Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama refused to send help...because of the video
At this point you attempting to hijack this thread - so I am calling BULLSHIT right here and telling you point-blank why this proclamation is without merit.
Obama does not "send help" when none is available.
... military officials have explained that no forces from outside Libya could have deployed to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attacks. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that a timely military response to the attacks "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and that an expectation that military forces would be sent into an unknown situation shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." Gates also explained that due to the number of missing anti-aircraft weapons in Libya, he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi." The Department of Defense also testified that fighter aircraft would not have been able to respond to the attack in time to save lives. Hicks' suggestion is further undermined by the fact that resources were needed to defend the embassy in Tripoli.
Care to admit your error right now or are you just going to post another stupid pic with yet another snarky retort?
So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
Poor baby, nobody likes you.
What retaliation? He immediately LIED and blamed it on a YouTube video, and had the creator of it imprisoned. Hilary nor the Hussein did anything to address the security requests from the Embassy prior to the attack, and they did nothing during the attack to help those people. And what did the Hussein do to "retaliate" hours after the attack? Attend a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.
Sept 11th, 10pm response by Clinton:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
All they did in the days and weeks following was cover up their tracks, knowing full well that the media and his sheep (like YOU) will gloss over it and defend the Hussein no matter what.
No one blames Hilary or the Hussein for Muslims gone wild. There will be more attacks and it should be expected. But it would be nice if Dems actually acknowledged the real threat these savages present, instead of ignoring it and making every effort to appease them(see her "religious tolerance" comments above).
Retaliation? Sometimes it takes a decade to retaliate. How long did it take Bush to retaliate against OBL? Oh yea......he didnt
You act as if the attack on the trade towers by Osama Bin Laden began during the Bush administration. Wait, that's right the left didn't like to associate the "incident" with the words attack or terrorism, did they?
The NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit. I just saw Mike Rogers on CNN. He is the head of the House Intelligence Committee. He said none of the "facts" in the NY Times piece are accurate. Democrats on the Committee said the same thing.
This story by the Times is a fluff piece that is designed to help Hillary for her 2016 run. Total bullshit. Disregard.
It is all designed to help Hillary in 2016. Complete bullshit.
Yes, He said it will be the first thing he does... I assume that means the day he takes office. Somehow I doubt that's good enough for you, because lets face it, when Obama said "first thing I will do" you thought, If it takes him 2 + years that's prolly the same thing as "first thing I will do."Obama's PROMISE To End The Iraq War - Oct. 27, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" - YouTube
I wonder, are you like RW, in search of the truth? Because I feel like you might argue that Obama's claim of ending the Iraq war as "the FIRST thing he will do" if elected President is not equal to a timetable.... Maybe you believe it was in the top 10 things he did first? Either war I'm pretty sure that makes him a liar, me right and RW supporting a liar "just because."
i cant watch this right now. Watching the Pacific ATM. does he state a date where he will end it?
Let me put another way, in a responsible applicable way. Lets say you run a business, and you tell your employee to sweep a floor and they say "The first thing I will do tomorrow is sweet that floor." Then years later, they sweet that floor. Would you be correct in mentioning that when they said "Tomorrow" the date that "tomorrow" fell on would count as a "timetable"?
Lets see if you have the ability to hold Obama accountable for a lie, just so we know where you stand on the issue of Benghazi. Basically, would you defend Obama no matter what the NYT said, or are you actually looking for truth.
Seem's pretty basic to me.
Obama takes office January 20, 2009
Obama's first action as "President 9 Signed a proclamation declaring 20 January 2009 a national day of renewal and reconciliation." Obama - the first 100 hours | World news | The Guardian
War ends 12/15/11
Obama's "first thing I'll do" was over 2 years late.... Hmm...
It is amazing how corrupt the MSM can be. Of course the libtards on this message board fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
