http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … urces-say/
Yeah, it's fox.
CIA operatives were told multiple times not to help during the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. One operative even had visual with a terrorist mortar team, and painted them with a lazer, yet we did nothing.
I did not even click on the link as Fox Snooooooze is the worst place to try and get to the truth of anything. The story sounds so preposterous that it is laughable. Does anyone think that Obama would stand by and allow his people to get slaughtered? Too much! LOL
And it is getting worse.
(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
Why won't people understand that our funding was for security at the embassy in Tripoli and that neither the Libyan government nor the US government was EVER set up to provide security at Benghazi? Until I get an answer to the question I've been asking since the beginning, I'm not even going to listen to any news source: why, knowing from the minute that Libya was liberated, that Benghazi was not safe, did the ambassador go there? Why did he go there knowing that it was not safe and that there was no way it was going to get safe for quite a while?
Fox Has the most misinformed viewers of any station. That is because they express opinion and ignore facts. But they make a profit!!
There are others taking up this story now because....wait for it....it's REAL!
1 - The study that came up with that had gigantic methodological errors.
2 - MSNBC is much worse... they basically only have opinion segments.
3 - Why didn't Obama just deny the allegations, if it's so wrong, instead of twice dodging the question?
One might wonder if the administration was looking for an incident like this to take the focus off the economy. Be careful what you ask for. Do I believe the current administration would sacrifice four lives to get reelected? Yes.
You mean, the same Obama who used executive privilege to stop the investigation into Fast and Furious, which gave guns to criminals and led to the deaths of Mexicans and Americans?
Not debunked, stalled.
They didn't finish the investigation with the information they were given. However, some of the information is being held by by Obama... remember him? Mr. Transparency?
That's why Eric Holder is in contempt of Congress, because he won't supply the rest of the information the investigation needs.
How could you possibly think you could get re-elected by sacrificing your personel overseas. Is there a spin that could make this happen. And Obama did infer in his comments the next day that there was a possibility there was terrorism involved. These things are not like a giant video game where you can watch the happenings take place in real time. If the security measures were not adequate and the warnings ignored that is one thing. But if you think that as the attack took place Obama turned his back on the embassy people for some political advantage you have got to be kidding.
Why weren't the gunships at least pre-positioned when the embassy was first attacked?
Why weren't they at least pre-positioned when the annex was attacked?
Why were multiple military spec-ops teams not pre-positioned?
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and we aren't getting anything. The first round of answers we got was that it was a protest... and Obama DID keep saying that for 2 weeks.
Why can't we have a POTUS who will sit down and have an honest Q&A session with the public?
I don't know you seem to have all the answers! If you think for a moment that you have all the intelligence wrapped up you are very mistaken. There is national security involved here and a bunch of people CYO'ing their #@ses. So you think these reports are the gospel? Just another opportunity to heap everything on Obama is all you care about. Once again your bias rules your actions.
No, I don't seem to have all the answers. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING QUESTIONS.
It's not about heaping things on Obama, I would be upset with ANY president who let Americans die while help was an hour away(or seconds away, if there was a gunship or one of the drones was armed).
Do you think matters concerning national security should be transparent? Maybe we should outline to the enemy where we positioned all that firepower you speak of. There are things that go bump in the night in the spook business that we shall never know and are probably better off not knowing.
The interesting thing about peace through strength, is that your enemies can know what your strengths are… and they are too damned afraid you’ll use them.
We now have an enemy that has lost its fear, because we have a President that confuses that policy with one of appeasement philosophy.
Those who lost loved ones might like to know why and how they were wasted.
So, they can tell us they brought troops within an hour of the site, and that they didn't deploy them...
but telling us WHY is a matter of national security? When things that go 'bump' in the night end up with Americans dying, you bet there had better be a reckoning.
You sound as bad as Obama... bumps in the road when people die.
You're getting your "after the fact" information confused and where that blame should be pointed. It was an Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting where a couple Republicans left the CIA out to dry once again (Remember Valerie Plame... also blown by a Republican with loose lips)
http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the- … -benghazi/ link is to the meeting and at about 58 minutes into the video(you can fast forward) this is where it is leaked that there is an ongoing CIA operation and its location is on the map in front of the world to see. Funny thing is, I don't even think Issa intended to do what he did, but here it is and HE put American's in harms way.
