Exactly! It really sounds like some people want to blame Obama for not sending more troops into a bad situation where they could potentially be killed! Then again, if he did - they would blame him for sending troops into a situation where they got killed! People just look for someone to blame - and the blame and up on the wrong people most of the time!
People seem to forget that the military is made up of people. Americans no less. People that have families to come home to.
We don't just throw in the military blindly and hope for the best. All situations are assessed carefully before sending these brave people into any hostile situation that could result in casualties.
EXACTLY! Unfortunately, the FOX newsies are just looking for something to pin on Obama. I totally get not throwing more troops into an unknown situation. My one big issue, if true, is that they didn't allow our people in the Embassy to carry guns. When you are in a country, full of savages, you NEED to have protection! My brother was on a base in Afghanistan several times & he said it's VERY frightening to have nationals working on the base. He said the people there have no respect for life or the quality of life. They are basically animals. And that's coming from a guy who I've never heard say one bad or racist thing in his life. I've never seen fear or disgust in his eyes before & he had both upon his latest return.
Sorry I haven't been here lately, been busy. But I see we are discussing the Benghazi thing and my friends on the left seem to think we need to be patient and wait until some exhaustive investigation is complete (stretching well past the election of course). Ok fine. But can't we at least know the following now?
1. Reports say requests were made several times for more security and were denied. How high up did they go and who denied them and on what basis?
2. It is now known that the attack was viewed in real time and at least one of the former seals was using a laser to target mortar positions and request at a minimum drone response. Were Hillary and/or Obama told at all about the attack WHILE it was happening and if so what was there response?
3. Did Obama meet with his security team before flying to Vegas for his fundraiser the next day or not?
4. Who told UN ambassador Rice that the video is responsible is "the best" intellegience they had (several days later) when it is now clear it wasn't "the best intelligence they had"
Or if that is too much to ask how about just when specifically did Obama learn about the attack? I would settle for even that much and there doesn't need to be an investigation for that. If it was going on for 8 hrs and embassy was able to reach out and ask for military help and he still wasn't told during then why not?
Last edited by TeddyNovak; October 29th, 2012 at 04:37:51 PM..
So funny how the FOX News addicts can honestly think that the President would actually sit back & watch our people get slaughtered. Wouldn't that make him as bad as Hitler or Osama Bin Laden or...Satan?!?!?!?
I may not like Romney, but I'd NEVER think the guy would do something like this either.
Originally Posted by HoldyourfireAl
I'm thinking the whole thing is just a wee bit more complicated than you are making out. Somehow I don't think any of the hire ups sat there & twidled their thumbs. Were bad decisions made? Quite possibly, but I doubt anyone just turned their backs on our people. The insinuations you are making are quite outlandish. From the little I've read thus far, it was decided not to just throw more soldiers in their blind & wind up with triple the casualties.
Well apparently this thing went on for 8 full hours. They did have "real time" intelligence and boots on the ground reports as well as streaming video. If Hillary and/or Obama weren't notified in that time while sovereign US soil was under attack then why not? If either of them were then it appears that yes they twiddled their thumbs and did nothing. If you want to argue (as Panetta seems to be) that they didn't want to risk more lives then fine but come on, it isn't as if these terrorists could have snuck divisions or battalians of men around in Libya and tanks and heavy artillery or something without us knowing. We knew it was about 40 ot 60 guys with some small arms and mortars. We also knew we had air assets and drones we could send in a relatiely short period of time. If Mitt was in charge we may have at least had some horse mounted soldiers with shiny new bayonetts but the point is Obamas administration did NOTHING and ordered others who wanted to do something to do NOTHING.
And as to prior security, we have marines stationed at our embassy in France but not Ben Gahzi? They say they had a meeting prior to 9-11 for general preparedness updates and heightened alert. What did they do exactly? I haven't heard of anything.
Last edited by TeddyNovak; October 29th, 2012 at 04:47:53 PM..
Funny stuff screwball (are you any relation to oddball?)
In other news the Des Moines register endorses Romney. Obama Spokesbabe says it isn't surprising..............What? First Republican they've endorsed in 40 yrs and they endorsed Obama in '08 and it isn't surprising? They endorsed Carter in '80 and Mondale in '84 for Pete's sake
The info on SPENDING being lowest under OWEbama is absolutely FALSE! He SPENT $6 TRILLION into National DEBT--I urge YOU to go to USDebtClock.org and watch the DEBT rise faster than second hand ticks of a clock. He took a $4.65 BILLION DEFICIT from BUSH and ran it to $1.4 TRILLION in ONE YEAR. EVERY YEAR HE'S SPENT $1+ TRILLION MORE than federal revenues. ROMNEY's JOB creation in Mass was LOW because the unemployment rate was 4.5%--that's considered FULL EMPLOYMENT by Feds--WHAT workers was he going to create JOBS for?? OWEbama has put 15 MILLION MORE on foodstamps, 1 in 6 citizens are in POVERTY, REAL UNEMPLOYMENT is likely 12-15%, the Feds DO NOT count longtime unemployed who no longer receive benefits and are NOT working as unemployed. The last UNEMPLOYMENT stats DID NOT include the 3rd largest unemployment state in U.S.--California in its statistics-- they also DID NOT count 800,000 MORE workers that dropped off the unemployment benefits rolls but are NOT working. Disregard at YOUR REGRET--the U.S. workforce will see a 5% INCOME TAX INCREASE in Jan under OWEbama, and $585 BILLION OTHER NEW TAXES--can you say "RECESSION"--how 'bout "DEPRESSION". This president has already INCREASED TAXES by $600+ BILLION dollars--next year his total TAX INCREASE WILL BE OVER $1 TRILLION DOLLARS--Joe Biden told you himself--IT"S COMING=TAXMAGEDDON! And I've been a Democrat VOTER for nearly 40 YEARS--PARTY DOESN'T COME FIRST==GOD, COUNTRY & FAMILY!!
Here's some answers for you Coug - not sure you are going to like them because they don't blame Obama though...
Good lord Ratchet I would hope you know better than this but just for fun I'll assume that you honestly think budget cuts were made to embassy security (or anything else for that matter) and I'll set you straight. Short version is THERE WERE NO CUTS. ZERO. NONE.
The US hasn't had a budget since the democrats have had control of either house (2006) They refuse to pass one despite it being one of their constitutional duties to do so. They have been operating on "continuing resolutions" since then.
What Solidad is talking about with these so called "cuts" (and the rep points this out later in the clip although not very well) is the budget passed by the republican house, but NOT VOTED ON OR PASSED BY THE DEM SENATE does propose to make a small, generic cut, to the State Department budget. It does NOT specify cuts to embassy or any other security. What Dems have done now is take the percentage cut of the State dept budget and apply it to the embassy security portion of that budget, for the entire world of US Embassies, and claim that budget cuts is the reason for this debacle. Well, there were no budget cuts, and what the guy was saying is even if there were or are in the future you need to prioritize the security. We currently have marines stationed at our embassy in Paris but we don't have ANYTHING in Bengazi when they had many smaller attacks before this one and had been begging for more in the months going up to the big attack?
The reason we are blaming Obama and his administration is because it is his and his State Departments fault. The fact that he won't even tell us what they did and why AFTER the attack is proof positive that they are worse than incompetent.
Those of you on the left (Ratchet, et al) might find this interesting (or not probably). Here is the testimony in the house hearings in which the guy (Eric Nordstrom) who asked several times for more security says it wasn't a budget issue but a political issue AND the testimony of the State Dept idiot (Christine Lamb) who also says it wasn't a budget issue and goes on to say that despite these catastrophic results the "3 security personel was the correct level at this consulate on September 11"....wait............what?
Obama and his crew figure 3 was enough for Chris Stevens in Libya but one of his unelected advisors, Valerie Jarrett, warrants a full 6 man secret service detail while she is on vaction at Marthas Vineyard.
As far as the embassy attack goes - the buck always stops with the Commander in Chief. You get credit for Bin Laden. You get credit for Benghazi. I'm not trying to smear Obama on this - I can switch the sentences around to fortify Obama's role in taking down Bin Laden and it wouldn't be any less true. For better or worse, any success or failing on the part of our military fall squarely on the man in the oval office.
And no, Al - most people who are not voting for Obama don't think he's the devil. We think he is a poor leader with terrible, financially unsustainable plans for this country. And God forbid something should happen to Obama if he got reelected...the thought of Joe Biden as President makes my stomach churn.
And BTW - I always keep an open mind when it comes to voting, but I'm still waiting to hear WHY I should vote for Obama instead of why I shouldn't vote for Romney. What specifically has Obama done that would suggest he deserves a second term and how does it stack up against his shortcomings as President. Anything outside of that is just political "chum" to stir up division.
Last edited by Citizen Alpha; October 31st, 2012 at 01:06:08 PM..
Does this mean you are conceding your previous false argument that Republicans had cut the budget so much that Obama could only keep marines in places like France and Barbados (both have marine detachments) and there were none left for Bengazi?
If so fair enough. On to your new point. Wow, that's a tough one. Oh wait, no it isn't. The "scandal" in this case is the campaign and Romney donated to the relief fund? Or that they bought the stuff the night before? Neither seems like much of a scandal to me. Be honest Ratchet, what would you have said if it were found that Romney and his team DIDN'T donate anything? You would be crying hypocrite. The only way people even know he bought anything is the whiny leftists calling attention to it. Or what if he didn't and the press shows up before any supporters? Then they would say that Romney supporters are heartless and nothing had been donated. I wonder how much they raised? I bet it was a lot and the $5K is a tiny part. I'll bet Romney also personally donated a lot more than that and just isn't calling attention to it.
Meanwhile, Obamas Aunt is still living off me like she has been for the last 10 years, right?