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.

 

Lies,Lies, and Damn lies: Obama blames Benghazi on Congress

page: 11
51
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Lies, lies and damn lies? That's the Republicult motto.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
When in doubt, point the finger and place blame. It's worked for him thus far. Congress needs to quit buying his bullsh*t and playing the game where democrats all back his ass just because he claims to be one of them. Politics is a joke. regular folks like you and i have no say in anything, that is the facade. At one point we had a republic, now we have a nation run by out of control government. This place is lookin' more and more like ancient Rome everyday.
edit on 17-5-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by redtic
I'm gonna sit back and let this little right-wing, orgasmic, jubilatory love-fest play itself out and then come back and laugh my azz off 6 months from now when *none* of these supposed scandals turn out to be anywhere near the scandal the right is trying to make them out to be.




Supposed?

Glad it wasn't your family killed and used to exploit Obama's reelection. Im sure you wouldn't have any problems with that.................


Case in point...



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
I'm gonna sit back and let this little right-wing, orgasmic, jubilatory love-fest play itself out and then come back and laugh my azz off 6 months from now when *none* of these supposed scandals turn out to be anywhere near the scandal the right is trying to make them out to be.

Good luck with that.
How do you want your crow served .. with salt and pepper or perhaps BBQ?



Originally posted by Def Youth
Lies, lies and damn lies? That's the Republicult motto.

Still buying into the notion that the left and the right are really different?
Wanna' show me how the right lies and lies (easily done) ..
BUT that the left doesn't? To you as well I say - good luck with that.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Def Youth
Lies, lies and damn lies? That's the Republicult motto.


Lies, lies and damn lies? That's the DemonCraps way of life. See how easy that is?


Until people get off the two party band wagon and actually start thinking for themselves and vetting the various candidates, we'll just continue down this road, which is no longer paved and filled with potholes in my opinion.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I think Obama's defenders are showing their depth and level of logic clearly enough. It's not left or right, even for them. It's the fanatic defense of an individual through all challenges ...or even the call for investigation which Obama doesn't control the outcome for.

If it was right and left to them, they'd be as strongly defending Hillary, among others. They aren't though. Just one man gets the blind loyalty to the level of near scary. Obama. He went beyond the right/left thing shortly after getting to Office...if he'd ever actually followed it in his own mind, to begin with. It's hard to say as we're seeing it all start coming apart now.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


He went beyond the right/left thing shortly after getting to Office...if he'd ever actually followed it in his own mind, to begin with. It's hard to say as we're seeing it all start coming apart now.


I didn't vote for him, but I did give the benifit of the doubt originally. That quickly changed of course.

As for your last sentence, the sooner the better off we all will be.

At this point, I'd like to see a "Special" election for a new Admin. And I do HATE all those ads.


People say that if Obama were removed, then Biden would take over. I think he is in the loop and would be removed as well. Which would leave us with Kerry, but I think that he would do less damage than this admin. Mainly because he would just sit there, not doing much so he could run again.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Well, actually... It;s worse. Kerry might be the better of the outcomes. The leads of power, by law, go to Boehner and Leahy in the Senate, in that order, next. I really don't think Boehner would simply 'take a pass' any more than Gerald Ford did. Although he may be just as ridiculously ineffective. At this point, that may be a good thing. That is how some of the investigations that actually showed what happened in the 60's and early couple years of the 70's came about and happened. It could be a repeat.

I don't know much about Leahy, either way. Partisan through and through....but then, no one for either side in leadership isn't....to the extent that plays between them at all.

Only if something happens to both of them or they both refuse to serve, in sequence, does Kerry's name come .. but yeah, it's #4 in line. Amazing how quickly the perfect storm has formed up and Obama's fortunes have changed. He must be dizzy



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Oops, thanks for the lesson in political continuity. I actually knew that at one time.

I guess it's time for a coffee or a nap. decisions, decisions...



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I sure hope we don't all get to go through learning this in detail. I wasn't positive on that much until this week and I've read something about how Congress can intervene at their discretion as a whole when it gets to their level of line. So at Boehner, I think they can talk about appointing? That's just it. Uncharted waters I think we're all happier seeing remain that way perhaps?

I have an idea. Make replacements up to Biden, install Boehner as Vice ...and watch that White House purr along in friendly continuity for the next 3 years. lol.... It would be entertaining anyway.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'm sure the buck stops at his desk - all else is passed to anyone else.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


IMO it boils down to two words:

"Stand Down".

Do we really need to look further?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Washington D.C. (District of criminals) needs an enima ! Are there any honest people in Washington at all who will uphold their oath? They are all commiting crimes against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Talk about conspiracy) They will not indite each other because they can all be blackmailable for something. Why can't our military leaders arrest these treasonist bastards? Instead they resign or Stepdown "To be with there family's". We the people are being sold out to banks and corporations. Congress "constituants" ain't us !



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


See, now what I don't get is this.

So I have no clue why you guys are angry. (Oh wait, yes I do, cause FOX News tells you to be angry.)

