http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/13 … een/194050
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. … 913-5.html
The right was silent over this. Is this an example of actually holding principles, but only applying them when the opposite party is in power, or pure political nonsense?
And embassy attacks are common occurrences. They happened under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama. There was no outrage from the right when embassies were attacked under Bush.
Again I ask, is this a selective application of real principles (like liberals denouncing Bush's violations of civil liberties while being silent on Obama's), or is this pure political nonsense?
My hunch is the latter answer in both cases.
So you're saying the attack on Benghazi is the cost of having embassies in dangerous countries? That there is no scandal? If so, I applaud you.
Can't answer for him but I sure don't think that is what he said.
Nope.
You don't even understand what Benghazi is about. It's not that it was attacked, and it's not that Americans died.
Alright, what's your beef with it? If you are upset about the talking points, I can understand, but that's not anything out of the ordinary when it comes to politics.
What about this "scandal" makes it so egregious to you?
I've said this in other threads, but here we go.
1 - The structural security in Benghazi didn't meet a single security standard, therefore it wasn't a location that should have been used according to policy. Ambassador Stevens shouldn't have been sent there until it was up to code.
2 - The security teams in Benghazi were not up to standard. As policy, Ambassador Stevens shouldn't have been sent there without a sufficient security force to defend the complex.
3 - The area was listed as high-threat, which according to testimony of the RSO, means that any security request or problem had to personally go through Hillary.
4 - The consulate was attacked half a dozen times in the year leading up to 9/11. The DoS knew about this, but claimed they didn't, and didn't do anything about it.
5 - Requests for additional personnel were rejected, by Hillary, and she lied about it(again, according to testimony of the RSO)
6 - Requests for improvements to the grounds were rejected, again by Hillary.
7 - Hillary told Congress that these issues were up to the RSO, which is patently false as we have the rejection cables.
8 - The Department of State individual who was in charge of distributing resources testified that available resources were not an issue.
9 - We had intelligence that an attack was being planned, and that was ignored.
10 - Every piece of intelligence going into Washington during the attack was 100% that it was a terrorist attack, not a protest. There was no protest, nobody was protesting. Just men with guns and RPGs. Therefore, there was no reason to call it a protest, except for political.
11 - We had at least two rapid-response, special-forces teams who could have deployed to Benghazi before the third round of attacks began, which is when 2 of our ex-military guys trying to defend the annex.
12 - We never requested air clearance and never scrambled a fighter. More WH officials lied about how long it would have taken to get a fighter in the air.
13 - Obama went to bed so he could go to a fundraiser while our men were fighting for their lives.
14 - The administration placed blame on our first enumerated right of freedom of speech.
There's more, plenty more, but the dereliction of duty is horrifying. Obama didn't do his job, Clinton didn't do her job, and who knows what information hasn't been released yet.
Why would Stevens go then, instead of resigning in protest over the lack of adequate security?
I don't know. Maybe he thought the risk was worth it. Maybe he was working with people smuggling weapons or tracking down manpads. Maybe he felt it was his sense of duty.
It doesn't matter, and we may never know his thoughts on the matter.
Did you know eight people lost their lives during an attack at the US Consulate at Peshawar?
Yep.
April 5, 2012.
Just one of the 44 attacks on US embassies and consulates over the past several
presidencies.
Some of them killing more than 4 people.
If we're going to sit in our armchair quarterback chairs, probabably ought to
re-scrutinize the full game tape on US presence in volatile countries, not just the last touchdown.
That has nothing to do with a single thing I said, and I fully addressed your concern in the other thread.
Did the obama bunch lie about that one too? What might be the similarities between this one and Libya?
I'm not familiar with the other cases of embassy attacks, perhaps you could fill us in. Did any of them (embassy) have help denied to them. And then once the attack took place did of of the other cases involve a pretend manhunt for the Movie Producer (in LA) that angered a people (with his video) into attacking an embassy but later debunked as an actual terrorist attack by a group that was supposedly squashed; but turns out that (the smiting!) might of been a bit premature but look it was said at just the right time to look good for re-elections ;-).
