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

reply to post by NavyDoc


Your right 10 well armed infantry could repel 100 from a defensive position just setting up kill zones alone would make them run.Or at the very least hesitant to want to enter the compound.However well I do agree why they had forces in Italy from a deployment standpoint it was stupid.As with any engagement the first couple of minutes are crucial and thats when they need boots on the ground not in italy.So unless the forces were there the troops in italy would do little good.Except come in and claim the bodies afterwards.The only card they had to play do to bad planning was depend on syrian rebels bad move as we see or scrable a couple of jets and provide air support. I do believe with a couple of fighters overhead this would have changed the entire fight for one mortar's would not have been used.But they would have to have been launched which makes me wonder why they were not. You know the first questions asked of the commanders was what can we get on location.

reply to post by NavyDoc


So you think you know military tactics well? Please, spare me your armchair general theories.

There were 100+ WELL ARMED and battle hardened terrorists with even rpgs and MG mounted trucks, within a built up area, not a jungle, and in their own terrritory, mixed with civilians.

Under conventional military engagements, the ratio to win a battle is based upon 3 to 1 odds, in case you had comfortably dozed off on that armchair and missed part of the lecture.

Thus, to overcome the terrorists, it will take NOT that pathetic spec ops small team, BUT a BATTALION of marines to do battle with the terrorists.

And WORSE, NO ONE knew how many of those terrorists could have roused up during those confusing moments using nationalistic lies, to get even the libyan rebels to fight the foreign invaders, when they ASKED FOR NO troops on the ground, NOR NATO agreed to use troops on the ground.

If you are so smart, YOU make that call and send in a NATO marine division to save those 2 men, and later, ANSWER to the parents of those NATO battalion of soldiers whom will be most certainly slaughtered if they stepped into Benghazi, the stronghold of the rebellion with the most armed and battle hardened troops around.

Chill out please. There was nothing possible that could have been done by the military authorities there. International law required them to have only a minimal footprint on Libyan soil. There was a limit to how many security staff WH can send, and even though Italy is nearby, nothing could have prevented the death of the other 2 men as the distance was vast and targets TOTALLY unknown, unless they were prepared to just bomb and slaughter the crap out Benghazi in blind vengeful rage.

Most foreign service personnel DO know the score, and do take great risks, more so on troubled areas. That is why congressmen from democrats and republican would never volunteer and would rebel even if they were assigned for fact finding mission in afghanistan, but will clamour with drool over their faces if they were requested to go to Europe to determine the complexity of economics there Those in Libya deserved our respect, but not our stupidity or divisions of each other for political gain such as you and the republican party had done.

So please, enough with you and your kind's armchair generals urban legends and total BS allegations and fantasies. The nation has more critical issues to deal with, such as the economy, than to answer every armchair generals' fairy tales.

But rest assured, justice will be served for any that dares shed innocent american blood, president or cleaner, even through time and space, as America had proven when it went into Afghanistan after 911 to flush out the terrorists even with the belligerant Taliban in power, and with Osama executed finally for his atrocious slaughter of 3000 innocent humans on american soil. So too will such fate awaits the killers of the great man Chris Stevens and his protection detail. This, the President, WH, democrats and the military had promised and will fulfill, as they had done before.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Well your not right either it wouldn't have taken a battalion to defend those grounds. If you have a force of say 10 people and you are in a defensive position you would be surprised how well that location can be defended.Two keys control avenues of approach and you can't try to take them on directly of course you'll lose. What you do is set up kill zones in an area you know they need to walk through.Lets you put the maximum firepower on the least targets. For example you can have all the people shouting outside the embassy you want but set up a kill zone so that anyone within 25 ft of the entrance dies this has two effects.One people tend not to want to go through there and also allows you to have say 3 people shooting at 1 target increasing your chances.So in defending a fortified location its easier.

reply to post by dragonridr


More textbook regurgitation, though I would award you a star for effort.

However, do comprehend the realities of the situation that fateful day. It was the terrorists whom set up the scenario, and NOT the guards who did but could only REACT to the situation.

Right now, upon 20/20 Hindsight vision, we can play out theories easily, so easily, but AT THE TIME, the situation was far different - tense and volitile, made worse with that stupid inflammatory video that roused up huge anger with all muslims.

