Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There's nothing to defend.
An embassy was attacked by terrorists.
Simple as that.
We The People Demand Answers about Benghazi | Petition2Congress
Go here and SIGN demanding Obama be placed under OATH immediately and answer!
The facts are out, more keep coming, and with each new fact coming out I get sicker and sicker to my stomach. At first I thought Obama just fucked up not listening to the pleas for more security and having the common sense to up security in the middle east on 9/11, and then tried to blame it on a video. Now its pretty apparent what happened, and there are only two scenarious that I could think of, and both are damning for Obama. 1. He did not give a flying fuck what was going on in Benghazi. Or 2. He left an ambassador, 2 former navy seals, and another consultant the fend for themselves, over some votes. Watching a 7 hour attack take place right before your eyes, and not doing anything about it, what other explanation is there? Lets hear it Liberals, how can you defend these actions.
Fire the Executive branch. 11 days from now. Nov. 6. Vote Republican and put Obama out to pasture.A decision was made to deny repeated requests for assistance.There's nothing to defend.
An embassy was attacked by terrorists.
Simple as that.
Try defending that.
This just in: Obama PERSONALLY killed Ambassador Chris Stevens...I just heard a theFOXNEWS pundit say so on da teevee.
Yep...his black A$$ needs to be impeached...post haste.
Simple. I don't defend Obama on this.
Why? They didn't take immediate defensive action when the attacked happened. A few shots should have been fired, but werent. Which allowed the murders to happen.
I don't blame him on this, but neither do I defend him on this.
The facts are out, more keep coming, and with each new fact coming out I get sicker and sicker to my stomach. At first I thought Obama just fucked up not listening to the pleas for more security and having the common sense to up security in the middle east on 9/11, and then tried to blame it on a video. Now its pretty apparent what happened, and there are only two scenarious that I could think of, and both are damning for Obama. 1. He did not give a flying fuck what was going on in Benghazi. Or 2. He left an ambassador, 2 former navy seals, and another consultant the fend for themselves, over some votes. Watching a 7 hour attack take place right before your eyes, and not doing anything about it, what other explanation is there? Lets hear it Liberals, how can you defend these actions.
The reasoning behind this: it is quite common for unarmed mobs of demonstrators organized specifically by hostile political groups, mostly Communist or Islamist, to over-run American diplomatic missions and act as cover for other attacks. Frequently these attacks are coordinated with hostile local governments and intelligence agencies, the KGB in the bad old days, and the MOIS or others today.
For this reason, the security staff in Benghazi, probably pretty small, did not fight back when it was most opportune.
This passivity is not in any manner required or the only option. American missions abroad also have a signifcant armed presence.
First there is the Regional Security Officer (RSO) and his staff of Assistant Regional Security Officers (ARSO) who are drawn from the cadre of Special Agents in the Diplomatic Security Service, part of the DOS. They are armed and have the weapons to actively resist an attack or an attempt to over-run the mission by an organized mob.
The RSO and ARSOs also manage a detachment of Marine Security Guards(MSG), U.S. Marines specially selected for maturity, to execute security functions within the mission compound. They man entry posts, patrol the grounds, and secure classified information. They are not well armed, mostly the standard M-9 pistol and shotguns. Usually they are not issued any M-16 variants or any heavier weapons.
However, security outside the mission grounds are the responsibility of either contract security personnel hired at the direction of the RSO or by the host country. These guards are notoriously unreliable and are mostly for show. Their only significant duties are maintaining access to the gates and doors in the outer mission wall or fence for routine purposes, such as keeping the line of visitors in order. They are usually only armed with pistols. Consequently they offer little or no resistance to any attack, armed or not.
Of course governments, terrorist groups and intelligence agencies know this and consider an American diplomatic mission to be a soft and easy target. Even before the attack on our Embassy in Tehran and after, it was DOS policy and has resulted in continuous attacks on our missions as well as the obvious deaths, loss of classified information and political humiliation.
Now, one does not want every demonstration in front of an American mission to result in the shooting of a few demonstrators pour encourage les autres. It would be bad PR.
However, the policy of rolling over and playing dead has not worked. The recent attacks in Benghazi and Cairo show that passivity does not work.
This just in: Obama PERSONALLY killed Ambassador Chris Stevens...I just heard a theFOXNEWS pundit say so on da teevee.
Yep...his black A$$ needs to be impeached...post haste.
I agree, if by "adults" you mean "simpleminded Obama bootlickers".I think 50 threads on the exact same subject ought to be enough.
You've had your fun, now come back and join the adults.
Simple. I don't defend Obama on this.
Why? They didn't take immediate defensive action when the attacked happened. A few shots should have been fired, but werent. Which allowed the murders to happen.
I don't blame him on this, but neither do I defend him on this.
The facts are out, more keep coming, and with each new fact coming out I get sicker and sicker to my stomach. At first I thought Obama just fucked up not listening to the pleas for more security and having the common sense to up security in the middle east on 9/11, and then tried to blame it on a video. Now its pretty apparent what happened, and there are only two scenarious that I could think of, and both are damning for Obama. 1. He did not give a flying fuck what was going on in Benghazi. Or 2. He left an ambassador, 2 former navy seals, and another consultant the fend for themselves, over some votes. Watching a 7 hour attack take place right before your eyes, and not doing anything about it, what other explanation is there? Lets hear it Liberals, how can you defend these actions.
