Benghazi

[Anonymous]

Since it will surely come up tonight, just thought I'd head off the DCUM Republican harping on this non-issue with some common sense about the intelligence process and how it all went down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?hp&_r=0

[Anonymous]

Here's the best quote:

“A demand for an explanation that is quick, definite and unchanging reflects a naïve expectation — or in the present case, irresponsible politicking,” James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said at an intelligence symposium on Oct. 9.

[Anonymous]

I'm a registered Dem and 2008 Obama voter and would hardly call Benghazi a non-issue. It rightfully SHOULD be an issue. The US should not have been blindsided, given our awareness of the growing presence of militias amidst a power vacuum, the attacks on the Red Cross, the IEDs previously lobbed at our consulate, and the attack on the British Embassy convoy. WTF went wrong with intelligence and State? The newest release of documents leaves me further dismayed and shaking my head in disbelief.

[Anonymous]

We had about five or six attacks on embassies and consulates in the last administration, by my count. it is almost expected. I suppose they can politicize it if they want, but it's a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since it will surely come up tonight, just thought I'd head off the DCUM Republican harping on this non-issue with some common sense about the intelligence process and how it all went down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?hp&_r=0

Sorry, you lost all credibility when you used the words "non-issue" in the same sentance at common sense.

It's 2:00, why not go ahead and declare Obama as the only "adult in the room" by his desire to wait for an investigation to present us the facts in the fullness of time and not speak of it until then in deference to those killed and the lack of conclusions, etc....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had about five or six attacks on embassies and consulates in the last administration, by my count. it is almost expected. I suppose they can politicize it if they want, but it's a shame.

Wait, were you counting from 2001 - 2009 and does your account bear any official merit? Or is this just covering the fact that this is first US Ambassador killed in what 30 years? Let's not forget that during your supposed count, there were hot wars actually going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had about five or six attacks on embassies and consulates in the last administration, by my count. it is almost expected. I suppose they can politicize it if they want, but it's a shame.

How many ambassadors died? Who thinks that 4 people can defend an entire embassy in a hostile anti american country?

[Anonymous]

Who thinks that anyone here actually knows all the facts about what security was present at the time? Regardless, the point stands that Republicans are harping on semantics and politicizing the event.

[Anonymous]

Will it still be considered politicization when Bob Schiefer brings it up tonight? For goodness sake, do you seriously think Romney will be the first one to talk about it? I have no data to claim I'm right, but I highly doubt this is 50/50 issue, in that the half of the country that'll be voting for the president simply sees this as a non-issue. You're kidding yourself if you think so.

But keep up the prebuttal, I'm sure it'll affect the outcome tonight.

[Anonymous]

Romney is treasonous. He is given aid and comfort to the emenies of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney is treasonous. He is given aid and comfort to the emenies of the US.

And you're clearly not giving aid and comfort to a dictionary....your true enemy...don't forget to vote on November 7th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it will surely come up tonight, just thought I'd head off the DCUM Republican harping on this non-issue with some common sense about the intelligence process and how it all went down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?hp&_r=0

Sorry, you lost all credibility when you used the words "non-issue" in the same sentance at common sense.

Next OP will be saying "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney is treasonous. He is given aid and comfort to the emenies of the US.

And you're clearly not giving aid and comfort to a dictionary....your true enemy...don't forget to vote on November 7th.

Given the incidences of Republican voter fraud (I'm looking at you, Arizona), this isn't funny. At all.

[Anonymous]

The embassy should have had more security but I can see these mistakes happening. The White House's long confusion about what really happened, and blaming the bad video, is not a non-issue for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney is treasonous. He is given aid and comfort to the emenies of the US.

And you're clearly not giving aid and comfort to a dictionary....your true enemy...don't forget to vote on November 7th.

Given the incidences of Republican voter fraud (I'm looking at you, Arizona), this isn't funny. At all.

Easy Pip-Squeak, we're talking about more important things than that.

Such as:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331125/first-aid-living-bing-west

"It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve."