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.
Where in the world do you get this when all the news outlets said he had a Super Majority for 2 years? That is why Nancy Pelosi is no longer the House Majority Leader after the 2010 Mid Terms which was a reflection on the Obama administrations forced HC mandate and his failure to address the economy.Libya is not going to be as easy sweeping under a rug as blaming Bush for everything has been for the last 4 years.Sandy is Obama's Katrina and you all will make more excuses for the ONE,defend the undefendable or put the blame where it belongs....
Read the whole article and explain how was that possible? Pelosi got the majority position in 2007 and lost it in 2009, Obama came into office in 2008 meaning that he had both the Senate and the house for less than two years! Granted yes the congress was controlled by the democrats for two years but one of them was under bush which defeats the arguement that Obama had both houses for two years.
Apparently you did not get the memo that the republican led congress refuses to work with the president and just how soon can the financial damage can be corrected without their co-operation? Why do you think why the really good republicans did not run? They knew that it could not be fixed in 4 years and they are more than willing to run in 2016 when the majority of the mess would have been corrected (hopefully).
Read the whole article and explain how was that possible? Pelosi got the majority position in 2007 and lost it in 2009, Obama came into office in 2008 meaning that he had both the Senate and the house for less than two years! Granted yes the congress was controlled by the democrats for two years but one of them was under bush which defeats the arguement that Obama had both houses for two years.
Apparently you did not get the memo that the republican led congress refuses to work with the president and just how soon can the financial damage can be corrected without their co-operation? Why do you think why the really good republicans did not run? They knew that it could not be fixed in 4 years and they are more than willing to run in 2016 when the majority of the mess would have been corrected (hopefully).
Since when do a couple of people get to decide what is news and what is not?
I don't know, but you can ask Hillary, since apparently the government has been censoring your media for some time --- since at least the Clinton Administration if not earlier.
If you watch her testimony before congress, she requested even more control over US media.
A former CBS Network Television censor.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
WASHINGTON -- A senior intelligence official has issued a new timeline for the events surrounding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, indicating a series of tragic miscalculations that left CIA officers exposed at an annex near the consulate -- but no evidence of interference from Washington or of the CIA witholding aid from the State Department, as Republican critics have alleged.
Nice spin, but that is not what critics have alleged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
According to the senior intelligence official:
Unnamed, of course....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded quickly to the attack, risking their lives in an attempt to rescue those at the consulate.
Note how this carefully crafted statement does not say whether they were, or were not authorized to take those actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
There was no second-guessing of decisions made on the ground and no order to anybody to stand down in providing support. "At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," the official said.
A fire-fight lasting 7-9 hours.....F-16s from Aviano Air Base in Italy could have crossed the Med, dumped their ordnance, returned to Aviano, re-loaded, re-fueled, and returned to Benghazi to dump their ordinance.
Why didn't that happen? There's 2 airborne infantry battalions and one cavalry squardon at Vicenza (Italy).
I guarantee you one company or one troop (from the cav squadron) was on "duty/mission" status.
"Airborne." You know? They could have had 100 troops on the ground in 4 hours with air support.
I know. That's what I did for a living. Planned operations just like that.
Where was the Garibaldi? It's an Italian aircraft carrier, usually in the Med. Has Harriers. What about the Asturias? That's a Spanish carrier with Harriers, usually in the Med (but sometimes in the Atlantic). They're NATO allies. An attack on a NATO ally is an an attack on NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The U.S. military provided essential support, including sending an unarmed drone and medical evacuation.
Essential support? Uh, no, essential support would have been air power or ground troops....that's what was needed.
Medical evacuation is after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Two U.S. security teams were involved -- one that was sent from the annex to the consulate and a tactical support team that was sent from Tripoli, each composed of approximately half a dozen security officers. Two U.S. military officers were on the team from Tripoli.
And from where did the other "security officers" come?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It's good they reviewed the data and finally know the full story, isn't it?
We still don't know the full story. And why does it take 8 weeks for an unnamed "intelligence source" to feed a time-line to media?
Jay Leno said it best....
“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."
What was Obama doing for 7 hours while the consulate and the CIA annex were under attack?
What was Obama's plan? Hope the Libyan government Changes the programming on State-owned TV to show I Dream of Jeannie to distract the, um, "attackers" (snicker)?
Why do you have a secret CIA base in Libya. Is that authorized? Who authorized that?
Not willing to ask the hard questions, are you? Nope.
I'm not saying this was an optimal execution of foreign policy on behalf of the Obama team, but the Libya attack is quickly becoming an over-politicized tragedy and little else, which is very inappropriate. Criticizing foreign policy is COMPLETELY fine, but to think this is a singular act of negligence that only Obama has transgressed, and will doom his legacy forever, is complete malarkey (I was using that word long before the debate, I'm Irish). Attacks like these have been happening for decades. Let's take a look at every comparable attack that happened during the previous administration.
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
And then, there's 9/11, which occurred after intelligence informed Bush that Al-Queda was planning an imminent attack, a blunder he has yet to be punished for accordingly.
This is why History can be crucial -- it contextualizes things. I could probably find similar data for Clinton, or Reagan, anything as far back as the data will provide. History can also negate petty sensationalism, which is all to apparent here. Events like these are not to be exploited, like the way Bush exploited his own foreign policy disaster (or as Wolfowitz coined, today's Pearl Harbor) to lead us into a completely unrelated war. The Foreign policy debate should move on -- there are many issues that Obama deserves praise for some, and criticism for others. Let's keep this factual and informed.
This list of yours has nothing whatsoever to do with the Benghazi attack. Nothing. It "contextualizes" nothing .. it excuses nothing .. it explains nothing ... and is totally irrelevant.
Your position seems to want to suggest that since there have been many wars in the past, it's really not a big deal that we have three or four raging wars now. I just cannot understand such bankrupt logic.
Since when do a couple of people get to decide what is news and what is not?
I was responding to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 Coincidentally, Fox puts on the relative that is mad at the administration; however, does not even cover or mention the relatives that object to the coverage and thank the administration for what they have done and are doing
Relatives that are asking for no coverage aren't getting it, yet the poster is complaining that this isn't being covered. Wouldn't covering it be going against their wishes???
Sometimes chain reading backwards helps as well as reading quotes a poster is responding to, helps with comprehension.
Sheesh......Really? It's posts like this that those who argue that one should have to take a test to vote tend to sway me in that direction.
Your statement fails in so many ways.
Please explain what I have posted instead of ignoring it.
You need 60 votes in the house in order to get anything through, please provide proof the last time that the dems had 60 votes in the house
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.
