still out there as far as why they tried this video cover up bs.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Paraquat on 10/24/12 at 11:08:32 06312026313530540 wrote:   Why is it always a conspriracy with the right wingers? Because the government has given me every reason to blindly trust them in the past. --Steve

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 11:12:24 46716066717570140 wrote: [quote author=2F3036312C2B1A2A1A22303C77450 link=1351024806/15#22 date=1351098777]Everyhting is a terror attack, even IF its an organic , spontaneous riot. They LIED & Tried & tried & tried to get us to believe it wasnt a pre planned, military style attack, they tried to get us to believe it was a riot that went a little crazier than they were able to deal with, He LIED,, didnt he,, come on,, you can do it,, admit it,   You admit it.. If you have ever been in a a firefight you would understand the confusion and fear that goes with it.. If anyone is guilty of lying, it is the media, reporting over twenty riots in countries across the middle east, then trying to separate Benghazi.. The President said it was a act of terror the day after, and the day after that, and the day after that! How many times does he have to say it before all you crazys believe him??????[/quote] Okay, he called it an act of "Terror".. so? He ALSO continued to try to con us into believing it WASNT a military style attack. He TRIED, over & Over, to LIE to us, & get us to believe it was a riot gone bad, because of some video. He DENIED the requests for help came in,AND he Denied them getting the help they asked for.,. & You still support HIM? WHY?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 13:23:46  HE personally is not micro managing every item involved, he did however take clear blame for what happened.. Jesus, I heard mortars and RPG's were involved in the attack the day after, he said it was an act of terror, what would you like?   Meanwhile Bush gets a pass for ignoring warnings of 9/11, and invading a soveriegn nation on false pretense??? Lets see thats over seven THOUSAND deaths, all on his watch, did he take blame??? Hell no he didn't, and putting this incident into a some sort of political coverup is assinine at best...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 14:40:49 he said it was an act of terror, what would you like? 1) no, he didn't. 2) I'd like him to tell everyone why he blamed the video for 2 weeks. Doesn't that bother you? He knew it was a military style attack yet kept saying this was caused by a protest gone bad over a video on youtube. Why? What was he covering up? Why didn't he come clean in the first place and say they were targetted and attacked. There never was a crowd out front, there never was a protest. Why? bringing Bush up means nothing other than you're trying to cloud the issue and make it go away.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 16:06:41 Ouch,, thats gonna leave a mark..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 16:24:23 526067767160774864776E050 wrote: he said it was an act of terror, what would you like? 1) no, he didn't. 2) I'd like him to tell everyone why he blamed the video for 2 weeks. Doesn't that bother you? He knew it was a military style attack yet kept saying this was caused by a protest gone bad over a video on youtube. Why? What was he covering up? Why didn't he come clean in the first place and say they were targetted and attacked. There never was a crowd out front, there never was a protest. Why? bringing Bush up means nothing other than you're trying to cloud the issue and make it go away.   Would you please look it up!!!!!!!!! His transcript is for ALL to see!!!! Pull your head from your anus!!!!  Go someplece else for your news besides Faux! And listen to something else besides RUSH LIMBURGER!!! I have watched the clips and read the transcripts from three of his appearances right after the attack, ALL three carry the words terror attack!!!!    You are not credible, you are making a fool of yourself, just as Romney did during the second debate!  If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, and cover your eyes to FACT, then you will be ignored...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 16:35:50 But, MY replies pin you down too tight,, so, you dodge them,,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 17:00:42 657A7C7B6661506050687A763D0F0 wrote: But, MY replies pin you down too tight,, so, you dodge them,,   Your replies don't make any sense.. He has also taken blame for the incident, he did it on national TV during his second debate! What else do you want from the man? He has stated it was an act of terror, he had people on the ground investigating the incident shortly after! Yet all of you want what??  Not dodging nuts, but maybe you should ask the GOP in congress why they cut funding for state dept security? Hindsight is fine, but remember it is hindsight...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 17:24:40 NOI, NO, NO!! The pres has the power, in the Big C, to respond to any emergency,, REad it., He DID NOT send help.. Period. No One stopped him, {Period. He maintained it was a riot, for days OR You can post evidence to the contrary,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 18:15:40 Would you please look it up!!!!!!!!! His transcript is for ALL to see!!!! i read the transcripts from the white house website. maybe i need to say it this way: when he says act of terror, that is not the same as saying this was a coordinated terrorist attack. when he talks more about a video than terrorist attacks, it kinda reveals there is a problem with his way of thinking. regardless, forget it. we all know the deal.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 18:18:26 7A484F5E59485F604C5F462D0 wrote: Would you please look it up!!!!!!!!! His transcript is for ALL to see!!!! i read the transcripts from the white house website. maybe i need to say it this way: when he says act of terror, that is not the same as saying this was a coordinated terrorist attack. when he talks more about a video than terrorist attacks, it kinda reveals there is a problem with his way of thinking. regardless, forget it. we all know the deal. we all know the deal Well,, those of us willing to accept the truth know,, some will cling to the comfort of lies.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Starlifter on 10/24/12 at 19:22:30 For the ever loving son of god. can we get you nitwits to understand ONE thing about this. Embassy vs CONSULATE Biden noted this during the debate. Ryan, being the nitwit he is, said they should have had "more' marines at the consolute in benghazi. Well, no, cause Marines are not at consulates. Embassies are the main diplomatic facilities in foreign countries. Consulates are offices in other cities in the country. A security officer's request made at that level would not be sent up to the WH. Requests from officers in the field were not and never are communicated to the White House. The decision was made as a State Dept. policy matter.   The right-wing noise machine started up from the very beginning and have continued to lie and engage in hysterics over this matter. This entire situation really reeks, and watching the Republicans turn this into a political fiasco really leaves me wondering about what parts of this very awful situation were orchestrated drama and which parts are authentic? I don't trust the Republicans at all, and I consider them capable of anything. They're not being respectful or nor do they appear to be wanting to solve the problem. They seem to be solely hell bent on making this administration look bad very close to the election. I feel theatrics at play here--I'm just not sure when the theatrics began. The Obama Administration is awaiting investigation results, so they don't report finalities--because those aren't in yet. At the very least--Republicans are filling in the blanks with their bizarre, unhinged conspiracy theories. At worst...well, you fill in the blanks. Webster & JOG, are you stupid? or are you genuinly promoting the lunitic right's agenda? Either way, Just go and donate another $100.00 or so to Rmoney and be through with it. Your arguments are as silly and foolish as Rmoney sounded in the debates.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/24/12 at 22:02:36  Hello wall? Can you read something for yourself? Apparently not, your just a wall.. Conversation over, there is no talking to a wall of ignorance, or is it a ignorant wall?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 22:09:37 I font giva a flying fart for either side. I dont care if its a dem or a bub in office, If this had been under Bush, I woulda been JUst as unhappy. If I am supposed to believe that we have people in hostile places who are asking for help, who do Not get that help & who wind up dead because OF the help not being sent, but Im not supposed to hold the Top Dog responsible,, ?? well,, Im not there, okay? He is driving the boat. UNless he makes someone pay, its his deal,, Say what ya will, I have a hard time believing he didnt know, or that jhe shouldnt have known, I don't trust the Republicans at all, and I consider them capable of anything. & heres where we differ,, I dont trust dems OR bubs,l,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Starlifter on 10/24/12 at 22:18:43 If you think Obama is personally responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack, but you don't think GW Bush is personally responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, then you're a bigger dummy than Rmoney.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 22:21:33 IDK about Bush, but Im willing to bet Cheney had a hand in it. As for Obama & this mess vs Bush & that mess, no one was petitioning for Help FOR WEeKS AHEAD OF 9/11, THE SITUATIONS ARE SO DIFERENT THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.  OOps, caplox.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Starlifter on 10/24/12 at 22:26:46 No warnings weeks ahead of 9/11?? Research it JOG.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 22:35:59 Ya know,, there was plenty of heads up, & yea,, I blame the goobs, I stand corrected.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/25/12 at 05:33:02 Star: but you don't think GW Bush is personally responsible for the 9/11 PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE? really now..... Embassy vs CONSULATE  and everyone undestands the difference in locations between these two. doesn't matter, stevens was asking for security. When the president travels, security goes with him. you're working hard to protect your President's lies. He F'd up, face it. One of thousands over the past 4 years. Only this one got people killed. Also, if Biden said that during his debate, it was the only thing he said that was wrong or a flat our lie!

