Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Billy000]

For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.

That somehow makes this a scandal? One democrat?

You seem to have the same mindset about Republicans. Why the hypocrisy, Billy? Facts are what make it a scandal, as blackhawk has already pointed out.

The facts say this guy had no organized terror ties therefore calling it an Al Queda attack is completely inaccurate. The facts don't get simpler than that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Outta be writing more books, making more cartoons, and making more movies insulting to Islam if every time one comes out they riot and go nuts. Maybe they'll kill themselves off and save us the trouble. And if we're supposed to be especially sensitive in the US to Islam, let's see if Muslims in the US are really ready for US ways of doing things like having your religion pooped and spat all over. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be in the US.

When people emmigrate into think one of the northern European countries they get shown people sunbathing nude in public parks. If they object they're strongly discouraged for becomming citizens. Should do something similar here in the US. If Muslims wanna come here fine, but we're not going to treat your reliigon any different than anyone else's, and if you can't handle seeing it disrepsected, don't come here.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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?

Our armed forces now enlist those that can see into the future?

Please explain how anyone, without inside information, could possibly tell how long the attack would last while the attack was happening?

These folks have supernatural talents?

Well, I guess if anyone would know, Robert Gates would. Although "some guy on the internet" would be a close second.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fools are fed by the media and never question it.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Obama refused to send help...because of the video

At this point you are merely 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?

The attack took place over 8 hours.

Val Jarrett refused to send help

End of story

What part of the official word from the US military are you having trouble wrapping your brain around?

Is the military lying as well?


10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador's residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, "Greg, we're under attack."


10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.

Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with President Barack Obama.



Eight hours with no help, eh?

 

[depotoo]

"At this point what difference does it make?"

HC

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM]Hillary Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: 'What Difference, Does It Make?' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.


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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

You just believe anything, don't you?

Tell me something, did you read the part of the story where it says that no one in Libya even mentioned the video until the day after the attack? Did they use a time machine to express their outrage?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Fools are fed by the media and never question it.

I disagree - the true fool allows himself to be made a fool.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

seriously, your hatred is showing

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

Darlin, anyone who thinks the New York Times is a stand alone reliable source that can look at an event like Benghazi "objectively" has got issues.

The real issue is the fact that rightwingers notoriously question all sources that disagree with what they are told is acceptable, then go turn on the AM radio in order to hug it out.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

yea American citizens are dead. put in harms way by the Obama administration. The secretary of state failed to either realize the severity of the situation or failed press for adequate protection. but liberal spin doctors will try to convince us their deaths don't matter because they weren't caused by al Qaeda.

 

[deltex1]

Looks like there was no "there" there.

And you're a moron

Poor baby, nobody likes you.

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

Darlin, anyone who thinks the New York Times is a stand alone reliable source that can look at an event like Benghazi "objectively" has got issues.

The real issue is the fact that rightwingers notoriously question all sources that disagree with what they are told is acceptable, then go turn on the AM radio in order to hug it out.

Oh.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Sorry, not buying this at all.

Ahmed Abu Khattala has always been a chief suspect, and a known terrorist. I guess if someone denies they were involved The NYT believes it.

Blaming a video for an attack that occurred on 9/11 is pure stupidity.

This was a terrorist attack because of a soft target created by poor planning by the Obama administration.

 

[depotoo]

oversight.house.gov/wp-content/.../04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Looks like there was no "there" there.

And you're a moron

Poor baby, nobody likes you.

Clinton/Warren 2016 ?

Wow, really Candy ? I do expect to see Hillary win the White House, but not with Warren as her running mate.

I would say not a chance in hell, but after this country elected Obama twice nothing would surprise me.

 

[Katzndogz]

The NYT is going for the early Hillary cover.

 

[KNB]

Let's pretend that Benghazi is a real scandal. 4 Americans died. Compare that to Colin Powell's lies at the UN in 2003 which resulted in over 4,000 Americans dead (and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis).

Which scandal is bigger? 4 Americans dead because of Obama's lies, or 4,000 Americans dead because of Bush's lies?

Take your time to think about it, Republicans.

 

[Plasmaball]

Ah the new York Times isn't creditable unless they make the left look bad...

Moving on.

 

[oreo]

The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.

Ha.Ha.--so the NYT is going completely against sworn testimony from security and others who worked there? Figures. I imagine this tactic is nothing more than to smoke screen and get the topic off of Obamacare for a couple of days. The MEDIA in this country will go to any links to protect Barack Obama.

No surprise here--and it's hard to believe that anyone at this point in time would believe it anyway.

 

[LilOlLady]

Four American are dead. What difference does it make who did it. There was no evidence of a pending attack.All was quiet. Steven had gone to bed when the attack occured. How the hell could any one get there to help. Daryle Issa is a Head Hunter and Obama is preferable the target. How many American died int Iraq and in Afghanistan????

 

[oreo]

Let's pretend that Benghazi is a real scandal. 4 Americans died. Compare that to Colin Powell's lies at the UN in 2003 which resulted in over 4,000 Americans dead (and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis).

Which scandal is bigger? 4 Americans dead because of Obama's lies, or 4,000 Americans dead because of Bush's lies?

Take your time to think about it, Republicans.

You do know that John Kerry was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time. You know the guy that voted for it, before he voted against it--who just happens to be the Secretary of State currently.

So that must have been one HELL OF LIE for him to believe it.--