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.
As for WHY Stevens was in Benghazi specifically (which was the question), it wasn't simply because he had been appointed Ambassador, there was a reason he took that trip at that time, and he could have cancelled it if he had felt that it was too dangerous. Appears to be something else you didn't know. He was stationed in Tripoli, NOT Benghazi. And, he relied on his own judgement about taking the trip and the security he needed for that trip. There's no way you can turn that around. You missed the point of most of those questions. What part of the fact that Stevens was in Libya DURING the Revolution, without U.S. protection, did you miss? He was not the Ambassador at that time. The question of level of security ON THAT TRIP to Benghazi on that date was his to make. What's the problem? Can't deal with not having all the knowledge out there about Stevens after you've made such a big deal and point of telling us that you are an avid reader and you don't make assumptions but rely on FACTS which you have researched?
Some folks are just hopelessly bullies and bluffers.
WOW, you are all over the place aren't you?? I'm not even going to bother to disect your post to correct you.
WOW, you are all over the place aren't you?? I'm not even going to bother to disect your post to correct you.
Because you can't. There is nothing to correct. You didn't know what you were talking about when answering the questions about Stevens which were put to you by lvoc, and your answers were wrong.
MEANWHILE...Chaffetz (R) admits that Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
Because you can't. There is nothing to correct. You didn't know what you were talking about when answering the questions about Stevens which were put to you by lvoc, and your answers were wrong.
As for WHY Stevens was in Benghazi specifically (which was the question), it wasn't simply because he had been appointed Ambassador, there was a reason he took that trip at that time, and he could have cancelled it if he had felt that it was too dangerous.
Obama sent him there. Ambassadors do not act on their own initiative. They do what the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense or the President tells them to do.
Obviously someone in the Obama Administration desired Stevens to meet with other foreign officials in Benghazi.
Probably something to do with oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
He was not the Ambassador at that time.
That's right, so he was not a target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Do you really believe in absolute safety?
No, but there's a difference between being prepared and not being prepared, and the US staff in Libya was not prepared, and that was due to the incompetence of the Obama Administration.
Absolutely....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
Ler's see...hmmm...which is worse?
Cover up or...
Defunding leading to death...
I say defunding leading to death that might have been avoided with the funding that the POTUS requested is a bit worse, but that is just my humble opinion.
There was no cover up, there was however an intense effort to not jump the gun.
There was no cover up? They didn't want to jump the gun? Funny but they blamed it on a video.
You might want to review this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
This situation exposes the current foreign policy and it's flaws in a nutshell:
"Nordstrom, the former security official in Libya, addressed the diplomatic security issue in an Oct. 1 email to a congressional investigator. He said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to “normalize operations and reduce security resources.”
A competent president would have understood that Libya is a failed-State, since the Libyan "government" is not in control of the country.
Obama could have very easily issued an Executive Order shifting funds from one department, office or agency to the State Department to provide funding.
I guess if it had been Solyndra, Obama would have found the money.
Or Obama could have just directed other departments, offices or agencies to provide money for security. For example, Obama could have taken money from the budget of Fraulein Obama's useless friggin' Reichs-Ministry for School Nausea and used it to pay for security.
Or Obama could have just directed Hillary to shift money around in the State Department budget to fund security.
Or Hillary could have directed the State Department to shift money around, since, after all, she is the Secretary of State.
Competently....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
I do not see how wanting safety for Americans is anti Obama.
Well, that's because you refuse to suck Obama's ass.
Whatever Obama says is truth. Obama said so, therefore Obama is right, because Obama said so, because he is right, because he said so, and because his supporters said so. To doubt or question Obama is a blatant display of racism and no true American is racist, accordingly, no true American would ever question or doubt Obama, and anyone who does question Obama is either a racist, or not a true American or both.
Commiserating....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
This whole thing makes me physically sick.
This administration under Obama is whacked.
Indeed. It's very Clintonesque.
When Hillary met with Obama yesterday, I'm sure she schooled him in the Vince Foster Method™.
Whatever Obama says is truth. Obama said so, therefore Obama is right, because Obama said so, because he is right, because he said so, and because his supporters said so. To doubt or question Obama is a blatant display of racism and no true American is racist, accordingly, no true American would ever question or doubt Obama, and anyone who does question Obama is either a racist, or not a true American or both.
Commiserating....
Mircea
To the anti-Obama contingent, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING Obama says is a lie and every action he takes is wrong or motivated by some "socialist" agenda.
I think you should read more about Stevens' background. He was not the "typical" ambassador. Obviously you missed that.
Obama sent him there. Ambassadors do not act on their own initiative. They do what the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense or the President tells them to do.
Obviously someone in the Obama Administration desired Stevens to meet with other foreign officials in Benghazi.
Probably something to do with oil.
That's right, so he was not a target.
No, but there's a difference between being prepared and not being prepared, and the US staff in Libya was not prepared, and that was due to the incompetence of the Obama Administration.
Absolutely....
Mircea
There was no cover up? They didn't want to jump the gun? Funny but they blamed it on a video.
You might want to review this...
...in more detail.
You claim Obama is president.
A competent president would have understood that Libya is a failed-State, since the Libyan "government" is not in control of the country.
Obama could have very easily issued an Executive Order shifting funds from one department, office or agency to the State Department to provide funding.
I guess if it had been Solyndra, Obama would have found the money.
Or Obama could have just directed other departments, offices or agencies to provide money for security. For example, Obama could have taken money from the budget of Fraulein Obama's useless friggin' Reichs-Ministry for School Nausea and used it to pay for security.
Or Obama could have just directed Hillary to shift money around in the State Department budget to fund security.
Or Hillary could have directed the State Department to shift money around, since, after all, she is the Secretary of State.
Competently....
Mircea
Well, that's because you refuse to suck Obama's ass.
Whatever Obama says is truth. Obama said so, therefore Obama is right, because Obama said so, because he is right, because he said so, and because his supporters said so. To doubt or question Obama is a blatant display of racism and no true American is racist, accordingly, no true American would ever question or doubt Obama, and anyone who does question Obama is either a racist, or not a true American or both.
Commiserating....
Mircea
Indeed. It's very Clintonesque.
When Hillary met with Obama yesterday, I'm sure she schooled him in the Vince Foster Method™.
Concurring...
Mircea
\
Utter and complete nonsense. Shows how this dialog gets completely beyond rationality.
The Ambassador was in Benghazi because he chose to be there. He was in Libya because Obama sent him there. But There is no data or rational reason why he was compelled to go to Benghazi.
He obviously thought it the right thing to do and believed it safe. He was a big boy.
Now unless you have something specific that has not appeared on the record you should back off.
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.