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/26/12 at 09:42:35 Jog; back to the question of why obama kept pushing the video story. Now that more disturbing news is coming out how obama and crew sat on their hands while people died, perhaps the answer why is coming out. Here's one guys guess why. Now we know the reason for the cover-up and video stories…they gave the order to stand down, and let our men die without a fight, without an effort…the cowards. Interesting idea. The idea is that Obama completely screwed up and didn’t give the order to fight to save their lives. There wasn't any hidden agenda behind this, just obama showing his stupidity. Again, maybe he just didn’t understand or believe what was going on. Plus, he was getting ready for his Vegas trip. However, when it turned real bad and Stevens was killed, they realized they had screwed up big time and they were in deep crap if the story got out about what they had (or hadn’t done) So, they started the video story hoping this would delay things long enough until the election was over. But, Fox News did the job journalist are suppose to do. All the other networks closed ranks to protect their guy, but Fox dug in and is getting information out. No one else is trying. Let's see what happens over the next couple weeks....

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/26/12 at 10:25:19 Heres the thing. A situation arose, people were asking, over & over, for security, it was denied, over & over,, now, why? YOu say it was stupidity, or arrogance, & it could have been, thats possible, BUT,, its a Hot Spot, its a war torn area & he did nothing, I see that as beyond stupid or arrogant. I see a possibility here that it was allowing a crisis to unfold in order to be able to justify a military response, & as you said, now we have to wait & see,, BUT, IF their cover story had held, Then, as I said, they would have been able to paint those people as crazy & deserving a good military invasion.,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/26/12 at 13:47:57 FAUX news? It aint news, its commentary, OPINION.. Fox is nothing more than GOP super pac media.. NO FACTS!

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/26/12 at 21:56:58 Thats a bit much. Every "news source" has some factual basis for their reporting. If it was All lies, even the idiots would catch on.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/27/12 at 05:16:13 FAUX news? It aint news, its commentary, OPINION.. retread, that's nonsense.  are you telling me they are making up stories about what people who were there are telling them? don't be dumb and buy into the Faux News crap. They are a ligit news source, just because they don't get down on their knees and bow to MSM. grow up.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/27/12 at 05:53:35 Star; this is how  you give credit to another author. Great comments below. I challenge anyone to argue against it. Mark Steyn ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” said Hillary Clinton. No, not the person who made the video saying that voting for Barack Obama is like losing your virginity to a really cool guy. I’ll get to that in a moment. But Secretary Clinton was talking about the fellow who made the supposedly Islamophobic video that supposedly set off the sacking of the Benghazi consulate. And, indeed, she did “have that person arrested.” By happy coincidence, his bail hearing has been set for three days after the election, by which time he will have served his purpose. These two videos — the Islamophobic one and the Obamosexual one — bookend the remarkable but wholly deserved collapse of the president’s reelection campaign. You’ll recall that a near-month-long attempt to blame an obscure YouTube video for the murder of four Americans and the destruction of U.S. sovereign territory climaxed in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden’s bald assertion that the administration had been going on the best intelligence it had at the time. By then, it had been confirmed that there never had been any protest against the video, and that the Obama line that Benghazi had been a spontaneous movie review that just got a little out of hand was utterly false. The only remaining question was whether the administration had knowingly lied or was merely innocently stupid. The innocent-stupidity line became harder to maintain this week after Fox News obtained State Department e-mails revealing that shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern, less than a half hour after the assault in Benghazi began, the White House situation room knew the exact nature of it. We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.” Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter — that Osama was dead and al-Qaeda was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock on the door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall-guy into custody. This goes far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone. The Obama administration created a wholly fictional story line, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it. I understand why Mitt Romney chose not to pursue this line of argument in the final debate. The voters who will determine this election are those who voted for Obama four years ago and this time round either switch to the other fellow or sit on their hands. In electoral terms, it’s probably prudent of Mitt not to rub their faces in their 2008 votes. Nevertheless, when the president and other prominent officials stand by as four Americans die and then abuse their sacrifice as contemptuously as this administration did, decency requires that they be voted out of office as an act of urgent political hygiene. At the photo-op staged for the returning caskets, Obama et al. seem to have been too focused on their campaign needs to observe even the minimal courtesies. Charles Woods says that at the ceremony Joe Biden strolled over to him and by way of condolence said in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” One assumes charitably that the vice president is acknowledging in his own inept and blundering way the remarkable courage of a man called upon to die for his country on some worthless sod halfway across the planet. But the near-parodic locker-room coarseness is grotesque both in its inaptness and in its lack of basic human feeling for a bereaved family forced to grieve in public and as crowd-scene extras to the political bigshot. Just about the only formal responsibility a vice president has is to attend funerals without embarrassing his country. And this preening buffoon of pseudo-blue-collar faux-machismo couldn’t even manage that. But a funny thing happened over the next six weeks: Obama’s own cue balls shriveled. Biden had offered up a deft campaign slogan encompassing both domestic and foreign policy: “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive.” But, as the al-Qaeda connections to Benghazi dribbled out leak by leak, the “Osama’s dead” became a problematic boast and, left to stand alone, the General Motors line was even less credible. Avoiding the economy and foreign affairs, Obama fell back on Big Bird, and binders, and bayonets, just to name the “B”s in his bonnet. At the second presidential debate, he name-checked Planned Parenthood, the General Motors of the American abortion industry, half a dozen times, desperate to preserve his so-called gender gap. Yet oddly enough, the more furiously Obama and Biden have waved their binders and talked up Sandra Fluke, the more his supposed lead among women has withered away. So now he needs to enthuse the young, who turned out in such numbers for him last time. Hence, the official campaign video (plagiarized from Vladimir Putin of all people) explaining that voting for Obama is like having sex. The saddest thing about that claim is that, for liberals, it may well be true. Both videos — the one faking Obamagasm and the one faking a Benghazi pretext — exemplify the wretched shrinkage that befalls those unable to conceive of anything except in the most self-servingly political terms. Both, in different ways, exemplify why Obama and Biden are unfit for office. One video testifies to a horrible murderous lie at the heart of a head of state’s most solemn responsibility, the other to the glib shallow narcissism of a pop-culture presidency, right down to the numbing relentless peer pressure: C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it; why be the last hold-out? If voting for Obama is like the first time you have sex, it’s very difficult to lose your virginity twice. A flailing, pitiful campaign has now adopted Queen Victoria’s supposed wedding advice to her daughter: “Lie back and think of England.” Lie back and think of America. And then get up and get dressed. Who wants to sleep with a $16 trillion broke loser twice?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/27/12 at 07:25:11 Simple opinion.. Not facts.. If you get your news and facts from blogs, and conspriracy therorists, you only get what they want to portray.. Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up. "And what is true," he continued, "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people." When and if the location of those behind the attack is known, Smerconish asked, "Will you take that person out without regard for the election timetable?" "Absolutely," Obama replied. "But I think our goal would be to bring them to justice." Questions have arisen about Obama's response to the Arab Spring occurring in countries across the broader Middle East. State Department officials have acknowledged turning down requests for more security in Libya. And Republicans have questioned the president's truthfulness after the administration spent days, they say, blaming the assault on reaction to an Internet film that ridicules Islam. Yahoo News reported in late September that American officials had concluded on Day One that terrorists were behind the siege. But The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Obama's presidential daily brief from the CIA tied the assault to a spontaneous protest linked to the video—despite intelligence contradicting that scenario. Asked whether he knew Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied: "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that," in reference to the State Department. "But we're going to find out exactly what happened," he said. "Ultimately, though, any time there is a death of an American overseas, I want to find out what happened, because my most important job as president is keeping the American people safe." "And we will get to the bottom of what happened, and we're going to make sure most importantly that those who carried it out, that they are captured," Obama said. He also said he takes "full responsibility" for the circumstances in the attack, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. The suspects have not been publicly or conclusively identified, though Egyptian officials say a man suspected to have been involved was killed on Wednesday in a shootout in the capital, Cairo.Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News  Now you can go to your blogs, make believe sources, and build whatever fantasy you want in your head, but the truth ahs never been clearer..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/27/12 at 07:34:48 Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up. the information that was already in cried out for intervention. That part of the evolution was complete. is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," that is an opinion and all evidence has shown that in fact, obama does play politics, otherwise why the continued blame game on the video? sorry Retread, but you are on the wrong end of the truth here.  Best you punt now and save youself for another battle.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/27/12 at 08:42:08 You believe in tha magic Faux conspiracy, I have better things to do.. When things are as plain as the nose on your face, you take things at face value... A man tells you he takes full responsibility, he tells you of the situation as it unfolds, and its still a dirty plot, meant to defraud the American people! How stupid is that??? Really?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/27/12 at 17:56:31 A man tells you he takes full responsibility, he tells you of the situation as it unfolds, and its still a dirty plot, meant to defraud the American people! How stupid is that??? Really? glad to hear  you say that Retread. I'm sure Bush is glad to hear you supported him in the WMD situation.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/27/12 at 21:23:03 BIG difference, Bush never took responsibility for that or 9/11..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Serowbot on 10/27/12 at 23:11:58 Did you know,... Obama is gay?... and killed his gay lover?... He was born in Kenya... He's an "apologist"... He's stupid,... he only got to be president of the Harvard Law Review by affirmative action... He works for the French... ... and the Arabs... He only killed Bin Laden, to look good during re-election... ... but, he didn't really kill him... "cause he's really a Muslim... ... from Kenya... He needs to learn how to be an American... ... or pretend to be... Disagree with policies or philosophies... but, don't let Faux News lead you by the nose with their silly theories... No, president,... none... would let an embassy be overrun, and allow people to die,... for funzies... ... especially, during an election year... How stupid must you be?... Dare I ask?... :-?...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/28/12 at 06:04:56 are you suggesting Fox News has said these things about Obama? I doubt that, however, I could come up with a similar list that it's highly likely MSNBC has said about Romney. No president? Really? Are you an 'oil for blood' guy? Dumb a$$ Star things Bush was in on 9/11? Are you like that too? Retread: are you saying Bush had something to do with 9/11?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/28/12 at 06:44:48 No, president,... none... would let an embassy be overrun

