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.
Your previous post was a Fox news cite, which said SOURCES said they were told to stand down. Are you getting where I am going. Who are the SOURCES. You can't trust fox not to lie that is why you have to have some way to verify. They have nothing but "SOURCES SAY". Your whole problem with this is that you take "Sources Say" as fact. Give a real person that can be verified instead of fabricated "Sources" and then I am on board.
This story is fabricated by Fox. They use "Sources Say" to fill in holes. This is the same thing that Murdoch does in his trash tabloids which is what Fox has become.
You should look into the source before you start slandering people that you have no clue who they are...
Your previous post was a Fox news cite, which said SOURCES said they were told to stand down. Are you getting where I am going. Who are the SOURCES. You can't trust fox not to lie that is why you have to have some way to verify. They have nothing but "SOURCES SAY". Your whole problem with this is that you take "Sources Say" as fact. Give a real person that can be verified instead of fabricated "Sources" and then I am on board.
This story is fabricated by Fox. They use "Sources Say" to fill in holes. This is the same thing that Murdoch does in his trash tabloids which is what Fox has become.
Got it..you can't accept that 'sources' may be legitimate. And can only accept reports from named individuals. No problem.
Obama: It was an act of terror. Except when it was a protest over a movie. Al Queda is on the run. Except when they have growing cells in Libya.
Carney: It was a movie protest. It wasn't a terrorist attack. Except when it was.
Rice: It was a spontaneous reaction to a movie.
Hillary: It was a reaction to a movie. Except when it was terrorists.
Panneta: You can't deploy into potential harm's way.
Patreaus: No one at the CIA denied help.
Biden: We had no idea that there were requests for security
Nah, no story there. Like I said...you're better off waiting for Daily Kos, Media Matters, MSNBC to put the pieces together.
Seven weeks after the tragedy in Benghazi, new government narratives just keep appearing, as various branches of government point the finger at one another. Now the president insists that “the minute” he “found out what was going on” he gave “very clear directives” to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” The secretary of defense argues that he knew too little to send in military forces to save the post. Meanwhile, we are hearing from other sources that the beleaguered compound in extremis was denied help on three separate occasions, and there are still more contradictory accounts.
When the government systematically misleads and cannot establish a believable narrative, almost everyone involved is eventually tarred. The final chart of those officials in the Nixon White House who were devoured by Watergate was vast — and so it is becoming with the disaster in Libya. If we have learned anything from Watergate and Iran-Contra, it is that the longer officials deceive and obfuscate, the greater the number of wrecked careers and reputations.
Uhh yes and Stevens was a professional and extremely knowledgeable about the environment. He apparently went there with two security people and there were 3 on site. That was his chosen US defense force. There were vastly superior forces available in Tripoli but he decided he did not need them. The other force potentially available was the CIA people at the Annex.
Against the attacking forces it was not sufficient. And Steven died as a result. Evan a division in Tripoli would have been of no use. In fact the US and allies retook the compound and left after being unable to locate the ambassador. Note that the security guy with the Ambassador survived. So it would appear his death was as much a matter of bad luck as the action of the perps.
YOu appear under some delusion that the US military gets to tell Ambassadors what they can and cannot do. If Stevens felt he needed the full protection of the US military and the State Department Security all he had to do was stay in Tripoli.
And the Embassy in Tripoli sent reinforcements which successfully arrived and extracted all the Americans. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that reinforcements were sent, arrived, and extracted everyone? Yes they took some casualties in the action. But basically that is how military operations are. People get killed.
The Ambassadors fate was sealed when he failed to evacuate the burning building with his security guy. No element of the US military could fix that. Just bad karma. It happens.
The most wonderful special operations force is not going to do any good unless it gets to you before you are trapped in a building filling with deadly smoke.
You are clueless, I would need to spend an hour telling you about the most basic of things. For one thing, it was our state department who decided that the host country would provide security, and prevented us from assigning military personnel to guard the ambassador outside of the embassy. those retarded blue mountain security guards were what our government resigned Stevens to live with.
The special forces military units assigned to perform rapid response missions, are not there to dictate to anyone, they are there to rescue American citizens should the worst case scenario occur, as it did in Libya.
In other words, if Harry Reid were to decide he wanted to fly into Afghanistan for Thanks Giving Day, multiple response units and portions of other military commands are assigned specific tasks, in case Reid's plane or helicopter goes down enroute, or some terror group manages to ambush his caravan.
We don't just sit back and let him freaking die, during a four hour attack, because of the fog of war, cuz we don't know all the answers to who is attacking him or why, we just go in and freaking rescue him.
One more string of stupid nonsensical questions, and Google will be your only friend.
Dude, it was the president himself, who said he sent out a directive, to do all we could to rescue our people. Since no one ever bothered to rescue them, then someone disobeyed him. We do not need to freaking cite someone to figure that one out.
O.K. so you are saying that Obama is not to blame that he did all that he could o.k. I guess there is no reason to argue then.
Seems you libs need everything spoon fed to you, or you will blissfully claim ignorance... as if that is an honorable defense.
I'd love to cite the White house's response to all this, but ooops, <sigh> it looks like the damned White House is unwilling to cooperate on any level at all, or say a damned thing.
Five guards from the State Department were protecting U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens when he was killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week, according a top congressional Democrat briefed on the matter.
Security practices at the diplomatic compound, where Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns, have come under U.S. government scrutiny in the wake of the September 11 attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
You aught to like this link, it's from HotAir
The Libyan commander in charge of the local guards at the mission was a former English teacher who said he heard about Blue Mountain from a neighbor. “I don’t have a background in security, I’ve never held a gun in my life,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety…
Go do your own homework, I'm done schooling you libs
So what is your point? That the security was ineffective in protecting the ambassador? We already knew, that how? Because the ambassador is dead.
Maybe your point is that the State Department should have done a better job protecting him. Obviously, he is dead. Did this have anything to do with the President of the United States...was he personally responsible did he making any of the decisions regarding the staffing of the embassy. There is absolutely no evidence that the President of the United States is responsible for staffing at each of the Embassies all over the world. This is done by career civil service employees who work with all administrations. Did they make a mistake possibly. I am sure that will come out once the investigation is complete.
I am trying to figure out what the conspiracy is here with the President. It takes 4 months to get a traffic ticket to court and you guys are expecting a federal interdepartmental investigation to be complete in a couple of weeks. Get serious. This will likely take months and then they will make changes staffing embassies we hope.
O.K. so you are saying that Obama is not to blame that he did all that he could o.k. I guess there is no reason to argue then.
Let's say you are Obama.
Our ambassador calls Washington to say he hears large explosions, and heavily armed men are pouring into the consulate compound.
A few minutes, maximum of five minutes go by, and you are informed the life of our ambassador is in peril.
You send out a directive, that everyone is to do all they can to rescue our ambassador.
Thirty minutes go by, and no one is doing anything.
An hour goes by, and still no one is doing anything.
Hour after hour, after hour go by, WHY IS NO ONE IS FREAKING DOING ANYTHING!!!
If you are 0bama, and you gave a freaking directive and no one did anything, don't you think you would have someone's ass standing tall in front of you inside of 15 minutes, and not still wonder what happened after over 40 days have passed by?
Our ambassador calls Washington to say he hears large explosions, and heavily armed men are pouring into the consulate compound.
A few minutes, maximum of five minutes go by, and you are informed the life of our ambassador is in peril.
You send out a directive, that everyone is to do all they can to rescue our ambassador.
This is where your argument goes south. You are assuming that everyone was not doing all that they could.
Thirty minutes go by, and no one is doing anything.
An hour goes by, and still no one is doing anything.
Hour after hour, after hour go by, WHY IS NO ONE IS FREAKING DOING ANYTHING!!!
If you are 0bama, and you gave a freaking directive and no one did anything, don't you think you would have someone's ass standing tall in front of you inside of 15 minutes, and not still wonder what happened after over 40 days have passed by?
Dude, this is not the first embassy to be sacked. When the Beirut was bombed and many americans died. We never heard what went wrong. In that event we blamed the terrorists. Now for some reason, we let the terrorists off the hook and blame...who, I don't know. The president said it is being investigated. Why do you need more than that. Do you believe he wanted the ambassador to die? Based on your scenario, the President did all he could do. So who are you blaming here?
So what is your point? That the security was ineffective in protecting the ambassador? We already knew, that how? Because the ambassador is dead.
Maybe your point is that the State Department should have done a better job protecting him. Obviously, he is dead. Did this have anything to do with the President of the United States...was he personally responsible did he making any of the decisions regarding the staffing of the embassy. There is absolutely no evidence that the President of the United States is responsible for staffing at each of the Embassies all over the world. This is done by career civil service employees who work with all administrations. Did they make a mistake possibly. I am sure that will come out once the investigation is complete.
I am trying to figure out what the conspiracy is here with the President. It takes 4 months to get a traffic ticket to court and you guys are expecting a federal interdepartmental investigation to be complete in a couple of weeks. Get serious. This will likely take months and then they will make changes staffing embassies we hope.
You miss the point, Libya is not just any country. If there is any country on the entire planet that should have a special significance to 0bama, it would be the country 0bama decided unilaterally, to go to war with last year! Wouldn't you think he'd be a little curious about the possibility of it becoming a dangerous place for the Libyan people, and the US diplomats that he sent there?
Obama should be keenly interested and concerned with the fate Libyan people. After all, his war changed the fate of those people, because of 0bama, they are living in a war torn country, of his making. What kind of monster must you think 0bama is, if he is unconcerned with the safety of the Americans he sent to the country he went to war with last year?
Obama should have made himself aware of the fate of the Libyan people, and especially the US citizens he sent there as ambassador. Their safety and security should have been his concern. Instead, Biden claims that both he and 0bama were ignorant and unaware of the fate of the people in Libya.
I'm saying is that if 0bama claims he did not know about security concerns in Libya, it's only because he did not even care enough to ask.
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.
