Anonymous wrote:Yes republicans are despicable. What are they hiding in Iraq?

I blame Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator John Kerry, who both voted for that invasion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

The actual report from the Senate Intel. Committee is linked within the WaPo article.

- The attacks were preventable.
- Surveillance video from the annex shows there was not any kind of demonstration or protest before the attack.

Nice job Mr. President. You too Mrs Clinton.

We already know that they should have put in more security. I believe that Clinton has already apologized for that long ago.
Nothing about the surveillance video contradicts the NYT story.

I want our 4,000 dead soldiers back. When will we get an apology for invading the wrong country?

Thank you for bringing former President Bush into this thread. Always important to be sure to include him. Any other former presidents you'd like to list?

No, just the ones who fuck up that bad.

How can it be ignored? If you are upset about mistakes which cost American lives, I suppose you have 1000x the outrage for George W. Bush's mistake. Or, you're just using four dead Americans for political advantage. Which is it? Your choice.

No one's arguing with you; keep bringing up GW. It's obviously important to compare all current presidential decisions to his decisions.

OK so you accept that Bush royally screwed up when he invaded Iraq, and that he is responsible for the needless death of 4,000 troops? Please say it because I haven't actually heard a conservative do that before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

The actual report from the Senate Intel. Committee is linked within the WaPo article.

- The attacks were preventable.
- Surveillance video from the annex shows there was not any kind of demonstration or protest before the attack.

Nice job Mr. President. You too Mrs Clinton.

We already know that they should have put in more security. I believe that Clinton has already apologized for that long ago.
Nothing about the surveillance video contradicts the NYT story.

I want our 4,000 dead soldiers back. When will we get an apology for invading the wrong country?

Thank you for bringing former President Bush into this thread. Always important to be sure to include him. Any other former presidents you'd like to list?

No, just the ones who fuck up that bad.

How can it be ignored? If you are upset about mistakes which cost American lives, I suppose you have 1000x the outrage for George W. Bush's mistake. Or, you're just using four dead Americans for political advantage. Which is it? Your choice.

No one's arguing with you; keep bringing up GW. It's obviously important to compare all current presidential decisions to his decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

The actual report from the Senate Intel. Committee is linked within the WaPo article.

- The attacks were preventable.
- Surveillance video from the annex shows there was not any kind of demonstration or protest before the attack.

Nice job Mr. President. You too Mrs Clinton.

We already know that they should have put in more security. I believe that Clinton has already apologized for that long ago.
Nothing about the surveillance video contradicts the NYT story.

I want our 4,000 dead soldiers back. When will we get an apology for invading the wrong country?

Thank you for bringing former President Bush into this thread. Always important to be sure to include him. Any other former presidents you'd like to list?

No, just the ones who fuck up that bad.

How can it be ignored? If you are upset about mistakes which cost American lives, I suppose you have 1000x the outrage for George W. Bush's mistake. Or, you're just using four dead Americans for political advantage. Which is it? Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:

For the rest of us, this was a tragic loss of four lives due to inadequate security in a volatile country, nothing more.

Inadequate security. Inadequate response. Inadequate answers.

For the rest of us, this was a tragic loss of four lives due to inadequate security in a volatile country, nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]



Please source that.

It's well known but fox is not interested in the truth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf


Not the poster you quoted, but that report does not say the "Military leaders refused to send in (help) because they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton".

Dude, it just doesn't say that.

Think about this for a moment...A military leader, lets call him a general, would not know how many people (if any) were dead during the early hours of this attack. The fog of war would surround this. Are you saying the general would wait until he had some confirmation that some people were dead and then decide that he could gain political points by not sending people to respond to the deaths? That does not make any sense at all. Besides, you do know that some generals and admirals are democrats. They actually vote both ways you know.

There are a lots of unanswered questions reguarding the role of republicans in Benghazi and it makes more sense than what you people are saying Obama or Clinton roll was. There was the head of afcon general ham being relieved of command that night by the joint chiefs. Why? No one will say officially, but word is he refused a direct order. There also is another high ranking navy officer who was relieved. Throw in Petraeus was running the cia operations in Benghazi and romney's too quick of a response. Now you have something to investigate.

There are more than a few really stupid posts in this thread, but you are the winner. By a mile.

What falvor of kool-aid do they give you? Seriously, you are a complete nut job.

Anonymous wrote:

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]



Please source that.

It's well known but fox is not interested in the truth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf


Not the poster you quoted, but that report does not say the "Military leaders refused to send in (help) because they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton".

Dude, it just doesn't say that.

Think about this for a moment...A military leader, lets call him a general, would not know how many people (if any) were dead during the early hours of this attack. The fog of war would surround this. Are you saying the general would wait until he had some confirmation that some people were dead and then decide that he could gain political points by not sending people to respond to the deaths? That does not make any sense at all. Besides, you do know that some generals and admirals are democrats. They actually vote both ways you know.

There are a lots of unanswered questions reguarding the role of republicans in Benghazi and it makes more sense than what you people are saying Obama or Clinton roll was. There was the head of afcon general ham being relieved of command that night by the joint chiefs. Why? No one will say officially, but word is he refused a direct order. There also is another high ranking navy officer who was relieved. Throw in Petraeus was running the cia operations in Benghazi and romney's too quick of a response. Now you have something to investigate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

The actual report from the Senate Intel. Committee is linked within the WaPo article.

- The attacks were preventable.
- Surveillance video from the annex shows there was not any kind of demonstration or protest before the attack.

Nice job Mr. President. You too Mrs Clinton.

We already know that they should have put in more security. I believe that Clinton has already apologized for that long ago.
Nothing about the surveillance video contradicts the NYT story.

I want our 4,000 dead soldiers back. When will we get an apology for invading the wrong country?

Thank you for bringing former President Bush into this thread. Always important to be sure to include him. Any other former presidents you'd like to list?

Anonymous wrote:Why did State/Stevens twice turn down Ham's offer for military support before the attack on Benghazi?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

The actual report from the Senate Intel. Committee is linked within the WaPo article.

- The attacks were preventable.
- Surveillance video from the annex shows there was not any kind of demonstration or protest before the attack.

Nice job Mr. President. You too Mrs Clinton.

We already know that they should have put in more security. I believe that Clinton has already apologized for that long ago.
Nothing about the surveillance video contradicts the NYT story.

I want our 4,000 dead soldiers back. When will we get an apology for invading the wrong country?