Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi chapter

And you care about the innocent victims of gun violence and not the victims of this regimes incompetence at protecting American's on foreign soil? I would still never quote you with a crass comment like you did me - so from this point on you should be ignored. I'll start.

Cardinal said:

You're incredibly confused about what "quotes" mean. I said that the outrage at the deaths from benghazi tend to come from people who minimize the deaths from mass shootings, usually via support of 2nd amendment rights. I applied that to you because I was pretty sure I remembered you holding those beliefs in other threads. Not only that, but I get the super bonus of finding time after time of you saying that mass shooting deaths are statistically irrelevant. NOT ONLY THAT, but I got the super double fudge bonus of you confirming my initial statement when you said "My adamant stance on our civil liberty and right to own guns..."

Everything about your position on this topic is a lie. You lie about your outrage over four deaths in Benghazi, and you lie about my claims about your position. Just lie after lie after lie. Anyone else can follow this conversation and see for themselves that everything about you is just one giant lie.

Click to expand...

mtm1963 said:

because its NOT true!! you are accepting their lie!!

Click to expand...

the information at the time was incorrect, they have admitted that so i don't see how the information was a lie.

it would require extraordinary evidence, such as a personal email from a high level source, that would make me believe the extrdinary, outright insane belief, that this administration willingly let 4 americans die in libya and covered up the nature of their deaths just to win a election.

Unitedwestand13 said:

the information at the time was incorrect, they have admitted that so i don't see how the information was a lie.

it would require extraordinary evidence, such as a personal email from a high level source, that would make me believe the extrdinary, outright insane belief, that this administration willingly let 4 americans die in libya and covered up the nature of their deaths just to win a election.

Click to expand...

the administration knew the why/who about the attack the next day.

why do want to deny THAT fact?

many days later the administration was still pushing the information YOU call incorrect.

Unitedwestand13 said:

did we know it was that specific militia groupt which was attacking us at the time of the attack?

Click to expand...

Yes and we even know that the Febuary 17th Brigade had members tied to Ansar al sharia. Also due to our people not trusting them. Hillary then Hired the Blue Mountain Group who the Brits had used and not our normal groups of security people we would use. Such as Blackwater types. Remember all the trouble with them. Remember how the left spoke out about them and what they had done in Iraq?

See Hillary thought she would take responsibility without really doing so. But now.....the deck is stacking against her. Wait until it all comes out.




For additional security in Benghazi, the State Department hired the little-known British company Blue Mountain Group instead of one of the large firms it has traditionally used in overseas danger zones; Blue Mountain employed local Libyans to serve as guards who patrolled the compound with only flashlights and batons rather than firearms.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-California), citing the testimony of witnesses and the content of key documents, explains one reason why the security at the Benghazi mission was so woefully inadequate:

Some Democrats have claimed that security at the mission in Benghazi was inadequate because of budgetary contraints, but that claim is false. Indeed, the State Department was in possession of some $2.2 billion that could have been spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions around the world, but the Obama administration elected not to do so. State Department official Charlene Lamb would eventually confirm, in her testimony before the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee on October 10, 2012, that budgetary considerations had nothing whatsoever to do with the inadequate security in Benghazi.

At a subsequent House Oversight And Government Reform Committee hearing (in May 2013), Representatives Doug Collins and Rob Woodall asked RSO Eric Nordstrom to testify regarding how the State Department had repeatedly denied Nordstrom's requests for funding to pay for additional security at the mission in Benghazi.

In March 2011 President Obama signs a secret order, or presidential “finding,” that authorizes covert operations to aid the “opposition” rebels in Libya who are fighting to topple the 42-year dictatorial rule of President Muammar Qaddafi. As The New York Times reports, “The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments [originating in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates] to Libyan rebels.” Moreover, President Obama says the U.S. has not ruled out providing military hardware directly to those rebels: “It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point.”

Among the Libyan rebels are many al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists. Indeed, the rebels' top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, is the leader of an al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Another opposition leader, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, confirms that a substantial number of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda fighters who previously battled U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And former CIA officer Bruce Riedel tells the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, [the] Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been [Qaddafi's] biggest enemy, and its stronghold is Benghazi.”.....snip~ <<<<< !

mtm1963 said:

the administration knew the why/who about the attack the next day.

why do want to deny THAT fact?

many days later the administration was still pushing the information YOU call incorrect.

