General Music Chat

JCP, I believe if Obama loses, someone will file a civil suit against him. I believe if he wins, impeachment proceedings will begin.

The issue seems very simple to me. He is POTUS (well, fraudulently, but ...) and commander in chief. Warnings came before the attack and were dismissed. The embassy was attacked by Al-Queda, not a spontaneous mass demonstration. His administration watched it happen. He did nothing, and let people die when they called for backup. Then he and surrogates lied to the world about it. He has dropped the whole youtube movie lie, but now just disregards questions about the event. The MSM continues to cover for him

Why? The world now has a timeline. He cannot hold a press conference and give it? Why not? Because it condemns him.

This is not about four dead people, solely. This is about the office of POTUS and the lies told to Americans to cover his sorry Marxist backside concerning his total incompetence. A general is out. An admiral is out. Sectors of the overseas military just had election votes go down in a plane crash. The military is seething at this fraud, and is fracturing. I have retired military for neighbors. They are livid and know the ranks are livid. Benghazi is so much more than four dead people, it's criminal.

Let investigations begin immediately. They will not because of the election. Should not matter. But congress is gutless and they all have elections to win themselves and any actions towards Obama will be met with severe criticism by media and Dem opponents as politicizing the event. So, they shall wait till after the election.

As far as GWB ... whatever anyone believes about 9/11 and reopening an investigation, it's another situation. He's gone.

the congress loves this kind of thing, lots of fanfare and distraction
they will wait till after the election,
if he wins they will use it make the duck even lamer

the congress wants a weak pliable president.
this will just be one more thing to manipulate him with.
not that obama was ever very strong.


if he loses it will fall by the wayside into hearings and such.

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

Prevost,
Having worked with the intell community (in the Navy when I was younger), I can tell you that when any US gov agency cuts budgets on Intell community, what they are actually doing is getting get rid of extra coffee machines, ashtrays and non-essential personnel.

Neither GOP or Dems (including Obama) are gonna reduce essential and mission-critical assets.

The failure in Libya has nothing to do with budget cuts. It has everything to do with ignoring critical reports, which were highly likely full of piece-meal data that described certain probabilities of risk. Basically, The GOP wanted to cut back on idiots that were standing around, getting nothing done. Unfortunately the bureaucracy is the black hole of all things living and waiting.

Finally, Many more deaths could have been prevented if that SEAL had obeyed his orders. His hot-dogging caused a severe loss of some highly trained personnel. Had he survived, the US government would have court-martialed him and levied a tough sentence in Leavenworth prison in Kansas. (The Press started the "Hero" spin)

I don't know where you get the idea that there is some conspiracy about bengazi

https://www.google.com/search?q=benghaz ... =firefox-a
seems to be a lot of info about it.

now if the premise is that the press should be nonpartisan cause people are too stupid to think for them selves.
well, I suppose that's a point of view.
a very elitist one, but a point of view never the less.
but the press like everyone else is just a voice of interest groups,
and in the age of the internet, that power is greatly reduced.

Paperdog, I believe the facts are that Woods and the other fallen guy were ex-seals, and part of a security team. They were not military, which is why they chose to disregard the stand down order. They knew it was wrong and did the right thing.

Prevost,

I agree with Dog about the cuts. Have you never heard about the $600 hammer? Or the toilet seats that were so outrageously priced in the past? There are truckloads of waste that can be cut from contractors ripping off the gov and stupid gov agents approving those acquisitions.

I heard the same as Drums about the seals. With all the facts slowly leaking out it is easier to believe in Santa clause than it is to believe there is no cover up. We have heard about covert arms deals, the video ploy, and other diversions. Eventually the truth will come out. This regime is as the Chicago Mafia was back in the Capone days.

To believe what this regime says about anything is to have the wisdom of a fool.

Paperdog, I believe the facts are that Woods and the other fallen guy were ex-seals, and part of a security team. They were not military, which is why they chose to disregard the stand down order. They knew it was wrong and did the right thing.

Drums, They were Fed civil service. On Security Details, they are under a chain of command, which often includes both; military, CIA and civilian directors, supervisors ,etc.

Orders are orders.

Since they were technically 'non-military', there would be no courts-martial. But they would still be disciplined, fined and still susceptible to imprisonment for negligence.

As for 'doing the right thing" , I thoroughly disagree. Like I said, his decision to ignore the orders cost him his life and I'm not really sure that his engagement actually saved others lives.

We will never really know the true facts of what precisely went down at that scene. He may very well have felt justified, and there is also the very real possibility that he was not 'ordered' to stand down...(despite what the white house is claiming).

Paperdog, from the info I have seen Woods and the other guy WERE able to get people out to safety, and died at the second firefight outside the safe house. Four people died. More could have. He made his choice and it cost him his life, true, but the man died a hero in the truest sense of the word.

The fact that General Ham and Admiral Gauoette were removed from duty because of the incident and THEIR convictions of duty says a tremendous amount here as to what actually took place. Especially is this the case when Panetta goes on TV and states that Ham was in agreement with him to not intervene, not knowing enough of what took place during the seven hours. That was an outright lie. They're all liars in that administration.

The truth will continue to boil to the top and hopefully someone with 'balls the size of cue balls' in Washington will deal with these rats, because that is what they are, imo.

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.

First off, what I posted was opinion, not propaganda. Learn the difference.

Secondly, yes the Iraq war was illegal, because in spite of the fact that we had a treaty, the "facts" around hussein adhering to that treaty are questionable at best. Yes we all know he was a guy who danced on the fine lines and constantly tested our resolve, but at the same time, the few months leading up to the invasion, he was allowing UN inspectors in, and if you recall David Kelley's whistle blowing regarding the "evidence" we were concocting.. well the "facts" kinda start becoming evident, regardless of what the windbag government tells you to think.

Even if you can argue semantics and justify the Iraq invasion, we still had no legal right to invade Afghanistan, nor a declaration of war from congress.

It's all smoke and mirrors. We could have EASILY sent in a few black-ops teams and done the job for pennies. Instead, we allowed corporations who make weapons to dictate US foreign policy based on quarterly dividends, and as they say in the movies.. "... And business is GOOD".

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix: "Iraq War Was Illegal"
http://rt.com/news/uk-iraq-unquiry-blix/

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix: "Iraq War Was Illegal"
http://rt.com/news/uk-iraq-unquiry-blix/

THIS I completely believe...gotta stop making up the rules of the game while we're playing it.

I just saying that there is enough blame to go around on both sides ...
and no it doen't absolves the administration ... but a conspiracy .. please give me a break.

We all know that no matter how many security personal you have in an embassy it will never be enough if the host counrty fails to supply the main mass of security on the perimeter of the embassy during an up-rising ... that's what happen in Benghazi and Iran in the 80's