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're arguing about the definition of a terror attack (not the act of preventing it) when Bush went to war based on WMD which were never found, honestly, this rather pales by comparison. Yes no claims of a video causing a terror attack under Bush although they have in fact taken place in the last few years.
Bull ****! They were hung out to dry. Weve heard more than once that more security was requested. Yet it was not given. Then we allow our people to be there, knowing its dangerous. How is that not hanging them out to dry?
And not sending anyone or anything when we didnt know how long the attack was going to be....basically leaving them with zero chance at all, that is absolutely hanging them out to dry. Your Commander in Chief knew you were in trouble and went to bed. Stand down orders were given. Not even an attempt to help. I dont care if they now know they wouldnt of gotten their in time, I expect our government to give a damn and send people as soon as they knew there was trouble. They didnt.
Yes they requested more security, what type of security and would it have made a difference.
What exactly were they sending, from where, if you listened to the hearings there were no good solutions, the embassy in Benghazi was also being attacked. Everyone knew there was a risk, no one predicted this would happen until it was too late. I would bet that every embassy asks for more security and decisions need to be made. Stevens was at risk since he went back in Oct 2011, this was not a typical operation, we could have just stayed out of Libya but there was an advantage to having influence on the future of the country.
Yeah, I remember asking here, just what the hell was taken so long to get people there to investigate. It took not hours, not days, but well over a week.
While I realize some believe that the U.S. is omnipotent and has the power to do pretty much as it pleases in any foreign country, however the reality is that some countries foolishly believe that they have some ill-conceived notion of national sovereignty when it comes to allowing U.S. investigators to roam around their country.
The same silly notion applies to such things as embassy security. After all, if a foreign embassy came under attack, let's say the Russian embassy, we would be ever so willing to allow a unit of the Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye to fly in and take on the attackers.
1. Again, just exactly why was security requests denied more than once? Dont give me the garbage that Hillary didnt know. She knew and others knew, yet they did not grant security.
2. Why was Stevens there in the first place? It wasnt exactly safe there, yet he was there on 9/11. Why?
3. Why does Obama refuse to release the email in which Hillary received on security requests?
I still cant get past how we have requests for security get ignored or denied yet then allow people to be there. That alone should send people to prison
Hicks testified today why Stevens was in Benghazi.
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.
