Despite name changes & relocations , Benghazi Survivors finally speak.. and blast White House story

beezzer

jimmyx
what I've always wanted to know is why would Stevens go there in the first place without proper and/or a enhanced security force?...I know this is going to sound cruel, but he is the one ultimately to blame for this. his lack of judgment cost others their lives, he was the one there, he could have called off that trip, and waited....

Maybe he was told to go, by someone high in the State Department.

But hey, "What difference does it make?"

edit on 13-1-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

the state dept. doesn't operate that way. they are not the military, and personnel cannot be punished for refusing to put themselves in harms way. he was too arrogant and confident in his own abilities to access the situation. he took one chance too many, and paid the ultimate price. he alone had the responsibility for his and the others safety. even the fortified embassy in Tripoli was at risk....my question is, if he was even to remain in country, why wouldn't the military central command for that area, NOT provide more enhanced protection?
lets not forget that there were, and still are commanders in the military that have a real disgust, not only for civilian leadership telling them what to do, but having that civilian leadership be a black POTUS, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state

JiggyPotamus
While I agree that the government lied about what occurred during the attacks, something needs to be straightened out. You cannot blame Obama for everything, like these sorts of lies were coined by him. Multiple presidents, including Bush, the previous president, told MAJOR lies while in office, yet Obama is catching more flak than anyone before him. In fact, didn't Bush's lies get us embroiled in a war that has cost thousands of American lives, not to mention trillions of dollars? But Obama is so much worse when it comes to transparency and illegal actions.

And what does one have to do with the other? Nothing. This is such a typical move to deflect blame whenever possible, not to mention your whole premise is clearly nonsense.

For starters, Obama is not "catching more flak then anyone before him". Feel free to go back to the ATS archives and see thread after thread after thread of many of us here who bashed Bush up one side then down the other for the same exact things. You can find thread after thread about Bush lying us into war in Iraq, how it was unconstitutional, how he is a dictator, how he should be impeached and last but not least how he should be tried as a war criminal along with Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is all there, just like it is all here today. The only thing that has changed is the name attached to it.

Furthermore, no one has said "Obama is much worse". What is being said is that what it taking place in the White House today is illegal. Plain and simple. No comparison is being made by anyone except for those who wish to deflect blame every chance they can.

Oddly enough, many of those calling Obama a war criminal or saying he should be impeached are THE SAME people who said the same thing about Bush as well... people like myself. Because for people like me, it does not matter if they are Republican or Democrat- a criminal is a criminal and they should all be treated as such regardless of party lines, skin color, religious leanings, or what kind of topping they like on pizza.

I've even heard people say that Obama was to blame because he extended the Patriot Act, yet they don't get mad at the president who actually initiated it in the first place. That makes zero sense. So for those who would criticize Obama, while not doing the same to Bush, you are a political hypocrite, to put it bluntly. You are basing your assessments on personal political bias. But for those who would criticize all wrongdoing, no matter if it toward a democrat or republican, by all means, continue. That is fair and balanced. But so many do not wish to operate in a fair and just manner.

The part you seem to miss is that Obama during his first election campaigned on a promise to abolish the Patriot Act. He told everyone how bad that legislation was, how it was a violation of our rights and he would do everything he could to do away with it if he were elected President. Then he not only extended it, but expanded it as well. So people have every right to be upset.

So now that your post has been addressed, can I ask you what does anything you have ranted about have to do with what took place in Benghazi and the actions this Administration has taken afterwards?

jimmyx

beezzer

jimmyx
what I've always wanted to know is why would Stevens go there in the first place without proper and/or a enhanced security force?...I know this is going to sound cruel, but he is the one ultimately to blame for this. his lack of judgment cost others their lives, he was the one there, he could have called off that trip, and waited....

Maybe he was told to go, by someone high in the State Department.

But hey, "What difference does it make?"

edit on 13-1-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

the state dept. doesn't operate that way. they are not the military, and personnel cannot be punished for refusing to put themselves in harms way. he was too arrogant and confident in his own abilities to access the situation. he took one chance too many, and paid the ultimate price. he alone had the responsibility for his and the others safety. even the fortified embassy in Tripoli was at risk....my question is, if he was even to remain in country, why wouldn't the military central command for that area, NOT provide more enhanced protection?
lets not forget that there were, and still are commanders in the military that have a real disgust, not only for civilian leadership telling them what to do, but having that civilian leadership be a black POTUS, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state

edit on 13-1-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Race-card.

NavyDoc

jimmyx

beezzer

jimmyx
what I've always wanted to know is why would Stevens go there in the first place without proper and/or a enhanced security force?...I know this is going to sound cruel, but he is the one ultimately to blame for this. his lack of judgment cost others their lives, he was the one there, he could have called off that trip, and waited....

Maybe he was told to go, by someone high in the State Department.

But hey, "What difference does it make?"

edit on 13-1-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

the state dept. doesn't operate that way. they are not the military, and personnel cannot be punished for refusing to put themselves in harms way. he was too arrogant and confident in his own abilities to access the situation. he took one chance too many, and paid the ultimate price. he alone had the responsibility for his and the others safety. even the fortified embassy in Tripoli was at risk....my question is, if he was even to remain in country, why wouldn't the military central command for that area, NOT provide more enhanced protection?
lets not forget that there were, and still are commanders in the military that have a real disgust, not only for civilian leadership telling them what to do, but having that civilian leadership be a black POTUS, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state

edit on 13-1-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Race-card.

absolutely, just because you throw that phrase out, it supposedly dismisses the point? if you don't think that it still exists in the military, you need to talk to some black military personnel.

jimmyx

NavyDoc

jimmyx

beezzer

jimmyx
what I've always wanted to know is why would Stevens go there in the first place without proper and/or a enhanced security force?...I know this is going to sound cruel, but he is the one ultimately to blame for this. his lack of judgment cost others their lives, he was the one there, he could have called off that trip, and waited....

Maybe he was told to go, by someone high in the State Department.

But hey, "What difference does it make?"

edit on 13-1-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

the state dept. doesn't operate that way. they are not the military, and personnel cannot be punished for refusing to put themselves in harms way. he was too arrogant and confident in his own abilities to access the situation. he took one chance too many, and paid the ultimate price. he alone had the responsibility for his and the others safety. even the fortified embassy in Tripoli was at risk....my question is, if he was even to remain in country, why wouldn't the military central command for that area, NOT provide more enhanced protection?
lets not forget that there were, and still are commanders in the military that have a real disgust, not only for civilian leadership telling them what to do, but having that civilian leadership be a black POTUS, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state

edit on 13-1-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Race-card.

absolutely, just because you throw that phrase out, it supposedly dismisses the point? if you don't think that it still exists in the military, you need to talk to some black military personnel.

Actually it does dismiss the point because every time a leftist has a poor argument, they claim, racism, sexism, or any other -ism. It is a sign of a weak argument and lack of critical thinking. It has been so overused by the left for anything and everything that it fails to have meaning.

I know a lot of black military personnel--friends and colleagues both. They laugh at you.

reply to post by jimmyx

why wouldn't the military central command for that area, NOT provide more enhanced protection?

Um, because there were no "boots on the ground", in-country - we only *ever* had air strikes and a very few special ops - what, did you think the 82nd was around the corner, sitting on their hands, just to show up an African-American President?

There's a reason people are in the military - and most of them are the kind of people who run towards the sound of gunfire, and who'd have willingly risked or even gave their lives trying to save the Ambassador and the others. The most frustrating part of Benghazi was when they called for help -- we did *nothing*. That's not the US military way - we'd die trying to get there - the "stand-down" or decision to not even try to reach them was completely political, and was made in the White House.

Making up some conjecture about how the not-even-in-the-country military, probably sat on their hands, allowing US citizens to die to make a President look bad, because he's African-American - as former-military, with ties to people in Spec Ops, your "theory" is offensive to anyone that's ever worn the uniform.

Like NavyDoc said, there are a few hundred thousand military members who sneer at your implication. I suggest you enlist - you'll meet and work with some of the best people you'll ever know in your life, of every race, color, creed, and religion.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

sn't this what verifiedly happened to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, speaking out the false claims of yellow cake that Iraq supposedly had, by the Bush II administration.

'False Claims' of the Bush Administration eh ?



There is some more of that revisionist history.

buster2010
reply to post by Aazadan

 

That said, when it comes to things like the Patriot Act, Obama deserves MORE blame than Bush. Do you know why? Bush was an idiot and a figurehead, he made some massive mistakes but wasn't aware of the implications.

You are wrong here. Bush deserves the most blame because if it weren't for him there would be no patriot act. Sorry but ignorance is no excuse.

It was Bush...No Obama...No Bush, Obama, Bush...

We still haven't realized both/all are puppets? It's simply more of the same and will continue until they are finished. None of this is by consequence. It's all just theater inching step by step to their ultimate performance. Sometimes a step back is required in this waltz, it all depends on the cattle. Sometimes they get spooked and run off but the trick is patience. Wrangle them up and continue the march forward, sooner or later they'll get you to the slaughter house and exchange for even coin.

Let's not be too hard on the cowboys ok? They took the job most people don't want or have the stomach for. They understand the consequence if they let their cattle lose but the reward is worth the risk. But if the cowboy fails, the rancher will not be pleased and the cowboy will be left to dry. Our current cowboy by equal measure is doing a stand up job I reckon based on the discussion here.

Just remember the issue is Obama, pissed off Muslims over a cartoon and ineptitude on behalf of the "current" administration for not effectively leading and saving those four "innocent" men.

It has NOTHING to do with gun running weapons (chemical or otherwise) from Lybia to Syria. Christopher Stevens was an innocent bloke doing Gods work in the audience of heathens. pay no never mind to the seemingly coincidental uprising and chemical attacks in Syria shortly thereafter. And nothing to do with the 30-50,000 dead in Libya or the disastrous consequence.

neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

sn't this what verifiedly happened to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, speaking out the false claims of yellow cake that Iraq supposedly had, by the Bush II administration.

'False Claims' of the Bush Administration eh ?

There is some more of that revisionist history.

So help me understand here. What does that video have to do with the claims that whistleblower Joe Wilson made that he travelled to South Africa and determined there was no basis in the claim that Saddam purchased yellow cake uranium? Nothing in your video proves or disputes it. All I see is a diversionary tactic and a video full of a bunch of cronies espousing fear of the great satan that was Iraq. Ooooooh, so scary he was hiding in his little hole. Either the greatest nation in the worlds intelligence community is that inept or the worlds greatest nation is the greatest propagandists. I'll take the latter.

Thinkk about it for a second. Now I'm not a sports fan but as an analogy, say you have to rival teams who hate and loathe each other. They compete for the title and do anything to the other to ensure victory. They both share the common theme of entertaining the masses for money....a # load of it. Not unlike government. Now say one team does something to ensure people will continue to be entertained but if they were caught it would question the legitimacy of the game itself. Both teams will go to any length to keep that from being made known. No game no money....a common interest.

Nice video though.

reply to post by Rosinitiate

So help me understand here. What does that video have to do with the claims that whistleblower Joe Wilson made that he travelled to South Africa and determined there was no basis in the claim that Saddam purchased yellow cake uranium?

Seriously ?

EFFING SERIOUSLY ?

Let me break it down then.

After decades of US congressman both RIGHT and LEFT saying IRAQ and Saddam was a threat. One day that most evil Bush called his bluff.

He invaded no one disputes.

BUT with the FULL SUPPORT of the US government.

And ONLY AFTER invading was the truth finally found out.

Something that would not have occurred otherwise.

But then again the reason was not ONLY his WMD program it was the techinical skills, and knowledge that Saddam would aid TERRORISTS which SYRIA proved since terrorists wanted them and they GD used them.

Right or wrong invading IRAQ it was only by going there did we finally know.

Yep it sure did disprove what the Democrats in the video SAID.

Yep it sure did disprove what BUSH said.

But anyone blaming only the Bush administration is peddling intellectual dishonesty.

Everyone was on board until it came to election year. Then they were against Iraq, and Afghanistan until they were for Libya.

All the intelligence agencies around the world said the GD same thing.

IF some people can't see the dogma surround the Iraq war then so effing be it.

So you danced around my point completely. Good for you and completely anticipated. Where in my posts do I blame Bush for the Iraq failure. You still didn't answer my question about Joe Wilson's claims, no matter wasn't expecting that either.

There was ample proof Saddam wasn't a threat before we invaded. Most of which was shoved under a rug until FOIA requests were submitted. After the fact it remains irrelevant. It's pretty funny how you accuse me of supporting an argument that my posts clearly speak the opposite to. Read much?

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Yeah READ MUCH ?

Like this video, and the post ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Only dancing I see in this thread is the tried and FAILED GD DEFLECTION of some people who just can't for some reason don't ever want to talk about what Obama does.

Lot of people made claims about the Iraq war like those people who aren't Bush or the Republicans.

You know the Democrats.

Their own GD words.

Bush was evil for killing people in Iraq, but pay no never mind to Obama killing people in other countries.

Libya for one,

Yemen for another.

Pakistan for one more.

But guess some people want to dance around the GD topic.

Which is for those who seem to have forgotten.

BENGHAZI and GWB had jacksnip to do with that.

reply to post by neo96


Just because Democrats were talking # on Saddam prior to the invasion doesn't discredit Joe's trip to South Africa. Nor does it prove the decision makers knew # about what Saddam could or couldn't do. They received their talking points like all others. Some follow lock step other abstain. If the vote is too close then the NSA finds dirt on a law maker not towing the line and threaten to release skeletons. This isn't a left/right issue its a right and wrong issue. The decision to invade Iraq transpired before even Bush came into office. It was simply the most advantageous time to do so. No since in wasting a good tragedy.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


What the hell does that have to do with Benghazi ?

What ?

Do all some people have is a decade old 'argument' every time someone questions the CURRENT administration, and its MASSIVE shortcomings ?

Maybe in another decade people will finally want to discuss Benghazi instead of recycling the same crap instead of holding the current administration the same standard the set for the last one.

Ok, people let go back into the Bengahzi scandal and let recap the truth about who is behind the whole fiasco.

Valerie Jarrett Gave Benghazi Stand-Down Order, for those that do not know who this Iranian lady is, she is Obama bedside pillow, Obama would not fart without having her smelling it

So with that say let see how this impact the president.

Scandal: The omnipresent power behind the throne some have called the president's Rasputin had the power to call off three strikes against Osama bin Laden. She may have used that power again the night four Americans died in Benghazi.

The Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, came while America failed to mount a rescue mission despite sufficient time and assets. Included in that disaster were the unaccounted whereabouts of President Obama during eight critical hours, the lack of Situation Room photos, the failure by the president to follow up with subordinates before his trip to Las Vegas and the fabricated story that the whole thing was prompted by an Internet video.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer said recently on "The O'Reilly Factor" that the "biggest scandal of all" regarding that Benghazi slaughter has yet to emerge.

"I think there is a bigger story here ... that will in time come out," Krauthammer said. "The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question is: What was the president doing in those eight hours?"

The columnist noted: "He had a routine meeting at 5 o'clock. He never after, during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the secretary of defense, he never calls the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never calls the CIA director."

One of the people Obama always talks to is Valerie Jarrett. She emerged from the same Chicago cauldron of radicalism where Obama got his ideological baptism.

