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.
Accountability means nothing these days. Here in Ontario Canada they conducted a poll recently and over 66% of those polled believed that the standing liberal government was corrupt....oddly they will not bother making the trip to vote come election time. The obviously corrupt government will probably continue with another term...people don't care about honesty and honor anymore. In fact a young hipster friend of my son said to me a while ago..."Your just one of those old school guys who is all about honor and all that stuff" - well yah...when did honor lose it's importance? Was it while I was sleeping?
I think it's all about promoting deviancy down, by the power elites. If corrupt politicians and public servants without honor and integrity are dismissed by the people, then the corruption by our government can continue unchallenged.
Maybe the free stuff government tosses our way is also to keep us pacified so we look the other way or simply shrug, and think honor is old school.
He had plenty of chances to connect the dots and characterize the attack as "a terrorist attack." Here is every sentence, in the order he spoke them, referencing the attack on Benghazi:
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.
...we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya
Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.
We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.
Obama had PLENTY of chances to call this a terrorist attack, instead he called it an " attack" a "shocking attack" a "terrible act" and a "senseless act."
Obama had PLENTY of chances to call these "attackers" or "killers" terrorists but he didn't. How can you claim Obama called it a terrorist act WITHOUT ANY TERRORISTS??
That entire speech, and the word "terror" was only uttered once, and it was a general reference to terror:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
Only liberal partisan dems can turn "No acts of terror" into "This act of terror." you have to put works in his mouth to get him to say what you want him to, unless you think Obama is not articulate enough.
On top of that, an interview of the president, on Sept 12th, asked him about this, and he said he went out of his way NOT to refer to the attack as a terrorist attack:
KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack....
OBAMA: (interrupts) Right!
KROFT: ... do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
And if he US ambassador to Libya decided that a consulate is not safe, due to over a dozen previous terrorist attacks against the consulate, the Red Cross, and the British embassy, you either shut down the consulate, or beef up security. But according to partisan, liberal progs around here, they think our State Department not only keeps the consulate open, but reduces security personnel even further, and then writes off all those US civilians as expendable assets. And this is how the progs think it should be done.
Was there any permanent staff at the "State Dept Consulate" in Benghazi? My understanding the facility was only temporarily staffed and used infrequently by the State Dept.
Was there any permanent staff at the "State Dept Consulate" in Benghazi? My understanding the facility was only temporarily staffed and used infrequently by the State Dept.
It was a CIA base with 30 CIA employees. When Benghazi got attacked there were 5 State Dept employees there.
Benghazi is not a consulate.
This is why they havent tried to use the Congress didnt fund it line. Because they know they are worse off.
But what isnt being talked about enough is just why the hell security requests were denied. The Admin and State Dept have not provided clear answers with evidence. Why? And how do they get away with not explaining it? If they had such a rational explanation, they wouldve come out with it months ago. Yet what did they do? They changed talking points so they didnt have to talk about it.
This is why they havent tried to use the Congress didnt fund it line. Because they know they are worse off.
But what isnt being talked about enough is just why the hell security requests were denied. The Admin and State Dept have not provided clear answers with evidence. Why? And how do they get away with not explaining it? If they had such a rational explanation, they wouldve come out with it months ago. Yet what did they do? They changed talking points so they didnt have to talk about it.
I had read an article that they wanted to normalize Libya quickly.
They didn't want the military presence there so they hired local Libyans to provide security.
Only the local militia had some ties to the extremists.
And relations got bad and the militia quit a week before Stevens got there.
It was all about the perception that Libya was stable and the US "did good" by invading.
I had read an article that they wanted to normalize Libya quickly.
They didn't want the military presence there so they hired local Libyans to provide security.
Only the local militia had some ties to the extremists.
And relations got bad and the militia quit a week before Stevens got there.
It was all about the perception that Libya was stable and the US "did good" by invading.
Ive heard similar. But I want that to come out in testimony and what not. I want it to be exposed for exactly what happened. For an Admin and State Dept that insists they did little wrong, they sure as hell are not forthcoming with answers. One can assume, rightly so, that the reason is that they dont have answers that will fly with the American people.
Was there any permanent staff at the "State Dept Consulate" in Benghazi? My understanding the facility was only temporarily staffed and used infrequently by the State Dept.
How many Americans were there on Sept 11th?
Here is Maureen Dowd's take on this, which by the way, are exactly what I have been saying for months.
The toxic theatrics, including Karl Rove’s first attack ad against Hillary, cloud a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.
After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.
Here is Maureen Dowd's take on this, which by the way, are exactly what I have been saying for months.
The toxic theatrics, including Karl Rove’s first attack ad against Hillary, cloud a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.
After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The U.S. doesn't always have the luxury to operate in totally secure environments. According to Hicks' testimony, Stevens was aware of the dangers in Benghazi. Based on the results the CIA didn't heed its own warnings; 2 of the people killed were at the main CIA facility in Benghazi.
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.