So, let me try and understand. You aren't angry that the attack took place. (you all think it's just fine that someone attacked us because we have a democrat in office, so, it's ok that we were attacked, your not actually angry at those who attacked us, you probably would invite them to a BBQ if Obama got ousted as President because of their actions.)

You are angry because they investigated it? And there seems to be multiple reasons that security failed?

Is that right?


You just must not listen/read I guess. I'll try one more time.

We aren't mad that it was investigated....btw, what were the results of that investigation??
We ARE mad that Security failed....please tell me in your mind, what exactly were/are the reasons security failed there, that night?

We were not prepared for defending the ambassador in Benghazi, even though:
1.We knew AQ was there.
2. We knew there were protests in other countries.
3. We knew that Sept. 11th should be a day of increased security

Put those all together and what would you do?????

Myself, I would have increased security in the locations where I knew AQ to be operating and especially around a day when AQ had attacked US interests in the past. Call me silly. You it seems, would rather have ducked your head into the sand and hoped for the best. You should work for the President's State Department. Maybe we can apologize for someone killing our Ambassador in a terrorism attack.

Please tell me if you think we took adequate security arrangements for our Ambassador in Benghazi?
I get the distinct impression that you think we could not have prevented the deaths of 4 US citizens that day. Tell me what prudent security measures the Obama Administration took to ensure the safety of our Ambassador?

We aren't glad that AQ attacked, I think we ALL KNOW that they are going to attack us. If you had to pick a specific day and date when AQ would attack the U.S., what date and month would it be? We are mad that we did squat to bolster our security and PREVENT the attack from over-running a Diplomatic post and KILLING OUR AMBASSADOR. There were tons of steps that could have been done that would have prevented/deterred an attack from over-running our Diplomatic post. Again, tell me what specific steps we took to ensure the safety our our Ambassador there on Sept. 11th....


I await your answer to that question. Please don't try to deflect again. Just answer. I have tried to answer all of your questions, I would like the same courtesy.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I didn't think politicians ever told the truth. They always tell us half truths or change the subject. Can't Obama understand that this is one of those times he has to change the subject?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
There is too much sensationalism going on with benghazi and I guess for two reasons:

a)ambassadors are VIPs and deserve the outmost respect
b)the controllers above D and R have given the green light on this rather miniscule scandal because it does NOT affect the elite directly. If it did affect the elite, like operation fast and furious does, they give the red light.

An even bigger red light is the arming of the free syrian army with weapons from saudi arabia. Both democrats and republicans want to destabilise the middle east so that speculators can make a ton of insider money by betting short.

Most of hypocrisy is on the republican side, especially from the neocons. But I have seen tea party types joining in on the fun.

If Obama goes down, then hillary clinton and eric holder also need to go down. But of course its all about Obama and once Obama goes down then suddenly everything will be fixed magically and splendidly. Odd indeed!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seamus
reply to post by neo96
 


IMO it boils down to two words:

"Stand Down".

Do we really need to look further?


As seekeroftruth pointed out in the beginning, they would have to send in at least a battalion sized force to deal with the terrorists and there would have been massive cassualties. These massive cassualties is bad public relations for an election year.

If the republicans were in power the same thing would have happened. Guaranteed!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


As seekeroftruth pointed out in the beginning, they would have to send in at least a battalion sized force to deal with the terrorists and there would have been massive cassualties. T


Not true.

Anyone that has ever been involved with military actions, knows that is not true.

A QRF could have been deployed to at least work on securing the compound. Use of SOFs have and could pick apart those terrorists.
Now, to secure the location for stable use, a battalion push could be used. But, to at least rescue those on teh ground, there are many other choices.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


As seekeroftruth pointed out in the beginning, they would have to send in at least a battalion sized force to deal with the terrorists and there would have been massive cassualties. T


Not true.

Anyone that has ever been involved with military actions, knows that is not true.

A QRF could have been deployed to at least work on securing the compound. Use of SOFs have and could pick apart those terrorists.
Now, to secure the location for stable use, a battalion push could be used. But, to at least rescue those on teh ground, there are many other choices.


You mean the big, bad delta boys? The ones that supposedly do NOT exist?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


As seekeroftruth pointed out in the beginning, they would have to send in at least a battalion sized force to deal with the terrorists and there would have been massive cassualties. T


Not true.

Anyone that has ever been involved with military actions, knows that is not true.

A QRF could have been deployed to at least work on securing the compound. Use of SOFs have and could pick apart those terrorists.
Now, to secure the location for stable use, a battalion push could be used. But, to at least rescue those on teh ground, there are many other choices.



Not exactly true if spec ops were on alert stationed in italy about 2 hours to hit the ground. If they were not your looking at closer to 8 hours.Trust me trying to get boots on the ground to do anything about the first attack useless. The second attack if the timeline is correct would just make it problem is when the first one endedeven the ambassor thought it was over. I say this because if he didn't he would have never left the embassy unless there was something he thought so important to risk his life which brings up all new question.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join