U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-30-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,372,106 times
Reputation: 4168

Advertisements

The House committee investigating the various scandals, just issued subpoenas for emails and other documents concerning the talking points changes from Sept. 12 onward.

Issa subpoenas State Department for Benghazi documents | Fox News

The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.

When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?

The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.

To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?

Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2013, 01:44 PM
 
28,525 posts, read 16,774,169 times
Reputation: 19120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The House committee investigating the various scandals, just issued subpoenas for emails and other documents concerning the talking points changes from Sept. 12 onward.

Issa subpoenas State Department for Benghazi documents | Fox News

The only problem I have with it is, after about Sept. 12 (the day after the attacks), nothing the Obama administration did, or wrote, or planned, made much difference regarding who died, which buildings got burned, etc. Those who were to die, already had. Ditto for the property that got destroyed.

When will the investigators get around to looking into why security at the consulate was progressively reduced over the spring and summer of 2012?

The consulate was attacked several times during that period, with terrorists blowing a 12-foot hole in the wall at one point in June 2012. And the ambassador and others kept asking for security to be INCREASED, not decreased. Yet the State Dept. kept reducing the number of troops there, replacing American personnel with Libyan personnel, and even took away the weapons of the gate and perimeter guards. By September, there were a total of ***three*** Americans guarding the consulate. When Ambassador Stevens came to visit on Sept. 9, he brought two bodyguards with him, which increased the total to 5.

To me, this is a far bigger issue, than who doctored some talking points after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

Why was security progressively lowered for months, even while the consulate was actively under attack?

Was the Obama administration trying to pretend the threat of Islamic militants was decreasing, and hoping nobody was paying attention to the attacks on the consulate? Was he trying to fool the voters into believing that he was the Great Peacemaker who ended the "War against Terror", just before the election, when he actually hadn't? Is that why four Americans had to die?
As the investigations go on both with regard to Benghazi and the IRS, there will be more and more information requested and more witnesses interviewed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top