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.
Nonsense Pommy The Ambassador knew more about Benghazi and what was going on then anyone else. He went there voluntarily. So if you got to blame someone try the dead guy.
Went voluntarily on his own authority. I would suspect that every Ambassador in a difficult post wants more security.
You don't seem able to grasp the fact that the Ambassador was not given the security he needed under the circumstances. That is a failure on the part of the State Department.
You don't seem able to grasp the fact that the Ambassador was not given the security he needed under the circumstances. That is a failure on the part of the State Department.
Of all the people who understand the situation in Benghazi the Ambassador was number one.
The video was government speak. The CIA annex being the reason. See Eisenhower and Powers.
If gay was a problem or anything else the Ambassador knew better and chose to be there.
Give it up. The dog does not hunt.
No, you give it up. Liberals made up a fake scapegoat to blame the attack on to divert attention from making Obama look like an idiot during the 2012 election. At the same as the attack in Benghazi, Obama was on campaign tours announcing how Al Qaeda was on the run.
We have the CIA memo with its altered talking points, the White House directive to push the video and minimize any mention of government policy, Susan Rice's lie that no terrorist involvement was suspected, Obama's speeches about the youtube video and his admission in the Presidential debate that he knew it was terrorism the morning after it happened, etc.
But now liberals want to bash conservatives for this new theory. It is complete hypocrisy for you to have fully supported scapegoating a video to cover up for Democrat incompetency and stupidity, but then want to bash conservatives for promoting an alternate theory of Benghazi.
It's blatantly obvious that you dishonest and unethical liberals are interested only in what makes you look good. Doesn't matter one bit whether it is the truth or not, and doesn't matter one bit if you're blaming someone for doing something you've done yourself. Whatever sounds good for you at the moment is what you'll say.
No, you give it up. Liberals made up a fake scapegoat to blame the attack on to divert attention from making Obama look like an idiot during the 2012 election. At the same as the attack in Benghazi, Obama was on campaign tours announcing how Al Qaeda was on the run.
We have the CIA memo with its altered talking points, the White House directive to push the video and minimize any mention of government policy, Susan Rice's lie that no terrorist involvement was suspected, Obama's speeches about the youtube video and his admission in the Presidential debate that he knew it was terrorism the morning after it happened, etc.
But now liberals want to bash conservatives for this new theory. It is complete hypocrisy for you to have fully supported scapegoating a video to cover up for Democrat incompetency and stupidity, but then want to bash conservatives for promoting an alternate theory of Benghazi.
It's blatantly obvious that you dishonest and unethical liberals are interested only in what makes you look good. Doesn't matter one bit whether it is the truth or not, and doesn't matter one bit if you're blaming someone for doing something you've done yourself. Whatever sounds good for you at the moment is what you'll say.
The nature of the attack was obvious from time zero. Spontaneous demonstrators do not have pickup mounted automatic weapons which were reported from the start.
Rice et al were obvious government speak. See Eisenhower and Gary Powers. They were trying to ignore the CIA presence.
All that is irrelevant to the actual attack.
The right continues to try and make something significant out of a minor incident.
No, you give it up. Liberals made up a fake scapegoat to blame the attack on to divert attention from making Obama look like an idiot during the 2012 election. At the same as the attack in Benghazi, Obama was on campaign tours announcing how Al Qaeda was on the run.
We have the CIA memo with its altered talking points, the White House directive to push the video and minimize any mention of government policy, Susan Rice's lie that no terrorist involvement was suspected, Obama's speeches about the youtube video and his admission in the Presidential debate that he knew it was terrorism the morning after it happened, etc.
But now liberals want to bash conservatives for this new theory. It is complete hypocrisy for you to have fully supported scapegoating a video to cover up for Democrat incompetency and stupidity, but then want to bash conservatives for promoting an alternate theory of Benghazi.
It's blatantly obvious that you dishonest and unethical liberals are interested only in what makes you look good. Doesn't matter one bit whether it is the truth or not, and doesn't matter one bit if you're blaming someone for doing something you've done yourself. Whatever sounds good for you at the moment is what you'll say.
Well said and worth repeating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
The right continues to try and make something significant out of a minor incident.
And the left will cover up and, if that's not possible, will minimize it.
No way was this a "minor" incident. Our people died. No way is that minor.
That they kept lying about it proves that they don't see it as minor.
What I don't get is the adminsitration is always pushing and pushing how important womens rights are, gay rights, racial equality and overall acceptance and tolerance. These are all high and valuable ideals that we should all strive for everyday. Why shouldn't a woman, a gay or a coloured person have the same rights and place modern society as any other good lawabiding citizen???
Why then is America trying so hard to be allies and friends with parts of the middle east where women are second class citizens and gay people live in fear of being killed?
Benghazi was an attack on America on the anniversary of 9/11. That attack tells me they don't care to be friends with the US. Hillary wasn't clueless she was much to quick to lie to America.
What is a "coloured" person? I am beige. That's a color, no?
To your point, those in the back room of politics had been itching to topple Saddam since he abandoned the petrodollar. 9/11 created the justification, never mind Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The US has spent serious decades funding the military of Israel's enemies and Israel. Tis better to keep them at each other's throat than to combine and take on the pertrodollar and destroy life as we know it.
This is not and never has been about human or religious rights or democracy.
After all the time and effort the Democrats and liberals put into pushing a false narrative that the attack was provoked by a youtube video, I really don't think it's a smart idea for you to get sarcastic about the motivations behind Benghazi. I'm sure you've heard the saying about people in glass houses throwing stones.
Fox News lives in a glass mansion and throws boulders! Check out their reporting and selective lack of reporting on the Benghazi issue.
This is a delicate subject partially associated with the State
Departments ignorance and disconnect with the laws governing the Quran and Islamic response to the breaking of law. Mr. Stevens was a known homosexual with his lifestyle exploited on the internet and we belief gossiped in Libya. The Islamic response of homosexuality was a factor equates to death. What was done to his body post death is speculation and too graphic to discuss in data. This factor is being purposely downplayed for security and a foul up by the State Department leaving Hillary clueless .....really?
.
Wait, are you saying that the gays caused this? It's hard to determine on this particular site. I contribute but I think of this particular site as an Aryan Nation type discussion board. As in, the ACLU would call this a "hate site."
Regardless, are you saying we should bow down to extremist Muslims and only have traditional, straight MALES as representatives in Muslim dominated countries? Otherwise, they would not have attacked? Really??? Seems like a silly argument. The Christians are just as bad. Meh...
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.