The Iranian-born Jarrett (her parents were American-born expatriates) is the only staff member who regularly follows the president home from the West Wing to the residence and one of the few people allowed to call the president by his first name.

Her influence is shown by an account in Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him."

news.investors.com...

neo96
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

What the hell does that have to do with Benghazi ?

Says the man who posted a video that had NOTHING to do with Benghazi, than call me out for being off topic. I see through you, your perfectly clear.

Frankly, I think the Benghazi thing is hurting the Republicans more than it's helping them. No matter what the truth is, Obama's cheerleaders obviously just don't care about this. The Republicans are wasting their time and energy here unless this turns out to be something that would turn the most ardent Obama fan against him. I just don't see that happening.

As a practical matter, Obama's political enemies should be working on angles that people actually care about.

Attention Everyone:
Stop falling victim to the divide and conquer technique. Democrats and Republicans (especially in higher power) in government, are two cheeks of the same ass.
The more we keep fighting about whether it was the left or right hand that hit us, the more we get hit.
Why do you think major media outlets are in blind support of one party or the other, spewing out mostly B.S.?
It's because the ignorant masses will regurgitate it (grapevine style, so the incorrect info the got is even more distorted) and argue with their fellow man over issues that they have no control of. While we argue over these things, both parties work in collusion, passing detrimental bills that most Americans never hear about.
GW and Barry O are both scumbags.
Whatever was (is) going on in Benghazi would have been going on if it were a D or an R in office.
Arguing about who did what and who would have done what is meaningless. Not to mention it is exactly what is expected of you.
I just hope these survivors have a good hiding spot.

Benghazi attack was routine house keeping, following Mummar Gadafi's assassination...

Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, died on 20 October 2011 during the Battle of Sirte.]

en.wikipedia.org...

Why was Mummar Gadafi assassinated? To clean up after Tony Blair and his deal with Shell of course.

Announcing a "new relationship", however, Blair said he had been struck by how the Libyan leader wished to join with Britain in "common cause with us against al-Qaida, extremists and terrorism".... But it has not only been a dubious partnership against terror that has increasingly embroiled the United Kingdom in Libya's affairs. There has been a second "common cause" that has underpinned the relationship with Gaddafi's regime, underscored by the announcement on the same day in 2004 of a £550m deal with Shell for exploration rights.

www.theguardian.com...

With the balance due on deals made with a known terrorist it was time to cash in the chips so to speak. Shell made billions and wasn't about pay the royalties to Libya when they already paid for the Royalty of Great Britain.

Nearly a year later there were too many loose ends that must be tied up.

On the night of September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of between 125 and 150 gunmen attacked the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another diplomat.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is a whole lot more to it if you look at who benefited from the events surrounding the overthrow of Gaddafi's regime the formation of the National Transitional Council, the re-branding of the Free Libyan Army that transitioned into the Free Syrian Army. The plot continues to unfold...

o0oTOPCATo0o
Attention Everyone:
Stop falling victim to the divide and conquer technique. Democrats and Republicans (especially in higher power) in government, are two cheeks of the same ass.

This is true. BUT, the people who vote for one side or the other don't typically know this. Typically (it seems) those with the big D in front of their names are more popular with more people. Therefore, they get away with things far more easily. Everyday people don't question them as much. There isn't as much real activism against them when they do something wrong.

Obama is a perfect example. He has been virtually untouchable DESPITE doing a lot of things that would really piss most people off if he was calling himself a Republican. If you didn't like Bush, you had plenty of company and at least you didn't have to argue constantly with almost everyone you came into contact with. If you don't like Obama and you say a word about it, everyone hates you and no one wants to hear about anything he's done wrong.

They may be two cheeks of the same ass but it's important to remember that most people don't know that. Most people believe there are good guys and bad guys and it simply isn't that simple. Republicans are more desirable if you know they're all the same for the simple reason that most people hate them.

We're going to be stuck with one or the other regardless. The people who run things are never going to lose control unless 90% of everyone knows exactly who they are and how they maintain control. That's not going to happen.