The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The Bengahzi Debacle (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=108249)

Irish Stout 10-26-2012 09:31 AM

The Bengahzi Debacle
 
If this story continues to develop in this fashion, what exactly does it meant?

Quote:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2AQJMVMnH
I'm not sure that any of this is necessarily any worse than "black hawk down" under Clinton or a handful of incidents under Bush... but the response by the Whitehouse has created a firestorm of accusations... and more really could be uncovered based on this Fox News report.

Rohirrim 10-26-2012 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Stout (Post 3707228)
If this story continues to develop in this fashion, what exactly does it meant?



I'm not sure that any of this is necessarily any worse than "black hawk down" under Clinton or a handful of incidents under Bush... but the response by the Whitehouse has created a firestorm of accusations.

I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.

Garcia Bronco 10-26-2012 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3707235)
I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.

I agree....I hope it's not true.

Irish Stout 10-26-2012 09:56 AM

One thing I would like to point out in all of this that I didn't realize until today. The Bengahzi attack was not actually on a Consulate and there was and is not a consulate in Bangahzi. The building was just a meeting place and thus why there was no security. You'd think if the Obama administration was really trying to down play the attacks they would bring this up.

Quote:

However, as WND was first to report, the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one. Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

In his remarks on the attack, Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission.”

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/now-reute...ghazi-attacks/

http://www.usembassy.gov

baja 10-26-2012 10:11 AM

Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-26-2012 11:19 AM

well this is very interesting
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KUElXwsr5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
it wasnt a embassy for starters
oh this government they are the kansas city chiefs of governments

Rohirrim 10-26-2012 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja (Post 3707261)
Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.

That's probably a pretty good explanation for it. Obviously, the CIA is involved. ???

DAN_BRONCO_FAN 10-26-2012 11:39 AM

is it time for a overhaul of the gov from the white house to the cia fbi Secretary of state . this current government is inept . i hope Romney can fix it if not its time to vote 3rd party

pricejj 10-26-2012 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja (Post 3707261)
Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.



Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.

W*GS 10-26-2012 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707326)
Reagan sold guns to the Afghan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Taliban), and were used to kill Americans.

Fixed it for ya.

Irish Stout 10-26-2012 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707326)
Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.

Also sounds eerily familiar to what every Presidential admin has done since... 1930 or so.... because you know, thats exactly what they've done.

pricejj 10-26-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Stout (Post 3707375)
Also sounds eerily familiar to what every Presidential admin has done since... 1930 or so.... because you know, thats exactly what they've done.

I don't know if that's true, but it's obvious that you don't have a problem with it, as long as a Democrat is President.

Irish Stout 10-26-2012 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707404)
I don't know if that's true, but it's obvious that you don't have a problem with it, as long as a Democrat is President.

I don't like it now, I didn't like it under Clinton, Bush or Reagan. That being said, it has been the policy of the US for a long time.

pricejj 10-26-2012 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Stout (Post 3707406)
I don't like it now, I didn't like it under Clinton, Bush or Reagan. That being said, it has been the policy of the US for a long time.

It's a failed foreign policy, is what it is.


I can't believe people still support Obama after fast and furious. I would never support a President who sold guns to terrorist groups, who used those guns to kill Americans on U.S. soil. That's outrageous...I don't care what party they represent.

Rohirrim 10-26-2012 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707411)
It's a failed foreign policy, is what it is.


I can't believe people still support Obama after fast and furious. I would never support a President who sold guns to terrorist groups, who used those guns to kill Americans on U.S. soil. That's outrageous...I don't care what party they represent.

If Romney is elected, he'll do it too.

TonyR 10-26-2012 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707411)
...I can't believe people still support...

And yet you support a guy who passed MassCare, and who changes his positions on just about every issue to fit the need and audience. Which Mitt are you voting for? The far right wing neocon who won the GOP nomination and made Paul Ryan his running mate? Or the moderate who basically took all of Obama's positions during the debates? I mean, have you been paying attention at all? Or are you just too busy searching for reasons to bash Obama at every turn? You know who you're voting against, but I don't think you have a clue who/what you're voting for. Which I think is the case with an awful lot of people voting for that fraud.

mhgaffney 10-26-2012 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707411)
It's a failed foreign policy, is what it is.


