Dereliction of Duty: Obama Did Nothing to Save American Lives in Benghazi--and Lied About It

Perhaps the reason gun control did not emerge post-Aurora is that, as the program was unfolding, other things were going on in Russia, in particular the anti-reelection of Putin protest on Bolotnaya Square, 6 May 2012. Now in the news, Udaltsov is under house arrest for it, and there is a Georgia link. The damning evidence for cross-talk twixt Russia and the U.S. means that the dissident voice in Russia links to gun control in the U.S. Note the (two gestation periods[italics]) and the question as to whether or not Kim Philby knew Angleton was the mole:

'Although Angleton was mortally ill in 1987, he cannot have missed the report by the House Intelligence Committee on 4 Feb, which, after 18 months of inquiry, concluded that "Senior managers of U.S. intelligence agencies have downplayed the seriousness of counterintelligence and security failures and have not taken adequate measures to correct deficiencies." '
(Winks, Cloak and Gown)

Lack of security had long been scrutinized the the U.S. government: the Fort Mims Massacre, is an example. More profoundly, Angleton's property ownership near Tucson and on the Brule River in Wisconsin links to the Battle of the Brule as well as the Battle of Mole Lake. Supposedly one of Udaltsov's accomplices, Razvozzhayev, claims he was kidnapped, tortured and forced to sign a confession. Note especially that the third of Udaltsov's supposed accomplices is Georgian Targamadze. The report for Targamadze came out on 13 Dec 2012, one day before the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Ghost375

 

This guy does "give a #" about facts but you are just trying to sugar coat the Democrat # and calling it candy.

whoa there buddy. I provided ample evidence that proves his claims came out of his you know where.

i take offense to you saying I'm sugar coating the democrat #. I'm trying to put it in perspective. People are OUTRAGED that 4 people died. But many of these same people didn't say #, or even defended Bush, when nearly 4000 people died under Bush under similar circumstances.
I don't like Obama, but getting outraged over every little thing makes serious arguments against him have less weight. I've already explained this. You have to pick your battles. And this truly is not something that people need to get this worked up over.

This outrage is purely political, and quite frankly it's getting ridiculous. People are letting their emotions get a hold of them, and aren't thinking logically.

What if Obama did send more troops and that led to more deaths? Based on what we know of the situation, this seems very likely. These same people would now be complaining that he sent troops to an un-winnable battle instead!!

reply to post by GArnold


Your memory isn't what it used to be.

Ill give you that when 9/11 happened no one blamed Bush and that's because Washington DC & western MSM were immediately declaring OBL & his silly gang of terrorists the bad guys so the world accepted that and blame was placed. With such a terrible crime committed the American people were traumatized & wanted justice. It took some time for some people to realize the OS isn't all it's cracked up to be but point is many people soon blamed DC & Prez Bush for either a) allowing the attack to happen b) responsible for creating inside job or c) blamed DC for being so completely incompetent & irresponsible 9/11 was allowed to occur, & then there are those who actually believe the OS through & through.

So a, b, & c blames Bush/Washington for 9/11 & definitely for the unjust war in Iraq. I don't know anyone today who thinks the Iraq war was a good idea & glad we invaded.

So lets not pretend people aren't upset with Bush for his 2 terms of fail & I'm sorry to report people are also not happy with Obama and his 2 terms of fail. But no worries, no matter who dons the title Prez they will be compete fail & that's because our Govt is complete fail, completely corrupt, completely selfish, completely immoral.

Originally posted by blackthorne
bush administration had plenty of warnings about 9-11 and did not do anything. 3000 citizens died that day. that is dereliction of duty too. your own criteria back at you.

as to benghazi,, yes, a tragedy and bad mistakes were made. and i believe that some of the blame can be layed at the feet of the republican led congress. they control the purse strings. they cut funds for security for over seas embassies in their last few budgets.

edit on 9-2-2013 by blackthorne because: (no reason given)

1) security types constantly float vague warning memos to cover their (s) after the fact. After the Tet offensive a general accused a colonel of ignoring a 'possible attack this weekend' warning from intel; te colonel showed 18 memos from the previous 20 weekends.
yes, they were targeting the WTC. they had already tried to bring it down. but no one--NO ONE--ever conceived using the planes as projectiles.
Clinton was president while al-Qaeda organized and prepared this operation. doesn't say much for his intel operation.

2) if Secretary Clinton felt they lacked the resources to keep their people safe, SHE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THEM OUT OF THERE. If security was inadequate it's her fault for leaving it that way, or not transferring assets. the evil Republicans didn't just walk in one day and take out security assets without anyone in the State Dept knowing about it.

reply to post by xedocodex


What are you like 12?
You don't don't stick full ambassadors into places that are hot like that,Obama failure.
The Evac was screwed without any extraction force to stand by due to the fact the area was still hostile.Hillarie's fault.
And the best indicator of failure, A DEAD AMBASSADOR. We haven't lost one for 30 YEARS boy these guys sure do leave people out to hang don't they?
I realize you are a civilian but that is NO excuse for blindly following a failure like that with what ever semantic defense.
Bush is out Obama is in and has been for 4 years lets deal with what is NOW,instead of deflection.
Other than that You could say they did fine.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Show me a memo from the CIA, The Pentagon etc that says terrorists were going to hit on a specified date, in a specified place........


I'll wait.....

Bush didn't have a date but they had a location and the means of carrying it out. The august 6th memo clearly mentions the WTC, Washington. and it mentions hijacking a plane.

banking cartel, aka. the powers that were were/are behind 9/11.
aaron russo knew someone in on it..
rip bro, thanks for being you

I railed against Bush when he sat in a school on 9/11/01 for a few minutes before getting up and leaving. He stated it was because he didn't want to alarm the children by rushing out of the door. I called that BS at the time and I still call it BS now. In reality he was crapping a load in his shorts because he realized how badly he dropped the ball, and anyone who doesn't recognize that is blind.

Now I know many here railed along with me against Bush for that inaction, hell Moore even made a multi-million dollar gross at the box office over that moment; but if those same people are now making excuses about Obama for his inaction on 9/11/12, and subsequent fairy tales over the matter including a ridiculous claim that it was caused by youtube more than a week later in front of the UN, you are a hypocrite and a stooge blinded to a greater degree than even the most ardent Bush supporter.

On my car I have a Buck Fush bumper sticker on the right side and a Buck Ofama sticker on the left.

Overall though, I think Obama's been far worse. Obama's 2012 NDAA is Bush's treasonous Patriot Act on freaking steroids. And speaking of the Bush Patriot Act (which candidate Obama didn't support) the moment Obama, within weeks of his inauguration, not only resigned but strengthened Bush's Patriot Act I knew we were up crap creek as a country and he was an out and out phony.

www.rawstory.com...

How any body can stand to defend this traitor is beyond me. He's not a traitor to Republicans, he's a traitor to those that voted for him and trusted him...the way he's acting is exactly how the Republicans said he would act, so he's not a traitor to them as traitor by definition involves broken trust. If they never trusted him he can't betray them.

Under Bush we were authorizing ridiculous foreign wire taps and water boarding. That was terrible. Under Obama we're talking about dead US ambassadors, detention of American civilians with out any notification or due process including within US borders, executive kill lists of American civilians, removing a citizens last line of defense from such encroachments, and trillion dollar coins.

For the love of God, woman, and child the Obama sheople need to wake the eff up, he's using you to bury you! His lies regarding Benghazi and Fast and Furious are the most silent of the wake up calls, but wake up calls none the less.You were duped, suck it up and admit it and quit with the self denial in favor of this man or it will be to everyone's demise and it will be your demise first.

Bill Clinton one of the supposed democrat "heros" who balances budgets MAKING FUN of 9-11 truthers.

Republicans under bush spent less than half what obama has spent or what he is projected to spend during 8 years in office.

Bush gave $700 billion in bailouts, while Obama gave something like $4 trillion. Neither gave much to the people directly. It is not socialism when you give bailouts to business and say screw the people. In socialism you bailout public enterprise, not private enterprise. In america we have private enterprise, which is what capitalism is all about. So I guess we have a big wasteful, crony capitalist EVIL government.

People who vote republican and democrat have themselves to blame. But I have to say Obama is outdoing bush in nearly every regard. In an evil way of course!!

Apparently one of the "Czars" went off the reservation and started jacking around without any oversight.www.dailymail.co.uk... efinitive-Report.html#axzz2KTdKHJGV
This is an incidence in leadership vacuum.
The absent narcissist can't lead because he isn't a leader,that can't be hidden by intelligence.
Some jobs HAVE TO BE DONE. They aren't being done by this guy.

here's a news blurb concerning Benghazi... i have been distancing myself from Sen Graham and stopped sending his office emails... but here the Sen. gets my attention...


article:

Sen. Graham Vows to Delay Obama's Nominees to 'Get to the Bottom of Benghazi'
February 11, 2013

cnsnews.com...

reply to post by St Udio


That's CNS,, it can't be accurate...

The new developments have certainly peaked my interest just a bit more than the contradictory testimony in the Congressional hearings.

Will anything stick to anyone attached to this administration.....??

When pressed for Answers, the WH is mum regarding Obama's whereabouts on the night of the attack. What he did or where he went after his scheduled meeting with Panetta and Dempsey is still unknown.

He certainly was not posing for photographers in the Situation room...

The White House isn’t saying where President Barack Obama was, what he did or whom he spoke to between 5:30 p.m. Sept. 11, 2012—when he finished a meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, which took place while the Benghazi terrorist attacks were unfolding—and 11:26 p.m. that night, which is approximately the time former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attacks

Repeated requests for simple information..

Here are the questions CNSNews.com asked the White House:

1.) Where was President Obama between 5:30 p.m. when his meeting with Panetta and Dempsey ended and 11:26 p.m., when the terrorist attacks on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi finally stopped?

2.) What was President Obama doing between 5:30 p.m. when his meeting with Panetta and Dempsey ended and 11:26 p.m. when terrorist attacks on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi finally stopped?

3.) Who did President Obama communicate with between 5:30 p.m. when his meeting with Panetta and Dempsey ended and 11:26 p.m. when the terrorist attacks on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi finally stopped?

4.) Why didn't President Obama speak with Panetta or Dempsey again that night after their 5:30 p.m. meeting ended?

Was he packing his suitcase?

On Monday morning, CNSNews.com followed up yet again by phoning the White House press office and the National Security Council press office and emailing them the questions again. The White House press office Monday morning confirmed receiving the questions but did not have a timetable for when it could provide answers.

At a hearing last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R.-N.H.) asked Defense Secretary Panetta: “Did you have any further communications with him [Obama] that night?”

“No,” said Panetta.

So if Panetta didn't hear from him, then who did?

“Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?” asked Ayotte.

“No,” said Panetta.

“No one else called you to say: How are things going?” asked Ayotte.

“No,” said Panetta.

If Obama was actually working that night he and his handlers would be all to quick to share every detail of that "event"....


cnsnews.com...

His cut out did the deed,now he seeks a higher office,F##k up and move up.

reply to post by Bilk22


There's plenty of conversation about Obama. Mostly from how terrible/stupid he is, or what a savior he is. I've seriously heard him called both THE Anti-Christ, and the reincarnation of Christ. My point was mainly about the bias I saw. And also to bring up the 9/11 conspiracy, because to me, it seems like Obama is actually following in Bush's footsteps. But that's just me.