Navy releases map showing location of fleet positions during Benghazi attacks

i'm pretty sure he's laughing at the comical, fairy tales y'all are telling

 

Why wont obama address the nation and tell us? Lets hear your reason as to why he refuses

 

They are apparently not quite smart enough to realize when they are just being tolerated and humored.

 

how many times does he have to tell you?

 

Thanks for continually proving my point that lefties think asking for answers on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is "comical". All these posts and yet you two still fell right on your faces explaining what Obama did and why. You have no clue either. The difference between us is I care. You guys dont. If you did you would be asking the same questions. If Obama did nothing wrong then why are you so afraid to have him answer a couple of simple questions?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for continually proving my point that lefties think asking for answers on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is "comical". All these posts and yet you two still fell right on your faces explaining what Obama did and why. You have no clue either. The difference between us is I care. You guys dont. If you did you would be asking the same questions. If Obama did nothing wrong then why are you so afraid to have him answer a couple of simple questions?

 

Just once. The same amount of times you need to post the link to when he said it. Didnt I already ask you three times?

 

said what?

all you're doing is doubling down on being ridiculous

you have no proof of anything significant

 

Is there a reason you and captain angry pants refuse to link me to the information of what Obama did that night and why? 5. <<<<<<Math. Each time you respond without the answer I will add 1. We will keep track so Capn can show his Naval and Marine "aquaintances" the math of how many times you guys avoided answering a simple question.

 

This post is why you have 15k plus posts and a pathetically low rep bar stat. It has no substance. Here is your proof. Obama has never explained to us what he did that night and why. If I am incorrect post the link showing he did, if you cant then obviously you have proven to yourself you cant find the information either. 6<<<<<<<<<Math for capn angry.

 

how many times do i have to inform you that the burden of proof lies upon the accusers back?

either you have evidence or you've got no case

let me guess, you think that means something

you sound like the paultards that thought their unscientific polls meant ron paul would be the president

 

He (Obama) certainly wasn't busting a sweat working to get our people out of harm's way.......he left them dangling in the wind. There really is nothing for him to explain.
He got that three AM phone call and basically set the receiver down on a desk and left the room.

Only bottom of the barrel progressives are still wasting their time defending The Lightworker on Benghazi. The most many of them will say is conservatives are mining this issue for political capital...which is odd considering the media would rather not discuss the matter (where's the capital in that?). And ironic considering Obama lied his ass off about the 9/11 attack to boost his own political capital (sending his flying monkey cronies out to spread disinformation around about the event).

The bottom line is only the worse of the worse on the left are still grimly putting on a Leningrad type defense here. Most know better.

 

we add another non answer. I asked you what Obama did that night and why. YOU SAID "how many times does he need to tell you". I asked YOU where that statement is. There is no burden of proof in that question on my part. Its a valid on point straight up question.
The rep bars matter because it sorts people not worthy of responding to. You continue to make strawmans and avoid the actual question. So when you said "How many times does he need to tell you"...... back up your statement and provide the link showing that he said what you inferred. Did you make that up? Prove me wrong and supply me with the information you apparently think exists.
So there is no confusions I will repeat the question.
What did Obama do the night of the Benghazi attack and why? Please provide a timeline of what he did along with the decisions he made and why. You said he told us. Now where is it?

 

oh please, it has been discussed ad infinitum for 16 months

there no evidence of wrongdoing by obama or clinton

face it, there's no case because there's no evidence


media has covered the story more than they had the thirteen deadly embassy attacks under bresident bush, even though much of the coverage was based on recycling previously debunked myths


Republicans and the Benghazi Hearings: They Didn't Complain About Bush and All the Terrorist Attacks on Diplomats Under His Watch


What do these numbers and countries mean?

In 2002 Karachi, Pakistan; 2004, Uzbekistan; 2004, Saudi Arabia; 2006, Syria; 2007, Athens; 2008, Serbia; 2008, Yemen.

No, it's not a puzzle, but given the current nature of our political discourse, the story behind it will no doubt puzzle you.

Listed above are the years and countries where United States' Embassies were attacked under our previous commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. I found this to be quite revealing given the all out "hair on fire" witch hunt that is currently taking place amongst conservative pundits and Republicans in Congress over the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year. Now, I will be the first to say that even one person killed in an attack on our embassies is too many, but the fact that seven (count 'em SEVEN!) embassies were attacked and many people killed under the previous Republican administration and we heard nary a word of dismay is more than puzzling, it's downright unbelievable!

Now where does the Republican hero of heroes stand on the attack meter? There were three embassy attacks during Ronald Reagan's presidency, two in 1983 - Beirut (more than 60 killed including 17 Americans) and Kuwait - and one in 1987 in Italy.

In fact, history shows that each of the presidents of the past few decades have had to deal with embassy attacks and bombings. For some reason, I don't ever recall there being so much unrest following an attack as there is now under President Obama.

I guess what really sent me reeling was today when I read about Mike Huckabee's well-crafted remarks on the radio that "Benghazi will be Obama's Watergate" and "this President will not fill out his full term". Excuse me? Let me get this straight. Not only did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but seven embassy attacks and Obama is the one that will be ousted? Huckabee claimed that the so-called Benghazi "cover-up" was worse than Watergate "because no one died." Well, I have one question for Mr. Huckabee: How many people died because of the Iraq War "weapons of mass destruction" cover-up? How many American soldiers gave their lives for a war of choice built on exaggeration, manipulation and outright lies? Is that worse than Watergate?

But see, we can't mention that because Bush "kept us safe" remember? Sorry, but if you think that's safe then I have a bridge in San Francisco I want to sell you.

I agree that there may still be some questions that need to be answered regarding the attacks in Benghazi and the families of those who died who have questions deserve to have their questions answered. However, the level of vitriol that is coming out of the Right because of these attacks is undeniably partisan and disgusting.

What's even more outrageous is that absolutely no one is discussing the fact that it was the House Republicans who cut $300 million from the Obama administration's US embassy security budget not long before the embassy attack in Benghazi took place. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is one of the Republicans bravely leading the Benghazi charge, didn't seem too concerned about the embassy in Libya last year when he made the following statement on CNN in an interview with Soledad O'Brien.

O'BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have - think about this - 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, 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 how to prioritize this.
As Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program &#8212; well below the $2.15&#8201;billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. ...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" &#8212; a charge Republicans rejected.

So in a nutshell this is what is just driving me to the brink of insanity. Republicans are on a non-stop witch hunt about lack of security at the US Embassy in Benghazi and yet no one in the media (except Soledad...why was she let go again?) seems to be questioning the indisputable fact that it was Republicans who insisted on cutting the funding for embassy security right before the embassy in Benghazi was attacked. Absolutely no one seems to be holding the Republicans feet to the fire that they helped set!

I had a thought a few years ago about how this country came together after September 11 and how Democrats and Republicans put partisan politics aside for the good of the country. I thought about how the Democrats rallied around George W. Bush following the attack and pretty much voted yes to anything he wanted in the spirit of "we're all in this together". I wondered out loud what would happen if God forbid something like that happened today? Would the country (and Republicans) rally around the President for the good of the country, would the Republicans vote yes on anything President Obama asked or would there be the blame-game, finger-pointing, and hearings about what Obama did wrong? Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to this one and it actually saddens me.

So as we continue to watch the Masterpiece Theatre that is the Benghazi Hearings, let's all play a drinking game. Every time a Republican says "embassy security" throw a drink at the TV.

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17956-republicans-and-benghazi

 

What evidence are you talking about? Did you not understand the last question? It was very clear. If you dont know, then say I dont know rather than making more strawmans.

 

that's exactly what you're doing

 

Clinton failed to take adequate and necessary precautions to protect our asset when Ansar al Sharia was bombing and threatening it (thereby inviting attack) and when the chickens came home to roost Obama did nothing to protect our people. Is this the first time you've heard all this? Or are you just really, really disingenuous?

 

sounds like when reagan failed to heed warnings that putting u.s. servicemen in lebanon could be dangerous

except that reagan got a lot more people killed

 

Asking what Obama did the night of Benghazi is not a strawman. Its a valid question. I think at this point the readers can assess you have failed. I have made no strawmans. I have asked a simple question that you said has been answered. When I pressed you for that link to the information, you fell flat on your face supplying me with that information. Im sorry at this point I should probably put you on ignore. Either back up your statement or stop quoting me. I dont want to put anyone on ignore but this is getting wasteful.

 

Really? Can you cite those warnings that came before a dynamite packed truck
smashed through security check points and exploded? I know you can't.

