Poll: Was Benghazi a "Spontaneous Attack," or Planned Terrorist Attack?

[Meathead]

And still the right-wingers here disregard the CIA's request that the Administration follow the terrorist video story line to protect their surveillance of the terrorist group, and the Republicans' outing of that surveillance for political gain.

The Republicans' need to call Obama a liar was so much more important than actually catching the terrorists, especially since catching Obama in a lie makes him look bad, and the Administration capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice, would make Obama look good.

Face it. The Republicans didn't give a rat's ass about the Ambassador or the Seals. All they really cared about was to use these deaths for their own political gain. And most of the posters in this thread are more than happy to let them get away with it.

Are you made stupid because of your hatred or your blindness or because you are a Liberal?

It makes little difference because you are just dog wrong.

And once again, a poster who has nothing to offer in rebuttal, launches a personal attack. When you can't attack the facts, you attack the person.

There was no hate in my post. I just pointed out that the Republicans used the deaths in Benghazi for political gain. That's a new low for the Republicans. Deaths of US citizens in service to their country have never been used by the opposition party for political gain in the past. But every time we think that Republicans have reached the bottom in terms of pandering for votes, they find new ways to lower the bar.

Well, that pretty low considering the Democrats flaunting body counts around during a war most of them voted for.

US Casualties Top 50,000 in Bush's War of Aggression | Democrats.com

 

[auditor0007]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

I'm curious as to how much it really matters. I mean we have spent over a year arguing what type of attack it was. The point is that it was an attack but there is not big smoking gun. For some reason, many on the right believe this is some smoking gun. You would think Obama ordered the attack himself. I'm surprised that hasn't been suggested yet, or maybe it has.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Someone needs to tell me how and why the WH thinks it makes a difference whether al Qaeda was or wasn't responsible for the Benghazi murders.

It was Islamist radicals who wish to conquer the world and defeat America along the way.

Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Fatah. Abu Sayaf. Hezboallah. Freelancers like the Boston Marathon bombers. The Taliban. The Muslim Brotherhood. Any of these or hundreds of other terrorist groups or millions of obedient Muslims could have and would have taken part, enthusiastically, in the murders.

So somebody PLEASE tell me how and why Obama is pushing this bullshit assertion that al Qaeda wasn't involved when it makes no difference?

It would be like the Taliban arguing whether the drone missile that blew up their 6th in line leader was a CIA drone strike or an Air Force drone strike or a U.S. Navy drone strike.

What does it matter?

Is there anyone pushing the idea that it WAS al Qaeda? If so......why? Why would anyone do such a thing?

You have a very simplistic view of the politics in the region....and of the politics here at home. All Muslims are not the same....all Muslim terrorist groups are not working together.....some kill each other. They are not divisions of a centrally controlled military. Knucklehead.

By the way.....I just love your last sentence. You wish to eliminate Hillary Clinton as a Presidential choice based on her saying that same thing. It is fantastic hypocricy.

 

[paperview]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rubes know what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't know a single fact about any of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed. Because you never gave a shit.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit, and selective investigation, surrounding it betrays this fact.

^ What he said ^

 

[bitterlyclingin]

The NYT is now implying they had a man on the ground interviewing the fighters as the whole thing went down? Spontaneous, alright. Hey lets go down and kill the American Ambassador and a few other infidels, but lets not forget to call the New York Times reporter just for postery's sake!
I can just see it now, the NYT reporter, pad and pencil in hand, asking the jihadis how Ambassador Stevens reacted when the, ahem, rioters, pulled the ambasadors pants and undergarments off and started sodomizing him with the steel bar. Stevens body was later photographed after the rioters had had their way with him with his pants back on, but on backwards. Did they heat the steel bar in the flames, which were apparently everywhere, just to add a nice touch. I'm sure there's a Congressman or two who would like to talk to the NYT reporter.

 

[paperview]

The NYT is now implying they had a man on the ground interviewing the fighters as the whole thing went down? Spontaneous, alright. Hey lets go down and kill the American Ambassador and a few other infidels, but lets not forget to call the New York Times reporter just for postery's sake!
I can just see it now, the NYT reporter, pad and pencil in hand, asking the jihadis how Ambassador Stevens reacted when the, ahem, rioters, pulled the ambasadors pants and undergarments off and started sodomizing him with the steel bar. Stevens body was later photographed after the rioters had had their way with him with his pants back on, but on backwards. Did they heat the steel bar in the flames, which were apparently everywhere, just to add a nice touch. I'm sure there's a Congressman or two who would like to talk to the NYT reporter.