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/28/12 at 06:46:11 I'm saying he ignored eight months of national security notices... 9/11 followed, where was the outrage when 3K+ people died? Not a word was said, in fact when anyone even suggested the reasoning for the attack they were run out of town on a rail..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/28/12 at 06:47:21 No, president,... none... would let an embassy be overrun besides, what if one did? what if obama did do that? who would know without Fox News? Should Woodward and Berstein just said, aw hell, the President said he did know anything so lets just forget about it..... you guys gotta get off your Faux News crap. besides, as has often been pointed out, Fox News is around because of NBC's etc... failures.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/28/12 at 08:17:04 16213036212520440 wrote: I'm saying he ignored eight months of national security notices... 9/11 followed, where was the outrage when 3K+ people died? Not a word was said, in fact when anyone even suggested the reasoning for the attack they were run out of town on a rail.. SO,, YOu thot that was a bad thing, did ya? Handled poorly, & all like that? YOu didnt think he was properly held accountable? & you thot that was Wrong? SO< YOU want to perpetuate wrong by making sure YOUR guy isnt held accountable? BUsh wasnt, so its not fair here? OR, what? What are you saying? I REally dont want it to be what I just asked if youre saying.. Or, you REally dont believe , what? Obama was allowed to help, or Obama didnt really know they needed help or Obama wasnt even asked or told,, what? PLease, tell me what make you believe Obama is not the Top Dog who is responsible for the failures of his admonistration. I cant help but believe he would have been on TV, telling us all how great he is if he woulda got some help in there in time & they had a BIGASS fight & we won,, OHH it woulda all been HIm & what a Great Leader he is ,, But ,, no,, we bury 4

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/28/12 at 08:22:15 132126373021360925362F440 wrote: No, president,... none... would let an embassy be overrun besides, what if one did? what if obama did do that? who would know without Fox News? Should Woodward and Berstein just said, aw hell, the President said he did know anything so lets just forget about it..... you guys gotta get off your Faux News crap. besides, as has often been pointed out, Fox News is around because of NBC's etc... failures.  Failures? Of what, not giving you the bent perspective you WANT, instead of the truth? Everything was out there for all to see, Fox and ole Mitt just decided to blow it up into something it is not... Let a "CONSULATE" (big diff) be over run? What do you suppose he should have done? Call in the Marines? Think they could have been deployed in a couple of hours? We are talking Libya, not just outside San Diego.. Nothing else short of armor would have done any good, we are talking mortars and RPG's against light arms, you could have put five more people on the ground and gotten the same results!  You could go back in the records and most likely find EVERY consulate, EVERY embassy asking for more manpower! Twenty plus embassy's and consulates came under attack by protesters that day.. So choose one.. Maybe you should ask "What happened to the funding for security?"..Oh yea, the GOP cut it..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/28/12 at 09:18:39 1D2A3B3D2A2E2B4F0 wrote: [quote author=132126373021360925362F440 link=1351024806/45#59 date=1351432041]No, president,... none... would let an embassy be overrun besides, what if one did? what if obama did do that? who would know without Fox News? Should Woodward and Berstein just said, aw hell, the President said he did know anything so lets just forget about it..... you guys gotta get off your Faux News crap. besides, as has often been pointed out, Fox News is around because of NBC's etc... failures.  Failures? Of what, not giving you the bent perspective you WANT, instead of the truth? Everything was out there for all to see, Fox and ole Mitt just decided to blow it up into something it is not... **************************************************** Above the line, irrelevant, dont care.. Let a "CONSULATE" (big diff) be over run? What do you suppose he should have done? They FIRST asked for help when? I heard a couple of weeks ago..W/O that info, the answer is pure speculation. Call in the Marines? Id say thatd be a good first step. Think they could have been deployed in a couple of hours? We are talking Libya, Again, we go back to when was the request initially made. & If it was a couple of weeks ago, ( Prior to 9/11), then, heres what they shoulda done. They shoulda stuck a team on a fast jet & got some people on the ground, EVALUATING the situation. You guys act like we dont have this kinda stuff down to an ART.. We have The Worlds Premier Military, We have satellites, All the men & equipment had to come from somewhere. Could you get a team of men & equipment together to attack a place & somehow not stick out like a sore thumb in town? YOu think this event just sprang up & the average person in that town was shocked & amazed? I dont. I think the people we let die knew they were gonna get killed & asked for help & asked for it soon enough to get it OR,, ( remember the assessment team?) let the pros evaluate the situation & if its too hot to handle, Leave,, ),, BUT, that wasnt done,, It was handled as poorly as it could have been handled,  &, UNless someone can show me that they didnt ask for help until just a few days prior to 9/11, Cuz I believe they asked & asked & asked for a coupla weeks, not just outside San Diego.. Nothing else short of armor would have done any good, we are talking mortars and RPG's against light arms, you could have put five more people on the ground and gotten the same results! So, what youre saying here LOOKS to be Well,, It doesnt matter that they asked for help & Nothing was done. America doesnt have the resources & ability to actually provide security, so, they were gonna die, Again, why arent people Thinking ? What would YOU do, if you were responsible for the safety of some people in a Hot Spot & they asked you to send help? Nothing? Thats what they got, NOTHING,, & How is that defendable? Because Bush screwed up? I know what I would have done. I would have Hot Shotted a team in there to see what was going on & then I woulda either got my people out or brought in enough Marines to handle it, & Dont even try to tell me we dont have the $$$. WE have the $$ for everything we WANT to have the $$$ for,,  You could go back in the records and most likely find EVERY consulate, EVERY embassy asking for more manpower! I havent seen reports that indicated they were. Twenty plus embassy's and consulates came under attack by protesters that day. A protest isnt an attack,, I havent seen the news, but I dont remember any other place sustaining any real damage. I dont know of so much as a window knocked out or graffitti sprayed on a wall,., So, please, post up some evidence to these claims that youre using to allow yoursel;f to shrug this off so easily.,. Id like to be able to do the same,, . So choose one.. Maybe you should ask "What happened to the funding for security?"..Oh yea, the GOP cut it.. & How many people would have been there had security budgets not been cut? 5? 6?,, what? YOu claim 5 or 6 more woulda made no difference, & Act as if thats reason enough to do nothing. This was a Military Attack, RPG's are not what protesters have. Normal Security would have to be some Pretty Serious stuff to be able to fend off such an attack, MOst offices have fire extinguishers around,( what they had) some even have sprinkler systems, ( what they had before budget cuts) butu, sometimes, ya just gotta dial 9/11 & get the fire department out to help. They Called the fire department,,, over & over,, & no one came, & when was that? & If the dems thot it such a bad idea, did they have the power to change it at any time prior to this attack>? [/quote] I REally want you to respond to my line by line points. I dont want a rant about Bush, I want to know what you would have done if you had gotten a call for help.,too.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/28/12 at 17:46:58 I guess I asked for a bit too much..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/12 at 10:11:04 So, since no one has anything to say, Im gonna have to guess my points effectively countered the unsupportable ideas that had been put forth. I hope that those who have been countered have the guts to step back & THINK about things. Its time to stop being politically naive. There are reasons for decisions being made. They dont make mistakes, not like this.They have what is needed to address such things. WE fight wars all over the globe, you want me to believe we cant either defend that building or go get the people out? There are very experienced, well educated, professionals who understand threat evaluation, we have satellites  & people & we have the ABILITY to evaluate & respond to threats. So, the fact that the threat wasnt even evaluated, no response to the pleas for help, says something.,. Now, What it says is hard to know, we can only guess, but, one thing we can know, there was no response, no threat evaluation, no pulling our people. There are many potential answers, how that attack could have worked out to the benefit of Obama, Heres a question for everyone to mull over. What would it have done for Obama politically had they been taken hostage?> Could that have been a step, short of another war ( which historically helps the incumbent) to keep the people behind him, while he solves this new crisis?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/29/12 at 10:39:11 Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. The libs on this board have gone under cover like the MSM. Waiting and praying for this to blow over. Chris Wallace had two Senator on Sunday and asked them point blank if the drones circling the attack going on in Benghazi were armed.  They refused to answer.  This is getting worse by the day. Obama better hope he’s not reelected because he ought to be impeached if the drones were armed and he gave the order not to fire. As far as your question about hostages JOG; I tend to stick with the Occam’s razor line of thinking; look for the simplest explanation.  But, the question is, what is the simplest explanation for this debacle?  What really happened? We know it’s not what the White House is saying as that’s been contradicted over and over. I tend to think hostages would be no advantage since the last hostage situation put Jimmy Carter’s ineptness on full display. I originally thought it was obama being uninterested in the event and leaving it to others to handle, but if he was in the Situation Room, that’s unlikely. It appears now he thought through his options and made a decision to let the events play out without intervention.  He had to have been told lives were at stake so he knew the risks.   So why? Was he concerned with having to deal with another ‘hot spot’ after his re-election? Using a drone to kill 20-30 terrorist wouldn’t have gone over very well with his base; did he conclude that a few dead American soldiers was better for reelection than 20-30 dead Muslim terrorist?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/29/12 at 14:23:45   Here ya go, you can blow it up to whatever level you want, but the truth is, the President has taken responsibilty for any action or inaction. And the bottom line is that your hypocrite's Web/JOG, if you think this action/inaction is worse than the fraud and death Bush caused during his eight years in office..     I have better things to do than argue a mute point with people who won't face facts, and see a boogerman behind every corner..  Here look at the facts and draw your own screwy conclusions.. http://wecheck.org/wiki/Benghazi_Attack_Timeline