1. He did not immediately know of this event http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-knew-about-libya-attacks-within-2-hours.html
2. Republicans and GOP voted to cut funding from Embassy security: GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress
Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones
Daily Kos: House GOP, Paul Ryan Cut $400M from Embassy Safety Funding
Jason Chaffetz Admits House Republicans Cut Funding For Embassy Security « Alan Colmes' Liberaland
Libya security: Rep. Jason Chaffetz admits voting to cut funding for embassy security (VIDEO) | GlobalPost
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5j063VuT8w]Republicans delight in their cuts for embassy security - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyxzxpkmGWo]GOP Rep Who Proudly Cut Embassy Funding Blames Obama for Embassy Attack - YouTube[/ame]
3. Obama sent 50 marines and more drones to Libya after the attack.
Obama sends 50 marines to Libya after US envoy killed in rocket attack
Navy ships sent to waters off Libya coast | Fox News
Libya attack: Pentagon sends elite Marine team to protect Americans - CSMonitor.com
4. It wasn't Obama's decision to do nothing, It was standard policy for riots.
Why Didn't Marines Shoot Embassy Attackers? | VDARE.com
The reasoning behind this: it is quite common for unarmed mobs of demonstrators organized specifically by hostile political groups, mostly Communist or Islamist, to over-run American diplomatic missions and act as cover for other attacks. Frequently these attacks are coordinated with hostile local governments and intelligence agencies, the KGB in the bad old days, and the MOIS or others today.
For this reason, the security staff in Benghazi, probably pretty small, did not fight back when it was most opportune.
This passivity is not in any manner required or the only option. American missions abroad also have a signifcant armed presence.
First there is the Regional Security Officer (RSO) and his staff of Assistant Regional Security Officers (ARSO) who are drawn from the cadre of Special Agents in the Diplomatic Security Service, part of the DOS. They are armed and have the weapons to actively resist an attack or an attempt to over-run the mission by an organized mob.
The RSO and ARSOs also manage a detachment of Marine Security Guards(MSG), U.S. Marines specially selected for maturity, to execute security functions within the mission compound. They man entry posts, patrol the grounds, and secure classified information. They are not well armed, mostly the standard M-9 pistol and shotguns. Usually they are not issued any M-16 variants or any heavier weapons.
However, security outside the mission grounds are the responsibility of either contract security personnel hired at the direction of the RSO or by the host country. These guards are notoriously unreliable and are mostly for show. Their only significant duties are maintaining access to the gates and doors in the outer mission wall or fence for routine purposes, such as keeping the line of visitors in order. They are usually only armed with pistols. Consequently they offer little or no resistance to any attack, armed or not.
Of course governments, terrorist groups and intelligence agencies know this and consider an American diplomatic mission to be a soft and easy target. Even before the attack on our Embassy in Tehran and after, it was DOS policy and has resulted in continuous attacks on our missions as well as the obvious deaths, loss of classified information and political humiliation.
Now, one does not want every demonstration in front of an American mission to result in the shooting of a few demonstrators pour encourage les autres. It would be bad PR.
However, the policy of rolling over and playing dead has not worked. The recent attacks in Benghazi and Cairo show that passivity does not work.
They also took out 38 military men--25 of whom were US Navy Seals and the rest who were National indigenous Security folk and not Americans. They got even a long time ago. The only reason they're helping themselves to more American bloodshed is to cause a ruckus in this nation at election time, hoping to give a win to the candidate they want. Unfortunately, they aren't thinking about the good of the American people when they think outside the box and go after persons of peace and diplomacy.The facts are out, more keep coming, and with each new fact coming out I get sicker and sicker to my stomach. At first I thought Obama just fucked up not listening to the pleas for more security and having the common sense to up security in the middle east on 9/11, and then tried to blame it on a video. Now its pretty apparent what happened, and there are only two scenarious that I could think of, and both are damning for Obama. 1. He did not give a flying fuck what was going on in Benghazi. Or 2. He left an ambassador, 2 former navy seals, and another consultant the fend for themselves, over some votes. Watching a 7 hour attack take place right before your eyes, and not doing anything about it, what other explanation is there? Lets hear it Liberals, how can you defend these actions.
1. He did not immediately know of this event http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-knew-about-libya-attacks-within-2-hours.html
2. Republicans and GOP voted to cut funding from Embassy security: GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress
Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money | Mother Jones
Daily Kos: House GOP, Paul Ryan Cut $400M from Embassy Safety Funding
Jason Chaffetz Admits House Republicans Cut Funding For Embassy Security « Alan Colmes' Liberaland
Libya security: Rep. Jason Chaffetz admits voting to cut funding for embassy security (VIDEO) | GlobalPost
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5j063VuT8w"]Republicans delight in their cuts for embassy security - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyxzxpkmGWo"]GOP Rep Who Proudly Cut Embassy Funding Blames Obama for Embassy Attack - YouTube[/ame]
3. Obama sent 50 marines and more drones to Libya after the attack.
Obama sends 50 marines to Libya after US envoy killed in rocket attack
Navy ships sent to waters off Libya coast | Fox News
Libya attack: Pentagon sends elite Marine team to protect Americans - CSMonitor.com
4. It wasn't Obama's decision to do nothing, It was standard policy for riots.
Why Didn't Marines Shoot Embassy Attackers? | VDARE.com
The reasoning behind this: it is quite common for unarmed mobs of demonstrators organized specifically by hostile political groups, mostly Communist or Islamist, to over-run American diplomatic missions and act as cover for other attacks. Frequently these attacks are coordinated with hostile local governments and intelligence agencies, the KGB in the bad old days, and the MOIS or others today.
For this reason, the security staff in Benghazi, probably pretty small, did not fight back when it was most opportune.
This passivity is not in any manner required or the only option. American missions abroad also have a signifcant armed presence.
First there is the Regional Security Officer (RSO) and his staff of Assistant Regional Security Officers (ARSO) who are drawn from the cadre of Special Agents in the Diplomatic Security Service, part of the DOS. They are armed and have the weapons to actively resist an attack or an attempt to over-run the mission by an organized mob.
The RSO and ARSOs also manage a detachment of Marine Security Guards(MSG), U.S. Marines specially selected for maturity, to execute security functions within the mission compound. They man entry posts, patrol the grounds, and secure classified information. They are not well armed, mostly the standard M-9 pistol and shotguns. Usually they are not issued any M-16 variants or any heavier weapons.
However, security outside the mission grounds are the responsibility of either contract security personnel hired at the direction of the RSO or by the host country. These guards are notoriously unreliable and are mostly for show. Their only significant duties are maintaining access to the gates and doors in the outer mission wall or fence for routine purposes, such as keeping the line of visitors in order. They are usually only armed with pistols. Consequently they offer little or no resistance to any attack, armed or not.
Of course governments, terrorist groups and intelligence agencies know this and consider an American diplomatic mission to be a soft and easy target. Even before the attack on our Embassy in Tehran and after, it was DOS policy and has resulted in continuous attacks on our missions as well as the obvious deaths, loss of classified information and political humiliation.
Now, one does not want every demonstration in front of an American mission to result in the shooting of a few demonstrators pour encourage les autres. It would be bad PR.
However, the policy of rolling over and playing dead has not worked. The recent attacks in Benghazi and Cairo show that passivity does not work.
So your trying to tell me it is the GOP's fault because they cut funding how long ago? And Despite getting 30 or so request for more security, watching the 6 1/2 hour attack in real time on 9/11 using a predator drone and serviellance videos from the consulate, having the CIA and Generals who heard the distress calls ready: Delta force, 2 ships, an AC-130, an Apache, and a quick response marine team, all in the region for this precise type of situation that could have been there in 2 hours...But Obama thought that it was just a protest over a video, and the GOP cut funding, so he had no other choice but to tell everyone to stand down...3 separate times. How the hell does that make sense to you. What reason did he have to tell everyone to stand down and let 4 people fend for themselves against a terrorist militia??? I understand that you identify yourselves as Democrats, and defend those democratic policies, but you are Americans first, Democrats second. If this was Bush, I would probably defend him for the first couple of weeks, but with all the new info surfacing, I would be saying get him the hell out. This is that disgusting. There are only 2 scenarios that make sense on why Obama did not send the help that was absolutely ready and wanted to go. He either did not care enough to pay attention to the situation, or taking military action against a terrorist attack in a land of rainbows and teddy bears that we just freed from Qadaffi would no longer make it look like the land of rainbows and teddy bears.
We took out bin laden, they took out our ambassador on 9/11, the message is that plain and clear.
This just in: Obama PERSONALLY killed Ambassador Chris Stevens...I just heard a theFOXNEWS pundit say so on da teevee.
Yep...his black A$$ needs to be impeached...post haste.
See...? I told you.KissMy said:Hi, you have received -243 reputation points from KissMy.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Obama did kill Ambassador Chris Stevens
Regards,
KissMy
Note: This is an automated message.
Simple. I don't defend Obama on this.
Why? They didn't take immediate defensive action when the attacked happened. A few shots should have been fired, but werent. Which allowed the murders to happen.
I don't blame him on this, but neither do I defend him on this.
the facts are out, more keep coming, and with each new fact coming out i get sicker and sicker to my stomach. At first i thought obama just fucked up not listening to the pleas for more security and having the common sense to up security in the middle east on 9/11, and then tried to blame it on a video. Now its pretty apparent what happened, and there are only two scenarious that i could think of, and both are damning for obama. 1. He did not give a flying fuck what was going on in benghazi. Or 2. He left an ambassador, 2 former navy seals, and another consultant the fend for themselves, over some votes. Watching a 7 hour attack take place right before your eyes, and not doing anything about it, what other explanation is there? Lets hear it liberals, how can you defend these actions.
