Smoking Gun: "We had no actionable intelligence"

[fyrenza]

Did you miss the part where I said....don't let her go out....that's a precaution.

Your second statement is simply stupid. You don't when it might happen. If it can happen at all....you don't let her go out. Is that really hard ?

No, she's not going out with the dude, as long as the potential exist (or she shouldn't) until you get it cleared up.

Letting things proceed and taking no action is STUPID.

Again...what is so hard to understand here ?

Actually, what is HORRIFYING to understand is your concept of any sort of justice ...

Bottom Line : Additional troops WERE sent in, on some vague warning given to "some diplomats,"

while information could be gathered regarding the threat.

Now who looks stupid?

 

[Listening]

Did you miss the part where I said....don't let her go out....that's a precaution.

Your second statement is simply stupid. You don't when it might happen. If it can happen at all....you don't let her go out. Is that really hard ?

No, she's not going out with the dude, as long as the potential exist (or she shouldn't) until you get it cleared up.

Letting things proceed and taking no action is STUPID.

Again...what is so hard to understand here ?

Actually, what is HORRIFYING to understand is your concept of any sort of justice ...

Bottom Line : Additional troops WERE sent in, on some vague warning given to "some diplomats,"

while information could be gathered regarding the threat.

Now who looks stupid?

That would be you.

First, you just shot yourself in the foot on your own argument. The presupposes you can supply information that shows they were actually sent in....you provided no links.

Even if it were not the case.....you still seem to be lauding that move. Are you now arguing with yourself ?

And....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-benghazi-did-not-have-enough-security.html

 

[tinydancer]

Did you miss the part where I said....don't let her go out....that's a precaution.

Your second statement is simply stupid. You don't when it might happen. If it can happen at all....you don't let her go out. Is that really hard ?

No, she's not going out with the dude, as long as the potential exist (or she shouldn't) until you get it cleared up.

Letting things proceed and taking no action is STUPID.

Again...what is so hard to understand here ?

Actually, what is HORRIFYING to understand is your concept of any sort of justice ...

Bottom Line : Additional troops WERE sent in, on some vague warning given to "some diplomats,"

while information could be gathered regarding the threat.

Now who looks stupid?

That would be you.

First, you just shot yourself in the foot on your own argument. The presupposes you can supply information that shows they were actually sent in....you provided no links.

Even if it were not the case.....you still seem to be lauding that move. Are you now arguing with yourself ?

And....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-benghazi-did-not-have-enough-security.html

I started a thread on that article. This consulate didn't even have the basics.

 

[LilOlLady]

You don't want to compare the 72 hrs to the months of warnings Bush got about 8/11 that has got over 6,000 americans killed and thousands wounded seriously.
Why do you people always try to cash checks that your asses cannot cash?

 

[Listening]

Actually, what is HORRIFYING to understand is your concept of any sort of justice ...

Bottom Line : Additional troops WERE sent in, on some vague warning given to "some diplomats,"

while information could be gathered regarding the threat.

Now who looks stupid?

That would be you.

First, you just shot yourself in the foot on your own argument. The presupposes you can supply information that shows they were actually sent in....you provided no links.

Even if it were not the case.....you still seem to be lauding that move. Are you now arguing with yourself ?

And....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-benghazi-did-not-have-enough-security.html

I started a thread on that article. This consulate didn't even have the basics.

That's the one I referenced at the end of my last post....thanks for putting that up. The link is for your thread.

 

[tinydancer]

And from the Examiner:

Obama administration warned of possible attacks, but failed to take precautions

Obama administration warned of possible attacks, but failed to take precautions - Tucson Congress | Examiner.com

YOWZAH!

 

[LilOlLady]

The host country is responsible for security of embassies.
There were no reason to think the embassy was not secure since the protesters were not armed and aimed was to kill.

 

[LilOlLady]

Did you miss the part where I said....don't let her go out....that's a precaution.

Your second statement is simply stupid. You don't when it might happen. If it can happen at all....you don't let her go out. Is that really hard ?

No, she's not going out with the dude, as long as the potential exist (or she shouldn't) until you get it cleared up.

Letting things proceed and taking no action is STUPID.

Again...what is so hard to understand here ?

Actually, what is HORRIFYING to understand is your concept of any sort of justice ...

Bottom Line : Additional troops WERE sent in, on some vague warning given to "some diplomats,"

while information could be gathered regarding the threat.

Now who looks stupid?

That would be you.

First, you just shot yourself in the foot on your own argument. The presupposes you can supply information that shows they were actually sent in....you provided no links.

Even if it were not the case.....you still seem to be lauding that move. Are you now arguing with yourself ?

And....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-benghazi-did-not-have-enough-security.html

BBC?

 

[Listening]

You don't want to compare the 72 hrs to the months of warnings Bush got about 8/11 that has got over 6,000 americans killed and thousands wounded seriously.
Why do you people always try to cash checks that your asses cannot cash?

Go to bed granny.

You sound more stupid than ever.

Obama learned nothing from 2001.

The host country is responsible for security of embassies.
There were no reason to think the embassy was not secure since the protesters were not armed and aimed was to kill.

Really really really stupid.

Or don't you recall Iran...circa 1979 ?

We generally (and always should) protect our embassies.

 

[tinydancer]

That would be you.

First, you just shot yourself in the foot on your own argument. The presupposes you can supply information that shows they were actually sent in....you provided no links.

Even if it were not the case.....you still seem to be lauding that move. Are you now arguing with yourself ?

And....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...in-benghazi-did-not-have-enough-security.html

I started a thread on that article. This consulate didn't even have the basics.

That's the one I referenced at the end of my last post....thanks for putting that up.

It's a pretty damning article. I found this at the Examiner.

The building had none of the standard physical protections of a U.S. diplomatic mission, no armed U.S. Marines, and no deterring defensive perimeter.

Obama administration warned of possible attacks, but failed to take precautions - Tucson Congress | Examiner.com

And I was ready to scream when I read this. This woman should be fired.

New details are surfacing about how U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, may have compromised the security of U.S. Marines there, and left them unprepared for Monday's assault on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

U.S. Marines were not allowed to carry live ammunition in their weapons on the direct orders of Ambassador Patterson.

Without any means to defend the embassy, attackers scaled the embassy walls and took down a U.S. flag, replacing it with the black flag of al-Qaeda, only to take down the al-Qaeda flag and drape it over a ladder perched against a wall of the embassy.

Egyptian security forces were left in control of the area surrounding the embassy after the assault.

 

[LilOlLady]

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

 

[Listening]

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

This is a classic.

Obama obviously didn't take Truman's "The buck stops here" approach.

Unbelievable.

Please vote for Obama.....he's going to bankrupt Social Security and your ass is only going to get 70% of your current benefit. You two deserve each other.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

This is a classic.

Obama obviously didn't take Truman's "The buck stops here" approach.

Unbelievable.

Please vote for Obama.....he's going to bankrupt Social Security and your ass is only going to get 70% of your current benefit. You two deserve each other.

The buck stops with obama when it's something good never when it's bad.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked: “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”
That single line is the most damning indictment of Hillary Clinton’s State Department that could ever be penned. It demonstrates her complete lack of knowledge about the region, her failure to anticipate security threats, and worst of all, her willful ignorance about the Islamists that she and President Obama trusted to take over Libya and Egypt.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's Bush's fault....

 

[LilOlLady]

You don't want to compare the 72 hrs to the months of warnings Bush got about 8/11 that has got over 6,000 americans killed and thousands wounded seriously.
Why do you people always try to cash checks that your asses cannot cash?

Go to bed granny.

You sound more stupid than ever.

Obama learned nothing from 2001.

The host country is responsible for security of embassies.
There were no reason to think the embassy was not secure since the protesters were not armed and aimed was to kill.

Really really really stupid.

Or don't you recall Iran...circa 1979 ?

We generally (and always should) protect our embassies.

There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies.

How long has that embassy been there. Long before Obama took office and security should have already been in place. Especially after 9/11. In all the other embassies around the world.

Evidently Bush did not learn anything from 9/11 either or he would have put security in place. Not he first time U.S. embassies has been targeted by terroist.

Are you Listening, Good night.

 

[fyrenza]

Please vote for Obama.....he's going to bankrupt Social Security and your ass is only going to get 70% of your current benefit. You two deserve each other.

IF information comes out that there was a VALID warning,

then I, like you, am horrified.

UNLIKE you, I wanted to wait before launching into some off-the-wall tirade,
that included an analogy that did nothing more than show your true "spirit" concerning this ~ you don't give a shit about any stinkin' FACTS,
you just want to jump on Obozo's back.

I'm on your side,

but you can't just explode in indignation,
like Obozo did with the prof getting arrested,

without having pertinent facts.

So why don't you take your petty insults and bullshit,
and stick 'em back up your ass,
where you found them, hmmm?

 

[fyrenza]

There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies.

How long has that embassy been there. Long before Obama took office and security should have already been in place. Especially after 9/11. In all the other embassies around the world.

And considering the amount of aid we send them,

this was inexcusable...

But, honestly, WHAT could we do?
Send in a battalion to EVERY freakin' embassy in a country containing radical muslims?
Demand that those govs provide one?

IF there was info, and they had it, FIRST,

WTF didn't THEY gladly provide massive security?

 

[tinydancer]

You don't want to compare the 72 hrs to the months of warnings Bush got about 8/11 that has got over 6,000 americans killed and thousands wounded seriously.
Why do you people always try to cash checks that your asses cannot cash?

Go to bed granny.

You sound more stupid than ever.

Obama learned nothing from 2001.

The host country is responsible for security of embassies.
There were no reason to think the embassy was not secure since the protesters were not armed and aimed was to kill.

Really really really stupid.

Or don't you recall Iran...circa 1979 ?

We generally (and always should) protect our embassies.

There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies.

How long has that embassy been there. Long before Obama took office and security should have already been in place. Especially after 9/11. In all the other embassies around the world.

Evidently Bush did not learn anything from 9/11 either or he would have put security in place. Not he first time U.S. embassies has been targeted by terroist.

Are you Listening, Good night.

Obama owns this one. Not Bush.

RICE: First of all, there are Marines in some places around the world.

There are not Marines in every facility. That depends on the circumstances. That depends on the requirements.

Our presence in Tripoli, as in Benghazi, is relatively new, as you will recall. We've been back post-revolution only for a matter of months.

U.S. ties to anti-Islam film producer true, al-Qaeda wins more hearts and minds (Video) - Tucson Congress | Examiner.com

 

[J.E.D]

Someone tells JoseFK that his daughter is going out with a rapist and he is going to say....without specifics, I can't do anything.

You're lucky that I'm not a rat, because I could surely get you in trouble for breaking the "family rule". Don't worry, I won't tell. I'll let any mod who comes across it decide what to do.

But anyway, I'm not surprised that a useless sack of shit like you would use a rape analogy to make your point (which wasn't made). What is it with you psychotic Republicans and rape? Has it been a while since you've had some?