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/29/12 at 15:18:07 Retread; we're not talking about Bush. How long do you intend to go back in time? Are you planning on blaming US Grant for early Civil War battle losses?.... okay, i read thru your link. What's your point? My question still stands. did the drones have weapons? if obama gave 'orders' as he said, where is the paper trail showing this? who, specifically, said no to assistance? taking responsiblility means what? not answering questions?.....

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/12 at 16:22:53 Im not even gonna bother reading your link. I took the time to show you the logic, explain the situation & point out where your thinking doesnt hold water. Instead of admitting it & learning to see things from a realistic perspective, you hold onto your beliefs, even tho theyve been taken apart, logically, step by step. If you want to go back in time, go back to your post I dissected & counter my points. Otherwise, admit defeat & rethink things. Think from a Non Partisan perspective. I do, I would have used the same logic had the pres been a bub,, anything less is simply dishonest. Until Americans stop allowing partisanship to direct their thinking, we are going to be taken advantage of by the criminals in DC.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by srinath on 10/29/12 at 17:02:17 If he spent the 1/2 bill on security on the various embassies he'd have been ball busted for "Government waste ..." Unless there is a blank check on the table from the repugs this is the numbers he had to play with ... The end ... Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/29/12 at 17:17:39 The idea he didn’t order an attack to protect the soldiers and the ambassador because he didn't want to or couldn’t spend money is absolutely ridiculous. Get real.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/29/12 at 17:30:35  Nobody has taken apart nuts JOG, all you have done is MAKE nuts UP! Your logic escapes me and any other logical thinking person...     The drones were said to be surveilance drones only.. Even if they were armed, you would fire a hellfire, at what/who? Have you ever been in a fire fight? I have, and can tell you that confusing/fear, and known targets are few and far between. Most of the time your just trying to find solid cover and return fire without getting your head blown off! Of course you can make up anything you like, but nuts happens in war zones, and Libya is plainly a war zone, Stephens knew that and chose to stay..   I'm not using a partisan outlook, I'm using a logical outlook.. And I'm open to anyone making a mistake, this includes the President, he would be the first to admit his mistakes and has in the past. He has taken full responsibility, what else can you do with this, what would you like to have done?   If you think Romney could or would do a better job, vote for him! Just don't make nuts up. Romney has already proven he is not capable by his comments right after the incidents, those were not the actions of a leader.. They are the actions of a very small, uninformed person who is grasping for votes from a bunch of people who have never seen war..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/12 at 22:10:58 That you fail to follow what I said is only proof of your partisanship. I want anyone who didnt understand what I was saying to please, say so. \ Anyone who thot what I said was cogent & logical , please, say so. ]& BTW, I never mentioned drones, Drones were not part of the point I made, drones were either there or not there during the attack, The point I was making had nothing to do with the attack, itself, I was dealing with the weeks leading up to it,as you WELL know, Youre just deflecting, because I took your ridiculous assertions Apart.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/29/12 at 22:40:48 So, did Fox make it up? Did they just pull these names out of thin air? Im not about to say Fox doesnt LIE,, cuz I KNow they do,, so, the question remains, is this another lie? OR, are they the only ones who will report it? How can anyone know? I dont even know how to confirm there is or isnt a Seal team stationed nearby,, BUT, for your viewing pleasure, Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.” Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/30/12 at 06:51:36 5B444245585F6E5E6E56444803310 wrote: So, did Fox make it up? Did they just pull these names out of thin air? Im not about to say Fox doesnt LIE,, cuz I KNow they do,, so, the question remains, is this another lie? OR, are they the only ones who will report it? How can anyone know? I dont even know how to confirm there is or isnt a Seal team stationed nearby,, BUT, for your viewing pleasure, Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.” Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.   This is a spin, look at my timeline.. Can't expect much from Faux news...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/30/12 at 08:03:38 This is a spin, look at my timeline.. Can't expect much from Faux news... You cannot say 100% of everything that comes out fo Faux News is unreliable. That's 100% ridiculous. To say this is a spin is a bit much, don't you think? Where is the 'spin'? Do you know what spin means? This is a report of what a reporter was told. Spin is what Bill O'Reily will do on his show tonight. Spin is what Chris Matthews will do on his show tonight. The 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC, most major newspapers and pop culture are predominately liberal in their leanings and I do not discount 100% what they say. I have individuals I question everything on immediately (Rachel Maddow for example), but I don't discount it outright as lies. Everyone has a bias, but to constantly discount anything with a Fox News byline is not reasonable. I looked at your timeline and asked questions about the gaps. Fox News published sources with reasonable questions and you discount with a sentence? Do you think that’s reasonable?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/30/12 at 09:55:13 Everything from any Right Wing source that conflicts with your belief system is spin, or an outright lie, Ive shown you everything that you need to stop & think about, but, instead of being willing to accept the painful truth, that politics is a dirty business,, but its a Business,, & there are ways to do things that bring about support from the people, & they set up situations inn order to gain support,,darn little that happens is really as it appears. There are manipulations going on from behind the scenes, we are watching a huge puppet show, the same people own & operate BOth Sides, they get richer when people spend $$$ on bombs, guns, bullets, etc. PLease, go look at the presidential cabinets from history, note the direction of the country as they slowly became 100% CFR & TRilateral & Bilderberger members, Take note of when lobbyists & high ranking corporate members ( LIke VP of a pharmaceutical company becomes head of FDA) started being the norm, This isnt BUbs Bad, Dems Good, or the other way, either.,They each move the globalist agenda forward, one moves us a few degrees ;eft, the other, a few degrees right, but the DIrection of American policy & laws are, less freedom for US, more DEbt for us, more militarism, it doesnt change, no matter who is in office, & When the bub pass a HORRIBLE ,, OHH My Gaawd BIll,, & then the dems get in charge, why dont they repeal it? Answer that last question,, just answer that ONE question,, or, admit theyre working together. unless thers some other excuse for it, I cant thyink of one,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/30/12 at 10:22:56 Answer that last question,, Since the result of the changes / laws you are talking about almost always end up as giveaways which enslave another portion of the population, it's hard to change that. Look at SS and Medicare. Every democratic commercial says Romeny / Ryan will destroy Medicare 'as we know it', but fact is it is doomed without some changes. Yet, good luck getting a vote when you tell someone the handouts have got to change a little. But on the whole, yea, politicians are no angels and they are not saviors. All and I mean ALL, politicians crave power to some degree. Some more than others. I don't believe in all the wide ranging conspiracies and ‘connect the dots’ like you do. I don’t see it that way. I see the actions of those who pursue power and money have limited pathways they can travel. That make it seem like multiple people are joined at the hip, but it only seems that way.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 10/30/12 at 15:14:48 President Hopey’s all over the airways about this storm saying to state agencies ‘if anyone’s getting a no from the Federal Government, we need to know that etc….” and then this precious one “…this is American, we leave no one behind…” ....which leaves me to the conclusion if the 4 people killed in Benghazi had just said there was a hurricane bearing down on them and they had no way to vote for Obama, they might be alive today….

