Benghazi terrorist attacks and the Whistleblowers (impeachment, Clinton, Obama, fence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, let's free the guy who received a very generous probation for his major fraud of banks, and then immediately violated multiple parts of his probation terms
The guy belongs in jail, he's not a "political prisoner", he's just some crook.
If Benghazi had not happened, he would never have been prosecuted.
All those who look up to people in high positions assume they are brilliant and diligent serious individuals. You have to take into account that Obama and his people might just be human and might be a little more stupid than anticipated. Americans have to stop worshiping those on high and realize that they are not that smart. The tragedy at Benghazi is not a mystery. It reminds me of those in control of the Titanic who had warning of dangers up ahead but were not bright enough or diligent enough to heed them.
Don't expect Obama or anyone else to take care of you. They are not capable...and they know it and they are embarrassed.
All those who look up to people in high positions assume they are brilliant and diligent serious individuals. You have to take into account that Obama and his people might just be human and might be a little more stupid than anticipated. Americans have to stop worshiping those on high and realize that they are not that smart. The tragedy at Benghazi is not a mystery. It reminds me of those in control of the Titanic who had warning of dangers up ahead but were not bright enough or diligent enough to heed them.
Don't expect Obama or anyone else to take care of you. They are not capable...and they know it and they are embarrassed.
Yes, but I can excuse stupidity. It's liars that I don't excuse. And Obama is a liar over and over again.
Yes, let's free the guy who received a very generous probation for his major fraud of banks, and then immediately violated multiple parts of his probation terms
The guy belongs in jail, he's not a "political prisoner", he's just some crook.
Here is a better analysis of why this is a political tragedy;
Yesterday's dramatic congressional testimony about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya convincingly corroborated what was widely reported within days of the attack: that senior American officials on the ground knew immediately, despite the Obama administration's storyline to the contrary, that the assault did not arise out of a "spontaneous" demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in protest of an obscure YouTube trailer of a homemade anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims.
Falsely assessing partial blame for the violence on a piece of artistic expression inflicted damage not just on the California resident who made it—Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is currently serving out a one-year sentence for parole violations committed in the process of producing Innocence—but also on the entire American culture of free speech. In the days and weeks after the attacks, academics and foreign policy thinkers fell over themselves dreaming up new ways to either disproportionately punish Nakoula or scale back the very notion of constitutionally protected expression.
Fourteen days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered by Islamists, President Barack Obama stood up in front of the United Nations and declared that the "message" of a movie virtually no one will ever see "must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity," that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," and that we all should "condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims."
It should give even Obama's strongest supporters pause that the same administration so wary about characterizing Benghazi as a "terrorist attack" was simultaneously so eager to characterize an artistic provocation as a (potentially criminal) incitement.
So now "What difference does it make?" and "That happened a long time ago" is changing to "they couldn't have got there in time anyway."
AFRICOM head General Ward is already on record as saying his command was ready to respond but was never given the order to go.
Hicks testified that he asked the WH to call in FEST, which request was denied.
Is it possible that a few non-military people were calling the shots and making their own assessments? or was there more behind the denial of a few requests because of the covert operation that was taking place? It certainly wouldn't have done any damage to send a plane to buzz over the crowd. If it didn't have any effect, at least they tried something, rather than do nothing.
This could be one of the largest indications that there is something deeply wrong with the Obama administration's response to Benghazi. Now, even The New Yorker is calling the response, and the narrative of the attack into question. Just as a tip, the New Yorker is not known for it fondness for all things Republican.
Obama said act of terror the day after the attack all of you right wing nut job act like he never said it here you go proof that you have been brainwashed by Faux Snooze to many times to count
R Money and all of Republicans got shut down on this in the 2nd debate this is a non issue now leave it alone
He was extremely general in the rose garden, then he and others continued for weeks with the YouTube video talk. How do you explain that? How do you explain CBS, BBC, the New Yorker and others reporting this story and now putting out some very scathing reports on it, if it's supposedly just a Fox thing? How do you explain the whistleblowers, who are not Repubs or politicians?
Wake up.
As far as the debates, what Candy Crowley did was wrong. But Romney should have put focus on the days after the rose garden instead of stopping there, so he missed an opportunity.
With of all the protests and "demonstrations" that took place during daylight because of the video, how many of the "protesters" showed up with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, Molotov cocktails and other weapons? Who needed to know the "complete" story (which we still don't know) when all you had to do was to look at the pictures to know it was an attack. And if what Hicks said is correct.............the Ambassador knew it was an attack. "We're under attack" were his last words to Hicks.
Are you serious that the news focused on Benghazi days after the attack??? It happened on September 11th and it was all over the news immediately 24/7 after it happened, especially since an Ambassador died.
I have never heard how the video got into the picture, especially so fast.
Did anyone walk up to any of the protestors who were burning the flag or scaling the walls and ask, "Why are you protesting?" and they responded back, "because of a You Tube video".
It just doesn't hold any water for the administration to come out and say we don't have enough info, yet, they come out in force saying it was because of the video.
All those who look up to people in high positions assume they are brilliant and diligent serious individuals. You have to take into account that Obama and his people might just be human and might be a little more stupid than anticipated. Americans have to stop worshiping those on high and realize that they are not that smart. The tragedy at Benghazi is not a mystery. It reminds me of those in control of the Titanic who had warning of dangers up ahead but were not bright enough or diligent enough to heed them.
Don't expect Obama or anyone else to take care of you. They are not capable...and they know it and they are embarrassed.
Those at the top should realize that they are human, not super human, and are capable of being stupid and are not that smart. If they were smart, all they would have to do is acknowledge that THEY made some poor decisions and mistakes which resulted in the death of four people. People might be more forgiving if they showed some humanity and humility, rather than continuously pointing their fingers at everyone else.
I have found that once you admit to a mistake - say "I was wrong" or "I made a mistake" - that can pretty much shut down the argument. The WH has acknowledged that mistakes were made and would be corrected. What people want to know is what were those mistakes and who made them. At this point they can throw themselves across the alter and confess everything and it wouldn't help them in the least.
When Hilliary said "what does it matter how it happened" was the worst thing to come out of her mouth. It showed her to be a very callous individual. Could she really look a family member of one of those that died in the face and tell them "what does it matter" if they asked her "how did this happen?"
Who said Carney lied? He stumbled alot and tried to spin it. Just as the previous cd forum posted. It was nice to see the media finally ask questions. No matter what the evidence, if it is bad for Obama they can not comprehend it and will continue to ask over and over and over, what proof can you provide.
Didn't Carney say the T.P. (pun intended) were only edited ONCE? That's a uhhh, lie isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
