http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... Covered-Up

So.....this mess is going to transcend the election. In fact, I expect it to blow full bore around mid November. If Obama survives this dog fight for another term, what do you think the ramifications will be? Are we looking at possibly the second straight impeached democratic president? Maybe even the second straight democratic president to be impeached and NOT removed from office? What happens if Obama loses, does this just all go away as water under the bridge?

In my opinion, this is a worse fiasco than Watergate. But sensationalism seems to have an inflation rate similar to currency. Tempered with said inflation, this probably won't equate to near what Watergate did.

Still don't care.

It was an attack, get over it.

No one knows what sending in more troops or buffing secutiy would have done. If people with weapons want to cause damage, they will.

So we put an armed detatchment in Paris, but not in Benghazi? Logic anyone? You may not care, personally, but America does, and this is not going to be pretty for a sitting president, let alont a freshly re-elected one.

Paris is an embassy, Benghazi was a consulate.

Truth is, you're blaming the wrong people. You should be blaming the arsehats that actually committed the atrocity. SMDH

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/1 ... est-of-all

This debacle could be the October surprise that gives the Massachusetts forehead a shot at winning. Lord knows it's only through Obama looking bad that he can look good.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Still don't care.

It was an attack, get over it.

No one knows what sending in more troops or buffing secutiy would have done. If people with weapons want to cause damage, they will.

Really? Get over it? No one knows what sending in security would have done? That's not how we operate dude. When we come under attack, we defend ourselves to the best of our ability. Examine the facts. The Consulate was attacked 2 times prior to the third...ignored. We had resources available for rescue and defense, not used. We were in constant communication with the people on the ground asking for help and you don't care that help was denied? Nice dude. The people aren't going to let this one go. This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with right and wrong.

Marenta wrote:Paris is an embassy, Benghazi was a consulate.

Truth is, you're blaming the wrong people. You should be blaming the arsehats that actually committed the atrocity. SMDH

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/1 ... est-of-all

We're not saying Obama caused the attack. We're saying not only did he do nothing to prevent it, he refused to allow assistance to be rendered to our troops on the ground. Assistance that was readily available. I can't believe how obtuse you're being considering your husband could be placed in a similar situation. What if he was left for dead even though he could have been rescued?

You're going to deflect from the situation by posting up links about Bush? Please for the love of God, open your eyes. That has ZERO to do with the current situation.

If you're not outraged over what happened at Benghazi and is continuing to happen now, you're willingly looking the other way. That shines a pretty bright light on your character.

Seriously?

What my government chooses to throw it's weight at is not my decision.

Let's take a look at this from the other perspective, shall we?
So, we sent the military in: the planes, the people, the guns... and many innocent civilians die because cross fire accidents are just bound to happen. Well, Libya (who is already unstable as it is) decides that we are an invading force. Just because we have forces available doesn't mean we have to use them, there are other consequences to those actions.
And, every single American would cry foul because we started another war, and we put troops back on the ground in a country we didn't need to be in and blah blah blah.

Pick a damned side. Either we assume the risk of putting people in other countries or we walk the hell away and let the cards land where they fall.

Oh, and the government choosing to make those decisions for some larger scheme or bigger picture, hate to say it, but it happens all the time.
Watch the interview portion, it'll explain what I mean about the bigger picture and all that jive.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... kota-meyer

Marenta wrote:Seriously?

What my government chooses to throw it's weight at is not my decision.

Let's take a look at this from the other perspective, shall we?
So, we sent the military in: the planes, the people, the guns... and many innocent civilians die because cross fire accidents are just bound to happen. Well, Libya (who is already unstable as it is) decides that we are an invading force. Just because we have forces available doesn't mean we have to use them, there are other consequences to those actions.
And, every single American would cry foul because we started another war, and we put troops back on the ground in a country we didn't need to be in and blah blah blah.

Pick a damned side. Either we assume the risk of putting people in other countries or we walk the hell away and let the cards land where they fall.

Oh, and the government choosing to make those decisions for some larger scheme or bigger picture, hate to say it, but it happens all the time.
Watch the interview portion, it'll explain what I mean about the bigger picture and all that jive.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... kota-meyer

Couple holes in your "other perspective". First, you're ignoring the fact that the consulate was attacked 2 times before the full on third assault. Yet the security was not increased, even after having a huge chunk of wall blown up with an explosive. Why wasn't it? Some of us want answers to that question. We have requisitions for increased security, yet none was given, again why was that? The terrorists that attacked the third time were fully aware of our response. If we had increased security we could have defended ourselves. Instead they tested us two times and recorded utter failure on our part to examine the situation and adapt to the on going circumstances. We don't just deploy people around the globe without providing for their security. Risk is measured and security is assessed at places around the globe daily.