Just be glad the military was there and made the right decision, and saved many more lives than Hicks would have, if he was in command as he would have launched a new NATO - Libyan war, or the republicans would have even today if they were in command, judging by their armchair general tactics.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by dragonridr

 

More textbook regurgitation, though I would award you a star for effort.

However, do comprehend the realities of the situation that fateful day. It was the terrorists whom set up the scenario, and NOT the guards who did but could only REACT to the situation.

Right now, upon 20/20 Hindsight vision, we can play out theories easily, so easily, but AT THE TIME, the situation was far different - tense and volatile, made worse with that stupid inflammatory video that roused up huge anger with all muslims.

Just be glad the military was there and made the right decision, and saved many more lives than Hicks would have, if he was in command as he would have launched a new NATO - Libyan war, or the republicans would have even today if they were in command, judging by their armchair general tactics.

well the point is as i stated earlier bringing in people from italy useless wouldnt have made a diffrence at all. however that annex was way understaffed for being in a hostile country when we know terrorists operate out of that area. When i found out there was only 3 armed agents at the location and good thing the ambassodor came because he had his 2 guys with him in a hostile country well thats stupid. They had a staff of about 30 when i was at german embassy and they are friendly?? How in the world could there have been less then 10 armed personel in that anex escapes logic.Now there is alot about this that makes the state department responses suspect. For one were you aware The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks. The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi. So this thing was so pre planned and in no way spontaneous like they attempted to make it out to be.

Here i figured id include this in case people didnt know what happened that night.


Assault on the Consulate
Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault.[40][41][42] Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets.[43] Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks.[44][45]
The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks.[40] The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.[40]
The area outside the compound before the assault was quiet; one Libyan guard who was wounded in the attack was quoted as saying “there wasn’t a single ant outside.”[41] There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film."[40] No more than seven Americans were in the compound, including Ambassador Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi at the time to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital.[46] Ambassador Stevens had his last meeting of the day with a Turkish diplomat and escorted him to the main gate at about 8:30 pm (local time). The street outside the compound was calm; the State Department reported no unusual activity during the day outside.[47] Ambassador Stevens retired to his room about 9 pm; he was alone in the building, according to guards interviewed later.[48]
About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting "Allāhu Akbar" descended on the compound from multiple directions.[41][49] The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns.[40][48] A Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agent viewed on the consulate's security cameras "a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound."[47] He hit the alarm and started shouting, “Attack! Attack!” over the loudspeaker.[50] Phone calls were made to the embassy in Tripoli, the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington, the Libyan February 17 Brigade, and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound (the annex) a little more than a mile away.[42][51] Ambassador Stevens telephoned Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks in Tripoli to tell him the consulate was under attack. Mr. Hicks did not recognize the phone number so he didn't answer it, twice. On the third attempt Mr. Hicks answered the call from Ambassador Stevens.[52]
Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven.[51][53] Other agents retrieved their M4 carbines and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.[51]
The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven.[50] They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires.[50][51] As thick smoke filled the building, Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the bathroom and lay on the floor, but they decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke.[53] Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned back several times but couldn't find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.[53]
Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle; they searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.[53]
The Regional Security Office sounded the alarm and placed calls to the Benghazi CIA annex and the embassy in Tripoli, saying, "We're under attack, we need help, please send help now..." Then the call cut off. After some discussion, the CIA's Global Response Staff (GRS) at the CIA annex, which included senior security operative Tyrone S. Woods, decided to implement a rescue. By 10:05pm, the team was briefed and loaded into their armored Toyota Land Cruisers. By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.[17]:39-43
The GRS team from the CIA annex arrived at the consulate and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador and Sean Smith. They located Smith, who was unconscious and later declared dead, but were unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by AK-47 rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, however, and the gates to annex were closed behind them at 11:50pm.[17]:43-45[35]
Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, the spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said roads leading to the Benghazi consulate compound were sealed off and Libyan state security forces had surrounded it.[54]
A U.S. Army commando unit was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy the night of the attack but did not deploy to Benghazi. U.S. officials say the team did not arrive at Sigonella until after the attack was over.[55]

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So you think you know military tactics well? Please, spare me your armchair general theories.

There were 100+ WELL ARMED and battle hardened terrorists with even rpgs and MG mounted trucks, within a built up area, not a jungle, and in their own terrritory, mixed with civilians.

Under conventional military engagements, the ratio to win a battle is based upon 3 to 1 odds, in case you had comfortably dozed off on that armchair and missed part of the lecture.

Thus, to overcome the terrorists, it will take NOT that pathetic spec ops small team, BUT a BATTALION of marines to do battle with the terrorists.

And WORSE, NO ONE knew how many of those terrorists could have roused up during those confusing moments using nationalistic lies, to get even the libyan rebels to fight the foreign invaders, when they ASKED FOR NO troops on the ground, NOR NATO agreed to use troops on the ground.

If you are so smart, YOU make that call and send in a NATO marine division to save those 2 men, and later, ANSWER to the parents of those NATO battalion of soldiers whom will be most certainly slaughtered if they stepped into Benghazi, the stronghold of the rebellion with the most armed and battle hardened troops around.

Chill out please. There was nothing possible that could have been done by the military authorities there. International law required them to have only a minimal footprint on Libyan soil. There was a limit to how many security staff WH can send, and even though Italy is nearby, nothing could have prevented the death of the other 2 men as the distance was vast and targets TOTALLY unknown, unless they were prepared to just bomb and slaughter the crap out Benghazi in blind vengeful rage.

Most foreign service personnel DO know the score, and do take great risks, more so on troubled areas. That is why congressmen from democrats and republican would never volunteer and would rebel even if they were assigned for fact finding mission in afghanistan, but will clamour with drool over their faces if they were requested to go to Europe to determine the complexity of economics there Those in Libya deserved our respect, but not our stupidity or divisions of each other for political gain such as you and the republican party had done.

So please, enough with you and your kind's armchair generals urban legends and total BS allegations and fantasies. The nation has more critical issues to deal with, such as the economy, than to answer every armchair generals' fairy tales.

But rest assured, justice will be served for any that dares shed innocent american blood, president or cleaner, even through time and space, as America had proven when it went into Afghanistan after 911 to flush out the terrorists even with the belligerant Taliban in power, and with Osama executed finally for his atrocious slaughter of 3000 innocent humans on american soil. So too will such fate awaits the killers of the great man Chris Stevens and his protection detail. This, the President, WH, democrats and the military had promised and will fulfill, as they had done before.

edit on 19-5-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

I'm a combat vet, are you? I also went to a university where they teach this sort of thing, you? Post your military bonafides or shut up with the armchair general crap.

Since you are ignorant of military history, I suggest you do some reading on the attack on the US embassy in Saigon.

I was in Fallujah and Ramadi and I know a bit about urban conflict. You had less than a company sized group of yes, battle experienced, but irregular forces. Small arms, no armor, no artillery. Unlike the movies where you obviously get your military knowledge from, RPGS do not cause massive explosions and tear down walls. Attacking a secure position in an urban setting actually put them at a disadvantage: limited lanes of approach, obsticals to surmount, and channels into kill zones.

Damn straight the intel and military people in the AOR knew what was up, which is why their requests for more security before and help during the incident being refused was criminal.

It would have taken a battalion of Marines to defend the compound? LOL. Why don't you go google what a battalion consists of and the get back to us.

BTW. Saigon was in the city, not the jungle.

Originally posted by 2ndthought

I don't see this as a partisan issue. I see this as an issue that could very well affect every single one of us. Some just refuse to consider that their dear leader would do anything against the citizens of this country. It's my contention that under all the layers, he doesn't give one small damn about us.

It certainly is a partisan issue. There were zero republicans in the 9-11 boards talking about a possible false flag, just like there are zero liberals talking about benghazi in this thread.

Just like there were zero liberals making a big deal about boston, and tons of conservatives MAKING IT INTO a big deal. No one could prove anything up till now.

Guns was the only thing that was bipartisan and most people rejected it and for good reason. I hated what Obama tried to do and stated so previously.

What should be made a big deal by BOTH PARTIES is we should get the hell out of the middle east before we start ww3 with russia and china.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Just re-read your own post. Do you see your own ARROGANCE shinning through? So what if you claimed to be a vet or from the Uni, using an anonymous nick to prove your own resume? How more stupid do you wish to prove yourself to be?

There is nothing that is worth in reply to your continued stupidity over military matters. 60s' Saigon consulate is not today's Benghazi, or do you wish me to link how rambo type fools had been strung up by a superior force throughout the course of human history?

