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: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by beezzer
When has Obama EVER been accountable for ANY failure?

He only gloms onto successes of others.

A weak and pitiful man, Obama is.


What a weak and pathetic spot of propaganda



Truth sucks, don't it.




posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.


Sad that some believe that nonsense.

FACT:

What happened in Benghazi WAS NOT ABOUT MONEY



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You are incorrect.

It could have been avoided, if 0bama hadn't had them there, running missiles/guns/arms.



If the democrat President Obama was not there at the helm, then it would only had been the Republicans at the helm.

Going by Republican history, and even now as McCain had ran his throat long dry screaming for support for the rebels, over the past 2 years, the Republican President would have done the same or worse - lead by the FRONT and UNILATERALLY.

That would have ensured that not only the american ambassador be murdered, it would ensure americans be murdered on american soil by Gaddafi loyalists whom will see this as a direct american assualt, and not the world's.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.

This is absolutely not partisan. Democrat or Republican. It's not about Political Party. It's about death and how a personal and direct representative to the President himself, wound up that way ...with almost nothing done, going on nearly a year later.

Original Source Douments of the Months of Failure leading to Sept 11 Consulate Attacks

It's about those 166 pages of memos, reports and status updates that show the State Department, DSS and Executive Branch sold those men out and left them hanging out there to die. So many are fixated on the 12 hours of the night it ended ......when the story lay far more in the 6 months and more which built to making it happen, IMO.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.


Sad that some believe that nonsense.

FACT:

What happened in Benghazi WAS NOT ABOUT MONEY


If there were less people employed there to defend the place, it is about money.

However I think it is the American way to blame the men who pull the trigger, not try to
Pass off murder onto other people



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.


Only American ambassadors, and those who went to their aid because they didn't place politics over those American lives in Benghazi.

What I think is cowardly is cowardly more ways than one.
edit on 16-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.


Sad that some believe that nonsense.

FACT:

What happened in Benghazi WAS NOT ABOUT MONEY


But the state department had plenty of money for parties. Here is the logical way to deal with reduced funding: cut unnecessary nicities like parties and limos and fun trips and keep important things like security.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 





If there were less people employed there to defend the place, it is about money.


IF there were less people it was because the State Department was spending money to push alternative energy.

Bother reading the op?



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.


However, fighting from above often does not get the job done and puts innocent people at risk, especially in urban environments that are a chaotic mix of enemies and civilians. At times like this incident, boots on the ground is what is needed.

Obviously Obama did not learn the art of war being a community organizer.

I've been boots on the ground. You?



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.

This is absolutely not partisan. Democrat or Republican. It's not about Political Party. It's about death and how a personal and direct representative to the President himself, wound up that way ...with almost nothing done, going on nearly a year later.

Original Source Douments of the Months of Failure leading to Sept 11 Consulate Attacks

It's about those 166 pages of memos, reports and status updates that show the State Department, DSS and Executive Branch sold those men out and left them hanging out there to die. So many are fixated on the 12 hours of the night it ended ......when the story lay far more in the 6 months and more which built to making it happen, IMO.


It seems to be all about partisanship... Between 2000-2008 there were over 50 embassy attacks and over ten personell deaths, yet we did not here about them. Now, low and behold this one case is being used to propagate a political witch hunt. Seems to be very convenient that the GOP is interested in this one case, while thy did not
Publicize the 50 + other cases that have happened in recent history.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Obama's best strategy: Blame, blame, and blame some more. He wouldn't be Obama if he didn't lie and blame. And of course, I'm sure people actually believe him.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 


If there were less people employed there to defend the place, it is about money.


The number of people to guard the place had absolutely nothing to do with money. It was pure politics. We surely spent MORE to hire the local militia with slush money and winks over nods ...rather than what Stevens and his people directly requested and were flat turned down on (as my link to documents above shows, clearly). They wanted United States Marines. They got local Jihadi fighters who one of the staffers that died that night, identified in a text message he sent, as among the attackers.

The failure here was profound, total and one which could repeat if not fully investigated and those responsible, removed from any position of power, IMO.

Those weren't decisions made by Congress. Those were made by specific people in State and the Diplomatic Security Service, as both show being involved by those documents.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by cholo
 





If there were less people employed there to defend the place, it is about money.


IF there were less people it was because the State Department was spending money to push alternative energy.

Bother reading the op?


Oh I see, so you are blaming this on Obama and electric vehicles


Ok



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 



It seems to be all about partisanship... Between 2000-2008 there were over 50 embassy attacks and over ten personell deaths, yet we did not here about them. Now, low and behold this one case is being used to propagate a political witch hunt.


I love to see you start a thread all your own and detail those 50 embassy attacks you spent a whole thread talking about the other night...before bailing off and vanishing. (?)

However, those happened under a different President. While I would love to see them investigated as well, they aren't the matter at hand ..today, and right now. Benghazi is. Perhaps they even tie in, at some point? The people working INSIDE the State Department are the same under Obama as they were under Bush. Civil servants don't change as Presidents do...and that IS the problem at the core of it, IMO.

Investigation needs to happen to determine who, outside the elected leaders, did what which caused good men to die. The questions of help denied, security refused and reinforcement requests simply ignored, all come into this as well. The hunt for WHO precisely made the decisions which caused this to happen are first and foremost though.

......and the majority of those people don't hold Office. They weren't elected.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the partisan politics.

It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE, and not party affiliation that is important.

Do we need the continous BS over the Benghazi affair when the facts are already evident that it was an event NO american could countrol?

Do we need more divisions when the friggin ECONOMY is by far the most IMPORTANT issue?

Do we need the extremist petty Tea Party to DICTATE on what american PEOPLE should think?

No party is perfect. When they are wrong, we bring it up, but there is no need to CONTIUALLY harped on it till the partisan politics becomes CLEARLY evident, when there are far more important issues to tackle to the nation.

Anyone not happy, its only a few more months to the congressional elections, and another 2+ more years to the presidential elections. If not satisfied - the airport is opened 24/7. America needs not anymore of this partisan BS.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.


However, fighting from above often does not get the job done and puts innocent people at risk, especially in urban environments that are a chaotic mix of enemies and civilians. At times like this incident, boots on the ground is what is needed.

Obviously Obama did not learn the art of war being a community organizer.

I've been boots on the ground. You?


Obama was competent enough to kill Bin Laden, and decimate al queda leadership, so

Boots on the ground in Iraq And Afghanistan has been a marvelous idea, just what we need,
Another occupation, and a couple more hundred billion in debt!



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
It's all very simple. Everyone in Washington, all of our leaders from the DOD, to the politicians, and to the miltary, are complete liars and should never be trusted.

It's a lie they had no money for security.
It's a lie they didn't know an attack was coming.
It's a lie that they didn't know who attack the compound.

They're all disgusting liars who should not only be fired but also brought up on charges.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cholo
 



It seems to be all about partisanship... Between 2000-2008 there were over 50 embassy attacks and over ten personell deaths, yet we did not here about them. Now, low and behold this one case is being used to propagate a political witch hunt.


I love to see you start a thread all your own and detail those 50 embassy attacks you spent a whole thread talking about the other night...before bailing off and vanishing. (?)

However, those happened under a different President. While I would love to see them investigated as well, they aren't the matter at hand ..today, and right now. Benghazi is. Perhaps they even tie in, at some point? The people working INSIDE the State Department are the same under Obama as they were under Bush. Civil servants don't change as Presidents do...and that IS the problem at the core of it, IMO.

Investigation needs to happen to determine who, outside the elected leaders, did what which caused good men to die. The questions of help denied, security refused and reinforcement requests simply ignored, all come into this as well. The hunt for WHO precisely made the decisions which caused this to happen are first and foremost though.

......and the majority of those people don't hold Office. They weren't elected.


Yes they happened under a different president, exactly why the GOP had zero interest in
Investigating or politicizing the events. You proved my point very well!



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE, and not party affiliation that is important.

Do we need the continous BS over the Benghazi affair when the facts are already evident that it was an event NO american could countrol?


You're among a growing minority who believes that. As time goes on, the numbers continue to shift and it's not supportive to that line of thinking. The only way to begin to justify any of this is to point to other leaders like Bush....which is pointing to bad behavior in justifying one's own bad behavior. Relativism at it's worst.

A nation of law can't slide things that result in deaths by incompetence simply because other scumbags have managed to get away with it before. The problem then is going BACK to see those issues brought to light as well....not to whitewash what happens now and, presumably by that logic, whatever follows in the future.

Anarchy or Tyranny lay down that path...and in that context? They're equally bad places to go.
edit on 16-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join