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.
It's pretty obvious that the Republicans are trying to manufacture a major incident when, in fact, a minor one occurred. Of course, it's tragic when lives are lost, and there should be a level of accountability.
However the manufactured outrage is absurd and most people realize this. It's the last gasp of a shrill minority part desperately trying to take down this president who beat them twice. I think they also see it (wrongly) as a preemptive strike against Hillary Clinton, who was one of the greatest SOS in history, and will likely be our next president.
You can't manufacture enough outrage or catastrophisize relatively minor issues to make a Republican win.
This is not minor. We left our people in Libya undefended, when the very people risking their lives were screaming from the roof tops that they were in danger, and needed more security. But instead of giving them more security, we reduced it. Then when they came under attack, our government wrote them off as expendable, and did not bother to defend them; and if rumors are true, we even ordered military assistance to stand down, twice.
I'm sorry for you if this is appears as "manufactured outrage," but these people were sent into harm's way, and to think my government would have sent then into the fray, and abandoned them for 8-9 hours, is outrageous.
1. a lie to cover up what happened. Bengazi was lied about from day one. Everyone knew this was not a result of the video that Hillary said was the case. Then when the president of Lybia said it was a planned terroist attack Susan Rice pretty much called him a liar.
2. the lie caused a riff with the president of the nation involved, that blocked FBI agents from quickly getting to the evidence. To this day we stilll haven real undersanding.
3. There was ample opurtunity to send in American forces to rescue some of those under attack. That was blocked.
In all the cases mentioned by the lying left the Bush administration was straight with the American public, did not have international breakdowns with allies, and worked to protect those who were still in country.
I'm going to have to disagree. There use to be a time - maybe before you were conceived that the media was much more impartial. On top of that they couldn't report things unless they had confirmation from another source. Why they still don't have any accountiblility bothers me. The media is more liberal than they have ever been before and more willing to expound on things so they can say they "said it first" be it true or not.
Hillary made an awful senator here in NY - especially for Western NY - her plan all along was to use us as a stepping stone to the presidency. If she does get elected - it will not be because she is more capable than her opponent to do the job - but because her supporters can say - " Look we elected a woman." - just like they patted themselves on the back when Obama was elected. Again, there is a change in morals, ethics and responsibility in the past 20 years. Gary Hart withdrew after pictures surfaced of a female, not his wife, sitting on his lap - and yet Clinton gets it on in the White House and it's acceptable.
There is extreme terrorism in this world and it is not a fable. To want to know why this situation was handled so poorly should be asked by all Americans. Some say that Hillary took responsibility already but we still don't have answers as to why there was a stand down order - who was responsible and what were their repercussions. I want to know - where was the President - embassy attacks occurred under both Clinton's and Bush's presidencies and both quickly got help to the area as a good leader should.
Maybe you feel you have all the answers you need but I don't.
Bill Clinton has not been elected to anything since leaving the White House. I'm not sure too many people found his actions acceptable. Assuming it had been legal, I'm not sure that he could have won a 3rd term or even gotten the nomination. There is a difference between what someone who should be removed from office for and what can be ignored in an election.
Benghazi was evacuated within 12 hours of the attack. Not much point in trying to defend a secret facility when it is no longer a secret.
If you are trying to imply with this thread that Benghazi is indeed not as big of a deal as people are makign it out to be, then yes, I agree, and apologize for my post.
Otherwise, it'll stand.
The attack was the largest scale attack against any US consulate, so that alone makes it a big deal. Imagine if more attacks on this scale were launched against other consulates and embassies? How are we supposed to defend against them, unless the host country is ready to increase their level of preparedness and both their and our rapid response forces are greatly expanded.
Even the attack on our Benghazi consulate could not have been prevented, but it was not responded to, was not sufficiently anticipated and defended against.
1. a lie to cover up what happened. Bengazi was lied about from day one. Everyone knew this was not a result of the video that Hillary said was the case. Then when the president of Lybia said it was a planned terroist attack Susan Rice pretty much called him a liar.
2. the lie caused a riff with the president of the nation involved, that blocked FBI agents from quickly getting to the evidence. To this day we stilll haven real undersanding.
3. There was ample opurtunity to send in American forces to rescue some of those under attack. That was blocked.
In all the cases mentioned by the lying left the Bush administration was straight with the American public, did not have international breakdowns with allies, and worked to protect those who were still in country.
All of those attacks under Bush lasted a few milliseconds or a few minutes, and were virtually impossible to prevent. How can you prevent a suicide attack, or a drive-by shooting, or a car bomb?
I did watch until it became totally obvious what they were about. When one of the Rebubs was questioning Hicks by asking a question and providing the answer, not even letting Hicks present his own answer... that kind of told me it was time to switch to General Hospital. I guess the questioner was afraid Hicks wouldn't stay on the approved list of answers or something.
Sounds like democratic moderators Hugh?
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.
