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.
They`re making a strong case for voter sanity laws. In their world History began on Jan.20th 2009. Dozens of security screw ups that happened long before that date never really happened.
That's really not the issue. Did you miss it?
Things happen. That's understood. Even when you do your best to prevent it, it still can go wrong.
The issue is NOBODY RESPONDED TO CALLS FOR HELP! and then, everybody from top down tried to cover it up. There's far more to this than meets the eye right now, and I don't think the adminsitration and the President are going to come out looking better but rather much worse, if and when the truth comes out.
Remember, Obama insisted that in the Rose Garden he called it a terror attack. But as late as Oct. 26 he still blamed the video. Now, he can't have it both ways, or can he? Maybe he'll figure out a way to have it both ways, and expect us to buy it.
It is rumored now that the whole operation was a fake "kidnapping" orchestrated by Obama in a bid to bolster his re-election chances. Obama would "save" the ambassador, coming across as a hero. The thing he did not count on was the two Navy Seals, who put up a fight for eight hours. The terrorists (who oddly used US weapons) were upset about being "had" and killed the ambassador.
This would make sense, as not allowing-
the CIA operatives
the C34 transport
the two helicopter gunships
to engage the enemy would not have been a part of "the plan". Otherwise, why in the hell would Obama ignore intelligence reports, not abandon or reinforce the embassy, or allow forces to assist in the defense?
Obama will certainly be impeached for this if re-elected. If not re-elected, he will be seeking a pardon from Romney, much like Nixon sought from Ford.
It is "rumored"? OMG! The very idea of the above is just over the edge nuts and simple minded.
I think you've been watching some very BAD movies.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 10-28-2012 at 06:31 PM..
Even if completely false and he never set foot in the situation room, then my question is:
Where the hell was the POTUS for 7 hours while this attack was going on?
What the hell was he doing?
This is the guy in charge of the executive branch and a consulate getting overrun is kind of hard to ignore and it's a major issue.
So if people say he wasn't there, then as an American I want to know what exactly he was doing instead of being on the job.
Because if a consulate getting ransacked and an ambassador getting killed is no big deal to these people, then I question it because what else are they hiding?
There were two attacks, neither very long. Reinforcements were flown in between the first and second. The second apparently lasted only a few minutes. The American then left. Basically the whole operation was extracted. That is not bad in 7 hours.
And I would think what is being hidden is a big part of this deal. It apparently has not occurred to you folk but what is it that was going on in the annex? The two guys killed were special force types...not covert operatives. Why a nest of special forces types in Benghazi? I would think the President would be very concerned about all that and not in any big hurry to talk about why they were there.
An Ambassador getting killed is a big deal. What is the right solution? Occupy Benghazi? Nuke Tripoli?
I would think Obama will eventually take out the perps. Probably in a very violent way.
Things happen. That's understood. Even when you do your best to prevent it, it still can go wrong.
The issue is NOBODY RESPONDED TO CALLS FOR HELP! and then, everybody from top down tried to cover it up. There's far more to this than meets the eye right now, and I don't think the adminsitration and the President are going to come out looking better but rather much worse, if and when the truth comes out.
Remember, Obama insisted that in the Rose Garden he called it a terror attack. But as late as Oct. 26 he still blamed the video. Now, he can't have it both ways, or can he? Maybe he'll figure out a way to have it both ways, and expect us to buy it.
"can't have it both ways".......yes, you can if you look at everything. Terrorists were motivated to make the attack at the time they did by the film clip denigrating their prophet which was broadcast on TV all over the Middle East the weekend prior to the attack on Tuesday, 9/11. The "video" was the reason cited by the terrorists in Benghazi for the attack. BOTH WAYS.
Ahhh, time is getting short, and even shorter with this huge storm approaching the NE, so now you guys are just outright repeating emails you're getting from who knows WHERE, and being told to post on Internet message boards. I think this seems a little desperate.
Things happen. That's understood. Even when you do your best to prevent it, it still can go wrong.
The issue is NOBODY RESPONDED TO CALLS FOR HELP! and then, everybody from top down tried to cover it up. There's far more to this than meets the eye right now, and I don't think the adminsitration and the President are going to come out looking better but rather much worse, if and when the truth comes out.