PS. Now the governments are going to send the IRS out to audit me ;-(
Its some attempt to frame conservatives as blaming Obama for a terrorist attack, nobody blamed him for that attack just for the coverup that followed.
I would answer but I'm sure you already know.
No, I don't. At least not for certain. I'd like to hear what, exactly, was covered up.
I mean, I understand the initial assessment was wrong and then corrected. When did this cover up occur and what, exactly, was being covered up?
What was covered up? The attack on the embassy was an orchestrated attack but was presented to the American people as a protest that simply got out of hand! The attempt to keep that narrative alive lasted for about two weeks until the administration finally understood that their lies were no longer believable. Why the cover-up? Your leader had been telling us bin laden was dead and al qaeda was on the run, any acknowledgement of an attack by them could possibly have adverse effects on Obama's reelection bid.
You know why it occurred I'm not sure why you feign ignorance.
Okay, if that is the coverup, then I understand why more people aren't jumping on the GOP bandwagon.
And I was not feigning ignorance; I honestly don't see how that can be viewed as a coverup, so I was asking in case I have been missing something bigger.
But hey, you all can keep at it; either the GOP will get more people on board or they will start to look foolish.
PP, I made points earlier in the thread explaining all these questions that the 'Benghazi isn't a big deal' people keep asking.
I wouldn't expect you to be on board with any investigation of Obama and his administration, you would always find an excuse for them.
I was all for investigating what happened at Benghazi. It's been investigated (how many hearings do you need to go over the same material) and I already said multiple times that mistakes were made. I just don't see any evidence of a coverup. Spinning, sure, but coverup? Naw.
The survivors have not been heard from, Hillary Clinton needs to clear up who denied the security requests that she said she never heard of. There is a lot to go over and I don't expect you to care.
I didn't say I didn't care. It just hard to get all worked up over it after enduring several years of being called a traitor and America-hater for speaking out against an unjust, wasteful, and stupid war fueled by lies and a complicit media, that resulted in immeasurable human suffering, only to be proven right, then castigated for not joining in the hypocritical GOP manufactured outrage of the week.
You will have to excuse me I don't know what you are talking about, if you have been called an America hater or traitor it wasn't by me. The GOP didn't invent Benghazi or the other two scandals plaguing this president. The hearings will happen but as with most things coming from "the most transparent administration ever" I doubt it will be very easy to uncover the truth.
Are you being intentionally unfamiliar? This is like someone saying a bill wasn't signed on February 12th, when it's easy to verify it was. Do you want me to google for you? I already posted this on another thread, but I guess since you are unable to research for yourself something easily verified...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … ama-romney
Reagan had the highest .
Let's also not forget Robert Gates, a Republican, claiming the Republicans in a tizzy over Benghazi have a "cartoonish" perception of the military's capacity to respond to crises around the world. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 … apability/
Ummm...........Bush didn't blame it on a video, thereby blaming Americans (especially Christians) for terrorism committed by fanatical Islamists.
So excuse you, but the two scenarios are light years apart. As are the two Presidents, in so many ways it ain't even funny.
Edit---------well JaxsonRaine already said it basically. But I was being "consistent" and will continue to be. Yup, we do care about consistency!
Good point, Brenda.
It's a fact of life that embassies are attacked and lives are lost. It's quite disheartening, though, when our President tries to push it off on a protest over a film, when it clearly was not.
The bigger issue is that this administration tried to manipulate the facts to keep Obama from looking like a fool for going into Libya in the first place. And, not only was that act foolish, it was illegal. He was trying to cover his ass after Benghazi - and Americans are just plain tired of coverups.
No Bush blamed THE WRONG COUNTRY and had several warnings beforehand.
What if Obama said Lebanon had sent terrorists into Libya to attack our embassy, when there was no evidence, and it was actually Syria who had sent them in? That would be more of a "scandal".
A politician lying isn't a scandal. Like I said, I'm not contesting that the administration may have played fast and loose with the facts, but you need something more severe to quality as a scandal.
