US planning to attack terror networks in Benghazi?

Vel

Platinum Member
Oct 30, 2008
7,007
4,018
1,030
Tennessee
Another deflection and decoy by this inept, incompetent administration. Their lies have become so transparent that now they have to be in full damage control mode.
*********************************************************
US planning to attack terror networks in Benghazi?
POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON OCTOBER 3, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

Now that the Obama administration has belatedly admitted that the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and not, as they claimed for nearly two weeks, a particularly lively movie review — now what? The New York Times reports this morning that the US has begun preparing for a military attack on the “militants” involved in the terrorist attack, but that may run into some complications:

The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday, as the weak Libyan government appears unable to arrest or even question fighters involved in the assault.

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.

Let’s pause for a moment here. If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation. The Obama administration has discovered what happens when the White House lies, and lies badly, about terrorist attacks and their preparation for those attempts, and now they want to undo some of the damage by looking tough.
US planning to attack terror networks in Benghazi? « Hot Air
 
Gee, I hope they get the approval of the Libyans for this. I'd hate for us to act militarily on Libyan soil without getting permission first. You know, like the Obama administration said they did not have so they did not send in anyone in the immediate aftermath of the attacks?

This clusterfuck is getting worse and worse for Obama.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....
 
so....planning an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is obama? perhaps if bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of iraq and afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

must... Deflect... From savior....
 
so....planning an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is obama? perhaps if bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of iraq and afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

must... Deflect... From savior....

I forgot that your comprehension skills suck. What was the point of this thread? To illustrate Obama's "slow" response? Did I miss something?
 
For partisans it's Damn the President if he does and damn him if he doesn't.
 
President Obama's reputation concerning taking the fight to the terrorists is excellent. He has repeatedly demonstrated that killing Americans is a good way to have your life ended adruptly. He has also demonstrated caution in not moving before he has full information. Were I among the perpretators at Benghazi, I would have my will made out and signed.

One might also note that the Libyan people seem to be with us on this one, to the extent of driving the extremists out of that city.
 
President Obama's reputation concerning taking the fight to the terrorists is excellent. He has repeatedly demonstrated that killing Americans is a good way to have your life ended adruptly. He has also demonstrated caution in not moving before he has full information. Were I among the perpretators at Benghazi, I would have my will made out and signed.

One might also note that the Libyan people seem to be with us on this one, to the extent of driving the extremists out of that city.

Which apparently pales in comparison to Romney's "shoot first, aim later" philosophy, at least according to "conservatives"....
 
Yes, the attack will be by way of money bombs.

IF it was true that the Libyan people drove the extremists out of Benghazi, then why is it too dangerous for the FBI to go in to conduct an investigation? It's not too dangerous for CNN to go in and muck up the crime scene removing evidence, it's just too dangerous for the FBI.

Either it is too dangerous to conduct an investigation or this royal regime has no intention of investigating and is looking for cover.
 
yes, the attack will be by way of money bombs.

If it was true that the libyan people drove the extremists out of benghazi, then why is it too dangerous for the fbi to go in to conduct an investigation? It's not too dangerous for cnn to go in and muck up the crime scene removing evidence, it's just too dangerous for the fbi.

Either it is too dangerous to conduct an investigation or this royal regime has no intention of investigating and is looking for cover.

this.
 
This administration has been much more effective finding, attacking, breaking up and killing actual terrorists then the George W. Bush administration.

The problem is that isn't the beginning and end of it. Which most of you conservatives don't realize.

Conservatives feel that if they just slaughter human beings that don't agree with them..that will end the problem.

It generally doesn't.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.

Um..yeah..sure..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ]Obama in 2008: 'We Will Kill Bin Laden, We Will Crush Al Qaeda' - YouTube[/ame]
 
This administration has been much more effective finding, attacking, breaking up and killing actual terrorists then the George W. Bush administration.

The problem is that isn't the beginning and end of it. Which most of you conservatives don't realize.

Conservatives feel that if they just slaughter human beings that don't agree with them..that will end the problem.

It generally doesn't.

It is quite obvious that you do not understand the conservative ideology.

That is fine...but what makes it pathetic is that you insist on criticizing something you dont understand.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.

Um..yeah..sure..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ]Obama in 2008: 'We Will Kill Bin Laden, We Will Crush Al Qaeda' - YouTube[/ame]

keep with the program Sallow.

You are deviating from the thread.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.

IF that were true, why are our drone strikes still so lethally effective? Due to technology, I do not believe the element of surprise can ever be lost again. The days of full frontal assaults in order to dislodge an enemy have been gone since the last days of WWI....
 
President Obama's reputation concerning taking the fight to the terrorists is excellent. He has repeatedly demonstrated that killing Americans is a good way to have your life ended adruptly. He has also demonstrated caution in not moving before he has full information. Were I among the perpretators at Benghazi, I would have my will made out and signed.

One might also note that the Libyan people seem to be with us on this one, to the extent of driving the extremists out of that city.

Would have been nice had he bothered to protect those Americans that he was told were in danger. Instead we have 4 dead Americans that should never have died. The incompetence won't be hidden by a sudden pretense at toughness.
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.

IF that were true, why are our drone strikes still so lethally effective? Due to technology, I do not believe the element of surprise can ever be lost again. The days of full frontal assaults in order to dislodge an enemy have been gone since the last days of WWI....

1) It is labelled as top secret
2) If such attacks are known, groups of the enemy will disperse....taking away the opportunity to get large numbers at any given time

To say "we want to get them" is one thing...and quite obious....

To say "we are planning" is saying to the enemy..."any day now"...
 
So....PLANNING an attack is now a bad thing? Or is it just because it is Obama? Perhaps if Bush had done a little more planning, his strategery for the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have executed better? Or perhaps, not at all....

No...planning an attack is a good thing.....but leaking out the plans to the media...THAT is a bad thing.

When the element of surprise is eliminated, an attack is going to not only be less effective....but more dangerous for the men and women assigned to the attack.

Um..yeah..sure..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ]Obama in 2008: 'We Will Kill Bin Laden, We Will Crush Al Qaeda' - YouTube[/ame]

yo...Sallow...a little lesson...

The Germans and the Japanese were well aware that our military was interested in beating them.

But if we were to tell them "something big is about to happen" right before D-Day.....the attack would not have been as successful.
 

Forum List

Back
Top