No. of Recommendations: 41
The news is really breaking. It was bad enough that the Obama admin lied about the attacks on the US embassy in Libya. Claiming it was some spontaneous demonstration and something hatched from a YouTube video.

Now it's breaking now that emails show that the adminstration knew almost immediately, as it was happening that a terrorist attack was happening. The "situation room" knew immediately.

The admininstration did NOTHING to help those under attack....they had SEVEN HOURS during which the attack occurred.

We have forces in Italy - Fighter Jets, only a four hundred miles away....which could have gotten there in about ONE hour to do something.

Nothing. Obama and admin let them die. Damn.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Heartbreaking. I hope this gets exposed somehow--and quickly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nothing. Obama and admin let them die. Damn.

AOLFoolman


I reckon I'm jaded, but since Obama and his cronies are liberal Democrats the mainstream American media will given them a pass. Can you imagine the MSM investigations if a Republican adminstration had done this?

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The story has hit Drudge. I don't see how MSM can cover it up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-em...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nothing. Obama and admin let them die. Damn.

AOLFoolman

I reckon I'm jaded, but since Obama and his cronies are liberal Democrats the mainstream American media will given them a pass. Can you imagine the MSM investigations if a Republican adminstration had done this?

Mike

_____________________

Mike

As bad as Republicans may be, there is really no need to speculate on this particular one, Republicans would never elect someone who would do that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
which could have gotten there in about ONE hour to do something.

Do what, exactly? Drop a GPU and take out the entire block (including our people, if they weren't already dead)?

Also, one of our planes could cover 400 miles in much less than 1 hour if we wanted it to. Heck, commercial airliners could cover that in about 45 minutes.

As it is, your report is extremely biased. The emails were not intelligence assessments, and the terrorist group that allegedly was taking responsibility has since denied responsibility. I call it your report since you provided no source for this rant.

I also dispute your claim the attack took seven hours. It appears to have been over in less than two.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/inde...

The e-mails obtained by CNN provide additional insight into the Benghazi attack.

The first one, sent at 4:05 p.m. ET, or 10:05 p.m. in Libya, described a diplomatic mission under attack.
"Approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well," the e-mail said. Stevens and four other mission staff were in the compound safe haven, it added.

Less than an hour later, at 4:54 p.m. ET, another e-mail reported "firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared." It said a search was underway for consulate personnel.

The final e-mail, at 6:07 p.m., noted the claim of responsibility for the attack. The subject line said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now it's breaking now that emails show that the adminstration knew almost immediately, as it was happening that a terrorist attack was happening. The "situation room" knew immediately.

I agree that from his great vantage point at the desk, Obama should have looked around the room and said "Broken Arrow". That is absolutely what should have been done and anything less than an immediate shotgun blind response was a fail. NOT.

You lose the election if this is all you have. Where is your "Trump"?

?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1poorguy, it's not a matter of what could or could not have been done. The issue is the cover-up. Just like Watergate, it's the cover-up that was wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What I don't understand is why was Stevens out there in the first place? Why wasn't he in the relative security of Tripoli? Was he on some kind of secret mission? Was he allowed to killed to keep the details from leaking out?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just like Watergate, it's the cover-up that was wrong.

I remember Watergate. I'm pretty sure the break-in was wrong (as in "illegal") too.

I don't see these as analogous. In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all. Not that such couldn't come out eventually, but so far it looks more like people were trying to figure out what was going on. No cover-up, no dodging of responsibility. Just some confusion initially, and people speaking without all the facts (i.e. early press releases from the administration).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
I don't see these as analogous. In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all. Not that such couldn't come out eventually, but so far it looks more like people were trying to figure out what was going on. No cover-up, no dodging of responsibility


Sorry to be blunt. But you're an idiot to think that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all

All some people see is the inside of their rectum.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't see these as analogous. In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all. Not that such couldn't come out eventually, but so far it looks more like people were trying to figure out what was going on. No cover-up, no dodging of responsibility


Sorry to be blunt. But you're an idiot to think that.
______________________________________

Idiots from villages around the country are as I type gathering for a protest and to find a lawyer to being a defamation case against you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1poorguy
I remember Watergate. I'm pretty sure the break-in was wrong (as in "illegal") too.

I don't see these as analogous. In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all. Not that such couldn't come out eventually, but so far it looks more like people were trying to figure out what was going on. No cover-up, no dodging of responsibility. Just some confusion initially, and people speaking without all the facts (i.e. early press releases from the administration).


Then why was the admin and the mainstream media so quick to deny it was terrorist related and droned on and on and on about the stupid obscure video?

Give me a bone here. I come up with nothing.

Obama, Hillary and others were covering there butts. It's no more complicated than that.

Look, I'm willing to admit in a heartbeat when a Republican does something stupid and dishonest. I've done so many times on this board, disagreeing with George W on many occasions.

But democrats refuse to accept criticism for their guys when they've been caught with there hands in the cookie jar. It's really quite shameful.

Most transparent presidency in the history of the nation? Ya right! Obama is a national disgrace.

I look forward to 8 years of Romney and 8 more of Ryan after dumb and dumber get their pink slips.

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In fact, I have yet to see anything that looks like a cover-up at all. Not that such couldn't come out eventually, but so far it looks more like people were trying to figure out what was going on. No cover-up, no dodging of responsibility. Just some confusion initially, and people speaking without all the facts (i.e. early press releases from the administration).


1poorguy


What you're trying to state here is that the current administration consists of a bunch of incompetent boobs when it comes to dealing with a foreign crisis. Liars or not they need to be replaced.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I still don't see what is being covered up. Was there advanced warning of this particular attack? To me it looks like the usual FUBAR fog of war.

If you are thinking close air support would have helped, that can't be arranged from a distance. You need a FAC or someone on the ground who know what they are doing. Even then you need a 100 yards of separation.
Apache's could have done it but they don't travel fast or far.
Finally, if any help were to have been rendered, it certainly would not have required the president's ok. Do you think that he ok's every operational decision?

It appears to me you all are trying to whip this into a swift boat froth.
That is a despicable and cynical exploitation of this tragedy.

fd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It appears to me you all are trying to whip this into a swift boat froth.
That is a despicable and cynical exploitation of this tragedy.

fd


You are being absolutely ridiculous. The issue is clear. Obama obviously knew that it was a terrorist attack pretty much right away, but his administration played it off as a protest against the video. Why? Who knows? The most likely reason is that he knew that a terrorist attack wouldn't look good so close to the election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did he not call it an act of terror the next morning?

fd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" To me it looks like the usual FUBAR fog of war. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On 9/11?

When there should be a high security alert?

In a locale where the British feared to leave their people?

Perhaps there would be confusion during the event - but by the
time a speech is given to the UN, one would think that
even a foggy mind would jettison the video bit.

There seems to be a cynical exploitation - but not by folks asking
what happened. The responses appear quite cynical.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I guess four dead Americans is just another "Bump in the road" for Obama.
What a great "Commander in Least" he is. I feel so sorry for all the military under his shoe.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did he not call it an act of terror the next morning?

Answer A: No. He referred to "acts of terror" which explicitly included the 9/11/2001 attacks but did not explicitly include the 9/11/2012 attacks.

Answer B: It would be worse if he DID, because that would mean that he KNEW he and the administration were lying when, for the next week and a half or so, they insisted it was a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did he not call it an act of terror the next morning?

fd


No, he didn't. He said:

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


He didn't say it was an act of terror. He just said that no acts of terror will ever shake our resolve. Now, if his administration didn't subsequently blame a reaction against the video instead of terrorism, one could assume that he meant that the attack was a terrorist attack.

Are you really so stubborn as to refuse to acknowledge that the Obama Administration blamed a reaction against the video *after* this speech? Because even if you argue that he meant that the attack was a terrorist attack in that initial speech, that doesn't excuse him from then changing the story.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Give me a bone here. I come up with nothing.

The media is instantaneous today. They broadcast whatever, and check the facts later. Remember 9/11/01? They were going on about it real-time, endlessly, with no new info. With next to no info at all. Just speculation. For days. Nothing has changed today.

