U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

Or as so eleoquently stated by our Secretary of State:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

Brava.

Wow... Who would like to have seen this person involved in one of those attacks..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

He took part in the deception. His people do the dirty work, he makes vague and un pinable references in his speeches..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Here's an interesting take on all this.. Certainly from the right, but food for thought..

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/why-our-forces-were-told-to-stand-down-in-benghazi/

Why Our Forces Were Told to ‘Stand Down’ in BenghaziTo understand what went wrong in the Benghazi mission, it’s important to begin by looking at what was so unique about it.

When the Islamist mobs began their September 11 rampage, they found embassies with high walls, heavy security and police protection. Even in Tunis and Cairo, where the Arab Spring Islamist regimes have been accused of collaborating with their fellow Salafists, there were credible military and police forces capable of preventing the kind of full scale assault that took place in Benghazi.


The mission in Benghazi, however, was an American diplomatic facility with few defenses in a city where the police were virtually helpless against the Islamist militias and where the national government had announced that it would allow the Salafists to destroy Sufi tombs rather than intervene.

On September 1, I wrote that the real implication of these remarks was that the Libyan government had given the Islamists a free hand and would take no action no matter what they did. And bloodshed was sure to follow. Ten days later it did.

After the fall of Saddam, American diplomatic facilities in Iraq did not remain unguarded or protected only by local militias. It was always understood that American diplomatic facilities in a country whose government had recently fallen were sitting ducks and needed heavy protection. The State Department cables show that this was something that quite a few of the Americans on the ground also understood. The Benghazi consulate had been attacked, and its next attack would only be a matter of time.

When Al Qaeda decided to commemorate September 11 with a wave of attacks on American diplomatic facilities across the Muslim world, from Tunis all the way to Indonesia, in a recreation of its own 1998 embassy attacks, its planners paid special attention to the one facility that was a soft target and surrounded by jihadist fighters. A facility that was a perfect target because it was completely exposed.

Benghazi should have either had the same protection that a similar facility in Iraq would have or it should have been closed down. Instead the State Department chose to rely on its friendly relations with the jihadists, having forgotten the story of the scorpion and the frog, trusting in an Islamist militia linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to its future Al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar Al Sharia attackers to protect it.

The State Department was not being cheap. Its budget had climbed steadily under Obama and it could have set up another Green Zone in Benghazi if it chose to. But that would have been a flashback to the Bush era that represented everything the appeasement lobby had hated about those eight years.

Libya was meant to be a new kind of war. Not a display of American arrogance and unilateralism, but a show of submissiveness to the goals and ambitions of the Muslim world. In post-American diplomacy, the Americans did not arrive with a show of force, surrounded by Marines and heavy fortifications, but bent humbly under the defensive shield of the Islamist Ummah. Rather than exporting the Dar Al Harb, the Americans would ask for the protection of the Dar Al Islam.

The reason that the Navy SEALS were denied the support of a Spectre C-130U gunship was the same reason that the consulate had been left nearly unguarded. And it was the same reason that so many soldiers had died in Afghanistan because they had been denied air and artillery support or even the permission to open fire.


What happened in Benghazi was only extraordinary because it caught the attention of the public, but American soldiers in Afghanistan had been suffering under the same conditions ever since it was decided that winning the hearts and minds of Afghan civilians was more important than the lives of American soldiers.

The four Americans killed in Benghazi lived and died by the same code as thousands of Americans in Afghanistan. And that code overrode loyalty to one’s own people in favor of appeasing Muslims. The two former SEALS broke that code, violating orders by going to protect the consulate and were abandoned in the field by an administration that prioritized Muslim opinions over American lives.

From the post-American diplomatic perspective, the lives of a few Americans, who knew what they were getting into, was a small sacrifice to make when weighed against the potential of turning the entire Muslim world around. A Spectre gunship blasting away at an Islamist militia in the streets of Benghazi would have ended the fiction of a successful war in Libya and infuriated most of the Islamist militias. Worst of all, it would have made Americans seem like imperialists, instead of helpful aides to the Islamist transition of the Arab Spring. It would have ruined everything and so it was shut down.

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were not the first Americans to be abandoned by their country for diplomatic reasons. They will not be the last. And while we investigate and expose the decisions that their government made, it is important for us to remember that such decisions come out of a mindset that says there are diplomatic goals that are more important than American lives. This mindset did not begin with the War on Terror and it will not end until it is exposed for what it is.

During Israel’s descent into peace madness, its left-wing government coined a phrase for those Israelis killed in terrorist attacks, calling them, “Sacrifices of Peace.”

Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are our government’s sacrifices of peace. They died so that we might go on in our futile effort to win over the Muslim world. And they are not the only ones. There is no way of knowing how many of the 1,500 Americans who were killed in Obama’s surge died because they were prevented from firing first or denied air support. But the number is likely to be in the hundreds.

Similarly 3,000 died in the attacks of September 11 because our diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia were too important to close the revolving door that allowed the terrorists such easy access to our country. They too were sacrifices of peace, burned on the altar of appeasement by a diplomatic establishment that puts the opinions of our enemies first and American lives last.

What went wrong in Benghazi is the same thing that went wrong in Afghanistan. It is the same thing that went wrong on the original September 11. It is the same thing that has gone wrong throughout the War on Terror. If we are to learn any lesson from what happened in Benghazi, it should be that American lives come before Muslim diplomacy and that any government which does not put American lives first, which does not take whatever measures are necessary to save their lives, regardless of what Muslims may think, is not an American government, but a post-American government.

 

[Slapdash]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

He took part in the deception. His people do the dirty work, he makes vague and un pinable references in his speeches..

He made vague and unpinable references in his speeches? Better hurry up and impeach him then. Where is my pitchfork?

 

[matuski]

Here we go, the right working themselves into a bigger frenzy only to make bigger fool's out of themselves.. everyone else gets to sit and marvel at the show.

Palin, Birthers, Benghazi, etc... when does a leader on the right reign in the crazy?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

This:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Again before the UN:

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

On the above two quotes, please give me just one idea of what he was talking about if not that stupid video claim?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html

And

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate

 

[Todd Andrews]

BENGHKRAzYYY!!!!!!!1!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

He took part in the deception. His people do the dirty work, he makes vague and un pinable references in his speeches..

He made vague and unpinable references in his speeches? Better hurry up and impeach him then. Where is my pitchfork?

Did I ever say to impeach him? Link?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident...

 

[Slapdash]

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 15:36, said:

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 15:24, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 15:22, said:

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 15:21, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 14:56, said:

BigSteelThrill, on 13 May 2013 - 14:52, said:

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

This:

Quote

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Again before the UN:

Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

On the above two quotes, please give me just one idea of what he was talking about if not that stupid video claim?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html

And

Quote

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate

Not sure what is supposed to be a lie in the first statement.

The second statement seems like you're saying he was lying about Hillary/Rice playing politics. Is that true?

 

[pantherclub]

This whole Benghazi thing is starting to take on a birther-like sense of desperation for the Republican Party. Sad, really. What a once-proud party that used to be.

Sad, really how the Obama admin is so corrupt. And, that so many Americans are blind. How many of these cases do we need?

Fast and Furious

Benghazi

The IRS

 

[pantherclub]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

He took part in the deception. His people do the dirty work, he makes vague and un pinable references in his speeches..

the gift that keeps on giving

 

[Slapdash]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.

I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.

People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

He took part in the deception. His people do the dirty work, he makes vague and un pinable references in his speeches..

He made vague and unpinable references in his speeches? Better hurry up and impeach him then. Where is my pitchfork?

Did I ever say to impeach him? Link?

My link

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

 

[matuski]

BENGHKRAzYYY!!!!!!!1!

BIRTHGHAZI!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQlIabTL

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2TCgpr2LN

 

[Todd Andrews]

BENGHKRAzYYY!!!!!!!1!

BIRTHGHAZI!!!

KooKGHAZI??!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

QuoteAmericans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

 

[pantherclub]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQlIabTL

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2TCgpr2LN

Oct 26

I swear you are doing this on purpose

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

>>>>>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

The embassy was in EGYPT!

You dumb mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

Oh look, the news IS stating that Libya was also over the Video, Dated > Sept 11.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 15:36, said:

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 15:24, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 15:22, said:

Slapdash, on 13 May 2013 - 15:21, said:

SaintsInDome2006, on 13 May 2013 - 14:56, said:

BigSteelThrill, on 13 May 2013 - 14:52, said:

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about.

Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination.

The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

Well heck you could say the same thing about people who answered the other way too. Not to mention those people who probably have no idea what and where the Watergate hotel was or what the Teapot Dome was and where.I mean the whole thing is a reflection of voters jumping on wagons going every which way just based on whether there is a donkey or elephant painted on the side.

- People do know Watergate and Benghazi involved accusations of presidential lying though.

This is a new one.

Well, exactly - not.People feel a little different about things now.

People accusing Obama of lying is a new one to me. What do people say he lied about?

This:

>Quote

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

lockquote>Again before the UN:

>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

On the above two quotes, please give me just one idea of what he was talking about if not that stupid video claim?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html

And

Quote

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate

Not sure what is supposed to be a lie in the first statement.The second statement seems like you're saying he was lying about Hillary/Rice playing politics. Is that true?

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

 

[Slapdash]

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

haha, Shift gears Hustler, shift Gears.

You and Darryl Issa should get a room together.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

I do, I'm guessing you and I have similar views of it.

I do think it's possible that he is just trotted out there to parrot words on a screen (and I would not just say that is an Obama only failing for modern presidents by the way).

If you're saying he really believed that at the time, well maybe that's close to what I have above, that he was just parroting what he's told, but if you maintain the president has real integral involvement and knowledge in these things, and that he and his team really believed there ws a video at teh bottom of all this, that whole concept is getting more and more ridiculous.

 

[pantherclub]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

>QuoteAmericans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

ummmm, the embassy didnt get attacked bro

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

>>>>>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pak

istan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

The embassy was in EGYPT!

You dumb mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

Oh look, the news IS stating that Libya was also over the Video, Dated > Sept 11.

There was no attack in Cairo, there were no deaths in Cairo.. The attack was in Benghazi..

In Cairo, the worst that happened was a dozen or so protesters jumped a wall and stole an American flag...

When he's talking about attacks and deaths he's talking about Benghazi..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Attacks, riots and protests, in Kashmir, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Soimalia, Greece, and Egypt... from what according to the media and public? The Video.

And no you dumb mother... the EMBASSY was in Egypt. And that was included. The entire thing was talking about the TOTALITY of it all, not just Libya.

Hell even Fox news was running with the Video meme round the clock, its what the American public thought and that who he addressed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

>>>>>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pak

istan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

The embassy was in EGYPT!

You dumb mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

Oh look, the news IS stating that Libya was also over the Video, Dated > Sept 11.

My friend:

September 25, 2012

OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens. Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician. As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.

OBAMA: As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America's representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.

It is the president who was conflating the two, purposefully or not, not me.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pak

istan.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

This just isn't your thread maybe..

ummmm, the embassy didnt get attacked bro

A tear runs own the face of U.S. President Barack Obama as he talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya during a joint news conference with Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron ...Playing semantics now are we?

 

[pantherclub]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Attacks, riots and protests, in Kashmir, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Soimalia, Greece, and Egypt... from what according to the media and public? The Video.

And no you dumb mother... the EMBASSY was in Egypt. And that was included. The entire thing was talking about the TOTALITY of it all, not just Libya.

Hell even Fox news was running with the Video meme round the clock, its what the American public thought and that who he addressed.

A tear runs own the face of U.S. President Barack Obama as he talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya during a joint news conference with Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron ...

nice try http://news.yahoo.com/photos/tear-runs-own-face-u-president-barack-obama-photo-165931206.html

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What, he couldnt mention the current events that were dominating the media, and having middle east repercussions during that speech at any time?

who exactly do you think you are?

Wow, are you really that dumb?

Naaa, he wasn't trying to tie in the video to this incident, he just figured he'd start talking about something unrelated for no reason..

He likely was, in part, referencing the video that was currently dominating the media landscape.

But he didnt make any concrete claims on Benghazi, only rejecting people who dont allow for other religious opinions.

He can say that in a speech again today if he likes.