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/30/12 at 16:59:30 ...which leaves me to the conclusion if the 4 people killed in Benghazi had just said there was a hurricane bearing down on them and they had no way to vote for Obama, they might be alive today…. Head shot

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/30/12 at 17:19:01   Chris Christie just said Obama is doing a great job.. Meanwhile Romney is up to his lying arse in another whopper, moving Jeep to China.. The CEO of Chrysler/Jeep just called him a liar, yet he continues to run with it..... The man is about as honest as a two faced coin..  Your backing a loser, and chasing your own tails...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/30/12 at 17:30:49 & IF everything you just said is 100% true, it changes not one thing I said in response to your post that you simply pretend is nonsense so you dont have to admit I destroyed your position.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/30/12 at 17:40:09  Again JOG? You are certainly a legend in your own mind... I'm not going to wrestle with pigs anymore, your conspiracy is nothing more than an overactive imagination and internet GOP fantasy.. Give it up already...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/30/12 at 19:00:07 & yet, you wil not reply on a line by line basis, I used straight logic, clear thinking & took your agenda based prattling apart. YOu just Declare youre right, go back, quote my reply to your post & dissect it, like I did yours, You Will NOT, because you Cant,

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 10/30/12 at 21:55:32 697670776A6D5C6C5C64767A31030 wrote: [quote author=16213036212520440 link=1351024806/45#58 date=1351431971] I'm saying he ignored eight months of national security notices... 9/11 followed, where was the outrage when 3K+ people died? Not a word was said, in fact when anyone even suggested the reasoning for the attack they were run out of town on a rail.. SO,, YOu thot that was a bad thing, did ya? Handled poorly, & all like that? YOu didnt think he was properly held accountable? & you thot that was Wrong? SO< YOU want to perpetuate wrong by making sure YOUR guy isnt held accountable? BUsh wasnt, so its not fair here? OR, what? What are you saying? I REally dont want it to be what I just asked if youre saying.. Or, you REally dont believe , what? Obama was allowed to help, or Obama didnt really know they needed help or Obama wasnt even asked or told,, what? PLease, tell me what make you believe Obama is not the Top Dog who is responsible for the failures of his admonistration. I cant help but believe he would have been on TV, telling us all how great he is if he woulda got some help in there in time & they had a BIGASS fight & we won,, OHH it woulda all been HIm & what a Great Leader he is ,, But ,, no,, we bury 4 [/quote]   Ok, Yes, anytime there is a security failure that results in 3K Americans killed, its a BAD thing..   And no, he was never held accountable, nor took responsibility for this inaction!   I am saying that you a hypocrite if you make a huge deal over Benghazi and not recognize 9/11's failures... And you are ignoring THIS President taking responsibility for it!!!  I believe intel being passed alone was blurry to say the least, that he was not in charge of the situation, Panetta, and state dept security officials were... He still has TAKEN responsibility for it!!!  So you think this President grandstands? Really? The only time he has ever done anything close to this nature was after Osama was killed, and then gave the credit to the seals on the ground! I think you have mistaken him for Mitt, he was the one on the air when Benghazi was going down accusing Obama of apologizing!!!  Oh and Bush buried seven thousand!!!   What else would you like refuted JOG?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/30/12 at 22:25:52 First, I never gave Bush a pass, on anything, Im no hypocrite,. Your memory must be pretty short, Now, you wanna talk about Libya?> When I see BUSH in your post, I stop, go to MY reply to YOUR post, the one where I took your post apart, line by line,, & defend your position, Im not even gonna look at an anti Bush rant, its not relevant, That whole childish game Your guy didnt get in trouble so mine shouldnt either GOOD GOD No One ever gets hels accountable playing that childish game, I SCREAMED against Bush & you call ME a hypocrite? Get real. Ill go look at your post now,, Ill be disappointed, Im sure, Yea,, IM disappointed, but certainly not surprised, Wait!~ I get it now! YOU havent figured out that someone can be Anti Obama AND anti Bush yet!

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 11/05/12 at 09:33:46 For all of you who so strongly push back against the idea obama was purposely avoiding the terrorist claim: In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning. CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft: KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack? OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other. [i]CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong. That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether. Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning: These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back. Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden. How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi? There are many questions, and here are a few more. Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning? Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12? Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously? Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up. Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.[/i] this is going to make Romney's win tomorrow even better since he defeated both Obama and MSM.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 11/05/12 at 10:05:42   You can imagine up a win for Romney, imagine whatever you want, but in the end, poop in one hand, imagine in the other, see which fills faster...

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 11/05/12 at 16:01:10 Retread; doesn't it bother you that a 'news organization' had an interview with the president talking about a topic that was in the news for full two weeks and they didn't release it? That doesn't bother you?

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by Retread on 11/05/12 at 16:27:20 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote: Retread; doesn't it bother you that a 'news organization' had an interview with the president talking about a topic that was in the news for full two weeks and they didn't release it? That doesn't bother you?  Nope..

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by WebsterMark on 11/05/12 at 16:35:45 Guess there's nothing left to be said then.

Title: Re: Why didnt the get more security? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/05/12 at 16:38:41 437176676071665975667F140 wrote: Retread; doesn't it bother you that a 'news organization' had an interview with the president talking about a topic that was in the news for full two weeks and they didn't release it? That doesn't bother you? Bothers me, but then, that he appointed a Monsanto Lobbyist to head the FDA bothers me to the point of wanting to scream,, Now, the number dead will be far greater than 4,, & the number who will go bankrupt from medical costs will be huge. Talk about conflict of interest.. It cant get any worse,

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.