I would say precisely because so many Marines died due to a suicide bomber it makes your disingenuous comment null and void.
Reagan took security seriously. Why was Benghazi left naked and vulnerable despite four previous Ansar al Sharia's provocations?

 

it's all you have

oh please, are you really that ill-informed about the event?

here, let me help you learn something about history


A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.

"I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.


He said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that '"Marines don't cut and run,' and 'We can't leave because we're there'" before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.

"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."


***********************************************************************************************************

Can you take us into the debate before the Marines are sent over to Beirut?

The debate on that was fairly clear-cut. We had been part of the original force that had lifted the Palestinian group out of the area so as to prevent a very bloody and very fierce house-to-house struggle for Beirut itself. And with several other nations, we formed a multinational force and lifted them out and eliminated them. The struggle and the debate was whether we should go back in again and do something more in support of some sort of an agreement that was supposed to have been reached May 17. The problem with that was that there hadn't been an agreement of that kind. ...

To send our forces back in as a buffer in that kind of a situation, where you had not had an agreement to pull back, seemed to me and to many of us to be wrong, and that we shouldn't do it.


A buffer force is fine if you insert it between two warring factions that have agreed there should be a buffer force in there. If you have it between two warring factions that have not agreed, and there had not been an agreement, no matter how much people talked about it, for the forces to pull back so that the buffer force would be in very grave peril. It's worse because the buffer force is always lightly armed, has very vague rules of engagement, and it is not able, really, to defend itself. And so unless you have full agreement of all sides, you shouldn't do it.

We did not have full agreement of all sides. There was something like 27 or 28 separate armed groups, all of which had only one thing in common: they opposed us and they opposed a multinational force coming in. So many of us opposed going back in after the first multinational force had lifted the Palestinians out and prevented a house-to-house conflict.


Why did your argument not win out?

Well, I don't know. I guess I wasn't persuasive enough. It's always been a source of unhappiness to me that I wasn't persuasive enough to persuade the president not to put in more American forces, particularly not to put them into the Beirut Airport. ... So you have a force that was almost a sitting duck in one of the most dangerous spots in the Mideast, and therefore one of the most dangerous spots in the world, unable to protect itself. It was a disaster waiting to happen. It didn't require any degree of prophecy on my part or others, but I felt very strongly that they should not be there and I felt even more strongly in blaming myself that I wasn't persuasive enough to persuade the president not to go.

Many arguments were raised by people who said, "Oh, Marines don't cut and run. Marines are always able to stay put." But Marines that are properly armed and have rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves are quite a different thing than Marines who are forced to sit on a Beirut Airport and not do anything effectively. And that was proven, to the extreme unhappiness of everybody, to result in the kind of tragedy that did happen.

Did taking U.S. forces out of Beirut seem, at that point, like Beirut as a whole was a failure of diplomacy?

No. Beirut was an absolutely inevitable outcome of doing what we did, of putting troops in with no mission that could be carried out. There was no agreement on either side of the pullback. You didn't need a buffer force. There's nothing more dangerous than in the middle of a furious prize fight, inserting a referee in range of both the fighters, both the contestants. That's what we did. …

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/weinberger.html

 

Please google strawman argument. Its obvious you dont understand the definition as I have asked a valid on point question. You have lost the argument. Its over. Ive given you multiple times to answer. You refused. You lied and said Obama told us what he did and why the night of Benghazi. He has not and you refuse to back up your statement with any evidence to back your lie.

 

what a joke, you've produced no evidence of a crime

 

With all the advance warning they had on the situation in Benghazi deterioration, Hillary Clinton's State Dept "could" have come up with a defense/evacuation plan. Especially when the Brits closed their Mission down and took off.........

• June 11, 2012 – While in Benghazi, the British Ambassador’s convoy is attacked with an RPG and possible AK-47s. Two UK security officers are injured; the UK closes its mission in Benghazi the following day.

Hillary Clinton and her State Dept underlings weren't just asleep at the wheel, it appears they were comatose.

 

STRAWMAN. I ASKED WHAT OBAMA DID THAT NIGHT. YOU SAID HE TOLD US. There is a joke here and it isnt me. Is this like the internet version of drunk dialing?

 

Why do you think Obama owes you an explanation? I suspect he has more important things to be concerned with.