Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
- Thread starter
- #101
Ok. Though I admit this is a pointless excercise I will attempt to explain this in small words. An "asset" is a person with information who can tell us stuff. If you say you know something and the bad men know only so many people could have told you, that tells them who the asset might be. So smart national security people try not to let the bad guys know what they know in order to protect who is telling them stuff. That way, those people can continue to tell them stuff rather than be shot by the bad guys.
I can only assume you don't work in any kind of classified position, which should be a relief for us all.
The Libyan government publicly announced that it was an act of terror, and that it was preplanned, the day after the attack.
If Obama is worried about protecting assets why didn't he make sure the doctor who helped us identify bin Laden was safe before he announced the attack? Why didn't he send people into the consulate the next day to gather up classified materials, including the names of "assets" in the local militia groups? Do you have any reasonable explanation of how it would have endangered assets to admit the self evident truth when everyone in the world knows we have cell phones, and that we actually rescued the people that were in Benghazi before Obama tried to blame the video? Do you think it is reasonable to presume that the people who were under attack were aware that there was no demonstration before the attack?
Seriously dude, stop rationalizing, it's pathetic.
Think what you like. I said I knew it was a pointless exercise.
Is it pointless because you prefer to bury your head in the sand rather than ask questions?