Obama did not (that I have seen) say it was the video. He did say the US will not bow to terrorism (though did not call this a terrorist act directly at the time).

I'm sorry. This is much ado about nothing. A made-up scandal. Yes, it's tragic those people were killed. They aren't the first, and they won't be the last. I see nothing to cover-up. Terrorists attack. It happens. I don't blame Clinton for the first WTC attack (even if I think his response was anemic), I don't blame Bush for the second one (even though one could argue he was ignoring what his intelligence staff was telling him), and I don't blame Obama for Benghazi. If you're gonna do that, you may as blame Bush for Columbine and Obama for Aurora. It doesn't make any sense.

But democrats refuse to accept criticism for their guys when they've been caught with there hands in the cookie jar. It's really quite shameful.

Firstly, I'm not a Democrat. And I criticize Obama endlessly. But about real stuff that he did (or did not) do. Secondly, what cookie jar? There was nothing to cover-up, there was no benefit to anyone to misrepresent the attack. Sometimes people are just wrong. It's really silly what the right is trying to do here.

Obama is a national disgrace.

Why? He isn't the best POTUS I can think of, but he's far from the worst. He's one of the better ones in the past 100 years (at least), and easily (by leaps and bounds) the best so far this century. Almost every yardstick you can name (GDP growth, etc) he has done well. If you hate him, then you hate him. Fine. But don't make up stuff. Criticize him for real stuff. He has not disgraced the US in any way.

I look forward to 8 years of Romney and 8 more of Ryan...

Seriously, that would spell the doom of this nation. Those two are either idiots, or malevolent. Their plans are the worst possible scenario for our future (politically, socially, and economically), and would ensure we have no future. I'm not being hyperbolic. I've read a lot about them, and they are that dangerous (or incompetent). They can't even do math. They are the perfect storm of disaster for the US. They are that bad.

Fortunately, Obama is still projected as the likely winner.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
By the way, I do realize I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I am genuinely interested in your thought processes when I ask "why".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
1poorguy wrote: There was nothing to cover-up, there was no benefit to anyone to misrepresent the attack.

What? No reason whatsoever, just weeks before an election, to cover up the fact that an AMBASSADOR was slain on the anniversary of 9/11 for lack of adequate protection?

Oh, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
1poorguy wrote: But I am genuinely interested in your thought processes when I ask "why".

Obama-watchers post here daily, ad nauseam sometimes, as to why Barack Obama is one of this nation's worst presidents. The list of Obama's deficits is so long it extends out the door and onto the street.

It's not that he can't do anything right. No president can do everything right. It's that he has done so little to help our country through one of the gravest fiscal crises in our history. That he has gone golfing dozens (and dozens) of times indicates (to me at least) that he has either not taken the job seriously or he is flat out worn out. Why he even wants a second term is a mystery.

Unfortunately, Obama must run on his record. I'd rather take a chance on Romney, who I don't know what he'll do, than risk Obama, who I do know what he'll do--which is nothing.

I know one thing: Romney will NOT go golfing!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What? No reason whatsoever, just weeks before an election, to cover up the fact that an AMBASSADOR was slain on the anniversary of 9/11 for lack of adequate protection?

Oh, please.


And that this event did not fit Obama's narrative that his heroic single-handed killing of bin Laden took the wind out of terrorism's sails.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Recommendations: 5

1poorguy wrote: There was nothing to cover-up, there was no benefit to anyone to misrepresent the attack.

What? No reason whatsoever, just weeks before an election, to cover up the fact that an AMBASSADOR was slain on the anniversary of 9/11 for lack of adequate protection?

Oh, please.
____________________________________

I have a feeling we are seeing the unintended consequences of Wolfie's lobotomy service,

C'mon guy, fess up, you did a trial run dinta ya?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have a feeling we are seeing the unintended consequences of Wolfie's lobotomy service,

C'mon guy, fess up, you did a trial run dinta ya?


LOL!!!!

Nah, he got the placebo. A lobotomy couldn't have made him any worse, so I slapped the band-aid on his forehaed, like you said, and told him he was good to go.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement