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.
That still does not pinpoint the blame on the administration. Maybe it was Congress that denied the increased security (I have read that 'claim' as well.). It will come out, but until then it is all 'assumptions', 'claims' and baseless accusations.
Ummmmm....who's in CHARGE????? It's Obama's State Department and we know Obama couldn't be bothered to attend Intelligence Briefings in person.
And I do have a problem with you characterizing a Special Forces Security Head as merely making "assupmtions" and "baseless accusations".
So BUSH lied to you about Iraq's WMD Program????..........
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi (D), December 16, 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller (D), Oct 10, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman (D), August, 2002
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin (D), Sept 19, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry (D), Jan 23, 2003
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy (D), Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry (D), Oct 2002
I've got LOADS more of those quotes BTW.
Can't rep you again.
Too many people forget that the Iraq War resolution was supported by both parties - and it is pathetic that the Democrats make our national security into a political issue.
They are doing the same thing with the attack on the embassy in Libya.
They are doing the same thing with the attack on the embassy in Libya.
Liberals come here and say stuff they can't even back up.
Or, they re-write history such as saying there was no Iraq War vote and that Democrats didn't support that Saddam had WMDs.
Oh wait...then they try and say that Bush manipulated the intelligence.
Too bad there was a Congressional investigation (the Robb-Silberman Report) on that very subject which concurred that there was no manipulation of the intelligence.
Great Britian ALSO investigated that and also found no manipulation of the intelligence. The intelligence was just plain faulty and one reason given for that was that Clinton had gutted the intelligence community leaving us with no "feet on the ground".
Why would you want to know who they are - let alone have their names broadcast as public information.
That is what gets people who gather and/or supply the intelligence - killed.
Do you always take reports by unnamed sources at face value? That seems pretty naive to me. Would you believe unnamed "officials" if they reported that Mitt Romney was indeed a polygamist and had three other wives and families hidden away in Utah somewhere? How long would you stand behind such reports from UNNAMED sources?
When these unnamed "officials" who are feeding this stuff to reporters are questioned personally in re the Congressional investigation, and are revealed to the Congress-people, even if their names and appearances are withheld, that will give them some credibility. At the moment, you do NOT KNOW who those sources are. You don't even know if they are "intelligence officials." You cannot possibly know at this point. That's why I find the information questionable until I know who they are and why they are giving this information out to the press.
Amazing that people who complain so often and so loudly about the "liberal media" do a complete about-face when something is reported by them from unnamed "officials" which supports what you want to believe. Stop and THINK about this for a minute. Why do you so easily believe "unnamed officials'" quotes from what you call the Lame Stream Media, or the Liberal Media, when it's saying something you want to hear, yet if it reports something you don't like, especially from unnamed sources, or "someone close to the situation" you scream and yell about how the Liberal Media is conspiring to help Obama?
Amazing that people who complain so often and so loudly about the "liberal media" do a complete about-face when something is reported by them from unnamed "officials" which supports what you want to believe. Stop and THINK about this for a minute. Why do you so easily believe "unnamed officials'" quotes from what you call the Lame Stream Media, or the Liberal Media, when it's saying something you want to hear, yet if it reports something you don't like, especially from unnamed sources, or "someone close to the situation" you scream and yell about how the Liberal Media is conspiring to help Obama?
Something that I want to hear?
Are you out of your living skull?
What would ever make you think that I "want to hear" that intelligence reports were ignored that led to the death of our ambassador and other embassy staff?
Don't you realize that this is a national tragedy?
Amazing that people who complain so often and so loudly about the "liberal media" do a complete about-face when something is reported by them from unnamed "officials" which supports what you want to believe. Stop and THINK about this for a minute. Why do you so easily believe "unnamed officials'" quotes from what you call the Lame Stream Media, or the Liberal Media, when it's saying something you want to hear, yet if it reports something you don't like, especially from unnamed sources, or "someone close to the situation" you scream and yell about how the Liberal Media is conspiring to help Obama?
This is being reported by Free Beacon....not what I would call the Lamestream Liberal Media.
The LLM are places like the NYT, WashPo, MSNBC, etc.
They are all but on Obama's Campaign Election Committee.
PS: Unnamed sources and whistleblowers are reported all the time by many of those in the Lamestream Liberal Media.......I'll bet you never question that though
What would ever make you think that I "want to hear" that intelligence reports were ignored that led to the death of our ambassador and other embassy staff?
Don't you realize that this is a national tragedy?
Why are you trying to politicize it?
It's just like Obama directed them to think.....It's just a "bump in the road".
Nothing to see here.....Obama has ordered them to ignore it.
What would ever make you think that I "want to hear" that intelligence reports were ignored that led to the death of our ambassador and other embassy staff?
Don't you realize that this is a national tragedy?
Why are you trying to politicize it?
You totally evaded the issue; Why do people who scream and yell about the "Liberal Media" and the "Lamestream Media" all the time, THEN when the "liberal media" reports something which is negative about Obama and his administration, these same people believe UNNAMED SOURCES from the "liberal media"? You're not an Obama supporter, are you? I think you want to hear the negative reports simply because you'd like to see Obama defeated in the election and these sorts of "reports" from "unnamed sources" (many hope) may hurt Obama on election day. I think it is YOUR side who is politicizing this issue. I'm trying to be reasonable and stop the sensationalizing of it. There is a Congressional investigation into this incident, and when that is over we will have a much better chance of knowing the facts than believing "reports" from "officials" and "intelligence officials" who are not willing to stand up and say who they are and that they are reporting these things because of principle.
It's just like Obama directed them to think.....It's just a "bump in the road".
Nothing to see here.....Obama has ordered them to ignore it.
Obama didn't direct me to do anything.
The fact that there is a Congressional investigation into this issue is a good thing.
Again, I wonder what the motive may be to sensationalize this issue on internet message boards? Amazing that so many seem to believe that there is a "liberal media" conspiracy to protect Obama and that we should believe nothing that comes from the "liberal media," but the minute there is a negative report about the Obama Administration from UNNAMED SOURCES in the "liberal media" all the naysayers of what they call the "liberal media" not only believes such reports, they can hardly wait to copy and paste it all over internet message boards. I think it's wise to be cautious and see/hear what the Congressional investigation reveals. I have this habit of not taking everything I read in newspapers (print/online) and everything I hear on TV news at face value.
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.
Stop and THINK about this for a minute. Why do you so easily believe "unnamed officials'" quotes from what you call the Lame Stream Media, or the Liberal Media, when it's saying something you want to hear, yet if it reports something you don't like, especially from unnamed sources, or "someone close to the situation" you scream and yell about how the Liberal Media is conspiring to help Obama?
