This is a non-issue folks. The Republicans want to make it look like a grand cover up but the evidence just isn't there. Since the attacks happened the Republicans have continued to insist that there is a deeper, more sinister conspiracy at hand and that they will be producing the evidence of everything very soon. The only problem is that there is no smoking gun, there is nothing to uncover. In fact, the Republicans best witness, Hicks, has actually given sworn testimony previously that are contrary to his statements yesterday. Republicans promised that the most damning evidence would be laid out during these hearings and now they are promising that it will be next time. So let's get down to what this is really all about: Republicans know that they have absolutely no candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.....not even close. Further, the only two guys who can beat her, IMO, will never be nominated because they aren't bat shit crazy enough: Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Personally I think this is a shame because I would seriously consider voting for either of them. Nonetheless, Republicans are only trying to strip away some of the love for Hillary with the hopes that some of the shit they are flinging against the wall will stick. Please do not misinterpret my disdain for the Republican handling of this issue as disrespectful to those who lost their lives that tragic evening. Further, I do believe there are things that the state department could have done better. But when the chairman of the joint chiefs testify's that no reinforcements could have been deployed in time to stop the attacks, the case is closed as far as I am concerned. Sad, but not criminal.
LOL...you dont get Semantics very well...Stop the Attacks...maybe Not... Save Lives and secure our embassy yes. You know what scares me that we have gotten to the point that truth and common sense don't matter anymore it is just how can i use this to hurt the other side. And that my friends as far as i am concerned is criminal!!
If it had been Michele Obama. Would the outcome have been different ? Instead of telling the SpecOps group ,less than an hour away, to stand down. Do you think they would've let them go?
I understand perfectly well my friend. Look, I have reserved judgment on this issue because I truly wanted to see how the evidence would unfold. But after 8 months and countless hearings and an independent review that was conducted by Tom Pickering who was the ambassador to the UN during GWB administration, and nothing turning up except the speculation of a few congressmen and senators, it is obvious that there is nothing sinister about this at all. I don't know if you understand this or not but there were two separate attacks that night. The first attack was repelled and the ambassador, along with his security detail escaped, into an annex that was remotely located. It was there that the second attack took place and, sadly, led to the death of four great Americans. The second attack was far more coordinated than the first. The reinforcements that everyone keeps talking about were ordered to stand down because they believed that the attack was over and that they were safe. I am not saying that human errors were not made because it is quite obvious that there were. But there is absolutely zero evidence that anyone tried to cover up anything. And let's not forget the context of this event: in the midst of a very contentious Presidential election, and the challenger really needs to make the President look like he is incompetent on foreign policy in spite of his vast string of successes. If this happens at any other time, this whole incident is an ugly page in our history but doesn't get politicized.
well, realistically, because she is the First Lady she would have had a much larger security detail than the Ambassador. The movements of a First Lady in a foreign country are carefully choreographed and security sweeps would have turned up potential dangers well before she arrived there. Understand that this was in a remote locale in Libya, a country that was still reeling from a civil war that finally freed them from the rule of Ghaddafi. Ambassador Stevens was well liked by the Libyan population for his assistance with getting US involvement in their war to oust Ghaddafi. There is absolutely no denying that there were demonstrations across the middle east during those few days because of the stupid video. Granted, a stupid video is no reason for mass demonstrations. That said, if you read the report it sounds like a group of wanna-be Al Queda guys decided to seize the opportunity to make an attack on the embassy outpost. When they were repelled they regrouped and staged a more coordinated attack with greater fire power and were able to overwhelm the defenses. Even Al Queda did not take credit for the attacks, so that has to tell you that these guys were just wanna-be's because Al Queda never misses a chance to take credit for killing Americans. so to answer your question, no....this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of Chris Stevens' life versus Michelle Obama's life. Both are equally precious and deserving of our best efforts to maintain their safety at all times. Unfortunately it just happens some times. and when you are in remote Libya, it is a lot easier to conduct such an operation than it is on Pennsylvania Ave.
If its a non issue, why bring it up? None of us did............... The cover-up is the very simple fact that NO ONE ACCEPTS THE BLAME FOR STANDING DOWN.. Its bullshit. I know that isn't a cover-up as much as none can even admit they fucked this up. Whatever happened to "leave no man behind?"
It's good to be disagreeing again Pride. What do you mean, "Why bring it up?" It's been all over the national news my friend. It's the Republicans who will not let it go. I'm not the one getting on TV night in and night out to promise that the real juicy stuff, the really nasty side of this story is yet to come out.....and when it does, it's going to mean impeachments and arrests and blah, blah, blah, blah. So you can take that little "Why bring it up?" crap and stick it up your ass. You really should read the report produced by the bi-partisan committee that conducted the investigation. No one is accepting blame for telling them to stand down because the very people who died that night informed them that they had escaped the attacks and were secure at a remote location that contained a "safe room." The Amabassador and the other guys died not from gun shot wounds but from smoke inhalation. Do you want them to come back to life and take responsibility, Pride? Jesus. Everyone and their brother has admitted that mistakes were made but no one did anything intentional, nor did they cover it up. We didn't leave them behind. We retrieved their bodies and flew them back to the states and their families. "Leave no man behind" refers to ensuring everyone, dead or alive, comes home. Let's not forget that funding for additional security at embassies across the world were slashed the previous year because of the insistance on strict austerity measures. In fact 300 million dollars were trimmed out of the budget that previously were allocated toward added security, specifically at hot spots like Libya. So if you really want to start pointing fingers then let's take a look at who has been insisting on cutting the budget and why in the hell was that portion of the budget trimmed? Especially now.
You came here telling us its a non issue. Non issues dont get brought up. It would be different if I started the thread and you said it, but it seems silly for you to start a thread about something that isn't and issue.
Yea I know. Just seems like a bitch move. I mean, we were attacked. Why stand down? Its called "pussy".