What an embarrassingly stupid post.

No, that didn't happen and it was debunked a long long time ago.

 

[Vox]

The NYT is now implying they had a man on the ground interviewing the fighters as the whole thing went down? Spontaneous, alright. Hey lets go down and kill the American Ambassador and a few other infidels, but lets not forget to call the New York Times reporter just for postery's sake!
I can just see it now, the NYT reporter, pad and pencil in hand, asking the jihadis how Ambassador Stevens reacted when the, ahem, rioters, pulled the ambasadors pants and undergarments off and started sodomizing him with the steel bar. Stevens body was later photographed after the rioters had had their way with him with his pants back on, but on backwards. Did they heat the steel bar in the flames, which were apparently everywhere, just to add a nice touch. I'm sure there's a Congressman or two who would like to talk to the NYT reporter.

NYT is lying to protect "their own", as usual.

It was a planned terrorist attack and both the WH and the dep of State failed to respond in a manner which would protect the Ambassador and other Americans on the ground.

But this Administration is a total failure altogether. Failing the job and constant lies - that how will it be in the history remebered, no matter how much the leftard media try to cover for it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

I'm curious as to how much it really matters. I mean we have spent over a year arguing what type of attack it was. The point is that it was an attack but there is not big smoking gun. For some reason, many on the right believe this is some smoking gun. You would think Obama ordered the attack himself. I'm surprised that hasn't been suggested yet, or maybe it has.

It seems to matter a great deal to the NY Times and Obama and Hillary. I think it obviously matters to Obama and Hillary because they said " Al-Qaeda is on the run."

They kept saying the same crap over and over prior to the election, one of dozens of lies they told repeatedly in order to get over on a gullible public. Oh course, they knew the media would cover for them.

It now matters to the NY Times because they are attempting to pave the way for Hillary in 2016. They've basically given up on Obama, although they'll still shill for him....but now all eyes are turning to Hillary.

Hope this clears it up for you.

 

[Redfish]

face it libs, the dems and obama and hillary covered up the truth about Benghazi because they knew that the truth would hurt them in the election.

they knew it was not about the stupid video but they kept that lie going for weeks.

its called political corruption.

 

[TooTall]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

I'm curious as to how much it really matters. I mean we have spent over a year arguing what type of attack it was. The point is that it was an attack but there is not big smoking gun. For some reason, many on the right believe this is some smoking gun. You would think Obama ordered the attack himself. I'm surprised that hasn't been suggested yet, or maybe it has.

Good idea! Let's start a thread blaming Obama for the attack on Benghazi. After all, there were quite a few blaming Bush for the WTC attack on 911.
Blaming Obama for Benghazi would be almost as absurd.

 

[Redfish]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

I'm curious as to how much it really matters. I mean we have spent over a year arguing what type of attack it was. The point is that it was an attack but there is not big smoking gun. For some reason, many on the right believe this is some smoking gun. You would think Obama ordered the attack himself. I'm surprised that hasn't been suggested yet, or maybe it has.

Good idea! Let's start a thread blaming Obama for the attack on Benghazi. After all, there were quite a few blaming Bush for the WTC attack on 911.
Blaming Obama for Benghazi would be almost as absurd.

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

 

[Dragonlady]

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

What acts of his underlings? Hillary didn't plan or orchestrate the attack. The Ambassador knew the dangers, was advised not to go to Benghazi and went anyway. There have been multiple attacks on US installations on the anniversaries of 9-11 and there was no way of knowing where or when another one would happen. The Ambassador had been offered increased security - twice, and he had declined.

You act like these deaths could have been prevented, given the information in hand. Holding back on information that it was a planned terrorist attack did no harm, but letting the terrorists know that the CIA was listening to them, which the Republicans did for political gain, was VERY harmful.

Republicans were just that overjoyed to have something, anything they could nail Obama for. Politics before country is the Republican mantra.

 

[Redfish]

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

What acts of his underlings? Hillary didn't plan or orchestrate the attack. The Ambassador knew the dangers, was advised not to go to Benghazi and went anyway. There have been multiple attacks on US installations on the anniversaries of 9-11 and there was no way of knowing where or when another one would happen. The Ambassador had been offered increased security - twice, and he had declined.

You act like these deaths could have been prevented, given the information in hand. Holding back on information that it was a planned terrorist attack did no harm, but letting the terrorists know that the CIA was listening to them, which the Republicans did for political gain, was VERY harmful.

Republicans were just that overjoyed to have something, anything they could nail Obama for. Politics before country is the Republican mantra.

she refused to provide additional security when it was requested. She, or someone in the state dept, did not provide military assistance when the attack began, then they lied about it for weeks because they feared that the truth might affect the election.

"party over country" yep, and 4 dead americans to show for it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

What acts of his underlings? Hillary didn't plan or orchestrate the attack. The Ambassador knew the dangers, was advised not to go to Benghazi and went anyway. There have been multiple attacks on US installations on the anniversaries of 9-11 and there was no way of knowing where or when another one would happen. The Ambassador had been offered increased security - twice, and he had declined.

You act like these deaths could have been prevented, given the information in hand. Holding back on information that it was a planned terrorist attack did no harm, but letting the terrorists know that the CIA was listening to them, which the Republicans did for political gain, was VERY harmful.

Republicans were just that overjoyed to have something, anything they could nail Obama for. Politics before country is the Republican mantra.

she refused to provide additional security when it was requested. She, or someone in the state dept, did not provide military assistance when the attack began, then they lied about it for weeks because they feared that the truth might affect the election.

"party over country" yep, and 4 dead americans to show for it.

You are not presenting facts. You believe it.....but it ain't true. Sad for you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It had nothing to do with the 9-11 anniversary

Meant in the same context as their view of Republicans objection to the new Affordable Care Act mandate has nothing to do with Obama as Commander-in-Chief, I'm sure.

 

[Vox]

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

What acts of his underlings? Hillary didn't plan or orchestrate the attack. The Ambassador knew the dangers, was advised not to go to Benghazi and went anyway. There have been multiple attacks on US installations on the anniversaries of 9-11 and there was no way of knowing where or when another one would happen. The Ambassador had been offered increased security - twice, and he had declined.

You act like these deaths could have been prevented, given the information in hand. Holding back on information that it was a planned terrorist attack did no harm, but letting the terrorists know that the CIA was listening to them, which the Republicans did for political gain, was VERY harmful.

Republicans were just that overjoyed to have something, anything they could nail Obama for. Politics before country is the Republican mantra.

she refused to provide additional security when it was requested. She, or someone in the state dept, did not provide military assistance when the attack began, then they lied about it for weeks because they feared that the truth might affect the election.

"party over country" yep, and 4 dead americans to show for it.

that is what happened.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

only if you assume that the boss is not responsible for the acts of his underlings. Hillary's incompetence caused it, Hillary worked for obama. It happened on obama's watch, he owns it whether you libs choose to recognize it or not.

What acts of his underlings? Hillary didn't plan or orchestrate the attack. The Ambassador knew the dangers, was advised not to go to Benghazi and went anyway. There have been multiple attacks on US installations on the anniversaries of 9-11 and there was no way of knowing where or when another one would happen. The Ambassador had been offered increased security - twice, and he had declined.

You act like these deaths could have been prevented, given the information in hand. Holding back on information that it was a planned terrorist attack did no harm, but letting the terrorists know that the CIA was listening to them, which the Republicans did for political gain, was VERY harmful.

Republicans were just that overjoyed to have something, anything they could nail Obama for. Politics before country is the Republican mantra.

she refused to provide additional security when it was requested. She, or someone in the state dept, did not provide military assistance when the attack began, then they lied about it for weeks because they feared that the truth might affect the election.

"party over country" yep, and 4 dead americans to show for it.

Exactly. Who do you think the New York Times would love to endorse in their run for President in 2016? What political motive does the paper have by presenting this article? Are their any sources to collaborate, that doesn't have something to gain by changing to a story that portrays this administration (and more importantly Hillary) in a good light?

 

[BlindBoo]

Is Grey Black or White?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Is Grey Black or White?

Depends on which Obama official you ask.