I can't believe people still support Obama after fast and furious. I would never support a President who sold guns to terrorist groups, who used those guns to kill Americans on U.S. soil. That's outrageous...I don't care what party they represent.

Yes, but curious you fail to mention -- we've had a failed foreign policy for at least the last 50 years.

It failed under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, and Bush two.

Obama is simply carrying on a proud legacy.

MHG

pricejj 10-26-2012 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3707425)
If Romney is elected, he'll do it too.

I don't think Romney would sell guns to Libya or Mexico. There is nothing to gain in either situation...and as we've already seen, so much to lose.

Romney has also stated that he would sell arms to Syrian rebels. Obama has not been forthright at all, in any of his dealings. It is also not clear what the benefit of selling guns to Mexican drug gangs would be. In fact, the real reason Obama did it...is far more sinister, but I suspect you know that.

pricejj 10-26-2012 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3707430)
Yes, but curious you fail to mention -- we've had a failed foreign policy for at least the last 50 years.

It failed under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, and Bush two.

Obama is simply carrying on a proud legacy.

MHG

Of course...which is why I've campaigned heavily against ALL of their failed foreign policies.

However, this election is not just about a usurpation of human rights worldwide (which Obama has been paramount in destroying), it is also about a usurpation of human rights, here in the U.S., which we all know have been encroached upon from every angle under the Obama administration.

TonyR 10-26-2012 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707433)
...it is also about a usurpation of human rights...

You mean like the torture policy which Obama reversed, and Romney would reinstate? That type of "human rights"?

TonyR 10-26-2012 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707433)
which is why I've campaigned heavily against ALL of their failed foreign policies.

LOL You mean like the policies that Romney basically puppeted in the last debate? Again, have you been paying attention at all?

pricejj 10-26-2012 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3707426)
And yet you support a guy who passed MassCare, and who changes his positions on just about every issue to fit the need and audience. Which Mitt are you voting for? The far right wing neocon who won the GOP nomination and made Paul Ryan his running mate? Or the moderate who basically took all of Obama's positions during the debates?

That's funny that you claim Romney and Ryan are "far right necons". It shows me just how much of an extremist you really are. Tell me, pray tell, what makes Romney or Ryan "far right neocons" in any regard whatsoever?

Methinks, doth thou protest too much...

pricejj 10-26-2012 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3707434)
You mean like the torture policy which Obama reversed, and Romney would reinstate? That type of "human rights"?

Bogus claim. BTW, I thought Obama was going to close Guantanamo? What happened to that?

Why is Obama bombing Yemen?

Why is Obama drone bombing innocent civilians in Pakistan?

Why has the Obama administration initiated sanctions against Eritrea?

Why has the Obama administration supported destabilization in Somalia leading to 100,000 of thousands of deaths and refugees?

Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Why did Obama try to get more forces into Iraq, only to be rebuffed by the Iraqi government?

Actually I haven't heard a peep from you, or any of your other Socialist buddies on any of these subjects for the past four years, so you have no room to talk, hypocrite.

TonyR 10-26-2012 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj (Post 3707436)
That's funny that you claim Romney and Ryan are "far right necons". It shows me just how much of an extremist you really are. Tell me, pray tell, what makes Romney or Ryan "far right neocons" in any regard whatsoever?

Methinks, doth thou protest too much...

It's clear you have all of the anti-Obama talking points down pat, but otherwise haven't bothered to pay attention. An ignorant, willing victim of the right wing propaganda machine.

Read this. Just one recent example of something you appear to have no awareness of.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8LMFS620121022

pricejj 10-26-2012 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3707438)
It's clear you have all of the anti-Obama talking points down pat, but otherwise haven't bother to pay attention. An ignorant, willing victim of the right wing propaganda machine.

Read this. Just one recent example of something you appear to have no awareness of.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8LMFS620121022

More "neocon" claims? When Obama has followed the exact same foreign policy of Bush...except Obama has ESCALATED the killings against innocent civilians?

You have absolutely NO credibility on foreign policy whatsoever. I guess it's okay with you if Obama kills innocent civilians huh?

And no, I don't think Romney will go to the extents that Obama has, to purposely destablize local governments, and/or kill innocent civilians. You would not believe the amount of chaos that Obama has created in the world.

Save a life, vote for Romney.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.