The Washington Post story on it is here.
Quick correction, it was a reporter/journalist who outed Valerie Plame
Yes and no... Richard Armitage, then Secretary of State under GB leaked the information to Robert Novak of the Washington Post. Journalists don't just make this stuff up... do they?
Issa did not put up the map and there was no mention of a CIA investigation in MS. Lambs testimony. In fact it was a Republican who objected to the use of the maps, that is who called for a point of order. The maps were not classified as they were used at a press conference the night before, even the Ambassador said several times when questioned by Issa that the documents were not classified, BTW the ambassador and Ms. Lamb are Democrats.
Yes but if a Republican didn't stop the proceedings by calling attention to that map then nobody would have been the wiser. But by stopping it in the way that he did, he called special attention to that map which had markers on it indicating the location of the CIA annex in proximity of the Embassy.
Like I said.. it was not Issa's intent but it was the result... loose lips in front of cameras to the world was not a good way to point out that that map was possibly classified at one point before the proceedings and declassified during the proceedings. Issa pointed out that the State Department did not have the authority to declassify information during the meeting when it was deemed classified prior to the meeting and he made that clear. By doing so he drew immense attention to the map.
So let me get this straight, it is Issa's fault for answering a point of order from a member on the committee questioning whether or not the map should be shown thinking it was classified, when the map was made public unclassified several weeks earlier by Democrats. And you believe no one can read a map, it took Issa answering a question for people to realize what was on the map. Really? Com'on Man.
Touche but you sound too much like Fox Snooooooze.
If these details were verified in a congressional hearing, would you still state that the whole thing is preposterous?
Or, would it suddenly not be a big deal?
Or, would you start to care at that point?
Your arguments hinge heavily on inuendo and Fox Snooooze reports who are anything other than objective. That is why I say "Get Real".
Why don't you answer the questions?
Funny thing, a lot of what Fox 'Snoooooooze'(how old are you?) was reporting a month ago has been verified. Also, a lot of what I'm getting doesn't come from Fox.
So really, why not answer the questions? Would you care if this were all verified?
It can't be verified as the answers are heavily shielded in a National Security black out. You act as if this is some sort of transparency that can be breached as was the Fast and Furious debacle. You speak about these things as if the CIA is something that is like the Flintstones on TV for all to watch. Just as you have bias in these thing it is also expressed in your references to what age I am as to any validation of my responses.
The government is far from imperferct and if you think that Romney is the saviour of it you have not experienced enough of the body politic to understand there are things we are allowed to know and things we are not. It has been the same since the Romans ruled their empire.
In your own question to me "if" it could be verified belies the fact that it cannot by any credible source so why argue the intangibles if only to make your weak point.
There is nothing to answer and nothing to be taken seriously until we know the facts, YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS. In which situation the rational response is to withhold judgement but for political gain you'll twist anything including deaths without the facts. It's sad.
Pretty much what I expected. Clearly everything on fox is wrong, right?
Would it be better if it came from MSNBC?
For a group of people who blindly followed a Texa oil man into Iraq with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction I see a lot of grsping for straws...too bad he'e not the ladies man like Bill, or we could grasp for cigars
Yeah, and Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War and George Washington started the Revolutionary War. I don't know why the Obamaloney crowd can't stick to the topic of the thread: Obamabaloney.
One good turn deserves another, right...or do you have Romnesia as well...
Speaking of Romnesia, he "forgot" to bring this subject up at the last debate. Now we know why.
Good one I am a Obama supporter, but I really was playing around a little, some truth to what I said about Bush though, but was really trying to lighten the mood....This IS an important subject, I am just of the mindset "innoscent until proven guilty," and I am, myself, annoyed of why I haven't heard a real explanation about the youtube stuff....the rest of the points I said to AV, we need to stand united behind our leaders.
You will hear the truth, apparently we’re hearing too soon; the Obama campaign doesn't want you to know about the abandonment of a Americans under fire until it's too late to do anything about it, after the election.
