This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#192011 by Drumsinhisheart
Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:46 pm
"On June 6 of this year, a bomb planted at the U.S. compound in Benghazi ripped a 12-foot-wide hole in the outer wall.

On June 11, the British ambassador’s motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone, and the British Benghazi post was closed.

At the same time, the Red Cross, after a second attack, shut down and fled the city.

“When that occurred,” says Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the military security team in Tripoli, “we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove.”

On Aug. 15, at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, an emergency meeting was convened to discuss the 10 Islamist militias and their training camps in the area, among them al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia.

On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”

The cable was sent to Hillary Clinton – and signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens.

On Sept. 11, Ambassador Stevens died in a coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound by elements of Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida.

Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the “smoking gun.”

Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

While House spokesman Jay Carney said Biden’s “we” applied only to Biden, Obama and the White House. As the National Security Council is part of the White House, Carney was saying the NSC was in the dark over the Aug. 16 cable that had warned about the exact attack that occurred.

What else have we lately learned?

The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.

Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.

From an Oct. 26 report by Jennifer Griffin, also of Fox News, we now know there were two drones over Benghazi the night of Sept. 11 capable of sending pictures to U.S. commanders within reach of Benghazi, and to the CIA, Pentagon and White House.

We also know that ex-SEAL Ty Woods, in the CIA safe house a mile away, was denied permission to go to the rescue of the compound, and that he disobeyed orders, went and brought back the body of diplomat Sean Smith.

After the attack on the compound, the battle shifted to the safe house – for four more hours. Another ex-SEAL, Glen Doherty, made it to Benghazi from Tripoli. Seven hours after the initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Smith, Doherty and Woods were still returning fire, when, having been abandoned on the orders of someone higher up, they were killed by a direct mortar hit.

Due to stonewalling and the complicity of the Big Media in ignoring or downplaying the Benghazi story during the last weeks of the campaign, the Obamaites may get past the post on Nov. 6 without being called to account.

But the truth is coming out, and an accounting is coming. For the character, competence and credibility of Obama’s entire national security team have been called into question.

Hillary Clinton said she takes full responsibility for any security failure by her department at the Benghazi compound. But what does that mean? Did she see the Aug. 16 secret cable sent to her by Stevens describing his perilous situation? Was she oblivious to the battle in her department over security in Benghazi?

This failure that occurred in her shop and on her watch, that Stevens warned about in his Aug. 16 cable, resulted in his death and the most successful terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.

Why has Hillary not explained her inaction – or stepped down?

The CIA has issued a terse statement saying it gave no order to anyone not to try to rescue the ambassador or not to move forces to aid Doherty and Woods, who died because no help came.

Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to “stand down”?

The president says he is keeping Americans informed as we learn the truth. But is that still credible?

When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time, that camera-carrying drones were over the city that night, that a seven-hour battle was fought, that desperate cries for help were being turned down.

The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president?

Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?""

Pat Buchanan, The smoking gun of the Benghazi cover-up, 11/1/2012

#192015 by JCP61
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:00 pm
OMG !!!!!!!
who do we call to tell this secret info??????

#192019 by Drumsinhisheart
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:13 pm
JCP, Secret? That's the whole point. It isn't secret. So, why is the MSM burying it all, Obama continues to lie and/or sidestep questions, and a crime of national disgrace has been committed, with national security issues in every direction, upheaval developing in the military, and rather than outrage we see comments like yours. Why?

Thomas Jefferson said Americans will put up with just so much from their elected civil servants and then they will act. I wonder where that line was crossed and now, America is destined to fall into despotism.

I'm just thankful my father is not alive to see such treasonous behavior from this ... fraud in the White House.

#192022 by PaperDog
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:25 pm
Obama will Lose the election by a landslide and Romney will win by a margin.

#192023 by fisherman bob
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:27 pm
Terrorists always attack weak links. They exploit weakness wherever it exists. The Benghazi attack is no different than any terror strike anywhere in the world. I don't believe a "cover up" is even necessary. Terrorists will keep striking as long as the nation of Israel exists. You can bet on it.

#192025 by Drumsinhisheart
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:34 pm
The issue is not terrorist strikes. The issue is the event, itself, the response, non-response, of Obama and his administration and lying about it all, and now stonewalling.

#192026 by Kramerguy
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:36 pm
source?

#192030 by Drumsinhisheart
Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:46 pm
Sources. Buchanan is using well-known sources for those following the situation. Released emails, docs, and info the MSM refuses to address because Obama would lose for sure if this becomes table talk across the nation. Which, amongst enough people at this point, it is, and if Obama wins (which I doubt) he will face charges right away. He should. Whether or not Congress will act ... that's the real tragedy behind everything.

#192033 by Starfish Scott
Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:35 pm
That's me on the compound wall, I was on the .50 for a bit until it ran out of ammo, now I'm sniping from the roof in a semi-concealed area with a flash hider and a 50mm scope.

"shoot first and ask no questions at all".


My other favorite is to rig any and all vehicles with explosives, so I can bail out of it, running it into the proposed target and then setting off the C4 remotely. lol

"Anything that happens out of your sight is largely up to who is reporting it and we all know that the media is a bad liar on the average, worse when it serves a purpose".

#192037 by JCP61
Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:59 pm
PaperDog wrote:Obama will Lose the election by a landslide and Romney will win by a margin.


I begin to think you are right

Obama is just way too relaxed even for his own people.

#192041 by JCP61
Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:04 pm
Drumsinhisheart wrote:JCP, Secret? That's the whole point. It isn't secret. So, why is the MSM burying it all, Obama continues to lie and/or sidestep questions, and a crime of national disgrace has been committed, with national security issues in every direction, upheaval developing in the military, and rather than outrage we see comments like yours. Why?

Thomas Jefferson said Americans will put up with just so much from their elected civil servants and then they will act. I wonder where that line was crossed and now, America is destined to fall into despotism.

I'm just thankful my father is not alive to see such treasonous behavior from this ... fraud in the White House.


ok..lets say your on to something
you have tapped into the real deep patriotism that still hides inside america.
so Obama loses..think romney will prosecute him?
think the public will tar and feather him after? id be willing to bet even you will have lost you verve.

or will he just do highly successful stints on good morning America and the view?

#192104 by Kramerguy
Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:04 pm
prosecute him? For three (or was it 4?) dead due to negligence?

What about the hundreds of thousands dead at our hands? How about the millions more who are displaced because of our illegal invasions? Why not prosecute GWB as well for his part in it all.

When you really break it down, Obama has only continued GWB policies and direction, right down to the letter. And he's not the one running the show in DC anyways, you people gotta know at least that.

#192130 by JCP61
Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:11 pm
OMG
what propaganda,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

we did not invade iraq illegally.
we were operating under a ceasefire treaty from the gulf war.
we had every right to put troops back on the ground anytime we chose to.
even under Clinton.
you can argue that returning to Iraq was ill advised , even stupid
but not illegal under the treaty Hussein signed
so don't bother to even talk that silly crap about war crimes.
when you don't have a leg to stand on.

our actions in Libya are actually more questionable in international law than anything that happened in Afghanistan or Iraq.

#192200 by Prevost82
Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:34 pm
hummm .. didn't the GOP cut funding for embassy security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

... but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory

#192201 by JCP61
Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Prevost82 wrote:hummm .. didn't the GOP cut funding for embassy security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

... but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy

theory


that hardly absolves the administration

so you didn't have the cash?
so what was our ambassador doing there without any means of support?
you don't think they send Hillery's plane up without fuel in do you?
if funding was cut then it was on the president who stranded the guy naked in the wilderness.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests