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.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is to gain by this witch hunt other than to smear Obama. For that matter, what is to gain by smearing Obama?
I get the criticism of Hillary, she may run in 2016. I don't get the witch hunt for Obama though.
It's a repeat of the White water investigation of Clinton, pure political, as evident by the fact that as soon as he was out of office they dropped the investigation. Too bad they spent $70 million by then.
It doesn't change what happened, whether he was taking in the bath houses of Chicago, running with the bulls, or laying in bed. Since he is a lame duck, this information can't be used to tarnish his character in an upcoming election, so what difference does it make?
The difference is that the deaths of these 4 individuals, did not die in vain. And that that families of the slain, get answers to as why their family memebers died a much too early death.
The difference will be was there error, or something terribly misjudged, or incompetence in those that should keep safe, our people.
The difference will be true and valid facts from those who were there, and not just talking points from WC and excuses. The difference as in most cases is Truth Versus Lies.
The public record already show that the very next day Obama called it "an act of terror," even though the right-wing and Romney said it wasn't until 14 days later.
The public record shows nothing of the kind, since Obama didn't do that. Nice try.
Obama talked about the attack a little, then rambled on other subjects, then announced generically that the US did not like acts of terror. But he did not call The Benghazi attacks "an act of terror".
In subsequent days he referred to them as acts that grew out of a protest over a video. So did Hillary. So did Susan Rice. It was clear that his administration had been carefully coached to pretend the attacks weren't carefully-planned Al-Qaeda-type attacks, but merely people upset of a movie they had supposedly seen.
But the real issue of the Benghazi attacks, was why the terrorists found it such a walkover, easy to break into, easy to destroy... even after they had been attacking it for months, bombing it, etc... and the U.S. did nothing to strengthen it or protect the Americans inside.
Was the Obama administration trying to pretend (to the American voters) that Al Qaeda had been defeated, so Obama would look good? Did they leave the consulate inadequately defended, to promote this charade?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 05-17-2013 at 12:16 PM..
The difference is that the deaths of these 4
individuals, did not die in vain. And that that families of the slain, get
answers to as why their family memebers died a much too early death.
We already have those answers. They died because requests for added security were ignored and/or denied.
Quote:
The difference will be was there error, or something terribly misjudged, or
incompetence in those that should keep safe, our people.
What's it matter? What will you do with this information once you have it?
Quote:
The difference will be true and valid facts from those who were there, and not
just talking points from WC and excuses.
What's it matter? What will you do with this information once you have it?
Quote:
The difference as in most cases is Truth Versus Lies.
So you find out there were a lot of lies told, what's it matter? What will you do with this information once you have it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
So you want people to tell you what the conclusion will be, before we know the TRUTH of what people did and why they did it?
That's humorous.
What "conclusion" can possibly be reached? It is what it is, and nothing can change that. You could use this info to smear Obama, but again, what is there to gain from that? He won't be running again. So, I think you just want to smear Obama, and that's it. That's the one and only intent of this colossal waste of time.
All you want to do is be able to point a finger, and that's pretty much it.
The public record already show that the very next day Obama called it "an act of terror," even though the right-wing and Romney said it wasn't until 14 days later.
Once again, you are wrong!
On Sept. 12, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”
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: “Right.”
Obama used the term act of terror but he was not referring to Benghazi. He was quoted three times saying:
To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
He was not referring to this specific event.
As late as September 25th when he appread on the View he was refusing to say it was a terrorist attack:
QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
They were sacrificed because of gross incompetence.
It was covered up for politics.
Sorry, but when your consulate gets attacked again and again over the course of several months, and you respond by deliberately REDUCING the security, even while the top guy there is pleading for MORE security, that isn't just a mistake. It's not like you misspelled some words, or left your keys on the kitchen countertop, or forgot to pick up an extra loaf of bread at the bakery.
It is a deliberate act, played out over all those months.
We need to know why it was done, and who decided it would be done.
What's it matter? What will you do with this information once you have it?
So that we can decide who should be fired and then prosecuted... and who should merely be fired.
Why do you need to know? Are you volunteering?
Or do you believe that people who were so criminally negligent, and who failed so grievously in their duty to safeguard Ameicans overseas, resulting in their deaths, should be promoted and given cushy bonuses instead?
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.
Were four Americans sacrificed so Obama could pretend he had defeated Al Qaeda before the election?