The Obama campaign appears to be desperately scrambling to distort the truth about the “Stand down” order and the attack in general. It all makes sense now as to why they would fabricate and continue to perpetuate the angry crowd and video story. It is all theatrics for their base.
They know if the truth gets out before the election, that they purposely allowed Americans to die to protect their campaign narrative of “the Terrorists are on the run” their done.
One too many hits for you,I knew about you, but still it hurts me when I see how you suffer from Romnesia
It’s all your fault. If you were posting on the sports threads, I wouldn’t get bored and venture into these troubled waters and jump the sharks. Are you still in San Diego or have you ventured back to New York? Sandy looks nasty. Hell hath no fury like a woman scored. Now there’s another “situation” that could have an effect on this very close race. I wonder how Mother Nature will spin this one. A hurricane just might decide this election.
ha ha . . you are so right. I should stick to the sports forums. . I always get myself into trouble out here. And yes still in SD. With the weather that is coming to the east coast for once I am happy to be here in the sun.
Ok going back to where I am more comfortable hehehe
LMAO Good one.
I was fro going into Iraq and perhaps I have a blind judgement on that one. But I will say I believe there were WMDs and they were moved. It did turn out some of the UK intel was not accurate and Bush has amitted that. He says it is one of his biggest regrets that the intel turned out to not be so solid. I wrote an article here on HP called Bush Vindicated. It is about 3 rockets that were shot into Israel. When the serial numbers were checked, they turned out to be on the WMD list from Hans Blix who kept track of them in Iraq as they were suppose to be destroyed. The list he has are of all unaccounted for weapons. Does make you wonder.
AV, Thanks, I was trying to have a sense of humor..not so well recieved...my apology tour starts now, lol.....Seriously though, you may be right about that and I will check out your hub...The details of war times and secret sevice operations and covert missions should not be so overly simplified and especially disected in the midst of current activity...we need to get our act together as a country and be a united front, no matter who is in power, right
Uh, most democrats including Hillary and crazy ass Joe biden followed that Texas oil man or President of the United States into Iraq. That's not fox spin that's truth!
The CIA is an intelligence agency not a branch of the military. How could they be justified to respond in such a matter. I know as an American I would want to do everything I could to help to save innocent lives, but the CIA has a different mission than the military. Spec Ops on the other hand did engage the attackers. If you want to believe that Fox report then it was the CIA operatives that disobeyed direct orders led the attackers right back to their annex where fighting ensued for over 4 hours.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said "There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here, But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
Considering that most of the media won't report on hardly anything related to Benghazi...
combined with the fact that the next hearings aren't until after the election...
If we ever get to the bottom of this, I think every American is going to be sickened at what happened. Republican, Independent, Democrat.
People are going to need to go to prison for this, and in all honesty some of the media as well.
Let's just say Obama wins, and then all the truth comes out. Would we see an impeachment in the future?
If this is all true, we would either see a fall-guy(Clinton or whichever General this falls under), or we would see executive privilege hiding information.
Holder won't do anything... he's hiding behind Obama, in contempt of Congress.
The transparency candidate is anything but.
Let's just have obama lose and the truth come out and let the court of public opinion do their thing.
If what we are hearing now, ‘that Administration officials issued “stand down” orders multiple times’ this is going to get much worse.
Possibly the biggest piece of evidence, if it is true.
Lasing the mortar position. This means the CIA annex had a designator. That means they have a SOP for its use.
You don't designate a target just for the heck of it. You only do that when resources are in place. If no assets are in place to bomb your target, you would be shooting... not designating. This makes it seem that either the drones flying overhead were armed, or one of the gunships stationed within 2 hours was overhead, but didn't provide assistance.
The problem with this, other than the complete abandonment of a unit under fire, is this firefight went on for over six hours. Air Support units were within 10 to 30 minutes away.
The CIA guys on the ground that ignored the first two stand down orders and went to rescue the Ambassador anyway apparently had a lazar guiding unit and ‘had eyes on” the mortar crew that eventually took their lives because support was denied.
This keeps getting uglier and uglier
Guys, have you heard the latest conspiracy theory from some fringe lefties? Romney hired the attackers.
What is really funny about this is had the President handled this correctly, and annouced it a terrorist attack, he would have recived a ton of support from the public....instead they chose to lie about it to match their campaign rhetoric. OOPS!
LOL, have not heard that one yet. I guess coming to a bookstore near us soon.
For those who don't believe FOX, here's a report from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-5 … ya-attack/
What this article says is that we actually don't know who could have responded, but someone who no longer works for the CIA speculates they might have been able to.
Sorry, a laser painted target is pretty definitive. Fast Movers from Aviano, could have taken them out with precision and easily covered an escape avenue from the air. These guys might still be alive had the order been given to ‘go in’ rather than ‘stand down.’
By the way, a Stand down order means the support units were prepared to go and told not to. This is not “no orders were given.” Support units were specifically ordered not to proceed.
I might add the two CIA operatives killed ignored the stand down order and went to rescue the Ambassador anyway. These guys are real heroes that the administration refused to support.
Just a thought, I remember the original 9/11 like yesterday...Do you recall the mass hysteria, the loss of human life...is it a possibility that being told to stand down(which I have not read this yet, but will)could have been a precautionary measure inorder to mitigate collateral damage(loss of more lives)? I remember as I watched the news that Tuesday morning a decade ago, the people fleeing, debris flying, I was in shock and sitting comfortably in my living room, I finally came too and thought "OH GOD, my kids" I as well as hundreds of frantic parents are pouring into the school parking lots, I was scared out of my mind...The heros, fireman and polieman rushing to save people and many losing their lives...I am just not ready to crucify our President, but I want to understand as much as anyone...and do not believe this was an event inwhich to politicize for an election...
The image that really angers me is the President standing in front of those coffins lying about the entire event propelling their cover story. A story that now appears to be a cover-up of the stand down order.
Its rather interesting most of you obama supporters don't care about Americans being murdered anymore than your dear leader! You should be ashamed of yourselves for putting your false messiah before country!
Says the man who would, in a heart beat,elect the same party to office that sent US troops into a country, namely Iraq, only to loose their lives fighting against a nation that weren't even responsible for 9/11. Your hypocracy is staggering.
Yup, because NO democrats voted for it...
And NO democrats voted for it without reading it *cough*CLINTON*cough*
We didn't invade Iraq over 9/11, do you even know who voted to go to war?
WHo says America went into Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11, oh yea, the left. That was there cover excuse when blaming Bush for going into Iraq even though they voted to go. I guess it had nothing to do with Iraq snubbing all the sanctions put in place since 1990. O I guess it had nothing to do with all the games they played with Hans Bilx and the weapons inspectors. I guess it has nothing to do with Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Or because Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers and publicly endorsed it. Or how about because they housed and protected members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States. Or maybe Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement,
Yeah, none of that counts, it was because we blame them for 9/11 Please, let's get some new talking points.
This list is mostly lies and straight forward deceipt
Prove it, cite your sources, no blogs or opinions. Prove to me and the world there were no sanctions and the rest listed.
You know you can't be truly liberal and not use blogs as fact.
LOL, says the guy who wouldn't know a legit source if it stared him right in the face...
No, its just that most of the points you try to make are overblown or simply inaccurate
Being as I haven't made very many points i am not sure where you get that.
No. I am saying you really don't have that much to go on.
No...you are left. That means you can't be right. They are opposites you know.
Actually, I'm a centrist....It's just hard to be a moderate when there is only one reasonable party in this country at the moment.
How do you figure that?
Reasonable is a VP who asked the parent of a Marine who gave his life in the service of his country about the size of the fallen man's testicles and the President won't even look the father in the eye?
We have differing viewpoints I see.
It will probably be a fox news source. It's a video interview with the father, I don't know if anyone else carried it.
The subject is Bengazi and the party who doesn't know what end of the barrel the round comes out of.
Try to focus.
You supplied the list of lies - it is up to you to prove what you have posted or at the very least cite reliable sources, I am just pointing out to everyone reading this that you that you are either mislead by liars or you are lying yourself.
As a political shil I guess you don't care so much about truth.
Really? You weren't born then?
Because that was pretty much the way it was.
That list is accurate. It's a matter of record.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … -for-help/
Let's be clear... Obama would never politicize an event like this. He would never speak too hastily, before all the facts are in.
That's why he can't answer the interview questions, because he would never talk about something before the facts were in.
...unless he is addressing the UN... then he's going to blame the attacks on a video.
The US did nothing like for Sept 11, they prepared it and let it happen! It is the same logic of war. According to the logic of which political machine behind it, we attack a representative of the US, it will trigger an American outrage and it gives us the freedom to relaunch an attack on Libya or solidify what we built there after our invasion!
The US did nothing like for Sept 11, they prepared it and let it happen! It is the same logic of war. According to the logic of whatever political machine behind it, we attack a representative of the US, it will trigger an American outrage and it gives us the freedom to relaunch an attack on Libya or solidify what we built there after our invasion!
Hey, guys - ABC is investigating this now:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … -for-help/
It's at the point where they have to pay attention whether they want to or not and they really don't want to.
So, we have the CIA spokesman coming out and saying
'Nobody in the CIA denied requests for aid'(emphasis mine)
and the POTUS completely dodging the question. I'm sorry, whether or not they asked for aid and were denied isn't something that needs to be 'investigated'. That is something that EVERYBODY who was watching this unfold in real-time would have known on 9/11.
If Obama had said 'No, they didn't request aid' or something like that, I would question Fox's source, but I don't think he wants to be on record saying that.
I've been talking with a bunch of ex-military guys on other forums, the message always seems to be the same. With an attack on an ambassador, the POTUS would be immediately involved. Assets would be automatically deployed to await final orders, rather than sitting on a runway an hour away.
They are making it sound like General Ham of the Africa command is going to take the fall, but it wouldn't be up the the head of the Africa command whether or not assets in Europe would be deployed.
I've heard everything from gun-running, to not wanting to upset the Libyans with collateral damage, but if this does come down to the POTUS saying 'no', that would be dereliction of duty, which means impeachment.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/world/afr … index.html
General Ham is being replaced as head of the Africa command...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam … 25z;_ylv=3
So, we have the following.
CIA - We didn't deny any requests
White House - We didn't deny any requests
Obama - I'm not going to say there weren't any requests.
Nobody has said that there weren't any requests, all the verbiage is specifically denying culpability, not that the requests were made.
That's it! Yeah! They will buy that!
I am guessing none of you have seen a bombing run huh? Any idea what a massive international incident it would have been if we BOMBED a city of an allied nation? The embassy is surrounded by other buildings and innocent deaths would have been pretty much unavoidable.
I know how accurate a laser-guided bomb is... I'm talking specifically about the mortar position that was painted.
Do you happen to know where the mortar was? How close it was to innocents? If not then hold judgement until we do. OH also there are reports that the attackers had anti aircraft weapons if so then perhaps the bombing run was considered too dangerous (again not forgetting the damage a crashing plane can do in a built up area) you just don't have enough information to even guess at the situation.
Yeah, there can be collateral damage... we don't let that stop us from getting our guys.
To be fair, most people don't hang out around a mortar team.
If they did have anti-aircraft weapons though, they didn't use them on the drones.
See presuming this was the case the possibility of saving one or two lives of servicemen by destroying the mortar team (most were actually killed by the gunfire anyway) who are trained and who volunteered to put their lives on the line against the possibility of killing dozens of innocents in an allied nation... Tough call. I have no inclination to value one innocent life over another.
My point is this, no one conservative or liberal likes seeing servicemen die and everyone does what they can to prevent it, most of the decision in question are not made by politicians but by military strategists, I am 99% sure that nothing was done without the best intentions and I am absolutely 100% sure that we don't have enough information to make conclusive judgements yet about what should have been done those trying are doing so purely for political benefit and from a position of ignorance which is cynical and dishonest.
Oh that's right it's NOT an international incident to mob murder an Amreican Ambassador.
I realize you believe that was deserved. Do you also realize that an embassy is sovriegn territory of the ambassidorial nation? That's like attacking American soil? Oh I forgot you don't believe in that either.
A terrorist group committing a terrorist act is one thing, a nation bombing an allied nation is a very different thing, we have a responsibility not to act like terrorists and to take into account every aspect of the situation as I said we don't know what that situation was and until we do we should withhold judgement.
You mean, like sending troops into Pakistan to kill someone?
