Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bengahzi Debacle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bengahzi Debacle

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

    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.
    Last edited by Irish Stout; 10-26-2012, 09:46 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Irish Stout View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        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
        Last edited by Irish Stout; 10-26-2012, 09:59 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by baja View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by baja View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pricejj View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pricejj View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Irish Stout View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pricejj View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Irish Stout View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pricejj View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X