Click to expand...

hindsight is 20/20

there is no way i am going to accept the politically motivated crucifixion of this presidency that you are accepting without sufficient evidence confirming the absurdity of the claim. there are also reasons for not giving away the true idenity of the attackers. for example, did we really want to broadcast to the world the identity of the attackers and give them a reputation that they could build on?

CalGun said:

And you care about the innocent victims of gun violence and not the victims of this regimes incompetence at protecting American's on foreign soil? I would still never quote you with a crass comment like you did me - so from this point on you should be ignored. I'll start.

Click to expand...

That's because you could never attribute a quote to me so callously and cavalierly belittling the deaths of anyone, unlike all the ways you've found to belittle the deaths of mass shootings in order to feel good about the 2nd amendment. But I've dug up your history (with extreme ease, it should be said), so feel free to see if you can dig up anything so callous by me. Or you can just choose to run away and put me on ignore because you don't like how easy it is to call you on your lies. You care about the deaths of the four people in Benghazi as much as you care about the dead from all the mass shootings: none at all. Your own posting history proves it.

Unitedwestand13 said:

hindsight is 20/20

there is no way i am going to accept the politically motivated crucifixion of this presidency that you are accepting without sufficient evidence confirming the absurdity of the claim. there are also reasons for not giving away the true idenity of the attackers. for example, did we really want to broadcast to the world the identity of the attackers and give them a reputation that they could build on?

Click to expand...

Well here.....Foresight was always the Administration's, Failing! Just saying.....hindsight has nothing to do with whats coming down.

Unitedwestand13 said:

hindsight is 20/20

there is no way i am going to accept the politically motivated crucifixion of this presidency that you are accepting without sufficient evidence confirming the absurdity of the claim. there are also reasons for not giving away the true idenity of the attackers. for example, did we really want to broadcast to the world the identity of the attackers and give them a reputation that they could build on?

Click to expand...

sir, the facts about the situation have been known for a long time and were known the day following the attack.

the last sentence in this post says, lets just lie to politically protect ourselves.

mtm1963 said:

sir, the facts about the situation have been known for a long time and were known the day following the attack.

the last sentence in this post says, lets just lie to politically protect ourselves.

Click to expand...

Did we know how to put Benghazi in the big picture of what else was going on?

Or is what happened in Benghazi the only thing relevant worth discussing?

pbrauer said:

Hillary Clinton released the Benghazi chapter from her new book to Politico. She obviously wants everything out way in advance for her run for the White House. And scolding Republicans for politicizing the attack on the backs of the four dead Americans.

Click to expand...

that's a common ploy for Democrats nowadays.... when they get caught up in shenanigans and don't want to answer questions, or face accountability... they just scream that those asking the questions are "politicizing the issue".

Like her husband, she just simply believes she is untouchable.... and the rank and file Democrats, liberals, and progressives agree with her.

mtm1963 said:

sir, the facts about the situation have been known for a long time and were known the day following the attack.

the last sentence in this post says, lets just lie to politically protect ourselves.

Click to expand...

That's Right MTM.....they have no way around. ALL News Sources have reported and accepted the fact thereof.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, Ambassador Stevens and others at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Obama administration for increased security provisions during 2012, but these requests were denied or ignored.

The Obama administration immediately and persistently characterized what had occurred in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that happened, coincidentally, to take place on the anniversary of 9/11. Moreover, the administration portrayed the attack as an event that had evolved from what began as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video that disparaged Muslims and their faith. In reality, however, within a few hours following the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that the attack on the mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist incident, not a spontaneous act carried out in reaction to a video. Indeed, the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack.....snip~

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Says Mrs. Clinton - this must be why she was nowhere to be found in the days/weeks following the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi and Susan Rice had to carry the administration's political lies instead of the woman who should have been front and center.

I also find it funny that Pete says she doesn't want to politicize the death of four Americans while at the same time he says Clinton wants to get this incident out of the way before her run for the Presidential nomination.

The loyalty of the blind is breathtaking.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Did we know how to put Benghazi in the big picture of what else was going on?

Or is what happened in Benghazi the only thing relevant worth discussing?