Remember, Obama insisted that in the Rose Garden he called it a terror attack. But as late as Oct. 26 he still blamed the video. Now, he can't have it both ways, or can he? Maybe he'll figure out a way to have it both ways, and expect us to buy it.
And listen once more. They did respond. They had reinforcements flown in from Tripoli within a couple of hours. And these reinforcements were at the annex when the second attack occurred. The Americans were then able to successfully withdraw to the airport and fly out.
"can't have it both ways".......yes, you can if you look for the truth. Terrorists were motivated to make the attack at the time they did by the film clip denigrating their prophet which was broadcast on TV all over the Middle East the weekend prior to the attack on Tuesday, 9/11. The "video" was the reason cited by the terrorists in Benghazi for the attack. BOTH WAYS.
I KNEW someone would come up with just that scenario. It's WH type of convoluted spinning. It is known that the video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.
I KNEW someone would come up with just that scenario. It's WH type of convoluted spinning. It is known that the video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.
There were apparently on site witnesses who say it did have to do with the movie and perhaps the attack in Cairo. The Libyan government insists it was likely preplanned. The original suspects have apparently denied any role and it appears the US has lost interest in them.
So exactly what evidence do you know of that conclusively proves the movie had no role?
There were two attacks, neither very long. Reinforcements were flown in between the first and second. The second apparently lasted only a few minutes. The American then left. Basically the whole operation was extracted. That is not bad in 7 hours.
And I would think what is being hidden is a big part of this deal. It apparently has not occurred to you folk but what is it that was going on in the annex? The two guys killed were special force types...not covert operatives. Why a nest of special forces types in Benghazi? I would think the President would be very concerned about all that and not in any big hurry to talk about why they were there.
An Ambassador getting killed is a big deal. What is the right solution? Occupy Benghazi? Nuke Tripoli?
I would think Obama will eventually take out the perps. Probably in a very violent way.
The 2 ex SEAL's that died where there are on a project to locate man portable surface to air missiles, as around 20,000 of them are loose in Libya as Gaddafi had massive stockpiles. That is no secret. These guys had been locating these missiles and smashing the electronics and circuit boards to render the missiles inoperable.
For starters, the big **** up was the ambassador having no mobile or static security attached to him in a dangerous country as well as being in a "lock and key" facility that was basically a house.
What should have happened was to put that AC 130 on targets the one SEAL was lighting up with a laser and to get various counterterrorism units that were available in Italy on the ground to repel the attack.
What this exposes is weakness. It sends a message you can ransack a US embassy or consulate any ole time you want, not mention attacking other targets.
I KNEW someone would come up with just that scenario. It's WH type of convoluted spinning. It is known that the video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.
No. It's your opinion/belief that the video had nothing to do with it.
Of course you knew that someone would come up with that scenario because you obviously have read that witnesses at the consulate office neighborhood said taht the terrorists made the claim that they were going to attack because of the "movie." It's not convoluted spinning at all. It makes sense that the terrorists were motivated by being enormously offended by the "American" video or they certainly used the video by claiming that was the reason for the attack.
Your problem is that there is nothing to show that this attack was planned or controlled by AQ. These terrorists were not AQ. They were Islamic fundamentalists and part of a militia which was supposed to be helping keep peace in Benghazi while the government was in transition. Do you really think that an Islamic fundamentalist would NOT be extremely offended by the "American video".....or that the video would not provide a good cover to attack Americans for people who thought that American influence in Libya was a BAD THING for their religion?
"A Libyan witness interviewed in the aftermath of the attack by the AP said that Abu Khattala was present directing fighters. The witness spoke anonymously for fear of retaliation.
An AP reporter was also shown a camera photo of a long-haired, long-bearded man who was wearing the Afghan-style robe favored by many radicals and whom other Benghazi residents identified as the 41-year-old militia leader. The consulate’s gate with barbed wire could be seen in the background.
The New York Times has quoted unnamed Libyan officials as singling out Abu Khattala as a commander in the attack, calling him a leader in the hardline Islamist Ansar al-Shariah militia. Other Libyan witnesses say they saw Ansar al-Shariah trucks mounted with heavy weapons outside the consulate the night of the attack.
The Benghazi attack has fueled an anti-militia backlash. The government says that it is outlawing particularly troublesome militias and appointing commanders to posts to rein in others.
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.
The very idea of the above is just over the edge nuts and simple minded. 
and a faster responder. 
