Obama (here we go....)
Forums › General Discussion › Obama (here we go....)-
Are people really naive enough to believe the outpost in Benghazi was truly a diplomatic outpost and the State Department should have been responsible for its security?
Doesn't it seem more probable it was a front for another agency, or agencies, operating in Libya?
Is it possible the people who attacked the outpost knew its true mission?
Could it be possible, perhaps even reasonable,the admins talking points were deliberatly misleading after the incident to hide the true mission of the outpost in Benghazi?
-
Mach,
You're not reading what I said. I said unless we can improve somehow, the issue cant be brought up constantly. You are complaining about the issue and not taking any ACTION. You are simplying arguing about whose party is better but then adding on these events which shows your motives are botched. Take a neutral viewpoint and findout about the matter. So why dont you give us a reason how we can improve? I understand that you are not satisfied with the administration's handling of the matter, so go and get a petition signed and send it to them or protest with a group infront of the Congress building. If you can't handle or comprehend the problems with the event, then have a higher authority explain it to you or wait until a new administration so they can clear up the matter -
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
This is very true, part of why its been covered up.Are people really naive enough to believe the outpost in Benghazi was truly a diplomatic outpost and the State Department should have been responsible for its security?
Doesn't it seem more probable it was a front for another agency, or agencies, operating in Libya?
Is it possible the people who attacked the outpost knew its true mission?
Could it be possible, perhaps even reasonable,the admins talking points were deliberatly misleading after the incident to hide the true mission of the outpost in Benghazi?
-
Form as a unified group and TAKE ACTION.
-
Anyways to a comical side of this discussion, I sense either older players tired of old political rivalries ( i know i am ) or others sitting by reading this with some popcorn
-
Ok, so is it ever appropriate for the govt to keep classified information from the public?
-
gunstreet grrl wrote:
😂😭😂😍😍😍😍🔥💩 wrote:
You can't use that argument. Your father knew, but didn't pull out. Should we hold him responsible?ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Exactly. The Ambassador had been asking months before Sep 11, 2012 for beefed security stating there was an impending attack. The Britts knew, pulled out. The RED FUCKING CROSS knew and PULLED out. Yet our Ambassador was kept there,Hey joker:
If we can find out exactly what happened that night maybe we can better prepare for the future. Find out why communication broke down and additional security wasn't sent when asked. You do realize this is the first time in 34 years that we had an ambassador get killed? I'm sure his and other families are fine with the whole "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE" attitude 👍 -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Only if America is just that hood-winked and as stupid as the super right propoganda-ists counts on. ;)King of Clubs wrote:
Benghazi is going to wind up biting her in the ass.
And, hillbilly, they bring these things up because they can't rustle up anything but conspiracy theories to out "wit" their opponent. It's pathetic. Birth certificates, Benghazi, kenya, communist...on and on. How amusing is it that Obama has one incedent (not at an embassy) compared to the 13 embassy attacks of the previous administration. Where were the outcries then? Hell where are the outcries now for the republican defunding of embassy security? Those silly conservatives shit cut backs in one hand and rail about the consequences of those cut backs in the other hand. It's like if they can yell long along to divert attention from the truth then magically the truth will change.
-
Addi, I'm pretty sure there was a major out cry against the former administration, and it's been sever administrations since an Ambassador was killed, that's why this is different.
-
Correction: several*
-
🔥💩 wrote:
What's different? Are you telling me the president can spend money that isn't appropriated by congress?Addi, I'm pretty sure there was a major out cry against the former administration, and it's been sever administrations since an Ambassador was killed, that's why this is different.
-
Nope not saying that at all, personally I would fire every single one of them and elect blue collar "average joes" over these established pukes. This situation is different only because one we were where we shouldn't have been, and a person who most likely was a good man was murdered along with three other men who probably were good as well. It wasn't the President that said to lie about it, but his chosen people handled it the very worst possible way. Then Mrs. Clinton says what difference does it make if she knew. The difficult right thing to do would be to admit the wrong decision was made.
-
I'm not like most people so I see the political reasons why she didn't want to do the right thing, but that's just an excuse a bad decision doesn't equate to murder.
-
All you need to know about Benghazi is that they've been investigating it for 1.5 years and they've found absolutely nothing concrete. No ones been indicted for anything. And let's get real if there was something related to Hillary, Obama or anyone Obama appointed it would be done. That has been the goal all along after all and if the tea party and their lobbyist had something besides talking points you could bank on more than constant cameos on the circle of corporate news trying to "win" with such atrocities to journalism. As if running the country is a game with winners and losers.
-
🔥💩 wrote:
Why are you talking about who supposedly lied about what? Why do people hang on to these useless talking points like a monkey and a bushel of bananas? What idiot doesn't understand that facts are attained bit by bit in any situation in life? Why do democrats have to have immediate access to all the "facts"? And aren't the facts about why this happened more important than the facts about who knew what when, after?✂️ed along with three other men who probably were good as well. It wasn't the President that said to lie about it, but his chosen people handled it the very worst possible way. Then Mrs. Clinton says what difference does it make if she knew. The difficult right thing to do would be to admit the wrong decision was made.
:)
-
There are direct emails that said to point to a stupid you tube video. There are correspondences from Ambassador Stevens to Clinton informing her directly that the security was becoming too much to handle. These are facts. I still am amazed that there aren't more people who can see that there is no real difference between red and blue, republican or democrat. They are one in the same. And again history repeats itself so the moment we stepped foot in Libya, was wrong. As was Iraq and Syria, and Egypt, and Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Iran, and Israel. Not our lands to dictate to them how to be free. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me. I served so I saw it first hand.
-
So what? That was an original theory. It's criminal to be wrong about the reason for an attack? I know we are entitled, Americans. But come the fuck on, who cares. People are wrong all the time. That's why we call the thing that proceeds a criminal event an investigation. Because it takes time to comb through the truth. Nonetheless, I don't buy this email hogwash. Have you met politics before. Politics meet 💩🔥! It's not illegal to put a political spin on foreign policy, even if this is true and it was deliberate. If it was then entire history of our government would be in jail. Where's the crime?
So Clinton was informed directly. Great. Let me ask you this again. Are you telling me the executive branch can spend money that isn't appropriated by Congress?
-
Not supposed to no. Do they I'm sure they do, not just this one but many others.
-
Also, there are a lot of differences between parties and individuals. But the game is out of control, I'll give you that. Also, one clear sameness is what drives most politicians - lobbyist. They almost all work for wallstreet, including Hillary and Obama. And at least half of Congress is there for that revolving door. The glory that is the private sector -- unsullied capitalism at it's finest, providing jobs to those that do their bidding and scoff at our vote.
-
Yes I think it is wrong to put out a misleading talking point especially one that was given. Yes Americans do have a sense of entitlement which will is annoying.
-
🔥💩 wrote:
I'm sure congress controls the purse strings and no one else.Not supposed to no. Do they I'm sure they do, not just this one but many others.
Next time you think about Benghazi, think about that. What ass ninnys really controlled wether he had more security or not? And on another point, why did he risk his life leaving a fortified embassy for a consulate with little security? He's also responsible for keeping himself safe after all and not over extending the little protection he had.
-
🔥💩 wrote:
If you truly think it's wrong then you wouldn't be leading this discussion with misleading talking points.Yes I think it is wrong to put out a misleading talking point especially one that was given. Yes Americans do have a sense of entitlement which will is annoying.
Either way. It's not illegal for you to be a mocking bird of corporate media anymore that it's illegal for a politician to act like a politician...pending the email facade is even real.
-
So it's wrong of me to expect my politicians who are supposed to act for their constituents, to be truthful?
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
🔥💩 wrote:
I'm sure congress controls the purse strings and no one else.Not supposed to no. Do they I'm sure they do, not just this one but many others.
Next time you think about Benghazi, think about that. What ass ninnys really controlled wether he had more security or not? And on another point, why did he risk his life leaving a fortified embassy for a consulate with little security? He's also responsible for keeping himself safe after all and not over extending the little protection he had.
So it's his own fault he got killed? Oooook.....
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
He tock or jaw!!!!!!He took urrrr jubs!!!
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
I was wondering where you were going with the money question. Each department is given their "allowance" if you will", I am not keen on how much money The State Department is given, but I am fairly certain there is a few thousand dollars left on the floor somewhere that could have been used to get the man out. That was THE worst point I have ever heard on this topic.🔥💩 wrote:
I'm sure congress controls the purse strings and no one else.Not supposed to no. Do they I'm sure they do, not just this one but many others.
Next time you think about Benghazi, think about that. What ass ninnys really controlled wether he had more security or not? And on another point, why did he risk his life leaving a fortified embassy for a consulate with little security? He's also responsible for keeping himself safe after all and not over extending the little protection he had.
-
Believe the "ass ninny" (😂) that's in charge of embassies is head of the state department. A woman at the time named Hillary Clinton. I'm starting to think her and Obama were doing the nasty that night. Why else would the White House block and side step every inquirery into the whole thing. That's the only reason if lie and deceive that much. Maybe I'm on to something!
-
That's the only reason I'd lie and deceive*
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Oh could you imagine the look Michelle must be giving Hilary!Believe the "ass ninny" (😂) that's in charge of embassies is head of the state department. A woman at the time named Hillary Clinton. I'm starting to think her and Obama were doing the nasty that night. Why else would the White House block and side step every inquirery into the whole thing. That's the only reason if lie and deceive that much. Maybe I'm on to something!
-
🔥💩 wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Oh could you imagine the look Michelle must be giving Hilary!Believe the "ass ninny" (😂) that's in charge of embassies is head of the state department. A woman at the time named Hillary Clinton. I'm starting to think her and Obama were doing the nasty that night. Why else would the White House block and side step every inquirery into the whole thing. That's the only reason if lie and deceive that much. Maybe I'm on to something!
Cat Fight: White House Style!!
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC