What Are The Democrats Afraid Of? (Pelosi, controversial, Muslim, world)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Left wing nut jobs made this about politics 4 American died and LWNJS don't crae

The politicization of this event is exclusively from the right. For all 13 of "Bush's Benghazis" the left backed their President.

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

Thanks for confirming that you're just spouting lies, your honesty is refreshing and unexpected.

you want tit for tat? you think the bush admin never lied to the public? you truly are naive and biased if you think that. try a little light google research to get educated. start here.
The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

the deaths at benghazi are no less horrific than the other deaths at other embassies.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

Sounds like negligence and incompetence to me - before, during, & after.

Of course it does. You are a shameless partisan.

The report says that the attacks could have been prevented. But it also fully acknowledged that during and after the attack everything was done correctly and admirably. No negligence. No incompetence.

You've never had a bullet fired at you in anger, have you?

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

But it also fully acknowledged that during and after the attack everything was done correctly and admirably. No negligence. No incompetence.

No that is not what it says. Read it AGAIN. Does the word FAILED mean anything to you


"White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region.

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

No that is not what it says. Read it AGAIN. Does the word FAILED mean anything to you


"White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region.

Interesting seems they're being "secretive" as to where the President was that night. I don't think he was in bed or went to bed.......what's up Mr. President?

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

No that is not what it says. Read it AGAIN. Does the word FAILED mean anything to you


"White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region.

by that reasoning Karachi Pakistan and our diplomats should not be dead and would not have suffered so many attacks, year after year after year. the white house failed then didn't they?
Attacks on U.S consulate in Karachi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

No that is not what it says. Read it AGAIN. Does the word FAILED mean anything to you

Of course it does. And the only place it was used was to describe the failure to prevent the attack.

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

"White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region.

See? Just as I said.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

Interesting seems they're being "secretive" as to where the President was that night.

No. "They're" not. We know exactly where the President was that night. We even have pictures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8341829398/

That's the Oval office, in case you're unsure. It is just a few dozen feet from the Situation room.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

the only place it was used was to describe the failure to prevent the attack.

See? Just as I said.

Wrong again.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Would a doctor be sued for negligence if a person had a cut on their foot from a rusty nail
and FAILED to give them antibiotics UNTIL after the infection arose and they
had to have their foot amputated....Yes they would. Why? Because they were negligent.

Same goes with Benghazi. It is their job to anticipate, to acknowledge, to be prepared.
They FAILED to do that.

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

by that reasoning Karachi Pakistan and our diplomats should not be dead and would not have suffered so many attacks, year after year after year. the white house failed then didn't they?
Attacks on U.S consulate in Karachi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did we bomb Pakistan and help facilitate the removal and death of a leader during a civil war
in Pakistan? No. But if that was the scenario in Pakistan we definitely should anticipate it
being a hot spot for extreme violence.

See, it's kind of basic. When you occupy a region militarily, whether it be by ground or
by Air bombing it, you are going to **** people off. Either have the security in place or
don't have the people there at all.

You point to all these other attacks. But you are forgetting the most basic part of this
controversy. The danger in Benghazi was sooooo obvious.

It's like having an elevator without belts. You surely wouldn't have an elevator operator
attend to the elevator, knowing he would fall to his death without them.
You'd put the belts in first.

I hate to keep using these common place scenarios but they point to one thing:
common sense, which was so lacking with this administration it is downright scary.

And yes, I agree with you. I think all these administrations have failed our military and
adjunct personnel terribly. That is why we have no business being in any of these
regions in the first place.