Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I have an honest question, and I'd like an honest answer. To all those on this thread professing there are actionable offenses performed by the Obama administration before, during, and after the Benghazi incident - would you be reacting the same way if this were a Republican administration? Do you think the same media and politicians who continue to pound this issue into the dirt would be doing so if it were a Republican administration? I feel pretty comfortable giving an answer to those questions as an emphatic "no". Now, you can say "oh, this wouldn't have happened under a Republican administration", but we all know that's not true - anything can happen at any time under any circumstance. Look at 9/11 - there were many who claimed "oh, the Bush administration knew about it and should have done more to protect us", which I thought was just a bunch of BS. You can plan for just about any type of incident, but there's no way you can prevent them all.

So I ask you - if you're honest in your response to the above questions, how can you say this is not a partisan issue and is only about getting to the truth?




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes, they were talking about the reaction force in Tripoli. They were the closest to the embassy that could have responded.

As for the President, yes and no. He's the ultimate end of the chain of command, but legally, he can't order the military to do anything at all. He can't walk up to a unit in the field and order them to march to the mess hall for lunch.

The way the chain works, is it goes from President, to SecDef, to Secretary or CJCS, to CinC. The President tells the SecDef what he wants done, who tells either the Joint Chiefs or Secretary of that particular branch. The actual orders to do it have to come from either the JCS or the CinC of that service. Only a military member can give orders to another military member. So while the President is the ultimate Commander in Chief of the military, he is only telling them what he wants done, and the military is actually giving the order to do it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
When things go right?




When they go wrong .





As you can see, this administration can point all day long.................

Bunch of treasonous bastards. Im outraged.

Its not fake.




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


The state department had plenty of money to do many things.

Show me a document where the Republicans specifically cut funding for protection of embassy.

That is a very simplistic knee jerk response. BTW I'm a democrat



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


I think that the same questions should be asked regardless of who is in the whitehouse.

How did this happen?

Why was an embassy in an unsafe part of the world left without reasonable protection?

Why did it take so long to move up the chain of command to provide protection?

Why was the ridiculous story about violence over a film pushed by the administration?

To me it doesn't matter who is in power when something goes wrong. We need to learn what went wrong, who was responsible (if necessary some people should lose their jobs) and how we can do things better the next time.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
I have an honest question, and I'd like an honest answer. To all those on this thread professing there are actionable offenses performed by the Obama administration before, during, and after the Benghazi incident - would you be reacting the same way if this were a Republican administration?



Yes.


Originally posted by redtic
Do you think the same media and politicians who continue to pound this issue into the dirt would be doing so if it were a Republican administration?


The media is on Obamas side. You do know this, right?


Originally posted by redtic
You can plan for just about any type of incident, but there's no way you can prevent them all.


This particular situation should have been fixed. By giving those who work for you the necessary protection, they need and ask for.



Originally posted by redtic
So I ask you - if you're honest in your response to the above questions, how can you say this is not a partisan issue and is only about getting to the truth?


Its not. Its about the facts.

I was as hard on Bush, as I am with this loser of a President.

Im an Independent.
edit on 9-5-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 



…would you be reacting the same way if this were a Republican administration?


Look at 9/11 - there were many who claimed "oh, the Bush administration knew about it and should have done more to protect us", which I thought was just a bunch of BS.


First you say some of us wouldn’t react the same way if it was a republican then you point out how many did in fact react in a similar fashion when Bush was in the hot seat. Which is it?

To answer your question – YES, I would be outraged over this ball-drop regardless which party was in power and, YES, I do question the story of 9/11 and what was known before hand. However, Bush isn’t in power anymore and we now face a new set of problems!!




Do you think the same media and politicians who continue to pound this issue into the dirt would be doing so if it were a Republican administration?

Not the same one’s but there certainly would be many. Don’t try and hold me responsible for what you speculate some party politician would or would not do. I told you I would be just as outraged regardless. Americans died and someone dropped the ball.





So I ask you - if you're honest in your response to the above questions, how can you say this is not a partisan issue and is only about getting to the truth?

You and the OP are making it a partisan issue. I could care less about the party affiliation! I think all politicians in DC are scoundrels (with the exception of a few)! This investigation is about getting the whistleblowers to speak so we all know who dropped the ball. All you and the OP are doing is trying to run interference!

Meh…



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by redtic
 


I think that the same questions should be asked regardless of who is in the whitehouse.

How did this happen?

Why was an embassy in an unsafe part of the world left without reasonable protection?

Why did it take so long to move up the chain of command to provide protection?

Why was the ridiculous story about violence over a film pushed by the administration?

To me it doesn't matter who is in power when something goes wrong. We need to learn what went wrong, who was responsible (if necessary some people should lose their jobs) and how we can do things better the next time.


Those are all reasonable questions that should be answered. If only there more in Washington that were as level-headed as you. It's the partisan hyperbole flying out of Washington and the right-wing media that I have a problem with - comparing this with Watergate, pushing for impeachment, yadda yadda.. I totally agree that there were things that went wrong here (obviously) - as with any other incident that might not be played out in a media circus, we should take a reasoned, pragmatic approach to determine what those are, who was responsible, and take any corrective action necessary to prevent it in the future. But the right-wing driven witch hunt that's happening around this is just beyond ridiculous... imho..



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
we should take a reasoned, pragmatic approach to determine what those are, who was responsible, and take any corrective action necessary to prevent it in the future.


And who's going to do that?

The very administration that has EVERYTHING to lose?

Right...........




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 




So ATS, why is it that this one relatively small attack on a consulate is creating all this fake outrage when there is no historical precedence for it even though there were many other worse attacks on our embassies around the world?


I am really amazed that anyone could find a way to defile the outrage over the loss of life in this event. How do you do that? I mean, you seem to be making a definite effort here to take those lives lost and reduce them to the value of an old banana peel.

edit on 9-5-2013 by redoubt because: typo



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

I am really amazed that anyone could find a way to defile the outrage over the loss of life in this event. How do you do that? I mean, you seem to be making a definite effort here to take those lives lost and reduce them to the value of an old banana peel.



Exactly.

The lack of outrage, is disconcerting actually.

I would have expected ALL of congress to push for answers right after the debacle took place, if I thought Congress had a backbone.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes, they were talking about the reaction force in Tripoli. They were the closest to the embassy that could have responded.

As for the President, yes and no. He's the ultimate end of the chain of command, but legally, he can't order the military to do anything at all. He can't walk up to a unit in the field and order them to march to the mess hall for lunch.

The way the chain works, is it goes from President, to SecDef, to Secretary or CJCS, to CinC. The President tells the SecDef what he wants done, who tells either the Joint Chiefs or Secretary of that particular branch. The actual orders to do it have to come from either the JCS or the CinC of that service. Only a military member can give orders to another military member. So while the President is the ultimate Commander in Chief of the military, he is only telling them what he wants done, and the military is actually giving the order to do it.


You couldn't be more wrong the president out ranks all military personel. And in case you were not aware when you join your required to take an oath.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I think that shows indeed the president can indeed give orders they just choose to use chain of command



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   


The state department had plenty of money to do many things.


Yeah they did like give Chevrolet Volts to other embassies.

Yeah there is ample proof that the current administrations response to Benghazi was faked, and manufactured.

The current administration lied, and people died, and the people responsible are walking around like 'nothing' happened.

For the record:

4 Americans dead is something to be outraged about.

The apathetic administration is something to be outraged about 'what difference does it make'.

Makes plenty of difference to those families who lost loved ones, and makes plenty of difference for those who bought the administration lies 'the war of terror was over'.

edit on 9-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Hmmm... Could it be that we could have protected them (saved them) and our military was told to STAND DOWN???!!!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Want to see if a progressive is using this to further an agenda and dismiss responsibility?

Use their responses in any debate concerning Sandy Hook.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 



That is why there is such a reaction from you guys who are currently so outraged over this...you know it's manufactured...but it's hard to admit that you have been played by the talking heads to be outraged by something that isn't exactly an uncommon event.


It’s not manufactured outrage…it’s real!


One of the most moving statements made by star Benghazi witness Gregory Hicks during yesterday's hearing was about his oath. During his opening statement, Hicks said, "On February 19th, 1991, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am Here to Honor That Oath."
OathKeepers

Hicks went on to testify that two inexplicable stand-down orders were given that left him and a few Special Forces members completely outraged; orders that left their brothers in Benghazi to fend for themselves.

The actions of this administration are being exposed by people like Hicks and any water-carrying political hack who wants to defend the treasonous actions of this administration that resulted in unnecessary American deaths doesn’t deserve to breathe air in this country IMO. If I lost a family member in Benghazi and I read this thread…nevermind.

This thread is shameful and I’m done participating!



edit on 9-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by peter_kandra
reply to post by 48e18
 


How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.


Here you go.



What’s more, Stewart notes the outrageous GOP hyperbole about Benghazi when, during the Bush administration, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets, that killed 13 Americans, yet garnered only 3 hearings on embassy security, and zero outrage on Fox.

americablog.com...



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




You said it brother.

This thread is the ONLY thing fake and manufactured.




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


The President is the ultimate commander in chief, but he's NOT in the direct chain of command. The President can direct the military to do something, but legally he can NOT go out into the field and give an order to anyone. He's simply directing that it be done, and allowing the military to give the orders and carry it out.

I was slightly wrong though, as now it goes from President to SecDef, to the commanders of the command in question. The commanders give the orders to the various units, at the direction of the President though the Secretary of Defense. The President is not giving any orders to any military unit. He can order the military to intervene in a situation, or to attack someone (like Iraq), but he doesn't legally have the right to order a specific military unit to go and perform the attack. It is up to the military to choose the units, and to choose the plan for the attack. The President can approve it, but he is not in the direct chain of command of any unit, so he can't legally order them to do anything.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join