My other problem, is your stance of not defending ourselves when attacked. It's not our fault if we are attacked. Yet you'd have us not defend ourselves for fear of collateral damage? No one is saying we should have deployed an armored division, but we could have sent in quick response teams trained for this very circumstance. Our response could have been a measured one. We had operatives on site calling for help. Operatives that could have provided laser guided targeting. Doesn't get much more precise then that. Live intel, available forces, urgent requests for help...all ignored. We didn't respond AT ALL! We didn't even scramble the available resources to have them available. We sat back and watched...literally.

Your speculation of Libya calling us an occupying force is weak. As is your view of how Americans would cry out in anguish at us defending ourselves from a terrorlst attack on 9/11. Perhaps the bleeding heart Liberals would have cried, but I couldn't care less what they have to say when it comes to our security. Especially how we defend ourselves when attacked. The only way we could be called an occupying force would be if we left troops on the ground. No one is calling for that at all. Secure the area, rescue personnel, evacuate. That's pretty SOP and something that could have been done with relative ease because we train for it constantly.

There is no picking of sides. We don't have to "pack up and walk away" blah blah, that's just silly. We put people around the globe and we are responsible for their security. Assuming the risk doesn't mean not evaluating threat assessments and adapting security to match the threat. That's idiotic. We're constantly weighing and adapting. I understand you're probably not fluent with our global security procedures, but trust me when I say we don't just arbitrarily deploy people places.

What happened in Benghazi didn't have to happen. Like I already said, this has nothing to do with politics. It's a matter of right and wrong. The entire situation was mishandled and people died as a result. I don't feel this way because I dislike Obama. Not at all. I feel this way because I have real world experience with this sort of thing. I've sat through intel briefs, I've flown into hot area's to rescue personnel, I've seen first hand our capabilities. This did not have to happen and it's being covered up. What happened in Benghazi is what happens when intel is ignored.

You're entitled to your POV, I respect that. But I'm FAR from alone when it comes to people wanting answers.

We can agree to disagree, I'm fine with that. That seems to be the norm between you and I. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have a beer with ya, just that we have opposing views on most stuff. Your view being wrong most of the time

I wholeheartedly support the First Amendment and I am entirely in support of everybody having their own opinion.

All I can say is that as an E-6, whenever they served Steak and Lobster at dinner, we knew we were getting screwed. And, lo and behold, we were deployed for another month in the med. It happens. I don't know why, all I knew is that I was tired of being out to sea and I only saw my POV. I haven't the slightest as to the 10,000 foot view.

I'm not saying that there aren't some fishy folk tales being spun about the situation, because they're are. I'm not discounting that. What I'm saying is that there is probably a reason as to why we didn't respond or couldn't or shouldn't. I don't have to agree with their handling of the situation, and I can expect some sort of provisional explanation, but I'm not going head-hunting looking for people to blame in our government. Because, it's not Mrs. Clinton or the POTUS who attacked the consulate, it was the douchetards extremeists who did. I lay the blame at their feet.

Marenta wrote:I wholeheartedly support the First Amendment and I am entirely in support of everybody having their own opinion.

All I can say is that as an E-6, whenever they served Steak and Lobster at dinner, we knew we were getting screwed. And, lo and behold, we were deployed for another month in the med. It happens. I don't know why, all I knew is that I was tired of being out to sea and I only saw my POV. I haven't the slightest as to the 10,000 foot view.

I'm not saying that there aren't some fishy folk tales being spun about the situation, because they're are. I'm not discounting that. What I'm saying is that there is probably a reason as to why we didn't respond or couldn't or shouldn't. I don't have to agree with their handling of the situation, and I can expect some sort of provisional explanation, but I'm not going head-hunting looking for people to blame in our government. Because, it's not Mrs. Clinton or the POTUS who attacked the consulate, it was the douchetards extremeists who did. I lay the blame at their feet.

But you blame you're favorite team's coach when they lose consistently right?