Click to expand...

non relevant questions. more or less a deliberate distraction.

since you think its irrelevant, why are you here discussing it?

Unitedwestand13 said:

Did we know how to put Benghazi in the big picture of what else was going on?

Or is what happened in Benghazi the only thing relevant worth discussing?

Click to expand...

Given these realities, it is likely that the Obama administration's post-September 11 actions were aimed at drawing public attention away from a number of highly important facts:

•the U.S. mission in Benghazi had never adopted adequate security measures;
•the administration had ignored dozens of warning signs about growing Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region over a period of more than 6 months;
•the administration, for political reasons, had ignored or denied repeated requests for extra security by American diplomats stationed in Benghazi;
•the administration had failed to beef up security even for the anniversary of 9/11, a date of obvious significance to terrorists;
•the administration, fully cognizant of what was happening on the ground during the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, nonetheless denied multiple calls for help by Americans who were stationed there;
•the administration had been lying when, throughout the presidential election season, it relentlessly advanced the notion that "al Qaeda is on the run" and Islamic terrorism was in decline thanks to President Obama's policies;
•the administration had hired members of the February 17th Martyrs' Brigade, a Libyan militia group with clear al Qaeda sympathies, to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi; and
•throughout 2011 and 2012 the administration had been lending its assistance to jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda, supposedly the organization that represented the prime focus of Obama's anti-terrorism efforts; moreover, some of those same jihadists had personally fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.....snip~


Well.....looking at whats happening today inside Libya where we just issued an Immediate Warning telling All Civilian Americans to get out of Libya, and Have a Marine Unit ready to go in and get our Embassy People out. Which that Alert was issued Friday.

Just what do you think is relevant in discussing why today in Libya is why it is?

MMC said:

Given these realities, it is likely that the Obama administration's post-September 11 actions were aimed at drawing public attention away from a number of highly important facts:

•the U.S. mission in Benghazi had never adopted adequate security measures;
•the administration had ignored dozens of warning signs about growing Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region over a period of more than 6 months;
•the administration, for political reasons, had ignored or denied repeated requests for extra security by American diplomats stationed in Benghazi;
•the administration had failed to beef up security even for the anniversary of 9/11, a date of obvious significance to terrorists;
•the administration, fully cognizant of what was happening on the ground during the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, nonetheless denied multiple calls for help by Americans who were stationed there;
•the administration had been lying when, throughout the presidential election season, it relentlessly advanced the notion that "al Qaeda is on the run" and Islamic terrorism was in decline thanks to President Obama's policies;
•the administration had hired members of the February 17th Martyrs' Brigade, a Libyan militia group with clear al Qaeda sympathies, to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi; and
•throughout 2011 and 2012 the administration had been lending its assistance to jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda, supposedly the organization that represented the prime focus of Obama's anti-terrorism efforts; moreover, some of those same jihadists had personally fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.....snip~


Well.....looking at whats happening today inside Libya where we just issued an Immediate Warning telling All Civilian Americans to get out of Libya, and Have a Marine Unit ready to go in and get our Embassy People out. Which that Alert was issued Friday.

Just what do you think is relevant in discussing why today in Libya is why it is?

Click to expand...

clint knows!!

MMC said:

That's Right MTM.....they have no way around. ALL News Sources have reported and accepted the fact thereof.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, Ambassador Stevens and others at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Obama administration for increased security provisions during 2012, but these requests were denied or ignored.

The Obama administration immediately and persistently characterized what had occurred in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that happened, coincidentally, to take place on the anniversary of 9/11. Moreover, the administration portrayed the attack as an event that had evolved from what began as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video that disparaged Muslims and their faith. In reality, however, within a few hours following the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that the attack on the mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist incident, not a spontaneous act carried out in reaction to a video. Indeed, the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack.....snip~

Click to expand...

You fail to include that the prior assumptions made by the administration relating to the events in Benghazi were argued within the context of events affecting the region, and the Middle East.

If one is only focusing on Benghazi as the sole focus, than yes the administration's prior assumption was incorrect because the evidence was a terrorist attack and anyone who continues to argue otherwise in denial.

However, to ignore the context of broader foreign policy of the region that the administration had to take into consideration is to falsely assume that the only thing of importance for the administration to focus on was Benghazi.

CanadaJohn said:

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Says Mrs. Clinton - this must be why she was nowhere to be found in the days/weeks following the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi and Susan Rice had to carry the administration's political lies instead of the woman who should have been front and center.

I also find it funny that Pete says she doesn't want to politicize the death of four Americans while at the same time he says Clinton wants to get this incident out of the way before her run for the Presidential nomination.

The loyalty of the blind is breathtaking.

Click to expand...

It's not funny at all CJ. Can you imagine if the whole dust up with Jeremiah Wright videos happened near the end of primary season? Obama very likely wouldn't have gotten the nomination. And if he did get the nomination despite the videos, the Republicans would have used them more effectively. It's best to get the **** out there early so it looses it sting.

CanadaJohn said:

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Says Mrs. Clinton - this must be why she was nowhere to be found in the days/weeks following the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi and Susan Rice had to carry the administration's political lies instead of the woman who should have been front and center.

I also find it funny that Pete says she doesn't want to politicize the death of four Americans while at the same time he says Clinton wants to get this incident out of the way before her run for the Presidential nomination.

The loyalty of the blind is breathtaking.

Click to expand...

Heya CJ. :2wave: Here you go.....the Hillary Clinton Timeline and her words.


Hillary Clinton Timeline:



April 19, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signs a cable proposing a plan to decrease security assets for the U.S. missions in Libya, including Benghazi. (NOTE: But when Mrs. Clinton herself visited Benghazi six months earlier, on October 18, 2011, she had the Defense Department pre-position assets off the coast of Libya, in case she encountered danger and needed rescue.)

* 10:08 p.m., September 12, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton releases a public statement linking the attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi to the YouTube video, which she describes as “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” “I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” says Mrs. Clinton, adding: “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.” <<<<< !

September 13, 2012: The Obama administration sends Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deliver a televised statement denouncing not only the violence in Benghazi but also the “disgusting and reprehensible” video allegedly responsible for it, and stating “very clearly” that “the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.” “We absolutely reject its content and message,” says Mrs. Clinton, emphasizing America’s great “respect for people of faith.”

* September 13, 2012: Hillary Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali—the Libyan ambassador to the U.S.—at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Mrs. Clinton for what he describes as “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Mrs. Clinton, in her remarks, does not characterize it as terrorism. Rather, she says there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” She also condemns the anti-Muslim video,.

* September 18, 2012: Reporters ask Hillary Clinton if Libyan President Magariaf is “wrong” in saying that “this attack was planned for months.” Mrs. Clinton replies: “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say whether she thinks Magariaf is right or wrong.

* September 21, 2012: Secretary of State Clinton says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

* October 9, 2012: The State Department acknowledges that, contrary to the Obama administration's initial reports, the attack on the mission in Benghazi did not begin as a low-level protest that suddenly and unexpectedly spiraled out of control. The State Department now concedes that there were no protests at all in Benghazi before the deadly assault.

* October 10, 2012: The State Department claims that it has never believed, even for a moment, that the attack in Benghazi was carried out in reaction to a YouTube video. The Associated Press reports:

“Department officials were asked about the administration’s initial—and since retracted—explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet. One official responded, ‘That was not our conclusion.’ He called it a question for ‘others’ to answer, without specifying.”

* October 15, 2012: In a CNN interview, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes the blame for what happened in Benghazi. “I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she adds, noting that “we're very close to an election.”.....snip~



Let me be clear.....We got your ass Hillary. There is no justification for this..... NONE! And you WILL take RESPONSIBILITY. Whether you want to, Like to, or Not!!!!!

Unitedwestand13 said:

You fail to include that the prior assumptions made by the administration relating to the events in Benghazi were argued within the context of events affecting the region, and the Middle East.

If one is only focusing on Benghazi as the sole focus, than yes the administration's prior assumption was incorrect because the evidence was a terrorist attack and anyone who continues to argue otherwise in denial.

However, to ignore the context of broader foreign policy of the region that the administration had to take into consideration is to falsely assume that the only thing of importance for the administration to focus on was Benghazi.

Click to expand...

Try again UWS and then go look up the War on Terror's Timeline.....Especially with regards to Libya. Then you will see why Team BO.....just can't get around their ownselves.

Moreover with what you state here.....all that I have posted up. Takes care of all youre talking about.

mtm1963 said:

clint knows!!

Click to expand...

•the administration had hired members of the February 17th Martyrs' Brigade, a Libyan militia group with clear al Qaeda sympathies, to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi; and


This is what Hillary Dillary Dock.....didn't want to have found with time runnin out on the clock. Which it even gets worse with the Other Militia group she hired.....and not only did they provide security check points. They Ambushed our people.....and knew the escape Route.

Timeline:

* Early September 2012: Unarmed Libyan guards (employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group) at the U.S. mission in Benghazi are warned by their family members to quit their jobs because of rumors of an “impending attack.”

* September 8, 2012: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials that security in the area is rapidly deteriorating, and that violent unrest is a distinct possibility.

* September 8, 2012: A member of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade (F17MB) warns Alec Henderson, the Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the State Department compound in Benghazi, that the militia will no longer protect the movements of Americans diplomats in the city. Specifically, F17MB cites its dissatisfaction with working hours and pay (from the State Department). The RSO asks specifically if the militia would be willing to provide additional support for Ambassador Stevens' pending visit, slated for September 10, and is told no.

* September 9, 2012: Alec Henderson relays the F17MB warning to John Martinec, the RSO in Tripoli.

* September 9, 2012: The U.S. State Department now has credible information that American missions in the Middle East may be targeted by terrorists, but diplomats are not instructed to go on high alert or “lockdown.”

* September 10, 2012: Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri—vowing to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-ranking al Qaeda official killed by an American drone attack three months earlier—issues direct threats against Americans in Libya. Notwithstanding these threats, the Obama administration deploys no U.S. Marines to guard the mission in Benghazi.

* Summation: As a result of the foregoing incidents, the U.S. mission in Benghazi made repeated requests for increased security prior to September 11, 2012, but these requests were denied by the Obama administration. One U.S. security officer, Eric Nordstrom, twice asked his State Department superiors for more security at the Benghazi mission but received no response. In making his requests, Nordstrom cited a chronology of more than 200 security incidents that had occurred in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of those incidents were in Benghazi.....snip~

MMC said:

Given these realities, it is likely that the Obama administration's post-September 11 actions were aimed at drawing public attention away from a number of highly important facts:

•the U.S. mission in Benghazi had never adopted adequate security measures;
•the administration had ignored dozens of warning signs about growing Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region over a period of more than 6 months;
•the administration, for political reasons, had ignored or denied repeated requests for extra security by American diplomats stationed in Benghazi;
•the administration had failed to beef up security even for the anniversary of 9/11, a date of obvious significance to terrorists;
•the administration, fully cognizant of what was happening on the ground during the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, nonetheless denied multiple calls for help by Americans who were stationed there;
•the administration had been lying when, throughout the presidential election season, it relentlessly advanced the notion that "al Qaeda is on the run" and Islamic terrorism was in decline thanks to President Obama's policies;
•the administration had hired members of the February 17th Martyrs' Brigade, a Libyan militia group with clear al Qaeda sympathies, to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi; and
•throughout 2011 and 2012 the administration had been lending its assistance to jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda, supposedly the organization that represented the prime focus of Obama's anti-terrorism efforts; moreover, some of those same jihadists had personally fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.....snip~


Well.....looking at whats happening today inside Libya where we just issued an Immediate Warning telling All Civilian Americans to get out of Libya, and Have a Marine Unit ready to go in and get our Embassy People out. Which that Alert was issued Friday.

Just what do you think is relevant in discussing why today in Libya is why it is?

Click to expand...

What is relevant?

We did not properly go to war.


I blame Obama for having to resort to using constitutional contortions to justify intervening in Libya without violating the war powers act.

I blame Congress for not having the spine to call out the president for his justifacations, not having the stomach to challenge him with impeachment, and for not demanding a proper authorization for war in Libya.

I blame the cowardice of the American public over getting involved in another war that forced our politicans to limit our involvement in Libya.

I blame the entire government in its inability to find a side that they would support.

We should hav provided soldiers to fight in Libya, and have those soldiers fight to represent the new Libyan government.

We did not have the stomoch to stay and help rebuild Libya, instead we just did a drive by war and abandoned Libya to its face.

We did have the stomoch to fight the chaos in Libya and that chaos was what killed the four Americans.

Their blood is on all of hands because we did not have the stomoch to provide order to the chaos in Libya.

Unitedwestand13 said:

What is relevant?

We did not properly go to war.


I blame Obama for having to resort to using constitutional contortions to justify intervening in Libya without violating the war powers act.

I blame Congress for not having the spine to call out the president for his justifacations, not having the stomach to challenge him with impeachment, and for not demanding a proper authorization for war in Libya.

I blame the cowardice of the American public over getting involved in another war that forced our politicans to limit our involvement in Libya.

I blame the entire government in its inability to find a side that they would support.

We should hav provided soldiers to fight in Libya, and have those soldiers fight to represent the new Libyan government.

We did not have the stomoch to stay and help rebuild Libya, instead we just did a drive by war and abandoned Libya to its face.

We did have the stomoch to fight the chaos in Libya and that chaos was what killed the four Americans.

Their blood is on all of hands because we did not have the stomoch to provide order to the chaos in Libya.

Click to expand...

What I just posted up UWS.....it is a lot of work and it takes a lot of time to go thru all the BS that Team BO and Hillary's Protectors have put out there. But it is all in with what will go down recorded for History and all to read and go back to. Bo and Hill Dog.....were hoping to get around it. Its in the MSM, State Dept PDFs, DOD PDFS, the War On Terror's timelines, and then Libya and Benghazi's own timelines. Ending all with the words of BO the Grifter.

You are Right on Libya.....as much as Gadhafi was a nut. He did have the backing of much of the African Continent.....he did want to create a United States of Africa. Plus he was always.....the thorn. That Twisted deep into that Sunni Arab's Side. Outright.....mocking the Saud and telling them. You will never rule over us. Never!!!!!

MMC said:

What I just posted up UWS.....it is a lot of work and it takes a lot of time to go thru all the BS that Team BO and Hillary's Protectors have put out there. But it is all in with what will go down recorded for History and all to read and go back to. Bo and Hill Dog.....were hoping to get around it. Its in the MSM, State Dept PDFs, DOD PDFS, the War On Terror's timelines, and then Libya and Benghazi's own timelines. Ending all with the words of BO the Grifter.

You are Right on Libya.....as much as Gadhafi was a nut. He did have the backing of much of the African Continent.....he did want to create a United States of Africa. Plus he was always.....the thorn. That Twisted deep into that Sunni Arab's Side. Outright.....mocking the Saud and telling them. You will never rule over us. Never!!!!!

Click to expand...

I think that willingness of the people of Libya to defy ghadafis madness should have justified us providing some support.

And I think change was possible, if we followed through on providing support for a government the people of Libya supports.

Unitedwestand13 said:

I think that willingness of the people of Libya to defy ghadafis madness should have justified us providing some support.

And I think change was possible, if we followed through on providing support for a government the people of Libya supports.

Click to expand...

Look what he did for Libya.....besides being a dictator. When all from the West was partying with him in those Castles throughout Europe and England. They didn't complain about the fact of how much he was becoming a Democrat.

Unitedwestand13 said:

What is relevant?

We did not properly go to war.


I blame Obama for having to resort to using constitutional contortions to justify intervening in Libya without violating the war powers act.

I blame Congress for not having the spine to call out the president for his justifacations, not having the stomach to challenge him with impeachment, and for not demanding a proper authorization for war in Libya.

I blame the cowardice of the American public over getting involved in another war that forced our politicans to limit our involvement in Libya.

I blame the entire government in its inability to find a side that they would support.

We should hav provided soldiers to fight in Libya, and have those soldiers fight to represent the new Libyan government.

We did not have the stomoch to stay and help rebuild Libya, instead we just did a drive by war and abandoned Libya to its face.

We did have the stomoch to fight the chaos in Libya and that chaos was what killed the four Americans.

Their blood is on all of hands because we did not have the stomoch to provide order to the chaos in Libya.

Click to expand...

If you wish to feel there is blood on your hands, that is entirely up to you, but do not speak for others! We weren't asked for our opinion and we got no vote on this, and since Obama went to the UN for approval and by-passed Congress, I don't see how they would have blood on their hands either. As a matter of fact, Rep. Kucinich and Ralph Nader, both Democrats, publically called for his impeachment because of it!