So Hillary decides to appease the Muslims, and Americans are dead.

[Jackie S]

Fuck this bitch. The more that comes out about this travesty, the more sickenning the entire debacle becomes.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/why...-on-her-hands/

The 11 th anniversary of 9-11, and this bunch of clowns decides that we do not need highly trained, and fully armed professionals, guarding our officials in a hostile enviroment.

The only way it could be worse is if the President told her to do it.

[Seedy]

Now js, where does the buck, supposedly stop? With the lowlife cocksucker himself odumbo. Of course he denies any responsibility, cocksucking. thieving lying, coward that he is.

[zme]

I have a pretty low opinion of Obama myself but I think we need to keep the Muslim conspiracy theories out of this. The Libyan security guards who tried to fight the attackers and for the few hundred crazies who attacked our embassy tens of thousands of libyan muslims took to the streets the next day to burn down the headquarters of Ansar al Sharia and throw them out of Benghazi.
I absolutely believe that the Obama administration has a large responsibility for the death of our Benghazi embassy officials and the subsequent coverup is even more disgusting. But I certainly don't ascribe to the actions of a few crazies to "Muslims" at large. That makes as much sense as the wackos in Iraq who look at prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and blame Christians. Generalizations serve no one but extremists.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by zme

I have a pretty low opinion of Obama myself but I think we need to keep the Muslim conspiracy theories out of this. The Libyan security guards who tried to fight the attackers and for the few hundred crazies who attacked our embassy tens of thousands of libyan muslims took to the streets the next day to burn down the headquarters of Ansar al Sharia and throw them out of Benghazi.
I absolutely believe that the Obama administration has a large responsibility for the death of our Benghazi embassy officials and the subsequent coverup is even more disgusting. But I certainly don't ascribe to the actions of a few crazies to "Muslims" at large. That makes as much sense as the wackos in Iraq who look at prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and blame Christians. Generalizations serve no one but extremists.

"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.

She thought the "best course of action was to assign three agents" to the Benghazi post, the summary quoted Nordstrom as saying."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...ost/?hpt=po_c2


"The assault that occurred on the evening of September 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," Patrick Kennedy said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics


“[White House Senior Advisor and Odumbo confidante Valerie] Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” said Pat Caddell.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...libyan-embassy


"We have 15,000 (security contractors) in Iraq, and we have a hard time having more than two dozen in Libya," Representative Chaffetz (R) said. "It doesn't seem to balance itself out right."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89815N20121009

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by zme

I have a pretty low opinion of Obama myself but I think we need to keep the Muslim conspiracy theories out of this. The Libyan security guards who tried to fight the attackers ....

I'm not sure who is playing the "Muslim conspiracy" card, but, although I admittedly did not hear the entire, minute-by-minute, hearing testimony yesterday, there seems to be three choices, may be 4, this administration has ...

1. incompetence ... intelligence failure and intelligence evaluation failure;
2. deception ... attempting to cover up #1, above, on the even of the election;
3. incompetence ... failing to provide protection for citizens for a known threat.

4. All of the above.

According to the testimony I heard ...

1. there is cam surveillance minutes before the attack that shows the ambassador outside of the gates of the compound saying good bye to a guest AND no demonstrators ... NONE! and the administration has had the feed from the get go ... remember .. Smith was on the computer at the time of the attack.

2. there was at least one previous failed attempt of an attack on the facility ... with a hole blown in the perimeter wall.

3. Folks on the ground asked that security not be reduced AND asked for additional security prior to the 911 anniversary after security personnel were pulled out.

4. This administration is fully aware of NOT relying on locals to protect our people.

Where is all the "transparency" .... "we didn't know" ... "it was a movie" .... "it's the Republican's fault for not providing funding" ... "a demonstration gone bad" .... "we were waiting to find out what happened" .... "it is under investigation" ....

... a flaw in the liberal mind is believing that those "below" are idiots, stupid, and don't know any better. It is the falicious belief that they know better than everyone else, so it is not necessary to worry their little, mindless, idiot, stupid, ignorant head with such stuff.

Hillary finally got the 3 a.m. phone call she's wanted:
One dead ambassador on her watch and 3 good men left to protect him.

Between explaining sniper fire on the tarmac she had to dodge and a dead Ambassador and 3 other of her "employees" ... not to mention acting like a dumb-ass parrot for the administration .... she's toast for 2016.

Bill sure is quiet!!!!!!!!

[zme]

To add to what you said there was a prior attack on a convoy of the british ambassador and known terrorist chatter prior to the attack suggesting Al Qaeda in North Africa looking for opportunities to attack western interests. At this point there is no indication anyone knew of a plan to attack the specific embassy but there clearly was enough information to raise the general threat awareness level. Which is why the security officer at the embassy asked for more staff, it clearly was not defensible.

However well-intentioned the libyan security staff were it is pretty obvious that with Libya being such a nascent state without a well organized security apparatus there was no way they could resist a determined attack. Especially since the state run security are so small and they rely heavily on militias. They can barely protect their own facilities as the repeated attacks on Sufi shrines show.

It is clear that there was a colossal failure to protect the Benghazi facility with tragic consequences. It really does not matter what ones political point of view is, it is pretty hard to avoid this conclusion just looking at the facts.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not sure who is playing the "Muslim conspiracy" card, but, although I admittedly did not hear the entire, minute-by-minute, hearing testimony yesterday, there seems to be three choices, may be 4, this administration has ...

1. incompetence ... intelligence failure and intelligence evaluation failure;
2. deception ... attempting to cover up #1, above, on the even of the election;
3. incompetence ... failing to provide protection for citizens for a known threat.

4. All of the above.

According to the testimony I heard ...

1. there is cam surveillance minutes before the attack that shows the ambassador outside of the gates of the compound saying good bye to a guest AND no demonstrators ... NONE! and the administration has had the feed from the get go ... remember .. Smith was on the computer at the time of the attack.

2. there was at least one previous failed attempt of an attack on the facility ... with a hole blown in the perimeter wall.

3. Folks on the ground asked that security not be reduced AND asked for additional security prior to the 911 anniversary after security personnel were pulled out.

4. This administration is fully aware of NOT relying on locals to protect our people.

Where is all the "transparency" .... "we didn't know" ... "it was a movie" .... "it's the Republican's fault for not providing funding" ... "a demonstration gone bad" .... "we were waiting to find out what happened" .... "it is under investigation" ....

... a flaw in the liberal mind is believing that those "below" are idiots, stupid, and don't know any better. It is the falicious belief that they know better than everyone else, so it is not necessary to worry their little, mindless, idiot, stupid, ignorant head with such stuff.

Hillary finally got the 3 a.m. phone call she's wanted:
One dead ambassador on her watch and 3 good men left to protect him.

Between explaining sniper fire on the tarmac she had to dodge and a dead Ambassador and 3 other of her "employees" ... not to mention acting like a dumb-ass parrot for the administration .... she's toast for 2016.

Bill sure is quiet!!!!!!!!

[Sensia]

BS Jackie...

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular. Chaffetz and Issa and their colleagues voted to pay for far less security than the State Department requested in 2011 and again this year.A BIT RICHIs that responsible for the tragedy in Benghazi? Probably not, at least not entirely. Usually when security goes wrong, it's down to a cascade of small failures piling up. But it's a bit rich to complain about a lack of US security personnel at diplomatic missions on the one hand, while actively working to cut the budget to pay for US security personnel at diplomatic missions on the other.*It would have been Ambassador Stevens' call as to whether he made that visit from*Tripoli, with advice from his regional security adviser. If they thought there was a high likelihood of an attack, they wouldn't have gone. They sadly got it wrong. A glaring intelligence failure? A cavalier attitude towards security? Or simply bad luck, in a dangerous country that the US is eager to see stabilized?*To be sure, the embassy security budget has been under the knife for years. “During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” Philip Crowley, a former State Department spokesman under President Obama,*told the Washington Times*in late September.What's the gap between security budget requests from State and the actions of Congress?Scott Lilly, who spent three decades as a senior staffer for*Democrats*in Congress, often working on budget matters, and now a fellow at the*Center for American Progress*in DC, says the cuts sought by Congress have been steep since the new House sat in 2011.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/ne...US&.lang=en-US

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sensia

BS Jackie...

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular. Chaffetz and Issa and their colleagues voted to pay for far less security than the State Department requested in 2011 and again this year.A BIT RICHIs that responsible for the tragedy in Benghazi? Probably not, at least not entirely. Usually when security goes wrong, it's down to a cascade of small failures piling up. But it's a bit rich to complain about a lack of US security personnel at diplomatic missions on the one hand, while actively working to cut the budget to pay for US security personnel at diplomatic missions on the other.*It would have been Ambassador Stevens' call as to whether he made that visit from*Tripoli, with advice from his regional security adviser. If they thought there was a high likelihood of an attack, they wouldn't have gone. They sadly got it wrong. A glaring intelligence failure? A cavalier attitude towards security? Or simply bad luck, in a dangerous country that the US is eager to see stabilized?*To be sure, the embassy security budget has been under the knife for years. “During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” Philip Crowley, a former State Department spokesman under President Obama,*told the Washington Times*in late September.What's the gap between security budget requests from State and the actions of Congress?Scott Lilly, who spent three decades as a senior staffer for*Democrats*in Congress, often working on budget matters, and now a fellow at the*Center for American Progress*in DC, says the cuts sought by Congress have been steep since the new House sat in 2011.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/ne...US&.lang=en-US

No, Sensia. It is your post that is BS. Hillary's Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb is on record directing that security in Libya be reduced to "artificially low" levels in order to appear "more friendly" to the Libyans. Lamb's position is/was based on political -- not fiscal -- concerns and it is/was criminally ignorant. It's a fact Vallerie Jarrett had more security while she vacationed in Martha's Vineyard than did Ambassador Stevens in Libya. It's a fact that additional embassy security was denied despite repeated requests for more security personnel. It's a fact that embassy security was reduced -- just weeks prior to the 9/11 anniversary -- despite repeated request for more security personnel. It's a fact that the U.S. had 15,000 security agents in Iraq at the time when Stevens was denied additional security personnel.

"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.

She thought the "best course of action was to assign three agents" to the Benghazi post, the summary quoted Nordstrom as saying."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...ost/?hpt=po_c2


NO MARINES FOR LIBYAN AMBASSADOR, FULL SECURITY DETAIL FOR VALERIE JARRETT VACATION

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.
That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?
“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...libyan-embassy


Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...assy-in-libya/


“[White House Senior Advisor and Odumbo confidante Valerie] Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” said Pat Caddell.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...libyan-embassy


"We have 15,000 (security contractors) in Iraq, and we have a hard time having more than two dozen in Libya," Representative Chaffetz (R) said. "It doesn't seem to balance itself out right."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89815N20121009

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sensia

BS Jackie...

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular.

You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you don't believe that. The House cuts spending ... what says the Senate?

Cite one bill, by bill #, that states what you just said .... after December 31, 2010, ....

.... and passed through the Senate and sent for the PRESIDENT'S signature? .... AND he signed!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...sy-gain/print/
"In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.
The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.
In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”
While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it."

Read more: KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz28ziPWCph"

Betcha Obaminable signed off on the VOLTS! How much?

Bought a Green Europe and left a Dead Ambassador. Makes sense?

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you don't believe that. The House cuts spending ... what says the Senate?

Cite one bill, by bill #, that states what you just said .... after December 31, 2010, ....

.... and passed through the Senate and sent for the PRESIDENT'S signature? .... AND he signed!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...sy-gain/print/
"In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.
The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.
In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”
While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it."

Read more: KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz28ziPWCph"

Betcha Obaminable signed off on the VOLTS! How much?

Bought a Green Europe and left a Dead Ambassador. Makes sense?

Its all in the LINK.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sensia

Its all in the LINK.

What's all in the LINK? Your BS?

Because here is what IS in YOUR LINK:

"That's not the actual budget – simply the negotiating position of Congress."

Darling, "the devil is ALWAYS in the details"! You've been suckered again.

And you still have not given me a bill # that was sent from the House to the Senate and from the Senate to the President's desk that was signed by the President that reduces expenditures for the Libyan facilities. You know why you can't? It ain't there!!!

They bought friggin VOLTS (to bail out the VOLT catastrophy) and pissed off the money .... MAKING EUROPE GREEN!!!!!! More pissed off money and a dead ambassador with 3 good men. Keep in mind that this idiot-Harvard Law Reviewer used taxpayers money to build the VOLTS and then used taxpayers money to buy them .. cuz they are tooo expensive for general public to buy. Obamacare ... here we come!!!!!!!!

Any body who votes for this crook with blood on his hands who calls anyone on this board an idiot ... should really be ashamed of himself or herself.

Romney is too decent a man to push that bullshit in this guy's face. Sad.
May be Ryan will and Obaminable will have to wear it until mid-January.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What's all in the LINK? Your BS?

Because here is what in YOUR LINK:

"That's not the actual budget – simply the negotiating position of Congress."

Darling, "the devil is ALWAYS in the details"! You've been suckered again.

And you still have not given me a bill # that was sent from the House to the Senate and from the Senate to the President's desk that was signed by the President that reduces expenditures for the Libyan facilities. You know why you can't? It ain't there!!!

They bought friggin VOLTS (to bail out the VOLT catastrophy) and pissed off the money .... MAKING EUROPE GREEN!!!!!! More pissed off money and a dead ambassador with 3 good men. Keep in mind that this idiot-Harvard Law Reviewer used taxpayers money to build the VOLTS and then used taxpayers money to buy them .. cuz they are tooo expensive for general public to buy. Obamacare ... here we come!!!!!!!!

Any body who votes for this crook with blood on his hands who calls anyone on this board an idiot ... should really be ashamed of himself or herself.

Romney is too decent a man to push that bullshit in this guy's face. Sad.
May be Ryan will and Obaminable will have to wear it until mid-January.

Sorry we will have to disagree on this. Mitt is a liar and will do and say anything to mislead the people just to get elected. It was the repubs who blocked efforts to provide additional funding for increased security and wittled the funds down over the years for our embassies. So now they scream and hollar about it and try to place blame on our current Pres and his administration. As far as I am concerned they dont care who they hurt with all their obstructionism, as they are hell bent on America suffering to frustrate people in the hopes of ousting Obama. Their actions in my opinion are treasonous.
Bills were blocked here is another link. The information on these bills can be found on the internet.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...gs-in-benghazi

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sensia

Sorry we will have to disagree on this. Mitt is a liar and will do and say anything to mislead the people just to get elected. It was the repubs who blocked efforts to provide additional funding for increased security and wittled the funds down over the years for our embassies. So now they scream and hollar about it and try to place blame on our current Pres and his administration. As far as I am concerned they dont care who they hurt with all their obstructionism, as they are hell bent on America suffering to frustrate people in the hopes of ousting Obama. Their actions in my opinion are treasonous.
Bills were blocked here is another link. The information on these bills can be found on the internet.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...gs-in-benghazi

1) For almost a month, Odumbo, et al, lied about what transpired in Libya on 9/11, 2012.

2) Your sources don't pass muster with regards to credibility.

3) Most importantly -- and despite your repeated denials -- Lamb is on record for setting the level of security in Libya "artificially low" for political -- not fiscal -- reasons.

[waverunner234]

I was gonna say you're an idiot, on second thought I'm just gonna say nothing.
But the idiot thing lingers.

[Sensia]

Yes well de-nial isn't a river in Egypt now is it? Stay in your little bubble then where nothing gets through.

:-)