How do you or anyone know it was the wrong Country at the time? Osama could've been anywhere, and Iraq was a known dictatorship with a leader who killed his own people and wouldn't get rid of his own weapons of mass destruction.
And where was it that Bin Ladin ended up anyway? I don't think it was Afghanistan where they finally found him.
Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the "war on Terror" was and is supposed to be a deterrent and/or war against terrorism, including holding any Nation that allows a monstrous dictatorship or that harbors known terrorists responsible. Am I right or wrong?
He was hiding in Pakistan, but was in Afghanistan when we invaded.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The purpose behind using the term 'war on terror' is to prolong the activities associated and to treat terrorist criminals as enemy combatants. It represents a redefinition of war to be something with no end in sight. This pleases hawks, the military and defence contractors. By definition 'war on terror' means that the government will never seek peaceful settlements as might be expected in a conventional war.
It isn't a war and as long as we've had terrorists it was never a war. It only became a war when the idiot George Dubya invented the term for the reasons I gave above.
The American media which loves to be brainlessly sensationalist in order to boost ratings and thus advertising revenue, also adopted the term and used it to great effect at 9/11 with headlines like 'America at War'. In America news is sold as entertainment so it must tickle the emotions of the consumers. Consequently objective factual and intelligent journalism goes out the window.
Very well thought out argument. Its a war!
It's not a war. You think it's a war because your government and media want you to think its a war.
Consistency is not a in the current administration except when it comes to attempting to get out of things. I see no way the president can describe something as an "act of terror" only then to refer to it as a "YouTube Video" which set off a crowd. That is a reach. At the same time, why did the president not inquire as to the whereabouts of the Ambassador at any time after his 5:00 PM meeting with Panetta. There is no record that the president was in touch with anyone until the next day. If things are so innocent here and distorted by the right, how come the president has not been more cooperative and forth coming? We impeached Nixon for that type of stonewalling. If the president is so inclined to honesty on the issue, then why has he allowed Jay Carney to continue to perpretrate lies in his press briefings on the issue? How can this president stand before the American people and proclaim his faith in Eric Holder and his leadership when Holder is responsible for botching Fast N' Furious and when he elected to recuse himself from a matter (the AP wire taps) more than a year ago so that he could deny plausible responsibility...how can you have faith in that type of leadership? ~WB
Can we please find a different unintelligent, shameless, attention-grabbing name for this? I can't take you seriously when you're constantly reminding me of a movie franchise that's essentially a dark and gritty Speed Racer.
Well I don't think Obama is actually that honest, so if you take out that assumption, it's not as hard to understand.
Jason made some good points about the lack of security in Benghazi. The lesson we should learn from this is if we are going to go into countries that hate us, make sure our embassies are well protected.
Hi Wayne. How are you doing these days.
It seems you are having as much trouble with your facts as you accuse the President of having.
You are probably one of just a few Americans who think that President Nixon was impeached when he was not.
Secondly, after an intense investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported to congress that Attorney General Eric Holder had no involvement with the highly flawed Fast and Furious operation conducted by ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. {1}
I will leave it to you to verify President Nixon’s resignation.
{1} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html
by The Frog Prince 11 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 Holle Abee 11 years ago
for the Libya problem. I'm not sure which channel it was on. I'm in the office. If hubby was watching the TV last, it's on FOX. If I was watching last, it's on CNN.
by Quilligrapher 11 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...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, the slow motion movie that is Benghazi-gate can now be sub-titled: "Sex,Lies,and Videotape."The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Sept 11 and the continuing obfuscation and lies by Obama of what actually happened...
by PhoenixV 7 years ago
If Hillary Clinton cannot protect one Embassy how can she protect the whole country?
by JaxsonRaine 11 years ago
A couple of notes from the hearing so far.Several key witnesses who were actually in Libya at the time Benghazi was attacked were ordered by lawyers from the Secretary of State not to testify to Congress.Lt. Col. Gibson's special forces team in Tripoli was ordered not to go to Benghazi.The special...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
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. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
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. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
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. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |