Sign in to follow this  
moneymakers

Benghazi, Libya

Recommended Posts

Dont need to get in to word play of terrorist act or act of terrors.

It is what it is.

What I want to know is why the so called

inappropriate video ever came into play?

 

Why was it ever even brought up.?

Edited by moneymakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty simple IMO. Benghazi didn't fit the narrative of the Administration on terrorism so they sold us a BS story. A shameful act.

 

The real fault is not recognizing the obvious danger instead opting to try to project an image of normalization in an environment that was well known to be volatile by our government.

 

The government can't claim they are/were waiting for all the facts today while selling a video for weeks that came out in July. They should have kept quiet and informed the citizens that an attack occurred and dealt with it without selling one story over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an actual protest that was used for cover by the attackers. How is that so hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an actual protest that was used for cover by the attackers. How is that so hard to understand?

 

 

Fox news didnt' report it, so it didn't happen ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an actual protest that was used for cover by the attackers. How is that so hard to understand?

 

 

In Benghazi? Thinking you may be the last one that that actually believes this if I understand your sentence. There are no timelines that back up that story. The video story has been debunked as it relates to this incident. Promoting this story nationally on multiple networks 5 days post attack by the Administration is really strange and regardless was a huge blunder that has backfired. .

Edited by Ice1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an actual protest that was used for cover by the attackers. How is that so hard to understand?

 

 

:okay:

 

just like when Hillary was cleared from her Bosnia Visit.

 

 

 

 

 

I just would like to know where or who came up with the idea/coverup of the video that was six months old and no one had ever seen before.

Edited by moneymakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont need to get in to word play of terrorist act or act of terrors.

 

I don't know why it is an issue. Why does it need to be annouced immidiately? Terrorism is done to spread terror, but also to gain attention. So long as the administration, CIA, etc... had the correct information. Why does it matter that it took some time to tell us the whole story?

 

Is there any benefit to releasing this information prematurely?

 

Is there any benefit to making sure our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed?

 

I don't know why this is such a big issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why it is an issue. Why does it need to be annouced immidiately? Terrorism is done to spread terror, but also to gain attention. So long as the administration, CIA, etc... had the correct information. Why does it matter that it took some time to tell us the whole story?

 

Is there any benefit to releasing this information prematurely?

 

Is there any benefit to making sure our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed?

 

I don't know why this is such a big issue.

 

 

When you apologize for 10 days because of a YouTube video, that is a big mistake. Then you add discovered in the congressional hearings a request for more support that was denied for political reasons. It all adds up to our government lying to us. We should all be disturbed with our government lying to us. I would have been fine if the company line was "We are still investigating and we denounce this act." Either they lied or they are incredibly incompetent. It actually looks like both. You cannot have so many people in the administartion coming out about a video and say we are still investigating. So they were drawing some conclusions about the info they had but none of the announced conclusions had anything to do with terrorism. AND NO there were NOT demonstrations what so EVER in Benghazi. They have real time video.

 

I tell you what, the media has done a great job of spinning this if anyone is standing behind this mess.... Clinton today: Facebook and high intelligence e-mails do not support any conclusions, but YouTube does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you apologize for 10 days because of a YouTube video, that is a big mistake. Then you add discovered in the congressional hearings a request for more support that was denied for political reasons. It all adds up to our government lying to us. We should all be disturbed with our government lying to us. I would have been fine if the company line was "We are still investigating and we denounce this act." Either they lied or they are incredibly incompetent. It actually looks like both. You cannot have so many people in the administartion coming out about a video and say we are still investigating. So they were drawing some conclusions about the info they had but none of the announced conclusions had anything to do with terrorism. AND NO there were NOT demonstrations what so EVER in Benghazi. They have real time video.

 

 

What are you trying to sell Yellow Caker? :sleep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What are you trying to sell Yellow Caker? :sleep:

 

 

+1

So you denounce the administrations varied responce to an on going crisis, but you're ok with an administration lying to us and engaging in a 10 year 1 trillion dollar war? Seems like apples and apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They watched this as it happened live in the White House Situation Room. That is a fact. Where was Obama? We had military response resources an hour away. 4 brave Americans died - 2 of them likely could have beed saved as thay died hours after the attack was launched. This is a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.latimes.c...0,4555322.story

 

Condolezza Rice not joining criticism of Barack Obama on Libya

 

By Paul Richter

This post has been corrected, as indicated below.

October 25, 2012, 10:38 a.m.

 

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is refusing to join the criticism of the Obama administration for its response to the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans last month, saying Americans should reserve judgment until official investigations have time to piece together the truth.

Rice, who has been campaigning for former Gov. Mitt Romney, echoed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s comment that the “fog of war” made it hard to grasp what happened when dozens of armed militants stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a nearby annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11.

“We don’t have all the pieces and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here,” she told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren in an interview Wednesday. “It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should one of the most dangerous consulates in the world had a better security detail? Yes. Should we start comparing this to WMDs, Iran-Contra, or Watergate? No. I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should one of the most dangerous consulates in the world had a better security detail? Yes. Should we start comparing this to WMDs, Iran-Contra, or Watergate? No. I

 

On the one hand, this is absolutely correct and it should be kept in proper perspective. The thing that makes my blood boil though is that it looks like the administration (whether it was obamessiah or his underlings) made a political decision not to send extra security when it was asked for. Those are our people. We sent them there. Our first duty is to protect them in that hostile environment, and to not do that for political reasons is completely and totally unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, this is absolutely correct and it should be kept in proper perspective. The thing that makes my blood boil though is that it looks like the administration (whether it was obamessiah or his underlings) made a political decision not to send extra security when it was asked for. Those are our people. We sent them there. Our first duty is to protect them in that hostile environment, and to not do that for political reasons is completely and totally unacceptable.

 

Appearances can be deceiving. Those in the media (Fox News and that idiot Kudlow on CNBC) that want to make a big deal out of this (and compare it to Watergate, what idiots) are leading you to believe these things. Its an election ploy by the right, to add to the fire of hatred of Obama. Nothing more really. Their fake outrage, and threats that this will be investigated by Congress (after Romney wins of course) and people will be punished is laughable.

 

PS While our first duty might be to protect them, our second duty should be not to put additional people in jeopardy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a non-issue anyways.

 

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

 

On meeting Obama: “Could not look me in the eye … like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

 

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html

 

 

 

me thinks Hillary really believed the video was the cause or was she just following orders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

 

On meeting Obama: “Could not look me in the eye … like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

 

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html

 

me thinks Hillary really believed the video was the cause or was she just following orders?

 

 

 

How is it that so many of our long time huddlers have been banned for political talk and yet the most inflammatory poster here, Moneymakers, is still here posting this garbage? Id love to know from the existing moderators. Does moneymakers have pics of DMD and WW in compromising positions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that so many of our long time huddlers have been banned for political talk and yet the most inflammatory poster here, Moneymakers, is still here posting this garbage? Id love to know from the existing moderators. Does moneymakers have pics of DMD and WW in compromising positions?

 

 

here in America people have the right to call this garbage.

 

Today I got a call, out of the blue, from the father of one of the Americans who was murdered in Benghazi, Libya

Charles Woods explained that he never calls talk shows, but was upset over news he had heard and just decided to call me.

He talked about his son, Tyrone Woods, who was killed along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and two other Americans who were trying to save the life of the Amb

After 37 years, there are still days that this business takes your breath away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appearances can be deceiving. Those in the media (Fox News and that idiot Kudlow on CNBC) that want to make a big deal out of this (and compare it to Watergate, what idiots) are leading you to believe these things. Its an election ploy by the right, to add to the fire of hatred of Obama. Nothing more really. Their fake outrage, and threats that this will be investigated by Congress (after Romney wins of course) and people will be punished is laughable.

 

PS While our first duty might be to protect them, our second duty should be not to put additional people in jeopardy.

 

 

I agree the first duty is to protect them. As far as Fox News, they continue to dig into this story and based on this report, for good reason. If this linked story is true then this group in charge should be dismissed. Three times urgently requesting help? Really.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

Edited by Ice1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if the story is not true? Do you believe there is a chance of that?

 

I haven't dug into all these stories much myself, but it seems like a politically motivated attack by the right, trying to make Obama look bad to swing more votes to their side. I find that as disgusting as those who think Obama didn't send in help because of political reasons. Every reporter and news agency I've seen talk about has been heavily anti-Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if the story is not true? Do you believe there is a chance of that?

 

I haven't dug into all these stories much myself, but it seems like a politically motivated attack by the right, trying to make Obama look bad to swing more votes to their side. I find that as disgusting as those who think Obama didn't send in help because of political reasons. Every reporter and news agency I've seen talk about has been heavily anti-Obama.

 

Maybe a 0.0002% chance it is not true. I find it disgusting that those in charge didn't send in some help to assess and then have more on standby. What I find disgusting from the Administration including Obama is they knew this was a serious hotspot yet ignored the reality instead buying their own normalization agenda. Obama bombed the country which is not/was not a bad thing on its face but not understanding a power vacuum was sure to follow or not doing far more to protect our politicians to help the transition goes to poor leadership. Those should have been no brainer decisions.

 

The buck stops with the White House. Further, selling this as some random video act when they were getting real time data complete with mortar attacks is weak and even his ardent supporters should understand they were playing serious misdirection politics from day one.

 

Doesn't matter if he is a Democrat or a Republican. it was really bad form and goes to inept leadership by the Administration and that does include Obama like it or not.

 

True it does make Obama look bad, it should because he did a bad job and brought this on himself by not controlling the messaging and letting the country know they didn't have all the answers, They didn't really do that instead opting for a BS story. All those that sold this are in the Executive Branch.

 

This is now a national story not just a right political story. It is certainly more important than Binders of Women or Big Bird. As citizens, regardless of party, we should expect way better than this. This by no means has been transparent. Someone at the CIA should have grown a pair and sent in help instantly. They apparently had laser targeting which means they had real time data.

 

I don't believe it will sway many Democratic votes and expect Obama to fix this obvious train wreck if reelected but I am sure many independents on the fence are wondering just how forthright this Administration is with them. The obvious poor handling of this very well could cost him the election.

 

Time will tell and regardless many heads will roll as a direct result.

Edited by Ice1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.