There are vets, and there are vets. Some go through a soldier's career through the narrowed gunsight of one's rifle, while others do try to expand upon the bigger picture of conflicts from all angles.

And judging by the manner of your post, it is easy to see where you came from, if indeed you had ever served in the army, let alone spec ops or hold command.

WIth that, I leave you to your armchair delusions, and so too may the republicans and their supporters. The american economy needs help, and not time spent in Congress for Hollywood feel good style armchair delusions based upon 20/20 vision Benghazi hindsighted accusations.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Just re-read your own post. Do you see your own ARROGANCE shinning through? So what if you claimed to be a vet or from the Uni, using an anonymous nick to prove your own resume? How more stupid do you wish to prove yourself to be?

There is nothing that is worth in reply to your continued stupidity over military matters. 60s' Saigon consulate is not today's Benghazi, or do you wish me to link how rambo type fools had been strung up by a superior force throughout the course of human history?

There are vets, and there are vets. Some go through a soldier's career through the narrowed gunsight of one's rifle, while others do try to expand upon the bigger picture of conflicts from all angles.

And judging by the manner of your post, it is easy to see where you came from, if indeed you had ever served in the army, let alone spec ops or hold command.

WIth that, I leave you to your armchair delusions, and so too may the republicans and their supporters. The american economy needs help, and not time spent in Congress for Hollywood feel good style armchair delusions based upon 20/20 vision Benghazi hindsighted accusations.

I'm not going to vouch for his credentials he does make one valid point however. A small number of trained soldiers can hold off an overwelming force ifrom a defensive position its happened over and over in history.We disagree on the point of trying to get troops to the area bottom line is logistics made that impossible. Now why there wasn't more security there that is a valid point someone droped the ball.

Originally posted by dragonridr
1. I'm not going to vouch for his credentials he does make one valid point however. A small number of trained soldiers can hold off an overwelming force ifrom a defensive position its happened over and over in history.

2. We disagree on the point of trying to get troops to the area bottom line is logistics made that impossible. Now why there wasn't more security there that is a valid point someone droped the ball.

1. Not true. The 'over and over again' only happens in Hollywood, and in the real world, only very small amount of conflicts called either luck or miracle such events happened. It isn't an everyday occurence or there would have been no need for funding of standing armies. Many more sought to avoid such battles or surrender.

Let's be honest. Remember Mogadishu. The small team of spec ops could not even hold off scrawny savages and had their bodies dragged across streets. Not the spec ops fault as they were taken by surprise and overwhelmed by the many, and suffered the consequences.


2. It wasn't just logistics. And there was no way there could be more security as embassies are bounded by international agreements over the amount of security detail. The Libyan war was over, no nation agreed to put troops on the ground, it was a volitile and chaotic situation back then during those few hours when the entire muslim world was up in arms or the streets over that stupid video, enraged beyond sanity that took days to die down.

Any troops that went in there at that time, was inviting themselves to be slaughtered, regardless if they were a small force or a battalion, as the enraged muslims were by the thousands, more so in Libya where everyone has a gun or explosives, even missiles leftover from the war.

The outside knew not who was alive or dead during that time, and the best course of action was to be sure, or a new war may just erupt. The best hope at that time was for that the few americans there stayed safe, keep their heads low and if captured, at least there should be some form of negotiation or better intel for more well thought out surgical rescue ops that involves american surprise and NOT being surprised by the enemy as Hicks had wanted and almost sent more american troops to death.

But it was not to be. No prisoners or hostage were taken. The culprits were the radical militants, and they will pay for their crime one day, just as Osama had paid.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

1. Not true. The 'over and over again' only happens in Hollywood, and in the real world, only very small amount of conflicts called either luck or miracle such events happened. It isn't an everyday occurence or there would have been no need for funding of standing armies. Many more sought to avoid such battles or surrender.

Let's be honest. Remember Mogadishu. The small team of spec ops could not even hold off scrawny savages and had their bodies dragged across streets. Not the spec ops fault as they were taken by surprise and overwhelmed by the many, and suffered the consequences.

Casulaties from the whole of the Mogadishu battle are quite telling, but I am sure you will dismiss them. Remember here we are talking 1,000 to 3,000 Somalis vs aprox 100 to 150 at Benghazi according to info I have seen.