You just can't help yourself can you... lol

>Quote

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pak

istan.This just isn't your thread maybe..

ummmm, the embassy didnt get attacked bro

A tear runs own the face of U.S. President Barack Obama as he talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya during a joint news conference with Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron ...Playing semantics now are we?

Thats the MEDIA once again. Who was also driving the VIDEO concept.

We had no embassy attacked in Libya.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to Brownie?

No, Brown was more qualified.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Attacks, riots and protests, in Kashmir, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Soimalia, Greece, and Egypt... from what according to the media and public? The Video.

And no you dumb mother... the EMBASSY was in Egypt. And that was included. The entire thing was talking about the TOTALITY of it all, not just Libya.

Hell even Fox news was running with the Video meme round the clock, its what the American public thought and that who he addressed.

Two weeks later?

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Honestly, I'm willing to buy our president doesn't do the briefings or read the reports and takes his first and last meetings with his political team. Ignorance and incompetence is a defense here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to Brownie?

No, Brown was more qualified.

To shovel horse manure.

 

[FlapJacks]

BST and pantherclub looking to make a run in the 2013 politicl dumb#### cat:e:gory and maybe take MoP's crown

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

Which one? The one I know of (Cairo) had no attacks or killing.. Just protesters stealing a flag..

 

[sporthenry]

BST and pantherclub looking to make a run in the 2013 politicl dumb#### cat:e:gory and maybe take MoP's crown

Pretty sure Carolina Hustler might have locked this one up.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to Brownie?

No, Brown was more qualified.

To shovel horse manure.

Yes, Hillary is probably unqualified to do that too but she could probably produce some with those hindquarters.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

Which one? The one I know of (Cairo) had no attacks or killing.. Just protesters stealing a flag..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to Brownie?

No, Brown was more qualified.

To shovel horse manure.

Yes, Hillary is probably unqualified to do that too but she could probably produce some with those hindquarters.

OMG you conservatives attack women based upon appearance... how so typically conservative of you.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

BST and pantherclub looking to make a run in the 2013 politicl dumb#### cat:e:gory and maybe take MoP's crown

Tell me about it..

I'm still waiting for

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

Which one? The one I know of (Cairo) had no attacks or killing.. Just protesters stealing a flag..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

Did you even read that? lol

As I said.. There were no attacks or people being killed in attacks in Cairo..

When he talked about an embassy attacked and people killed, he was talking about Benghazi..

 

[pittstownkiller]

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton to Brownie?

No, Brown was more qualified.

To shovel horse manure.

Yes, Hillary is probably unqualified to do that too but she could probably produce some with those hindquarters.

OMG you conservatives attack women based upon appearance... how so typically conservative of you.

Please don't make me pull up the comments from the left on Linda Tripp & Paula Jones.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Shift gears again Hustler, you can do it!

You post links that prove my point... LOL

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I rest my case against Hustler your honor.

Don't read so well do you bud?

Your own president called it an embassy..

Yeah, the one Egypt.

Which one? The one I know of (Cairo) had no attacks or killing.. Just protesters stealing a flag..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests

The first one was dated September 11, the second September 12.

The President was speaking to the UN two weeks later.

He certainly wasn't distinguishing what happened in Benghazi from the rest of the events.

 

[Slapdash]

First and second statements he raises the video as the root of what happened. Here the president is directly involved. Once to the American public and once to the UN.

And we do not know yet for sure but it is getting closer and closer to statement No. 3 being false, yes. Again to the American public.

No, I do not think any of this will result in impeachment or resignation.

I don't think you know what lying means.

I do, I'm guessing you and I have similar views of it.

I do think it's possible that he is just trotted out there to parrot words on a screen (and I would not just say that is an Obama only failing for modern presidents by the way).

If you're saying he really believed that at the time, well maybe that's close to what I have above, that he was just parroting what he's told, but if you maintain the president has real integral involvement and knowledge in these things, and that he and his team really believed there ws a video at teh bottom of all this, that whole concept is getting more and more ridiculous.

No argument here with regard to most politicians being an empty suit.

But, with regard to your last statement, I don't see that as a really big stretch. Didn't Muller testify that those statements were consistent with the CIA's analysis?