PDA

View Full Version : The regime lied, the ambassador died.



LWW
10-10-2012, 05:48 AM
After nearly a month of spoon feeding the Obamatrons that our ambassador to Libya lost his life due to protests spurred by a comical YOUTUBE video ... we now learn that, in fact, there were no protests at all, that the embassy had an irresponsibly lw level of security, that this was kown to have been an orchestrated terrorist attack from the start, that not only was increased security denied by the state department ... but the embassy was tod to stop even requesting increased security after numerous denials of same.

The blood of our ambassador is clearly on the hands of the Obama regime, and no amount of Obamatron excuses will wash it away.

Soflasnapper
10-10-2012, 09:25 AM
This has nothing to do with the embassy. He wasn't at the embassy, which did have far better security than the consulate office.

Nor were there lies that led to his death. Even under your scenario, the lies were after the death, not before, leading to the death.

The real question is who were the well-trained special forces, who was behind them, and most importantly, how did they know where the safe house was to place it under pinpoint mortar attack?

Those fighters had sources that had penetrated our security arrangements. Is that more consistent with alleged al Qaeda, or Mossad?

Until and unless these questions are answered, we still don't know what happened. If we have traitorous moles in the State Dept., this is most worrisome, and not something to be blurted out in public. If we instead were targeted using false flag actors by supposed allies, that is most worrisome of all, and again, not something that can be revealed.

Soflasnapper
10-10-2012, 11:02 AM
The 'irresponsibly low' level of security at the Benghazi consulate office was 'low' by one or two persons. It was the difference between the 3 they had or 4 or 5.

In the meantime, these bleating bastard Republicans have consistently voted millions of dollars less a year for embassy and consulate security than requested by State and the administration.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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.</div></div>

And by 'millions,' I should clarify we're talking over $100 million.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "In 2011 they came in and passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of that fiscal year. The House proposed $70 million cut in the WSP and they proposed a $204 million cut in Embassy security," says Mr. Lilly. "Then the next year, fiscal 2012, they cut worldwide security by $145 million and embassy security by $376 million. This year's bill is the same thing all over again. The House has cut the worldwide security budget $149 million below the request."
Roughly 260 installations

That's not the actual budget – simply the negotiating position of Congress. The Senate and the President have sought more money than the House for embassy security, but the horse-trading means that the State Department ends up with less than it requested. For instance, in the fiscal 2012 budget, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the cuts over the State Departments' request were "whittled back by the Senate," he says, to $109 million for WSP and $131 million for embassy security.</span> </div></div>

Here, Christian Monitor report (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget)

LWW
10-10-2012, 01:22 PM
You remind me of Saddam's boys ... regime dead enders.

Stretch
10-10-2012, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You remind me of Saddam's boys ... regime dead enders. </div></div>

There there, don't get your thong in a wad just because you got your a$$ handed to you on a platter again. St.

Soflasnapper
10-10-2012, 03:02 PM
You mean Baghdad Mitt? LOL!

The key extra security in question was raising the security personnel from 3 to either 4 or 5. Neither would have altered the outcome, with 50 (whatever) heavily armed fighters able to put mortar fire directly on the safehouse that was supposed to be a secret, and the plan B for security. An extra guy or two would not have prevented that lapse of secrecy as to the safehouse's location, and that lapse is the $64,000 question.

If anything I said is wrong, please point it out.

It's the same point Denzil Washington made in 'Safe House.' How did they know to target that location?

LWW
10-10-2012, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean Baghdad Mitt? LOL!

The key extra security in question was raising the security personnel from 3 to either 4 or 5. Neither would have altered the outcome, with 50 (whatever) heavily armed fighters able to put mortar fire directly on the safehouse that was supposed to be a secret, and the plan B for security. An extra guy or two would not have prevented that lapse of secrecy as to the safehouse's location, and that lapse is the $64,000 question.

If anything I said is wrong, please point it out.

It's the same point Denzil Washington made in 'Safe House.' How did they know to target that location? </div></div>

Are you totally mad?

We had no armed US security on site.

Soflasnapper
10-11-2012, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But despite previous threats in Libya, one security official testified that additional security may not have helped. State Department officials testified that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>there were five diplomatic security agents on the Benghazi compound during the attacks</span>, along with three Libyan security officials.

“The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service,” said Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer at State. “Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guard or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82256.html#ixzz290QkFv8G
</div></div>

If you meant no Marines, that seems correct. If you meant no US security personnel with guns, that is false.

It is false even before considering this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also at the hearing, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) tangled with Chaffetz over what information should be classified, after <span style='font-size: 14pt'>State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb confirmed that there was a seven-member rapid response force located in the annex of the consulate.</span>

Chaffetz interrupted Lynch’s line of questioning, saying that specific information should be classified. Lynch shot back that the point of the hearing was to determine how much security was present at the time of the attack.

“And now that information is off the record?” he asked Chaffetz. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82256_Page2.html#ixzz290Rlswpp
</div></div>

LWW
10-11-2012, 10:33 AM
Where does it say they were American?

What's that?

It doesn't?

I know.

Gayle in MD
10-11-2012, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But despite previous threats in Libya, one security official testified that additional security may not have helped. State Department officials testified that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>there were five diplomatic security agents on the Benghazi compound during the attacks</span>, along with three Libyan security officials.

“The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service,” said Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer at State. “Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guard or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82256.html#ixzz290QkFv8G
</div></div>

If you meant no Marines, that seems correct. If you meant no US security personnel with guns, that is false.

It is false even before considering this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also at the hearing, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) tangled with Chaffetz over what information should be classified, after <span style='font-size: 14pt'>State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb confirmed that there was a seven-member rapid response force located in the annex of the consulate.</span>

Chaffetz interrupted Lynch’s line of questioning, saying that specific information should be classified. Lynch shot back that the point of the hearing was to determine how much security was present at the time of the attack.

“And now that information is off the record?” he asked Chaffetz. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82256_Page2.html#ixzz290Rlswpp
</div></div> </div></div>

I have been watching the testimony all day, and thhose who are suggestitng a coverup, by the administration, are going to look like the fools they are when they finally hear the news, if any of them actually ever watch any news other than Faux Noise, which I doubt.

The testimony proves there was no pressure, and no cover-up by this administration.

Some on this forum are still living back in the days of Bush, when cover-ups were the standard M.O.!

Issa and the other Republicans have only made themselves look even more small and corrupt than they already have proven themselves to be.

G.

LWW
10-11-2012, 11:06 AM
Did you se Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz display her talents at doulethink and blackwhite on CNN?

Soflasnapper
10-11-2012, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where does it say they were American?

What's that?

It doesn't?

I know. </div></div>

Right, but you have to read between the lines (or have some familiarity with the discussion of the evidence that's already occurred).

What do you think they mean when they specifically differentiate the 'Libyan' guys from the diplomatic security guys? That the diplomatic security force was also Libyan? Or do you think they were other non-US foreign nationals who were not Libyans?

Soflasnapper
10-11-2012, 12:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you se Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz display her talents at doulethink and blackwhite on CNN? </div></div>

Yes. She was wrong to say later proved to be false things weren't false at the time. False is false. She should have said, and likely meant to say, they weren't LIES at the time (since that they were false wasn't known), or that it was what was being reported as to the facts of the time, faithfully repeated.

Extending and revising her remarks, these would have been not only defensible points as properly framed, but true points as well.

Just an editorial note from me-- please proceed with getting your hate on, as per usual.