Very special circumstance but yes in general such actions are wrong perhaps Binladen could be excused in a the ends justify the means sort of way.
I consider the rescue of Americans to be higher on the list than killing bin Laden. If the ends justify the means, then you can't argue both ways.
Different means, one violated border sancticity the other endangers many innocent lives they are completely different.
As I said I don't know if the Bin-Laden strike was justifiable but it is entirely different to this situation.
The bin-Laden strike didn't endanger innocent lives?
Well actually the strike was legal in that there was an agreement allowing incursion into Pakistan to kill Bin-Laden if he were located there and instead of bombing the household everything was done to ensure even the people inside the house like his wives were not killed. Looks clean enough to me.
We know E X A C T L Y what the situation was.
We have the emails. It's KNOWN.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-w … azi-attack
Ok, from the AP.
150 gunmen. They set up a perimeter of men and trucks with machine guns, blocking off access to the consulate. Spontaneous protest?
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah. Spontaneous protest?
Apparently the perimeter was set up about an hour before the attack. Spontaneous protest?
I sent a link earlier describing a citizen reporting the chanting over the video as well as many other factors, ATM had posted it on another forum, I brought it over, have you read that yet?
Conflicting reports, A) 150 people sure can look like a crowd rather than an attack force, the guards and watchmen reported they had no warning the attack was coming despite their perimeter views so the 1 hour seems incredibly unlikely. The labels on the trucks have conflicting reports AND there is no reason why a group cannot aid a protest by ringing trucks of food or just to show support etc. As I keep saying we don't know enough to judge yet it's simply people jumping to conclusions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ … TI20121018
Cool. We had a small Welsh firm providing security, including untrained Libyans patrolling with batons and flashlights.
IF you look up the company and the Libyan regulations there are literally three major security firms able to work in Libya, Blue Mountain is the biggest, laws are laws.
1 - Where did you get your claim that they are the largest firm able to work in Libya?
2 - Any security firm would have been able to comply with regulations. The NYTimes reported that other experienced, larger security firms sought the contract.
3 - Are you suggesting that Libyan law prevents security forces on US sovereign soil cannot carry or use guns?
#1 Blue Mountain is the largest group in Libya because it got it's no objection certificate 2 months before anyone else and partnered with a local company.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi … 323450621/
#2 No getting a no objection certificate is incredibly hard very few companies have managed it because the Libyan government is overstretched and probably corrupt there were only three at the time of the Embassies establishment Blue Mountain Group, Garda World Security Corporation and Control Risks Group now there are about 6. Blue Mountain had a huge head start and an already set local pool from the Eclipse group it partnered with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_ … _civil_war
#3 There are very strict regulations on armed militias being imposed on Libya and a shortage of people authorized to carry arms from the sounds of it those without arms were just the perimeter guards mainly there to check people visiting the embassy there was an armed group inside and an armed emergency response team 20 strong within 10 minutes drive.
#4 All of this is irrelevant there were 150 attackers with RPG's anti aircraft weapons and assorted automatic small arms a force twice as big would not have stopped them, the ambassador was killed by the falling building after the mortaring and most of the casualties occurred away from the embassy after it was abandoned in the ensuing gunfight.
#5 The biggest problem here is you are demanding information which is hard to find because it is TOO SOON TO KNOW then you are throwing out vague accusations with no proof an no actual knowledge of the details as such everything you say is from ignorance and utterly pointless until the facts are available, there will be an investigation and the facts will emerge.
The presumptive and politically motivated guessing is immoral as all get out, it's an obvious attempt to tun deaths into political capital without knowing the facts.
What it is is an obvious attempt to find out who......whomever.........wanted to try and hide this under an idiotic film which the local authorities told everyone had NOTHING to do with it from the beginning. Then we have the flip-flopping administration. If it was terrorism tell the truth. THAT is all anyone actually wants.
Exactly and it takes time to determine the truth until then the guessing is just to get votes, there is plenty of attention and we should wait for the facts before we judge anyone it's innocent until proven guilty not the other way around
1 - That information is almost a year old, and only accounts for a month of time in which these companies were given certificates. As of current, there are at least 7 security firms with the certification. Having mostly unarmed guards at a location that had been attacked a dozen times in recent months, which had asked for more security repeatedly... this was a failing of our government.
