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