Total UN forces casualties in Mogadishu 102

Total Somali casualties in Mogadishu US estimate 2,200, Somali Militia Estimate 1,127.

At worst case you are looking at a 10 to 1 casualty ratio, best case is 20 to 1.

When you figure out deaths UN killed 20, US estimate of Somali Militia deaths 700+, Somali Militia Estimate 315. You are looking at least a 16 to 1 kill ratio using the Somali Militia number or 35 to 1 kill ratio using US estimates.

Either way, your bringing up the example of Mogadishu shows that a smaller force can inflict HUGE losses on an attacker. With proper setup of a base, you could make those even higher.

Oh, btw the way, I remember Navydoc asking for your military credentials, or are you just an "armchair General"?? You seem to not have a very good grasp of military capabilities and tactics.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by 2ndthought

 

Why the turnaround from the deadly serious charge of calling me a terrorist then, but when I challenge you to call DHS, your cowardly backtracking to labelling me instead as a 'verbal terrorist', -whatever BS that means.

So if I disagree with your views with facts and logic, I am to be labelled a terrorist, and an attempt to scare others that others whom dares to challenge your views would be similarly labelled as such?

Cut the BS. I don't even know why you bothered to reply, except perhaps to justify your cowardice now? Please, stick to the topic instead of attempting to scare others to voicing their opinions. Just as you are taught to bully others, so too am I taught to stand up to bullies.

You are free to derail the thread and scare others. Just know that others may not be as patient as me when you clearly broke T&C rules. I don't complain to moderators. I prefer to let you dig your own grave deeper.

"It also seems that you may be one of those terrorists that are 'laughing out loud', or at least someone who has something to personally lose if the truth comes out."

That was my original comment. "Seems that you may be". Hardly a "deadly serious charge". Get over yourself.

You apparently don't know the meaning of 'fighting fire with fire'. If you like, it means to bully those who are bullying others. In your words, to 'stand up' to bullies. You've been the bully, as my posting your many comments pointed out.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Perhaps as you continue to work on your English, you'll get better. I've also yet to see facts OR logic in your posts.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

1. Not true. The 'over and over again' only happens in Hollywood, and in the real world, only very small amount of conflicts called either luck or miracle such events happened. It isn't an everyday occurence or there would have been no need for funding of standing armies. Many more sought to avoid such battles or surrender.

Let's be honest. Remember Mogadishu. The small team of spec ops could not even hold off scrawny savages and had their bodies dragged across streets. Not the spec ops fault as they were taken by surprise and overwhelmed by the many, and suffered the consequences.

Casulaties from the whole of the Mogadishu battle are quite telling, but I am sure you will dismiss them. Remember here we are talking 1,000 to 3,000 Somalis vs aprox 100 to 150 at Benghazi according to info I have seen.

Total UN forces casualties in Mogadishu 102

Total Somali casualties in Mogadishu US estimate 2,200, Somali Militia Estimate 1,127.

At worst case you are looking at a 10 to 1 casualty ratio, best case is 20 to 1.

When you figure out deaths UN killed 20, US estimate of Somali Militia deaths 700+, Somali Militia Estimate 315. You are looking at least a 16 to 1 kill ratio using the Somali Militia number or 35 to 1 kill ratio using US estimates.

Either way, your bringing up the example of Mogadishu shows that a smaller force can inflict HUGE losses on an attacker. With proper setup of a base, you could make those even higher.

Oh, btw the way, I remember Navydoc asking for your military credentials, or are you just an "armchair General"?? You seem to not have a very good grasp of military capabilities and tactics.

edit on 20-5-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Might I also add, now that I've stopped laughing at 'still seekings' comments, is that the US/UN forces in Mogadishu DID NOT start in a defensive position. They went in via helicopter, and were forced down into rebel territory. Smack into the middle of the snake den. Once they did set up defensive positions, they inflicted those heavy rebel casualties. Against the same type weapons that the Libyan attackers had.

It also proves the damage that a relatively small force can inflict, even when they drop into a hornets nest. 25-30 spec. ops. troops, trained to shoot and run, in an urban environment, would have had a very good chance of pulling those 4 Americans out.

As for 'credentials', does his mommies say so count? And really. The video? Still?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by 2ndthought

I don't see this as a partisan issue. I see this as an issue that could very well affect every single one of us. Some just refuse to consider that their dear leader would do anything against the citizens of this country. It's my contention that under all the layers, he doesn't give one small damn about us.

It certainly is a partisan issue. There were zero republicans in the 9-11 boards talking about a possible false flag, just like there are zero liberals talking about benghazi in this thread.

Just like there were zero liberals making a big deal about boston, and tons of conservatives MAKING IT INTO a big deal. No one could prove anything up till now.

Guns was the only thing that was bipartisan and most people rejected it and for good reason. I hated what Obama tried to do and stated so previously.

What should be made a big deal by BOTH PARTIES is we should get the hell out of the middle east before we start ww3 with russia and china.

edit on 19/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Again... I... I... I...

IMO, I don't see this as a partisan issue, but one that every single one of us should be concerned with. Screw politicians. We should be concerned. All of us.

IMO... Benghazi has something that someone is trying to keep hidden.

IMO... That's why these other two scandals were exposed, by the very agencies that were involved.

reply to post by 2ndthought


Resorting to more personal attacks and cowardly back tracking still? Is your ego so great that when your mistakes were called out, instead of graciously admitting to it, you prefer to use your freedom of expression to thumb others down, and call them bullies while at it?

Anyway, its your life. If you and your kind think that by trumpeting your arrogances show your supposed 'logic', then I leave you to show your intellectual level to others.

To Pavil:-

Indeed I do, and will DISMISS your Somali figures, simply because Benghazi is NOT Somali. America or UN had not stepped in Libya as troops-in-force, and it is only utter stupidity to use casualty comparisons in different theatres of conflict and situations, that only fools would subscribe to.

But do continue with you and your kind's grasping for straws to keep the Benghazi issue alive. It is almost dead as many realized the use of a literally dead issue as deflection the republicans are doing instead of focusing on the real issue - the economy that affects all living americans today.

And by the way - as for my credentials - I am only an insignificant nobody. I leave it to others to judge. I don't trumpet my achievements like some arrogant fools here, but let others to freely decide on what they read. Better to let words do the talking.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Congress, specifically the GOP were also the ones who cut 300 M from Embassy Security.

Absolutely lie.

Hmmm. Has anyone told the GOP that cut the funding?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by 2ndthought

 

Resorting to more personal attacks and cowardly back tracking still? Is your ego so great that when your mistakes were called out, instead of graciously admitting to it, you prefer to use your freedom of expression to thumb others down, and call them bullies while at it?

Anyway, its your life. If you and your kind think that by trumpeting your arrogances show your supposed 'logic', then I leave you to show your intellectual level to others.

To Pavil:-

Indeed I do, and will DISMISS your Somali figures, simply because Benghazi is NOT Somali. America or UN had not stepped in Libya as troops-in-force, and it is only utter stupidity to use casualty comparisons in different theatres of conflict and situations, that only fools would subscribe to.

But do continue with you and your kind's grasping for straws to keep the Benghazi issue alive. It is almost dead as many realized the use of a literally dead issue as deflection the republicans are doing instead of focusing on the real issue - the economy that affects all living americans today.

And by the way - as for my credentials - I am only an insignificant nobody. I leave it to others to judge. I don't trumpet my achievements like some arrogant fools here, but let others to freely decide on what they read. Better to let words do the talking.

I think your torch went out a long time ago. Thanks for playing...

Originally posted by 2ndthought

As for 'credentials', does his mommies say so count?

edit on 20-5-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)

Had I unveiled your mentally challenged posts that now, in shame, you had to resort to insult using my mother and even implying I am a son of several mothers?

Congrats. You revealed what kind of a person you truly are, and the freedom of speech that you abuse here by your hooliganism.

reply to post by Indigo5


READ LAMB"S congressional testimony really how many times does that have to be said?

How many?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Congress, specifically the GOP were also the ones who cut 300 M from Embassy Security.

Absolutely lie.

Hmmm. Has anyone told the GOP that cut the funding?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

The State Dept. budget was about 14.5 billion in 2009. 16.4 billion in 2010. A whopping 57.5 BILLION in 2012.

Don't pass off budget cuts to deflect from this administrations inadequacies.

The cuts that you post are cuts to the Presidents PROPOSED budget. Hence, "administration's request".

You know what they're requesting for 2014? Merely 47.8 billion. Who's cutting what?