Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
it figures, You did not let us down at all. why dont you give the dimocrat party cock sucking a rest and come up for air. its clear your brain is starved of O2.
I think you misjudged Fern.
it figures, You did not let us down at all. why dont you give the dimocrat party cock sucking a rest and come up for air. its clear your brain is starved of O2.
Be aware that the story isn't quite so one-sided as some portray it. While it's true we replaced U.S. security with locals, according to sworn Congressional testimony, we'd also recently invested somewhere over $1M in upgrading security at the Benghazi outpost. If memory serves, this included fortifying the walls, adding barricades, adding bars to windows, and creating hardened defensive positions. We did try to improve Benghazi security. We just didn't do enough.I'd really hate it if that was the only reason, although government probably does dumber things for worse reasons. Problem is, if I'm right - if there was a reason big enough that sensible bureaucrats and politicians would agree to putting Americans in dire risk and themselves in political risk - we may never be able to be told. And if the only reason was to make Libya look 'normalized', then it's certainly worth the politicians' and bureaucrats' efforts to not let us know that is the only reason.
Since I can't know with any confidence either way, I'll continue assuming that there was a better reason, but one that is either classified, or one that State knows wouldn't fly with the American public but which they in their infinite tweediness considered essential.
Amazing, a thread calling obama a liar turns into a thread bashing bush.
Pathetic.
....you just need to come out from your moms basement its clear you were not paying attention.
His shrink and social worker...
No, it means they have no interest in the truth and will continue to put politics before their country. You thinking it's equivalent and therefor the dems are doing what the republicans did is BS.
I am perfectly healthy. obama lied about Benghazi and you idiots are defending him.
Amazing a thread claiming Obama lied about Benghazi with zero evidence, plenty of stories of intelligence head admitting they did it and the mods silent with this thread in tact.
obama and his admin lied about what happened. Are you really that stupid?
And was help denied?
Talking points came from intelligence not the White House. Not that you ever exhibited any qualities of the former.
obama and hilary blamed the video. He would rather blame the video than admit jihadists.
it figures, You did not let us down at all. why dont you give the dimocrat party cock sucking a rest and come up for air. its clear your brain is starved of O2.
Fern, you're being disingenuous. Your first assertion, bolded above, is purely partisan spin on the actual motivation, as presented in the quote in your second comment. The shift to local security had nothing to do with al Qaida or our war on terror. It had everything to do with trying to make the new Libyan government look good, to build the appearance that it was stable and life was returning to normal in Libya.
Talking points came from intelligence not the White House. Not that you ever exhibited any qualities of the former.
Fern last year; "The lie is beyond obvious: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, yet we were fed BS by the Admin".
Any idea when we'll get confirmation on Obama's birth certificate, Fern?
Nonsense, that is a complete non sequitur. It's just more partisan spin. American voters had no visibility into how we were defending our Libyan facilities. Before 9/11/12, I don't remember Romney or anyone else on the right ever mentioning the issue. We could have stationed 100 troops in Benghazi and American voters wouldn't have had a clue. And if we had found out? Nobody would have cared. It's not generally controversial to protect American diplomatic facilities with U.S. forces. Indeed, I think most people assume that's exactly what we do.Well sort of. But it's political theater and wasn't directed at the Libyans. They don't vote in US presidential elections. Those perceptions were all aimed at us.
Fern
Nope. They came from the State Dept, and the WH told intelligence they would have to accommodate them.
Fern
You realize that Patraeus has stated that was done so to not alert AQ and others that the US was tracking them in relation to that attack. Do you think he was lying?
Yep, proven true in the congressional hearings.
IMO, we got when the last BC was produced. It allowed us to verify which BC he was originally issued.
Fern
-snip-
The Libyans, on the other hand, did care about our presence there, and especially their new government. They are the ones with the vested interest in appearing to be returning to normal, with a stable, legitimate government. The State Department moving to local security made zero difference to the U.S. elections but significant difference to the fledgling Libyan government.
Patraeus wasn't in the State Dept (or WH) who was pushing the revisions (or omissions actually).
Fern
Well, we're reading different things about the Libyan govt etc.
And you position above doesn't jibe with the Libyan President coming out so soon announcing it was a terrorist attack and disagreeing with our govt's position.
Fern
Patraeus wasn't in the State Dept (or WH) who was pushing the revisions (or omissions actually).
Fern
