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.
Something's been going on with Obama and Hillary for some time. She was exiled to the other side of the planet during the convention. and Panetta has been handling affairs of state betwen China /Japan in the island's dispute. Curious.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland ended a series of questions about the Obama Administration’s changing narrative about the terrorist attack in Benghazi by saying that she’s paid to be “dumber” than other government officials.
“Look, I’m generally dumber than most of the rest of the government,” Nuland told reporters yesterday. “I mean, that’s what I’m paid to be.”
It was at that point that she was dismissing any further questions.
If you go to the video pick it up around 13.50 for the Q&A on Libya. One person had an interesting question. He noted that the ambassador's guests left the compound at 8:30. The attack took place at 9:40 when they got the call "Attack! Attack!". He had mentioned that since there was security around the compound, and if protesters started to gather, wouldn't someone have called in to report this gathering as a matter of security? I thought that was a really good question.
When you think about it, seeing as how the risk situation in Libya was reported as increasing over the previous months as earlier reports indicated, wouldn't those in the compound request some support if people were gathering so as to err on the side of caution?
Nor are they the majority of people who will actually bother to vote - as will be demonstrated in a few weeks when Mitt Romney is elected as the 45th president.
Obviously you don't read posts and links when they're right in front of your face. Of course you do have to click on the links.
The Libyans, the security experts, the media, all thought it was a video for about 6 days.
How could you not connect those dots. We are talking about something that would equate to a out of hand protest in Houston, and an attack on a building related to the reason of the protest in Dallas. How could those dots not seem right?
There are videos of Egyptians storming the Embassy walls in Cairo also, doesn't mean they were terrorists.
Look, I don't think we should have been in Libya at all, and thats what I take issue with. But this monday morning quaterback **** is pathetic.
If there had been extra security, they would have been in Tripoli, to far away to help in Bengazi.
Bad **** happens, we are trying to find those responsible, and learn from mistakes made. Just like 9/11, and heres another kicker, the same people that gave Bush a pass for not connecting the 9/11/01 dots, are the same ones blaming Obama now. The same people that wanted to bury Bush for the missing the 9/11/01 dots, are ok with not connecting the dots in 9/11/12.
I don't blame either President for those failures, they happen, but its the aftermath that must be watched. And 5 days out isn't a long time to think it wasn't related to the video.
What world was this in?
Libya itself stated otherwise very quickly.
Last edited by bluesjuke; 10-14-2012 at 03:32 AM..
Reason: punctuation correction
So what if Libya is not a big deal in voters minds? Why would it be - the economy is the major issue of the election and that is entirely because of the Obama recession. Yet another reason to vote for Mitt Romney.
This was a planned terrorist attack - and should have been at the very least foreseen - if not detected earlier. If nothing else - Ambassador Steven's request for more security should have been granted.
It is most certainly partisanship to make excuses for the debacle in Benghazi - why can't you admit that the administration was wrong? Answer - doing so might hurt your side. Whose fault is that?
It is time that the Obama administration take responsibility for what it does instead of pointing the finger of blame at everyone else.
Every life is precious. So please don't misunderstand me when I write this, but why are people up in arms over 4 deaths when hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were killed in Iraq, including over 4,000 American soldiers, not to mention the 30,000+ who were wounded. Then add the more than 2,000 American soldiers who died in Afghanistan and the list goes on and on.
It took Bush more than a year after we invaded Iraq to tell us "Oops, no WMDs!" as if it were a joke. What about 9/11? That was on our own soil and over 2,800 Americans were jumping to their deaths while buildings were collapsing, but we keep hearing about how safe we all were before Obama took office. Is there anyone here who doesn't believe the Bush administration knew in advance that Al Qaeda was planning to attack us?
Maybe Obama is lying to us, maybe he isn't. Maybe Hillary knew more than she's admitting. Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not naive and realize politicians lie, so don't think for a minute I'm defending them. However, Chris Stevens was her friend and she was very shaken up about the attack. That was obvious to me. Republicans realize that this story could cost Obama the election and they are milking it for every drop to muddy his image.
I'm trying to figure out why everyone is so bent out of shape over these 4 men when just this week 10 times as many people died right here on our streets. It's like the story about that beautiful little girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban we keep seeing on the news. Of course the story makes me very sad, but we drop bombs on thousands of children who look just like her. Why don't we see pictures of them on the news? I know. It's because she was killed by the Taliban, even though in March an American soldier went on a killing spree in Afghanistan and murdered 16 people, most of them little children. Do you know that in August alone, 8 children died in the U.S. from being left in a hot car? I wonder what story was popular that month, since I don't remember anyone crying for them. We are all victims of the media.