3 - What emergency response team are you referring to?
4 - 150 is the estimate from witnesses, and most of those were utilized in setting up a large perimeter blocking off roads.
4 - Stevens died from smoke inhalation caused by the fire in the building. Not a collapsing building from mortar rounds. The mortars killed two people later at the CIA annex. 20 armed, trained personnel could have made the difference.
5 - I'm 'demanding' information, because the only information we have been given are lies. There was no reason to call all this a protest. If you want to accuse someone of jumping the gun with answers, accuse Obama and his administration for pinning the blame on a video, and going as far as to say they would PROSECUTE the creator of the video. Much of the questions I have, the administration has the answers to. No investigation is needed, they already know.
Forgive me for questioning the bull that we've been fed. I'm not willing to just sit back and let this be swept under the rug. Obama has made it clear, he doesn't think this is an issue. He's not saying 'we're going to let you know when we find out'. He keeps saying 'nothing to see here, this is a non-issue'. YES, I have a problem with that.
It's so sad this tragedy has become nothing more then a tool for political gain. There wasn't this much outrage at President Bush after 9 11....There isn't this much outrage when other lives are lost in battle. Time will tell what happened and what, if anything, could have been done. I feel for the parents and understand their attacks on the administration. But to fuel this outrage is just wrong!
Josak, you seem like a reasonble guy (I'm assuming you're male). You honestly don't have any concerns over the Libya incident? There are just so many details that don't add up. Why did the WH keep pushing the "protest against the video" story even after they knew it wasn't true? Why did Hillary tell Tyrone Woods' father that the person who made the video would be arrested and prosecuted? What did he do that was illegal? Why has Obama refused to answer pointed questions? How could our leaders watch the event in real time and not do something? Maybe there are good answers to all these questions, but shouldn't some of them be cleared up by now? I listened to military and CIA experts last night, and they all agreed that something doesn't add up. I don't pretend to be an expert on military intervention or foreign affairs, but I would like to know the real story.
I try to be reasonable and I am looking forward to getting the facts too not so people can twist it for votes which seems to be what most people here want to do but so we can prevent it from happening again but the thing is until we actually know something the guessing is just throwing accusations around.
Basically we need the facts before we come to any conclusions especially if the charge is as large and as unlikely as American lives were endangered for no reason. You are a reasonable woman do you really think Obama knowingly lied about the facts of these deaths or put people at risk? I doubt it but I am open to the facts, not speculation.
What I think is that someone "dropped the ball," for lack of a better term. I'm not saying it was the POTUS. Perhaps he's covering for someone else, or maybe information is being kept from him. Maybe the video story got out of hand and was hard to change once it got rolling. I read that the WH has the video but won't release it to Congress. If that's true, why not? When the POTUS was asked twice if help was requested but denied, he wouldn't answer. And that's from ABC - not FOX news.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … -for-help/
Ok, these things shouldn't be speculation.
Why did the administration say that the creator of the video would be prosecuted?
Why didn't Obama answer the question as to whether or not aid had been requested? That's not something that needs to be investigated, that's something that either happened, or didn't, and everyone from the heads of state up knows if it happened or not. Why? Because they were watching it all happen, live, in real-time, with video, radio, and digital communication.
by taburkett 8 years ago
What is your opinion of President Obama stating that the current Administration scandals are Phony?Does this statement present a distraction to the public? Does it show that the President has little concern for the truth? Does it echo the same illogical rhetoric as that used to hide...
by Reality Bytes 9 years ago
Spin this:New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside GatesThe deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night....
by The Frog Prince 9 years ago
Worse? The O not knowing he lost the debate until 24 hours later or two weeks for a terrorist attackObama was walking around thinking he had won the debate with Mitt Romney for at least 24 hours after he got shellacked. It took at least two weeks for him to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist...
by The Longhunter 9 years ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ … 2C20121024(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack,...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Susan Rice ordered the "unmasking" of Trump transition team - is this proof of team Obama spying?White House lawyers discovered that Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and...
by Quilligrapher 9 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have gone through all the documents, you have talked to people weeks leading up to...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|