What is the president evading regarding the Benghazi incident which took many A

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   What is the president  evading regarding the Benghazi incident which took many American
   
   lives?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 66

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   He's not going to be held accountable because he is a sitting President whom the media is still largely in love with.  The State dept's own investigation was wicked critique of how this was handled. The White House at a bare minimum mislead the public leading up to an election about what happened and who did it.  Even weeks after they knew the truth, which they likely knew all along, the President was talking about some obscure filmmaker at a UN speech.   
   
   Pat Smith, the mother of Shawn Smith who died there has yet to get a single answer about what happened to her son.  So why should we expect to get any real answers.  The rumor is the annex was supplying weapons to opposition forces in Syria.   Except that the forces in Syria have ties to Al-Quaeda.   So it's not something they want to discuss.    CNN reported that CIA officials are being required to take monthly polygraphs now instead of every few years to ensure they don't discuss the topic.
   
   http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … nghazi.htm

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Issa won't let Ambassador Pickering testify.....why do you suppose that is?

      replyreport
   2. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because he wanted a closed interview first so they could discuss the investigation. When detectives interview people in a case they do it separately as well so they don't share stories. That's the only way to know if they're contradicting each other.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Mullen wasn't allowed either, and he did the investigation! They only wanted people who would tow their line. Otherwise, they would have let Mullen and Pickering testify in public, in front of WE THE PEOPLE. Under oath, unlike Bush and Cheney.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They were asked to testify publicly, but only after they first gave recorded private interviews, which they refused to do.  That is precisely how an investigator catches people not telling the truth.  Why would they refuse to talk privately.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because they are public figures. Public deserved to know! http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16 … in-public/
      Issa is playing dirty pool. Put it in the open. If anyone lies--he does.

      replyreport
   6. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You don't have an honest bone in your body do you - that is false http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … ghazi.html

      replyreport
   7. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Precisely...Nobody told him he couldn't testify.

      replyreport
   8. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Issa prevented Mullen and Pickering......he can prove me wrong by allowing them to testify now. No closed doors, no secrecy....now, and open, But Issa won't. He's hiding the truth, because it hurts the neo-con wing of stay-behinds, of which he is one

      replyreport
   9. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why won't they testify privately first on the official record.  Because during a trial people like their statements they made to investigators read back to them without coordinating them first.

      replyreport
   10. 76

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It's not a trial! It's the operation of the US gvt, and they are treating members of it like criminals! Mullen did the investigation. Pickering is the ambassador. Yet: they need to be vetted like thugs? Errrm, just because Issa is a felon-they not!

       replyreport
   11. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It is an investigation into the events that took place.  And if one person is covering, you need to separate them and get them on the record.  The dems could have called him as a witness. Or they could have given congress the names of the survivors.

       replyreport
   12. 76

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You can believe that all you want. I find it disgusting and typical of Darrell Issa. There were 13 embassy attacks during Bush and the R's were in charge. Where were the hearing then, accusing Bush? It's political witch hunt, and it makes me sick.

       replyreport
   13. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Those attacks all had investigations that were not with held from congress. Since when does congress accept an investigation into an attack on sovereign territory from a political appointee without access to witnesses and their testimony.

       replyreport
   14. 76

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       9/11, 2001.

       replyreport
   15. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What are you talking about.  There where numerous congressional investigations.  Nobody prohibited survivors and witnesses from testifying and none of their names were withheld from congress.

       replyreport
   16. 76

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Wrong. "The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation” http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20 … 1-commissi

       replyreport
   17. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Did you even read your own post.  This is not even remotely comparable.  The crux are accusations of how confessions were obtained in terms of tactics and obtaining confessions of terrorists. This was not disallowing any congressional inquiry at all.

       replyreport
3. 71

   The Frog Princeposted 10 years ago

   They were involved in selling arms to Syrian rebels.  Watch and see.
   
   The Frog

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No--that was the Cheney wing of the CIA. Prez Obama put a stop to that. It's in the news. You really have no clue who the enemy is, do you?

      replyreport
   2. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah the enemy is YOU. Uninformed, unreasoning small minds who are blind to the truth and the facts but glum on to only what they want to hear. Zombies are better company, at least they desire brains.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm copying this, and next time poor Baggers cry that they and only they are persecuted ....Imma show this response of yours.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No persecution - just calling a spade a spade. At least I use words that are not considered profanity which appears is the only thing you are good at.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Where is one profanity word from me ? Have I personally attacked anyone?I have less freedom of speech than many of you, who do.Sorry--your victim thing is getting old. You lost an election, too bad. Get over it, and stop trying anything to ruin Prez.

      replyreport
   6. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And what does "poor Baggers" mean?. Of course you mean "tea baggers" which if you don't think is profanity you are sicker than I give you credit for. Not a personal attack on anyone who considers him/her self  a member of the "tea Party"?guess again.

      replyreport
   7. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Where did the name come from? Republicans, who sent tea bags to Democrats--as in Boston tea party.If you can't own it, that's not my issue.When a fellow R just recently wrote hub: Liberals hate America-do you consider that profanity? Or is that cool?

      replyreport
   8. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are really pathetic. The more you say the more you prove that true.

      replyreport
   9. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      uhhuh. Pathetic, idiot, low intelligence, hate America, smoking something and dumbed down. And you poor fellas can't take being called Baggers. How about thin-skinned?

      replyreport
   10. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       No it's your rationalization of why u use t-bagger by falsely claiming republicans send tea bags to Dems. So I suppose you think that since some Negroes call each other the "N" word it is OK for you to call Obama the "N" word? U are pathetic!

       replyreport
4. 65

   tsadjatkoposted 10 years ago

   
   
   LandmarkWealth, you are wrong when you say "Pat Smith, the mother of Shawn Smith who died there has yet to get a single answer about what happened to her son." They, Barachio Obama, Hil liar y, Bite me Biden, Pan dor etta, and Susan not so nice Rice originally did tell her their "truth" - that the cause was a video and they were going to get the guy who made it (call out the calvary, we're going to wonderland!)
   Pathetic, isn't it? Boy were they grieving for her son!
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5f5r7NMM0E
   
   You know someone in the service under this administration? One day this could be their mother or join up, this could be your mother. God bless her and her son.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      listen to right wing talk much?

      replyreport
   2. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Right wing talk? this is a video of a grieving mother - you think that represents right wing talk? What are you smoking?

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "Barachio Obama, Hil liar y, Bite me Biden, Pan dor etta, and Susan not so nice Rice" is what I was referring to. Straight outta any talk radio or righty blog.(or Fox news, for that matter) Tis all the same.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Shows what you know about your phoney talk radio or blog claim. Barachio Obama, Hil liar y,  Pan dor etta, and Susan not so nice Rice are all my own creations right here on hub pages and bite me biden was coined by Gen. Stanley McChrystal...pathetic

      replyreport
5. 74

   MG Singhposted 10 years ago

   TThe fact is the President wants to cover failure of American policy in Libya and a fact that Gaddafi was better than the present lot

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Personally, I don't consider the CIA to be American policy. And I rather think this exercise was done to make Obama look bad, and help RMoney get in. An Obama October Surprise. And,really-RMoney did try to use it in the debate.Flabbergasted it failed

      replyreport
   2. 60

      The Sharkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ya, right. So why did Biden tell all of us that it  Navy Seal Team 6 that killed Bin Laden? Seal teams identity are top secret.  Seal Team 6 are now dead after thanks to Biden. You give these clowns to much credit.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      To be honest,I think Bin Laden died many years ago, like Bhutto said. 2001, maybe. I don't know what that was, or who it was they killed over there. But the "meme" has to be preserved: Bin Laden did 9/11, now he's dead. I don't believe it-fairy-tale.

      replyreport
6. 60

   The Sharkposted 10 years ago

   Because he passes the buck on every issue. Look at the healthcare mess that we have and who did he blame at his talk in Boston this week? That would be correct the insurance companies demonizing them calling them "Bad Apple" insurance co. The co's he is blaming for the cancellations that is taking place to millions of Americans are a direct result of them following the law. They are required to cancel policies that do meet the ACA requirements. For ex. health ins must now cover alcohol addiction, gender confusion and get this, maternity coverage for all females regardless of age. So you women over 50 now have to have maternity care, as well as you single gals that opted not to buy it till you got married. So, if your ins does not have these "benefits" as well as whole host of other mandates your policy is not in compliance and must be cancelled or you will be fined under the new law.
   So the co's are following the law that Obama wanted and now they are to blame. You haven't seen anything yet though, wait till you see the effects on all of us when the rest of the "ACA" law is fully implemented. The welfare branch of the ACA, (Medicaid), where the people are getting the "free" insurance is going to explode. Any single individual earning 46k or less and any family of four earning 96k or less will get "free" Obamacare ins. How does this get paid? By overcharging young people age 22 to 35 by as much as 300 to 400% and putting that money to the free pool. Also, the mandate overcharges that none of us will use, gender counseling, addiction counseling maternity for people that don't need it all goes to the pool to pay for free people. But as Pelosi said, "we have to pass it to see what's in it."----lol
   So Obama takes no responsibility for Benghazi, or for the entire Navy Seal team 6 deaths, after the Taliban was tipped of that the team that killed Bin Laden was in a chopper hovering over head with no gunship protection.
   Doesn't accept responsibility for leaving our dead soldiers at an Air Force Base.
   In eight years under Pres. Bush America lost 575 troops in Afghanastan, under four years of Obama we have lost over 1,500. Does he accept responsibility for this? I thought he was the President to end wars.
   Does he accept responsibility for increasing the debt ceiling? No he blames others as obstructionists for trying to reign in spending. He was the one that called Pres. Bush "unpatriotic" for requesting an increase in the debt ceiling.-----Right
   The Shark

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      yeah--he actually shows the bodies coming home in caskets, unlike Bush, who had a media black-out.How many died from Iraq? 5,000+? 9/11? 3,000. EMBASSY ATTACKS...60! How come no hearings then? Afghan-troops pulling out 2014. Bush starts/Obama ends.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      The Sharkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So we announce the pull out date so the enemy can lay low and wait for us to leave, that's a strategy. Let's see, hmmmmm, Gen Eisenhower has jus announced that US will be pulling out of the European theater on Jan 1st 1943.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      We had to leave, because the iraqis wouldnt give us immunity for our crimes. Bush legacy.

      replyreport
7. 0

   johnmariowposted 7 years ago

   Obama is not hiding anything. The fact is that we were unable to respond in a timely manner to the Benghazi crisis. We need more troops in the Islamic nations in order to secure our embassies. Our troops have to be there. It is impossible to get troops there at the last minute.
   
   Some European newspapers were publishing shameful disrespectful photos mocking the Islamic prophet Mohammad. This resulted in a lot of protests and anger.
   
   US citizens who are concerned about the possibility of another embassy attack in the Middle East should also be concerned about Trump's threat to remove troops from the Middle East. Any reduction in troops endangers our embassies.
   
   "Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was indeed in retaliation for the anti-Muslim video titled 'Innocence of Muslims.' " Quoted from the Wikipedia article titled "2012 Benghazi Attack"

   replyreport