Sorry for the rant, but it's maddening when I hear people talking about Chris Stevens as if they actually knew who he was before the story was on cable news. Of course we need a thorough investigation into the attack, but the GOP seems to be more interested in playing politics than doing what's good for the citizens of our country. Before we even knew if Stevens was still alive, Romney was using the attack in campaign speeches, which was very irresponsible. Our enemies must love seeing us tear each other apart. We don't know what happened, but now it has turned into a political circus to bring down the President.
So what if Libya is not a big deal in voters minds? Why would it be - the economy is the major issue of the election and that is entirely because of the Obama recession. Yet another reason to vote for Mitt Romney.
This was a planned terrorist attack - and should have been at the very least foreseen - if not detected earlier. If nothing else - Ambassador Steven's request for more security should have been granted.
It is most certainly partisanship to make excuses for the debacle in Benghazi - why can't you admit that the administration was wrong? Answer - doing so might hurt your side. Whose fault is that?
It is time that the Obama administration take responsibility for what it does instead of pointing the finger of blame at everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Obviously you don't read posts and links when they're right in front of your face. Of course you do have to click on the links.
There was a question as to proof that I "think" that most of the country does not believe there was a cover up. So I posted a link to voters' priority of concerns, which shows that a very low percentage of voters are concerned about the Middle East and foreign policy, 5% or 6% or less. So you think the Libyan issue is going to be the driving force for whom voters vote?
However, I would point out that when I say, "it seems to me," or "I think" that I'm stating my opinion so there wouldn't be a link to prove that it's what I think or my opinion.
I'm not making "excuses" for anyone. I'm explaining the reason I do not see any "debacle".....and I have also pointed out that this is not a big, compelling issue for most of the voting public. IF it were a huge debacle and as outrageous as you all continue to try to make it (for political purposes I might add), the voting public would have a different reaction to the constant pounding by the Republicans of this event.
Every life is precious. So please don't misunderstand me when I write this, but why are people up in arms over 4 deaths when hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were killed in Iraq, including over 4,000 American soldiers, not to mention the 30,000+ who were wounded. Then add the more than 2,000 American soldiers who died in Afghanistan and the list goes on and on.
It took Bush more than a year after we invaded Iraq to tell us "Oops, no WMDs!" as if it were a joke. What about 9/11? That was on our own soil and over 2,800 Americans were jumping to their deaths while buildings were collapsing, but we keep hearing about how safe we all were before Obama took office. Is there anyone here who doesn't believe the Bush administration knew in advance that Al Qaeda was planning to attack us?
Maybe Obama is lying to us, maybe he isn't. Maybe Hillary knew more than she's admitting. Yes, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not naive and realize politicians lie, so don't think for a minute I'm defending them. However, Chris Stevens was her friend and she was very shaken up about the attack. That was obvious to me. Republicans realize that this story could cost Obama the election and they are milking it for every drop to muddy his image.
I'm trying to figure out why everyone is so bent out of shape over these 4 men when just this week 10 times as many people died right here on our streets. It's like the story about that beautiful little girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban we keep seeing on the news. Of course the story makes me very sad, but we drop bombs on thousands of children who look just like her. Why don't we see pictures of them on the news? I know. It's because she was killed by the Taliban, even though in March an American soldier went on a killing spree in Afghanistan and murdered 16 people, most of them little children. Do you know that in August alone, 8 children died in the U.S. from being left in a hot car? I wonder what story was popular that month, since I don't remember anyone crying for them. We are all victims of the media.
Sorry for the rant, but it's maddening when I hear people talking about Chris Stevens as if they actually knew who he was before the story was on cable news. Of course we need a thorough investigation into the attack, but the GOP seems to be more interested in playing politics than doing what's good for the citizens of our country. Before we even knew if Stevens was still alive, Romney was using the attack in campaign speeches, which was very irresponsible. Our enemies must love seeing us tear each other apart. We don't know what happened, but now it has turned into a political circus to bring down the President.
Always excuses by and for the Administration.
Never taking responsibility for anything.
Some sad example of leadership.
"always" and "never" are words that should not be overused of used so casually. "Never" is a long, long time.
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.