Lets say you and I are jointly controlling security in that region. In handling the security we do a full threat assessment. We are aware of two prior attacks this year at the Benghazi Consulate. During this assessment we discover there are more then one active terrorlst threat in the Benghazi local. As we're deciding on a course of action we receive direct requests for additional security from those on site at the consulate. It's going to be my suggestion that we increase security and raise the threat level immediately. Would you suggest otherwise?

I'm pretty sure that Naval doctrine doesn't call for a lack of security in any circumstance. In fact I know it doesn't. I have deployed under JSOC with the Navy many times. I've never done sub duty and I'm tankful for it. But I have been out to sea for long periods of time. 96 days without a port call was my longest, not a tremendous length of time but long enough to be thankful I joined the Air Force. Anyway, we ported in Malaysia on day 97. I was given direct orders to open fire on any boats that approached within about 50 yards, we had floating markers, and continue firing until the vessel was sunk. No warning shots, no questioning. Just defend the ship at all cost.

What you call fishy folk tales, I call glaring errors in judgement. When there is a loss of life as result, I don't accept a provisional explanation.

Btw, I was a helicopter guy...not much going on at 10,000 ft for me.

WDRacing wrote:
Really? Get over it? No one knows what sending in security would have done? That's not how we operate dude. When we come under attack, we defend ourselves to the best of our ability. Examine the facts. The Consulate was attacked 2 times prior to the third...ignored. We had resources available for rescue and defense, not used. We were in constant communication with the people on the ground asking for help and you don't care that help was denied? Nice dude. The people aren't going to let this one go. This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with right and wrong.

Yes cause coming in blazing is the absolute best answer everytime. Shoot first ask questions later. No time to try and be level headed. It sucks people were killed but it happened.

Have you actually read the follow up on how there was no "denial" of services.

Shooting people is never right but that doesn't mean the response was wrong.

bigbadberry3 wrote:

WDRacing wrote:
Really? Get over it? No one knows what sending in security would have done? That's not how we operate dude. When we come under attack, we defend ourselves to the best of our ability. Examine the facts. The Consulate was attacked 2 times prior to the third...ignored. We had resources available for rescue and defense, not used. We were in constant communication with the people on the ground asking for help and you don't care that help was denied? Nice dude. The people aren't going to let this one go. This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with right and wrong.

Yes cause coming in blazing is the absolute best answer everytime. Shoot first ask questions later. No time to try and be level headed. It sucks people were killed but it happened.

Have you actually read the follow up on how there was no "denial" of services.

Shooting people is never right but that doesn't mean the response was wrong.

When you're under attack, coming in blazing is absolutely the best answer. Or would you prefer that we never attempt to come to the aid of any American that comes under fire? Quit acting like I'm asking for low yield nuke deployment for fvcks sake. Your over acting is so typical. I've kept up very well with with whats going on thank you, you can flush all those Liberal sources and any source that is related to the white house while you're near a toilet. They are all tainted.

Level headed? Not having any response isn't level headed chumly. It's simply a failure to act.

I hope you're never in the position to require help that doesn't come.

It doesn't matter.

http://caintv.com/carney-obama-not-particularly

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... after.html

Owned.

(Just play the video)

8 hrs with mortar fire is a small fire fight? Field contractors spread out all over a country for a time span of years as a comparison to a Consulate that was attacked 2 previous times that year? He wondering why has more coverage? Really?

Yeah...he owned himself.

WDRacing wrote:8 hrs with mortar fire is a small fire fight? Field contractors spread out all over a country for a time span of years as a comparison to a Consulate that was attacked 2 previous times that year? He wondering why has more coverage? Really?

Yeah...he owned himself.

8 straight hours? Ya ahuh.

Mortar fires yeah big whoopdee do. It was a small fire fight by all military standard. What do you want a small military engagment to be jousting?

Oh so this gives you carte blanche to ignore all other deaths.

You have experience with military standards and fire fights? No? Then STFU.

Did I say ignore anything? No? Then STFU.

Blame the press for not covering the wars more effectively, don't EVER suggest that I don't care.

There are bigger gunfights here in Chicago then this.

Tragic? Yes.

Catastrophic. No.

It's part of being a power house, people will come gunning for you. Moving along now.

Go ahead and move along then dude. It's your choice to make light of this.

WDRacing wrote:Go ahead and move along then dude. It's your choice to make light of this.

Sometimes the truth does slip out on Fox

http://www.upworthy.com/the-one-where-a ... ace?c=ufb1

Telcoman