It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do you have proof that they were pre-warned about this specific attack? I have never seen that. I have seen months old request for money to provide more security...and I believe that was at the main embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
link
Just hours before he died in a terrorist attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent a cable to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton painting a chaotic, violent portrait of the eastern Libya city and warning that local militias were threatening to pull the security they afforded U.S. officials.
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.
Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by 48e18
In the attacks that you mentioned:
How many times did the president get on TV and apologize to the attackers?
How many times was an American citizen blamed and arrested in the states?
How many times was the attack blamed on "spontaneous demonstrations"?
How many times did the Secretary of State respond with "what difference does it make?"
Answer those questions and maybe you will see why this attack was different.
Originally posted by redtic
This is ridiculous. This is *all* coming from the right, be it the media or the politicians - if you can't see that this is a partisan attempt to try and "stick it" yet again to the Obama administration and not a true pursuit of the truth, take your head out of the sand. Is there outrage that the Benghazi attack happened - yes, from all sides. Were there likely mistakes made in the "fog of war" that likely occurred in those 7-8 hours - of course. Can you say you would have handled the situation better than it was handled? No, of course you can't - you don't know the exact circumstances of everything that was happening at that time. But to try to make this out as the next Watergate on very little evidence is ridiculous. Temper your outrage until *real* hard evidence comes out, if it ever does - but until it does, try to stay grounded in reality and not let the partisan whirl-wind sweep you up.
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.
We do? How exactly do we *know* that?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.
We do? How exactly do we *know* that?
Ummmm.... I think the dead body was my first clue.
How about you?
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by redtic
This is ridiculous. This is *all* coming from the right, be it the media or the politicians - if you can't see that this is a partisan attempt to try and "stick it" yet again to the Obama administration and not a true pursuit of the truth, take your head out of the sand. Is there outrage that the Benghazi attack happened - yes, from all sides. Were there likely mistakes made in the "fog of war" that likely occurred in those 7-8 hours - of course. Can you say you would have handled the situation better than it was handled? No, of course you can't - you don't know the exact circumstances of everything that was happening at that time. But to try to make this out as the next Watergate on very little evidence is ridiculous. Temper your outrage until *real* hard evidence comes out, if it ever does - but until it does, try to stay grounded in reality and not let the partisan whirl-wind sweep you up.
It wasn't the following 7-8 hours after the attack and the fog of war. It was an official administration person going on numerous talk shows telling the American people why it happened and we know that reason was false. Either the administration knew it was false and you have a cover-up or they didn't have all the information in which case they shouldn't have been saying anything about it until they did.
The left would love to bury the fact this happened but it should outrage everyone.
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.
We do? How exactly do we *know* that?
Ummmm.... I think the dead body was my first clue.
How about you?
Clever - but then again, you know that's not what I referring to, right?
Originally posted by Pladuim
I can't seem to find in any of the attacks listed in the OP where there was any "stand down" orders.
I'm starting to believe more and more that ATS is full of paid posters.
Pladuim
Oh, so now it's not the president's and Hillary's "lack of response" immediately after the start of the attacks, now we're back to the whole Susan Rice thing. Please, make up your minds..
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
No, I have no idea what you are referring to. I've got pictures by the dozen which the terrorists themselves released within 48 hours of the attack and show them burning out the Consulate to force the Ambassador to evacuate the safe room he'd taken shelter in...after the rest of the civilians had been successfully evacuated. I call that murder. Then we have pictures the entire press corps ran of his dead body being half dragged out and to a hospital we now learn the terrorist group who did it, controlled.
What part of that am I failing to see properly as the murder of a US Ambassador? I think it speaks for itself and in this case? Those who did it, supplied virtually all the evidence themselves almost immediately after the event occurred. They were proud of what they did.
Originally posted by redtic
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by redtic
This is ridiculous. This is *all* coming from the right, be it the media or the politicians - if you can't see that this is a partisan attempt to try and "stick it" yet again to the Obama administration and not a true pursuit of the truth, take your head out of the sand. Is there outrage that the Benghazi attack happened - yes, from all sides. Were there likely mistakes made in the "fog of war" that likely occurred in those 7-8 hours - of course. Can you say you would have handled the situation better than it was handled? No, of course you can't - you don't know the exact circumstances of everything that was happening at that time. But to try to make this out as the next Watergate on very little evidence is ridiculous. Temper your outrage until *real* hard evidence comes out, if it ever does - but until it does, try to stay grounded in reality and not let the partisan whirl-wind sweep you up.
It wasn't the following 7-8 hours after the attack and the fog of war. It was an official administration person going on numerous talk shows telling the American people why it happened and we know that reason was false. Either the administration knew it was false and you have a cover-up or they didn't have all the information in which case they shouldn't have been saying anything about it until they did.
The left would love to bury the fact this happened but it should outrage everyone.
Oh, so now it's not the president's and Hillary's "lack of response" immediately after the start of the attacks, now we're back to the whole Susan Rice thing. Please, make up your minds..
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.
are you rush Limbaugh or sean Hannity?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by redtic
If you didn't catch the hearings yesterday that supported the statements of others much earlier on and last year, regarding the presence of United States drone aircraft over the site of the attack, then I can't help you but to suggest you research your topic a whole lot better before coming on with posts like this. :shk: