Benghazi
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Vince
......
Rhetorical question? Because I'm assuming you already know the answer.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Actually giving this a second thought... Yes. It would still be a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda that Obama said was on the run and defeated. No one is exempt from being thrown under the bus to save this president's face.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No. Because she wouldn't have been killed. Because she wouldn't have been in Benghazi. Running guns. To armed parties of dubious loyalties and intentions.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Outrage means nothing, it's only a show.
No one is doing anything about it.
Someone's military should drive in there rescue the kids and slaughter the kidnappers.
I don't see it happening or anyone volunteering. How about the UN those useless moron Muslim loving bastards.
acommondisaster
Active Member
Depends on how close it is to election time. Terrorism is dead, you know - killed when Obama caught Bin Ladin.
PsyOps
Pixelated
In today’s low-information culture outrage means everything. For me there shouldn’t be any sort of outrage. We should have no response. That’s not saying I don’t care, I just don’t think it’s something we should stick our noses in.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I agree with you in one sense. It should be up to the country in which this happened to take care of it.
But unfortunately I don't see that happening.
Then of course we have these folks who are always criticizing the United States while avoiding criticism of countries where things like this are happening.
Where is the UN? The UN is busy trying to take away the 2nd. Amendment rights of US citizens, and doing nothing about Pirates or Muslim slave traders.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
Outrage?They were kidnapped before the plane disappeared in the Indian Ocean but the same number of people missing isn't news if it's little black girls.
PsyOps
Pixelated
The UN? Pffttt! I get the impression the UN is pro-Radical Islam. Even if they did take an interest in this, who do you think they would look to if the were to respond?
Funny thing… the UN is going after guns while these Islamists rattle their AKs in the air on youtube. You think they will follow any sort of gun control mandated by the UN?
Did she refuse extra security twice?
IMHO - not so much as Progressive European distrust / dislike of all things American, born from Jealousy at our Success or their own nationalistic pride .. we have to take America down a notch or two, show the world how the EU is more enlightened ....
####'em all and Feed'em Beans .... let the EU Deal with Russia ... we can sell spare parts and weapons systems to both sides
Damit , there you go throwing facts around like they matter!!!
She would have had to..under the same circumstances that Stevens had to.
Read:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284
PsyOps
Pixelated
Oh you mean like calling the attack a spontaneous protest to an anti-Islam video when they knew it was a preplanned terrorist attack? There's no escaping the failures in this whole ordeal from beginning to end; and the responsibilities lie with the SecState and POTUS - both of which refuse to accept responsibility. Instead they propagate more lies to cover up the lies. How those facts are so inconvenient for people like you and daily.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, at the end of this rainbow, let's say the admin admits it;
"Yeah, we played politics with it because it didn't suit us to have a planned attack when we've been saying we have AQ on the run..."
Then, what? Stephens and company are still dead and still died doing what leadership on both side wanted to see us doing; run guns.
What next? The notes where McCain and McConnell were given a heads up and signaled their agreement before this all went down? You think that's gonna happen?
Or, Hillary, suddenly, in an appeal to what, get right wingers to vote for her, says "We wanted a low security profile because of the very nature of what we were trying to do; secretly run guns...we knew it was dangerous, so did Chris..."
Or Rice? "Yeah, we all knew it was a smoke screen to put off the political heat for a bit...we really, really hoped it would help us win Texas if we could obfuscate a little bit..."
Or, "Gee, all us Obama voters, had we only known the truth, why, for sure, we'd have voted for Mr. Romney...no doubt..."
No matter what the end game is, a US Ambassador and 3 others died serving their country in a mission that was non partisan. Is that going to win the GOP the senate? Should it?
Then what?
PsyOps
Pixelated
In the end this is all about politics. To me there are justified reasons to use things politically and unjustified reasons. Claiming the Tea Party are racists, or using the Trayvon killing for political advantage are examples of unjustified . When 4 Americans die as a result of blatant mismanagement and incompetence, heads should roll and people responsible should never hold public office again. To me, this isn’t a hard concept. We hold our elected leaders and their appointees – THAT ALL SERVE THE PEOPLE – accountable. And when they operate in a manner that reeks of political CYA and people die as a result, that’s criminal. If people don't go to jail for this; at a minimum they should never be allowed to hold any public position of authority again.