The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a bipartisan report on the Benghazi attack that finds that the assault could have and should have been prevented. The Obama administration should have stepped up security at the facility, but failed to do so. The committee concluded that the threat environment in Benghazi leading up to the attack should have caused the State Department to make up for the known security shortfalls at the U.S. facility in the city before the attack. The report does not explore or explain why the State Department consistently denied field requests to beef up security...Remember that the Senate is run by Democrats, so to say as much as they did is fairly damning. Left unaddressed, however, is why the Administration stuck to the "caused by a YouTube video" lie for so long, why military assets in Tripoli were told to stand down rather than rescue, and why there is no effort to go after the people who did this even though one of them lives in the open in Libya. Why did the
News broke Tuesday that despite the Obama administration’s claim to have had a security meeting including top military personnel leading up to September 11, 2012, there was no meeting. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in classified session before the House that there was only a conference call, followed by no force repositioning, despite knowledge within the administration that the al Qaeda threat had been building in Benghazi for months....
Administration refuse to say this was al-Qaeda?
Still, to say that an attack on an embassy, in which an ambassador and 3 others were killed, is a made-up or phony scandal, is sickening. Were the Kenya and Tanzania embassy attacks in 1998 also made up by Republicans to embarrass a Democratic president? Was the Tehran embassy attack in 1979 made up by Republicans to embarrass a Democratic president? It takes a sick person to suggest such things. Sick and exceedingly, blindingly partisan.
Update, 1/19/14: Downloaded from Facebook:
5 comments:
But, Darren ... when it comes down to it ... PEOPLE ARE DEAD! WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!?
Sarcasm aside ... this has always smelled. To me, it smacks of Obama and Clinton visualizing what they wanted to happen, and ignoring the truth. It saddens me that American lives were lost, and even more so that they were lost because addressing the problem might have made the sitting president look bad right before re-election. This is yet another reason why HC should never be elected to anything ...
After months and years of insisting that Al Quaeda and the terrrorist threat disabled, the last thing the liars in the administration wanted was to do anything - like provide appropriate security - to suggest otherwise. You know, like a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic facility on the anniversary of 9/11. Obama should have been impeached and Clinton and lots of others (in State Dept and elsewhere) forced to resign - at the very least.
Anonymous ... not an impeachable offense for Obama. It takes a 'high crime or misdemeanor' ... even if he knew what was going to happen, he'd still not be guilty of anything other than exceptionally bad judgement. He never testified, and Clinton gave the aggressive who cares approach under oath ... which, while reprehensible, isn't a lie... The scary part about this story, to me, is that so many people actually still believe the front that the white house put out ...that a heavily armed, coordinated team of terrorists decided to attack an embassy on the anniversary of 9/11 ...simply because they had seen a videotape shortly before. I mean ... if that were true? We should just bomb these people back in to the stone age ... oh wait ... they're already there. But I don't believe that -- this wasobviously planned, and Obama didn't want it coming up right before election. End of story ...except for the part where America doesn't realize it, and re-elects the man. In this case ... I don't think it's Obama to blame. I honestly don't think it reached that high ... but Hillary? absolutely. That shrill angry response before Congress... she knows she's wrong.
Two caveats should guide every voter:
1. Judge candidates not by how they look or what they say but what they do.
2. Follow the money.
If you do the first, you will see their own personal goals revealed. If you do the second, you know who controls them. The political creatures know this. Why else would several known heavy contributors and former management at Planned Parenthood be listed simply as "retired" when they fund Wendy Davis Texas campaign. I personally enjoy OpenSecrets.org. It's a wealth of background information as to which rich individuals and interested PAC's and industries are pushing different candidates.
Post a Comment