Benghazi terrorist attacks and the Whistleblowers (unemployment, Congress, poll, accuse)
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.
You will never get a response from a right winger on this BIG factor in how and why the end result of the attack played out. Just look at how many times it was brought to light on the last Benghazi phony outrage fest before the last election. At least the GOP are getting into the recycling groove.
Now that I think about it, Hillary made a very strategic move in taking a hiatus before the next presidential election. If she stuck around, the GOP would be following her to the toilet just to get anything to hurt her chances. She is so high in the polls that they are desperate. I wonder when they will begin digging way back to her high school days for their next pseudo scandal.
Really? So if that was the reason they denied or ignored security then answer this:
1. Why is Obama and Hillary and others, not shouting from the roof tops that these are the reasons? Why are they basically pretending they werent aware of such security requests?
2. Why were we still sending people there if they were not protected?
3. Why did Susan Rice tell someone on a morning show that there was adequate security when its a fact that there was not? Why did they claim to of those who were responsible for security were killed defending, when they were not? They were in a different location, told to stand down, yet went honorably anyways to try and help. Then they died. They were not part of security or they wouldve been there the whole time.
Sorry liberal, but there is more against the State Dept and others than there is against conservatives as to why this occurred. You can deny the truth all you want and wish this story would disappear but that doesnt change anything.
You will never get a response from a right winger on this BIG factor in how and why the end result of the attack played out. Just look at how many times it was brought to light on the last Benghazi phony outrage fest before the last election. At least the GOP are getting into the recycling groove.
Now that I think about it, Hillary made a very strategic move in taking a hiatus before the next presidential election. If she stuck around, the GOP would be following her to the toilet just to get anything to hurt her chances. She is so high in the polls that they are desperate. I wonder when they will begin digging way back to her high school days for their next pseudo scandal.
I just gave a response.
Lamb testified that funding was not an issue.
They moved on so why don't you ?
Benghazi is a CIA base, not an embassy and not a consulate.
The Prez connected the attack to terrorists the next day. Which terrorists they certainly didn't know at the time. Bin Laden was dead, Al Qaeda is a terror group, errr, what is your point or dot?
Was that his "no acts of terror" speech?
He had plenty of chances to connect the dots and characterize the attack as "a terrorist attack." Here is every sentence, in the order he spoke them, referencing the attack on Benghazi:
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.
...we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.
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.
We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.
Obama had PLENTY of chances to call this a terrorist attack, instead he called it an " attack" a "shocking attack" a "terrible act" and a "senseless act."
Obama had PLENTY of chances to call these "attackers" or "killers" terrorists but he didn't. How can you claim Obama called it a terrorist act WITHOUT ANY TERRORISTS??
That entire speech, and the word "terror" was only uttered once, and it was a general reference to terror:
"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."
Only liberal partisan dems can turn "No acts of terror" into "This act of terror." you have to put works in his mouth to get him to say what you want him to, unless you think Obama is not articulate enough.
And if he US ambassador to Libya decided that a consulate is not safe, due to over a dozen previous terrorist attacks against the consulate, the Red Cross, and the British embassy, you either shut down the consulate, or beef up security. But according to partisan, liberal progs around here, they think our State Department not only keeps the consulate open, but reduces security personnel even further, and then writes off all those US civilians as expendable assets. And this is how the progs think it should be done.
Ambassador Stevens was there of his own free will. And he knew the situation better than anyone else. Why do you RWNs think you understood the situation better than he did?
And if he US ambassador to Libya decided that a consulate is not safe, due to over a dozen previous terrorist attacks against the consulate, the Red Cross, and the British embassy, you either shut down the consulate, or beef up security. But according to partisan, liberal progs around here, they think our State Department not only keeps the consulate open, but reduces security personnel even further, and then writes off all those US civilians as expendable assets. And this is how the progs think it should be done.
Benghazi is not an Embassy and is not a Consulate.
Benghazi is a CIA base and safe house.
That was the single WH edit BTW..they changed "consulate" to diplomatic mission because Benghazi is not a consulate.
Ambassador Stevens was there of his own free will. And he knew the situation better than anyone else. Why do you RWNs think you understood the situation better than he did?
Where was that in the testimony? Unless I missed it, I havent heard the real truth as far as why he and others were there in the first place. You think he just woke up and said, hey, im going to jet off to Benghazi for a while, I make my own plans no matter what anyone else says?
And why do you think he and others requested security? And you honestly believe, the higher ups were not aware of this? They admitted of knowing a day after the attacks, which is partially why they changed the talking points. That is a fact.
Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)
In fact, the Republicans are now, according to the Washington Post, back in their standard dilatory mode when it comes to producing a budget agreement because–wait for it–things are going pretty well in the deficit department. With recovery, there are higher tax revenues (up 16%) and lower government payouts for services to the unemployed, and the deficits are melting away. So the Republicans believe that they’ve lost their leverage to reduce government spending.
Today, President Obama released the long-awaited “sequestration report,” detailing the cuts the White House would make to the budget under last year’s Budget Control Act if no deal is reached in Congress. And there, buried on page 136, is the White House’s proposed cuts to “Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance.” $129 million. That’s a full 8.2 percent of the possible sequestrable amount. It’s a massive slash of the budget for our embassies, consulates, and security abroad.
Obama today chose not to answer the question if he is standing by his position that he did not change the talking points on Benghazi. Instead he went off on a tangent. Was this a realization that he can't continue that lie?
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.
