Benghazi scandal tied to White House

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,396
9,553
113
Washington DC
Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.
In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.
Certainly turning it into a partisan political circus is a much better way to honour the dead.

The way both sides have treated this is reprehensible. But that's the way it goes. I figure it's only a matter of time before our honoured dead will be called traitors by some moron who's pissed off because they didn't die the right way or the right time of the moron's political purposes.

I just wonder if it'll be a Dumbocrat or a Republiklan.
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Certainly turning it into a partisan political circus is a much better way to honour the dead.

The way both sides have treated this is reprehensible. But that's the way it goes. I figure it's only a matter of time before our honoured dead will be called traitors by some moron who's pissed off because they didn't die the right way or the right time of the moron's political purposes.

I just wonder if it'll be a Dumbocrat or a Republiklan.

we don't care what you call your dead, just don't try and sell the world on the preposterous tale that they died because of some video. we ain't buyin' it bub. ;-)
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
What was the US Ambassador doing at the Consulate in Benghazi? The UK had closed its consulate because of the danger from terrorists. The US consulate in Benghazi had previously been attacked. So everyone knew Benghazi was dangerous for US diplomats.

The US Ambassador had met with the Turkish Charge d'Affairs in Benghazi the day of the attack. What was the purpose of the meeting? Why didn't the meeting take place at the US Embassy in Tripoli?

Lots of unanswered questions.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
The Republicans may or may not be political. But I'm not a Republican. I want much more from American leftists.

You want them to fixate on an incident that has been investigated repeatedly for years?

Making this into a political circus doesn't help anyone.

I enjoy seeing my opponents display emotion. It tells me that they feel me real deep. It's like I'm touching your vulva. I love you long time man.

You think "prove me wrong bitch" is an emotional statement? lol. It is pointing out how stupid your assertion is that you can just tell me that all the sources for your claims are secret and the burden is on me to prove your unnamed sources wrong.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
You want them to fixate on an incident that has been investigated repeatedly for years?

Making this into a political circus doesn't help anyone.



You think "prove me wrong bitch" is an emotional statement? lol. It is pointing out how stupid your assertion is that you can just tell me that all the sources for your claims are secret and the burden is on me to prove your unnamed sources wrong.

What was the US Ambassador doing in Benghazi? The US Embassy was in Tripoli. The Benghazi consulate had previously been attacked. Do you know the answers? If so would you share the answers with us. Thanks.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.
In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.
.................................
Within half-an-hour, the President knew what was happening and why it was happening. Yet he did not act. Why? For me, that question remains as important as it was a year and a half ago:
MS: Brave men fought valiantly all through that horrible, long night, and saved dozens of people. But they were waiting for the help that never came, the help that was two hours away but was never ordered. And the official explanation is that 'Oh, well, we could have sent somebody, but they wouldn't have got there in time." Well, you know, just to go back to your sporting analogies, a terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is not a cricket match or a soccer match... You don't know how long it's going to last till the attack ends... Even if they had sent forces and they hadn't gotten there in time to save the ambassador or to save the other three people who died, they could have got there in time when the people who committed this act were still sifting through the rubble of the U.S. facility. And so they would have caught them, instead of these guys being free to wander around, swank around the Maghreb boasting about what they were able to pull off.
So who took the decision not to act, and why?
MS: Was it just about electoral advantage? Was it just to protect Joe Biden's soundbite ...al Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive? Or is it actually worse than that? In other words, in those first few moments, when the President is informed what's going on, does somebody, does somebody take the decision that because this whole thing is unhelpful to their view of the world, they are not going to send force? Because that, to me, does render whoever made that decision ...unfit for office.
As I go on to say, Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President's political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin - if it was ever applied to America's enemies.

The Cavalry That Never Came :: SteynOnline

Where are the facts or sources? This seems like just another turn at beating a dead horse.

Why do you really think that every news channel should spend every day for years reporting on one incident? In the last two year, ~20,000 other people have been murdered with guns right at home in the US. Why are none of them deserving of anywhere near the same level of attention as these 4 individuals who dies in Benghazi? Because that is politically unfavorable for Fox?

What was the US Ambassador doing in Benghazi? The US Embassy was in Tripoli. The Benghazi consulate had previously been attacked. Do you know the answers? If so would you share the answers with us. Thanks.

Why would I know that?

If you have a point to make, please make it.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Where are the facts or sources? This seems like just another turn at beating a dead horse.

Why do you really think that every news channel should spend every day for years reporting on one incident? In the last two year, ~20,000 other people have been murdered with guns right at home in the US. Why are none of them deserving of anywhere near the same level of attention as these 4 individuals who dies in Benghazi? Because that is politically unfavorable for Fox?



.

That is about what I expect from an apologist for this idiotic, vicious, incompetent administration.

The "news" channels have been doing their very best to ignore an incident and cover-up that rivals Watergate.

And criminal murder in the USA is not being covered up by the White House.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Where are the facts or sources? This seems like just another turn at beating a dead horse.

Why do you really think that every news channel should spend every day for years reporting on one incident? In the last two year, ~20,000 other people have been murdered with guns right at home in the US. Why are none of them deserving of anywhere near the same level of attention as these 4 individuals who dies in Benghazi? Because that is politically unfavorable for Fox?



Why would I know that?

If you have a point to make, please make it.

How can those questions be answered without a Congressional investigation?
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
That is about what I expect from an apologist for this idiotic, vicious, incompetent administration.

The "news" channels have been doing their very best to ignore an incident and cover-up that rivals Watergate.

And criminal murder in the USA is not being covered up by the White House.

Covering what up? Obama clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack numerous times.

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

How can you guys accuse people of being callus for not giving 100% attention to this one incident because 4 people died, but then brush off 20,000 other people murdered right at home in the US?

It really doesn't sound like you give two ****s about the lives of these people. You just want to nail a political rival.

How can those questions be answered without a Congressional investigation?

How many congressional investigations are we at now for this one issue?

You asked one question. I'm sure that question can be pretty easily answered by looking at the ambassador's schedule.

Ambassadors are not generally locked in the embassy. They are there do work in the country.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,557
8,154
113
B.C.
Covering what up? Obama clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack numerous times.

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

How can you guys accuse people of being callus for not giving 100% attention to this one incident because 4 people died, but then brush off 20,000 other people murdered right at home in the US?

It really doesn't sound like you give two ****s about the lives of these people. You just want to nail a political rival.



How many congressional investigations are we at now for this one issue?

You asked one question. I'm sure that question can be pretty easily answered by looking at the ambassador's schedule.

Ambassadors are not generally locked in the embassy. They are there do work in the country.
No man left behind . If you don't get that you will never understand anything else .
The administration left their people behind with no support . The Commander in Chief let His troops down .
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,331
4,028
113
Edmonton
You should give issues the appropriate amount of attention. Benghazi is a drum that some people on the right refuse to stop playing no matter how many investigations are conducted.

It is clear that they don't have any motivation in mind other than trying to pin something on the Obama administration before the midterm elections.

It is disgusting to use the loss of people's lives as a political gimmick.



I agree absolutely and unfortunately that's what Obama has done. I guess he should have clarified that his "change" really meant being "indifferent" to what's happening in the world.


What's really unfortunate is that the people working in the various embassies throughout the world now know that should another Benghazi happen, they can expect no assistance whatsoever and that they're on their own. Think I'd be revamping my resume!


JMHO
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Covering what up? Obama clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack numerous times.

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

How can you guys accuse people of being callus for not giving 100% attention to this one incident because 4 people died, but then brush off 20,000 other people murdered right at home in the US?

It really doesn't sound like you give two ****s about the lives of these people. You just want to nail a political rival.



How many congressional investigations are we at now for this one issue?

You asked one question. I'm sure that question can be pretty easily answered by looking at the ambassador's schedule.

Ambassadors are not generally locked in the embassy. They are there do work in the country.

The US Embassy was located in the secure city of Tripoli, not the dangerous city of Benghazi. The US only maintained a poorly defended consulate in Benghazi. The Benghazi had previously been attacked. The British had previously closed their consulate in Benghazi because of the danger. All of the Ambassador's business could have been conducted in safety at the embassy in Tripoli. So why was he in Benghazi. We need to know.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Covering what up? Obama clearly stated that it was a terrorist attack numerous times.

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

How can you guys accuse people of being callus for not giving 100% attention to this one incident because 4 people died, but then brush off 20,000 other people murdered right at home in the US?

It really doesn't sound like you give two ****s about the lives of these people. You just want to nail a political rival.



How many congressional investigations are we at now for this one issue?

You asked one question. I'm sure that question can be pretty easily answered by looking at the ambassador's schedule.

Ambassadors are not generally locked in the embassy. They are there do work in the country.

Aren't you embarrassed to be in cahoots with this idiot??

McLaughlin Group Guest: ‘Ambassador Stevens Wasn’t Murdered’ | Mediaite
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
No man left behind . If you don't get that you will never understand anything else .
The administration left their people behind with no support . The Commander in Chief let His troops down .

What does that have to do with this situation? They rushed assistance to them within 25 minutes of finding out about the attack.

I agree absolutely and unfortunately that's what Obama has done. I guess he should have clarified that his "change" really meant being "indifferent" to what's happening in the world.


What's really unfortunate is that the people working in the various embassies throughout the world now know that should another Benghazi happen, they can expect no assistance whatsoever and that they're on their own. Think I'd be revamping my resume!


JMHO

This is just silly, as stated above, they rushed assistance to them within 20 minutes of the attack.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66






Tammy BruceVerified account ‏@HeyTammyBruce

.@EleanorClift, here Amb Stevens is alive, stripped of his pants, holding his own arm up. Correct
yourself NOW.



https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/status/465551115124097024
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,396
9,553
113
Washington DC
I'm still waiting for someone to identify the "Bribery, Corruption, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the Benghazi "scandal." That being the Constitutional standard for impeachment and all.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
The US Embassy was located in the secure city of Tripoli, not the dangerous city of Benghazi. The US only maintained a poorly defended consulate in Benghazi. The Benghazi had previously been attacked. The British had previously closed their consulate in Benghazi because of the danger. All of the Ambassador's business could have been conducted in safety at the embassy in Tripoli. So why was he in Benghazi. We need to know.

The work that Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi would be a simple matter of checking his schedule.

Your question assumes that ambassadors generally don't move around within the country that they are stationed, and that simply isn't true.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
The work that Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi would be a simple matter of checking his schedule.

His schedule doesn't specify the reasons for his meetings. The reasons are what is important. We don't know what his reasons were. That's why the Select Committee was appointed. All we know for sure at this point is what the review board determined about Hillary Clinton's Dept. of State...check it out:

“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the review board concluded."

Read more: In cable the day he died, U.S. ambassador warned Clinton about Benghazi security - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Your question assumes that ambassadors generally don't move around within the country that they are stationed, and that simply isn't true.

My question is not predicated on any such question.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
His schedule doesn't specify the reasons for his meetings. The reasons are what is important. We don't know what his reasons were. That's why the Select Committee was appointed. All we know for sure at this point is what the review board determined about Hillary Clinton's Dept. of State...check it out:

“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the review board concluded."

Read more: In cable the day he died, U.S. ambassador warned Clinton about Benghazi security - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

My question is not predicated on any such question.

As you know, they have already had a select committee investigate this. And countless bureaucrats have investigated this.

What is another investigation, one that is entirely partisan(the committee is 7 to 5 in favor of the republicans, and only the republican chair has subpoena power) going to accomplish, other than generate more talking points for the Republicans to raise money off the deaths of these people?