WHY DID OBAMA HIDE AL QAEDA'S INVOLVEMENT ???

Aren't we forgetting one question that everybody seems to be dancing around.

Who made the decision to have such a weak force guarding a US Embassy in such a hostile enviroment. And most of all, why was this decision made. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Republicants cut funding. Just another unnecessary freebie.

The Republicants cut funding. Just another unnecessary freebie. Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb stated -- for the record -- funding had nothing to do with the "artificially low" level of security in Benghazi. Try again.

just read my sig line.

Aren't we forgetting one question that everybody seems to be dancing around.

Who made the decision to have such a weak force guarding a US Embassy in such a hostile enviroment. And most of all, why was this decision made. Originally Posted by Jackie S

thats been answered over and over, but apparently the answer isnt good enough to suit the simpletons

I digress ...

Good thing that the righties on ECCIE aren't running the country.

thats been answered over and over, but apparently the answer isnt good enough to suit the simpletons

I digress ...

Lamb, the official in charge of protecting U.S. embassies and consulates, told the committee, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11."

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., asked Lamb if she turned down requests for more security in Benghazi. "Yes sir, I said personally I would not support it," she replied. "We were training local Libyans and army men" to provide security, a policy in force at U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world.

Originally Posted by CJ7

"Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya, told the committee that Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low." Nordstrom said she generally believed that extra security was unnecessary because there was a residential safe haven to fall back on in an emergency, according to the summary.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...ost/?hpt=po_c2

CBJ7, you and your Kool Aid League keep ignoring Lamb's words “artificially low” as if they are devoid of meaning.

see Jackie?

peace out

see Jackie?

peace out Originally Posted by CJ7

What's obvious for all others to see, CBJ7, Odumbo, et al, wanted to APPEASE and placate Islamic terrorists by maintaining an "artificially low" level of security in Libya.

Oh Markie, Obama himself said that Rice went out with ALL the information that they had. Apparently that is not true and never was. The CIA, the state department, and the White House have all now said that they knew it was a terrorist attack within 24, 48, or take your pick hours after the attack and before Rice (who had nothing to do with anything-B. Obama) went out and lied to the American people at someone's behest.

Oh Markie, Obama himself said that Rice went out with ALL the information that they had. Apparently that is not true and never was. The CIA, the state department, and the White House have all now said that they knew it was a terrorist attack within 24, 48, or take your pick hours after the attack and before Rice (who had nothing to do with anything-B. Obama) went out and lied to the American people at someone's behest. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nov 16, 2012 at 11:46 am

Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.
After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?
KING: He didn’t know.
Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?
KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.
Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?
KING: No.
Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –
KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Nov 16, 2012 at 11:46 am

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi.
Originally Posted by CJ7

That is NOT what he said ... King was clear about what he said IN CONTEXT....

#1: Patraeus's first version was different from his most recent version; and
#2: Patraeus just this week said the "talking points" he sent out were different from what Rice said.
#3: King gave NO details as to the differences.

Finally, the Pro-Obama crowd on this board, just like on the media, are engaged in the same bullshit scneario of "correcting" what people say under the pretense of "explaining" what the "really" meant to say ..... like posters in her, pundits, and reporters in the media actually have some special knowledge about what was going on between the ears of those involved .... INCLUDING I MIGHT ADD ...

........ a now dead Ambassador Stevens.

If King is correct and the testimony of Patraeus differs in a material way from his first version then Patraeus has placed himself in a position to be indicted for perjury. There is no need for King to "recall" what Patraeus said before, because there is a record of his prior testimony behind closed doors.

Finally .... how does anybody on this board have any KNOWLEDGE of what was said behind closed doors in a closed hearing! I am no fan of Feinstein since her days as Mayor, but she maintains a respect for the closed session mandates AND she has historically been balanced in her criticism of national security issues ... she has only said that Rice is not being treated "fairly" in the media .... as to what that means in the CONTEXT of the series of events that lead up to the disparate statements between Patraeus's and hers is yet to play out.

The President has laid the ground work for that inquiry .... he has taken the SOLE responsibility for her actions and statements. He needs to explain why she said what she said to the media when the facts KNOWN were inconsistent.

Hey CJ, do you want to know how to keep an idiot in suspense?

thats been answered over and over, but apparently the answer isnt good enough to suit the simpletons

I digress ...

Lamb, the official in charge of protecting U.S. embassies and consulates, told the committee, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11."

Lamb was wrong. The fact that 4 Americans are dead and our embasy was over run proves this.
For what it is worth, I do not think President Obama was involved in this decision. Lower Echelon Personnel probably made the decision. But the niavity of these people, and their lack of understanding of the entire situation reflects on the entire Administartion.
This whole episode reminds me of another great tragedy, when the 290 Marines were killed when a single Islamic Terrorist, driving a truck full of explosives, was able to crash right through all of our security. That was under President Reagan's watch.
When are Americans going to learn that there are millions of Muslims whose single goal in this life is to die for Allah, and to take as many Infidels with them as possible?

This fact has not changed. You cannot reason with Religious Fanatics.

Originally Posted by CJ7

Lamb was obviously wrong. The very fact that our Embasy was over run and 4 Americans killed proves this.
For what it is worth, I do not think President Obama was involved with this. But he left the decision in the hands of people who are obviously niave when it comes to understanding the Muslim mindset. The simple fact remains that there are millions of Muslims throughout the World whose sole aim in life is to die for Allah and in the proccess, take as many Infidels to the grave as they can.

This reminds me of another event where 290 Marines were killed when a single Muslim Terrorist drove a bomb laiden truck right through our defenses. That, as you recall, happenned under President Reagans watch. It seems we have learned nothing over the past 3 decades.
You cannot reason with Religious Fanatics.They are in this game to the death.

Hey CJ, do you want to know how to keep an idiot in suspense? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

For the record JD, your guys lost the Presidential election on November 6. You not only lost it, you lost the White House by a substantial margin, 62%-38% (rounded off) to be exact. There is nothing that you can do or say that will put a Republican in the White House until January 2017, at the very earliest! If Hillary decides to run in 2016, the best you can probably hope for is January 2025.

Get over it, the Obama/Biden team will be the President for 4 more years!

Would it make you feel better if I bought the next round?

they do that so mouth breathers will fold up like a cheap card table and crap in their diapers for weeks on end ...

surprised you had to ask, now go change your diaper. Originally Posted by CJ7

No, actually they do that to keep from looking like fucking criminals.