Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo

 

cholo, you've taken an interesting position. If,as you say, Obama has announced that he is responsible for the Benghazi attacks, then he should be impeached, convicted, and executed for four murders and the destruction of the Consulate. But I don't think you really meant what you said.

And what about the 54 embassies that were attacked during the Bush Administration? Or the 13 dead?

Are you trying to be absurd?

As more information emerges, the criticism of Obama changes and increases. At first, it was over the statement that it was "an act of terror," not quite the same as a "terrorist attack."

What is the difference, with some logic please to actually distinguish the difference in the English language.

Then it was two weeks of "The YouTube video made them do it." Now, with more information, the charges have become lying, and purposely stopping available aid from reaching the troops, among other things.

This is only true if you pretend that there is a difference between acts of terror and terror attack.
If Obama used the phrase "terrorist attack" in that speech, he would have been grammatically incorrect as it relates to the language of the speech itself.

This is not about the embassy being attacked, nor the amount of dead.

It is about letting them die intentionally, and then trying to cover it all up.

Bush sent troops and aid every time one of our embassies were attacked, he was known for sending troops into places, or did you miss that memo?

If bush had allowed Americans to die, when help was available and trying to go help, but then told to stand down, guaranteeing they would die, then I would also be calling for some answers from him and his staff.

Americans KNOW, that when the bullets are flying they just have to hold out for a little while, help IS coming, it WILL be there soon, within mere hours no matter where you are on this planet.

These same Americans were waiting for help, that was never going to come, because the president, and or his staff had already decided they were not going to help them.

Imagine how our troops would fight if they didn't think their buddies always had their backs, and no matter what, their buddies were coming for them.

One of the reasons Americas military is so powerful, is not the toys, it is the confidence, that knowing your buddies will not leave you behind, and will walk through hell and back, every single time, to come to your aid, just like you would do for them.

Sombody broke this sacred trust, and allowed these Americans to die, when they might have been saved, or their killers would have at least paid for it in blood.

This is what soldiers expect, and this is damned well what they deserve, anything less is nothing but so much bullspit!

reply to post by redtic


If we put the same energy into finding out if it did happen as we did in looking for whoever outed Valerie Plame we may know what happened.

reply to post by cholo


Their inaction (as authoritative parties with the obligation to intervene) caused deaths, so yes they are responsible. Very different from the scenario you describe. Apples and oranges.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by redtic

 

If we put the same energy into finding out if it did happen as we did in looking for whoever outed Valerie Plame we may know what happened.

Fat chance of that!!! Apparently the media is only concerned with investigative journalism when a Republican is in the White House. When it's a Democrat they act like Obi Wan on Tattooine.

"These aren't the droids you're looking for... move along"

Originally posted by cholo
If intel was wrong, that is not his job, he is not responsible for bad intelligence.

Now that is an interesting statement. One I agree with, by the way, but not one often heard 'round these parts when it comes to Presidential decisions and bad intel...

reply to post by cholo


Cholo, I said since the nation has learned he was talking about a false version of events, predicated on a false reason for it happening. His press secretary, who is a direct member of the Presidential Staff, said repeatedly that it was the video. It was not, according to his own words, about US Policy, the US in general or anything else. It was that asinine internet video (which was pathetic to claim, even then...but now we know they knew in real time that was totally B.S.)

So, no, we cannot move on from the President accepting responsibility for lies and falsehoods he won't even acknowledge in passing, were lies and falsehoods. He repeated some of them. This doesn't wash.

...and you've not even replied to the MOST important point. Obama isn't the man who directly made decisions for security and the handling of it at THAT specific Consulate compound. We know who was, in direct, daily contact anyway. The memos, cables and communications release last year by the Issa committee for public disclosure show the originals to all of that.

Documents showing, clearly, what lead to Steven's death and why

Until the people named in those...and the people THEY took orders from, who totally failed the men and staff of that compound are brought to account? This is NOT over. Not by a long shot.

It's that simple.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

reply to post by cholo

Dear cholo,

Please forgive me for sounding so harsh. This is an emotional subject for me, and while I'm trying to be analytical, my expressions may be inappropriate.

As far as I can tell, you think the number of embassies attacked between 200 and 2008 has some relevance. In which of those attacks was assistance denied? In which of them did the Administration lie to the people? And why are you using what happened in previous attacks to justify the behavior in this one?

Your second point seems to be that you believe semantics is the vital issue here. Ah, well, have it your way. Do you not see any difference between "act" and "attack?" Do you not see that "terrorist attack" Identifies the attackers, while "act of terror" leaves them anonymous? An "act of terror" could be as little as leaving ham outside a mosque, "a terrorist attack" conveys a different image. And Obama was intent on creating an image. An image in which the significance of Benghazi could be downplayed, and not interfere with his election rhetoric that Al-Qaeda had been nearly destroyed and was on the run because of his leadership.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by redtic

 

If we put the same energy into finding out if it did happen as we did in looking for whoever outed Valerie Plame we may know what happened.

I really do hope that they put the proper effort into figuring out exactly what happened - but until that happens, I wish people would stop talking as if they already did.

reply to post by redtic


Simply admitting "I don't know" is difficult for lots of people.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by cholo

 

Their inaction (as authoritative parties with the obligation to intervene) caused deaths, so yes they are responsible. Very different from the scenario you describe. Apples and oranges.

They did take action, it was the wrong action and they have assumed the blame.

From what I have gleened from all this, the only action they took, was to stop willing allies the ability to go help them.

They had spec ops, load and ready to go, on the runway, a couple of hours out. They ordered them to stand down, to do the opposite of what soldiers do, and sit by idle, while their buddies are killed, when they could have helped.

This is one of the most dishonorable acts that could ever be done to a soldier.

To make the sit by and do nothing, while they know their help could have made a difference.

It is unacceptable, and should be made an example of, so all others who follow will remember what happens, and thus this mistake will not be made so easily again.

I am not saying it was Obama, I don't know who it was, but I do know someone intentionally let Americans die, at the hands of enemies, when they could have been saved.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

reply to post by cholo


*sigh* So many really good responses you could've made (like asking for sources showing that support was sent to those embassies attacked between 2002-2008), and you had to take the low, easy road of calling W names. This makes it really hard to believe you're intellectually honest about this Benghazi situation, and more about protecting "your guy" in office.

Ok I give up and leave you with the best advice I ever got - you can't win an argument of wits with an unarmed person..

Good luck in life cholo, Michelle, malia, robobama, or whoever you may be.

reply to post by cholo

In case you missed the memo, the US was attacked on 9/11/2001 even though GWB was provided with viable intelligence before the event. He actually SAT there reading an upside down book, like a quasi retarded drunkard
for 7 minutes, so I think you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I suppose you figure that has something.. anything at all, to do with the deaths and destruction at Benghazi. However, it doesn't. Libya wasn't even thinking about being a nation where an American could step foot without arrest or death at that point in time. It wasn't until much later, and under a new administration, that Libyan leadership was removed by force and it's head, killed in the street like a dog.

Then...into that nation that was as hostile to the United States in general as one gets, for the better part of 30+ years? They drop THIS.

Photograph Series of Benghazi Diplomatic Compound, before attacks - Showing Security (lack of)

Does that LOOK like a United States Consulate in a city, so hostile, most nations had withdrawn 100% of their people and presence due to fast deteriorating security? (See above documents in last post for verification in direct reporting on that)

It looks like a place they sent men to die. Then kept them there after they suffered one major attack...while still failing to give them ANY further support for security or even entertain the idea of U.S. Marines to replace the local militia. This was FAR more than just 'one day' or 'one night' that needs answered for. This was MONTHS ...which led to that night of death.

...and no one has answered for those months of leading this place to what was inevitable, given the events around it and the security situation that is clearly described in Steven's own words and that of this staff, in official communications. Sorry...but this attempt to whitewash the mere attempt at getting the truth? Is a Fail. An Epic, Fail.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You said,

Bush sent troops and aid every time one of our embassies were attacked, he was known for sending troops into places, or did you miss that memo?

And there it is, I did not care much for Pres. Shrub but, he was a helluva lot better American than BarryO will ever be.



Folks, please can we stop picking the lesser of two evils and just find a 3rd candidate who wants to do a roll up the sleeves job in Washington??