Obama Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack Within Three Days, But Continued to Cover Up

reply to post by karen61560


Still trying to make the poster the topic eh

Reagan bombed Gadaffi and then there was nothing from them for over 30 years, and age has exactly nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Just the fact that you believe they watched this at the White House and did nothing says you are partisan. Heres a novel idea. Why dont we wait until after the investigation and then we'll see who knew what and when.

Here is a novel Idea read

Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives. Why?

www.forbes.com...


Pretty damn clear who is being partisan.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Woah there beg fella, now you're saying we had advanced knowledge that this was going to happen and we did nothing ? I dont think so. That is a big accusation. Back it up.

Too say we didn't realize how vulnerable they were is absurd. We knew. There was almost no security and the country is in the middle of a civil war.

CJ

I know that a lot of Republicans are angry about the election and they think that they can impeach the president over this incident. They may have the votes in the House for an impeachment, BUT THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE SENATE WHERE THE TRIAL AS TO TAKE PLACE.
Before the election Fox News and the other conservative channels ran nonstop new about Libya. The voters ignored all that propaganda as well as they will in the future.
Obama will your president for four more years whether you like it or not. You can accuse him of any crimes you like, but he will still be your president.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by charles1952

 

Yeah that was him leading from behind while he was on the gournd in New Jersey touring the devistation. While Bush viewed the devistation of Katrina from a helicopter in the sky and failed to respond in a timely fashion basically telling the people of LA that they didn t matter. This President rolled up his sleeves and got down in the trenches.

There is a very good reason that Bush viewed it from a helicopter. LA was already absolutely devastated from the tragic event, the abosulute LAST thing they needed to have dropped in their lap is having to also put together the security and resources needed to have a President visit. Something that is TOTALLY lost to the current President. Anytime and EVERY time the Prez can get a photo op, the better, To this Pres, Sandy wasn't so much a tragedy as it was a wonderful opportunity!


How in GAWDS name could the President possibly have helped? He did nothing but use up the limited resources that should have been used on Sandy's victims. He put more people in harms way by insisting on his photo opportunity. I'm sure if we were to look at that situation, we'd again see blood on his hands.

We (all of us) are merely peasants to this administration.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by CB328

 

Somehow this attack against us is being turned into a scandle we did. It is not. We were still attacked people! Who knew what and when will clearly be identified with this investigation but lets keep that little bit in mind here folks. WE WERE ATTACKED. Why arent you guys up in arms about that simple fact? No we need to hang oursleves over it and call the President a traitor.

I agree! We were attacked and all some people want to see is conspiracy everywhere. They continue to blame the sitting President for everything - man made and God made! People seem to forget we lost lives by the hands of people who would like nothing better than to see all of us destroyed.

Just like on the original 9/11.

Oh, I thought you were referring to the ORIGINAL 9/11. You know, the one this most recent attack was memorializing.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Just the fact that you believe they watched this at the White House and did nothing says you are partisan. Heres a novel idea. Why dont we wait until after the investigation and then we'll see who knew what and when.

Here is a novel Idea read

Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives. Why?

www.forbes.com...


Pretty damn clear who is being partisan.

Remember too that Panetta and Biden were already in the White House for a scheduled meeting !!!

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Swills

 

And you are obviously a detractor. Whats your point? It still is the stupidest scandal in the history of America. We were attacked. We are the victims here.

I am? Care to explain yourself? We've butted heads over this scandal before and got no where so lets just agree to disagree. Believe whatever you want I don't care.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Woah there beg fella, now you're saying we had advanced knowledge that this was going to happen and we did nothing ? I dont think so. That is a big accusation. Back it up.

No advanced warning you say? What about the fact the compound was attacked twice over the summer? Or how about the terrorists made threats on the Facebook page even highlighting 9/11's anniversary? What about the fact the same terrorists were taking pictures of Steven during his morning jogs and posting the pix with threats on Facebook? How about the fact the compound requested security from DC but was denied?

But you're right, the US Govt probably had no clue attacks were coming

I was curious about the President's rose garden speech, which some here have claimed shows Obama's public announcement of a "terrorist attack." Here's the link to the video and the transcript of his five minute address:
blogs.wsj.com... I found two paragraphs especially relevant:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

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.

I suppose if you squint your eyes and tilt your head, while stuffing your head in a bag, you might make the second paragraph out to say "terrorist attack," but that's not a fair reading. It's more clear that he's referencing the video in the first paragraph.

But make up your own minds.

reply to post by neo96


I miss Gaddafi's outfits and style. I wish those terrorist rebels never sodomized him with a knife and then killing him. Sick bastards.

I also miss Boncho's old avatar. You reading this Boncho? Bring back the Gaddafi avatar!

reply to post by Swills


The US never went in to Libya for "humanitarian" reasons that would mean Gaddafi would still be alive and so would those 4 dead Americans.

After watching those people drag a beaten and bloody Gadaffi through their streets, and those "genius's" in Washington want to play the "friend game" then they turned to the blame game, to the "oh look the Cia cheats on their wives game.

Nothing to see here folks it is all just "partisanship".

reply to post by neo96


Although the US Gov't loves to play that card it's should obvious to anyone they didn't go in for humanitarian reasons. The only people who believe that are the ones who believe what the Gov't tells them, media as well. Some call these people sheep, others call them ignorant.

I always like to compare DC to the WWF (or WWE now right?). It's all just a show. It's all BS people and it's bad for you.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Swills

 

The US never went in to Libya for "humanitarian" reasons that would mean Gaddafi would still be alive and so would those 4 dead Americans.

After watching those people drag a beaten and bloody Gadaffi through their streets, and those "genius's" in Washington want to play the "friend game" then they turned to the blame game, to the "oh look the Cia cheats on their wives game.

Nothing to see here folks it is all just "partisanship".

edit on 18-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

So just making sure, you are good with invading Iraq, good with invading Afghanistan, good with attacking Iran, but no go when we attacked Libya?

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Newsflash Benghazi happened during this administration not the last one.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Newsflash Benghazi happened during this administration not the last one.

Oh. I thought you were pro-war. So only when it is a Republican doing the bombing. Got it.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
So just making sure, you are good with invading Iraq, good with invading Afghanistan, good with attacking Iran, but no go when we attacked Libya?

Invading Iraq - Consent of Congress/Senate
Invading Afghanistan - Consent of Congress/Senate

Attacking Libya - UN calls for action and the POTUS decides all by his lonesome to do it; Congress and the Senate not consulted

Attacking Iran - never happened

Can you see the difference now? I see a world of difference personally...

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
So just making sure, you are good with invading Iraq, good with invading Afghanistan, good with attacking Iran, but no go when we attacked Libya?

Invading Iraq - Consent of Congress/Senate
Invading Afghanistan - Consent of Congress/Senate

Attacking Libya - UN calls for action and the POTUS decides all by his lonesome to do it; Congress and the Senate not consulted

Attacking Iran - never happened

Can you see the difference now? I see a world of difference personally...

In the case of Iraq vs Libya, clearly Obama did not have the book of lies to present to congress. Are you saying that as long as the lie is good enough it is ok? That Colin Powell address to congress will go down as one of the best comedy (sic) sketches of all time. I especially liked the Iraqi "drones" that were ready to launch in 30 minutes and could hit the US with nerve gas. That was a good one.

CJ