Ah yes, leave it to a libtard to dredge up Iraq. Personally, I would have absolutely no problem with an investigation into what led us into the war in Iraq. Funny thing is, we already did have a select committee investigation on just that topic; Google "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" and have a read. You see, a President has little choice but to run with whatever intelligence they are given. No one lied about jack $hit where Iraq is concerned, everyone (including pretty much every nation's intel agency) was simply wrong. Here we KNOW that the administration knew *within minutes* of the attack starting that this was a well-orchestrated terrorist attack. You see, demonstrators - even those prone to violence - pretty much never bring RPGs, heavy MGs, and accurate mortar fire to their protests (that last one requires military training, BTW), and we knew within minutes that those weapons were in play. Yet the administration still tried to run with the "protest over youtube video" angle for days, hoping to distract the American people from an obvious security lapse in the midst of an election. None of this is even in question really, the only real questions are why and who ordered - or ignored - what. You go ahead and bit$h about Iraq all you want. The fact that you want to talk about that and not the subject at issue belies the weak hand your side has on this issue.
What are you looking to get out of this? For Obama/white house/Hillary to admit it was wrong to say it was cause by a video? Go for it, it is totally worth what 13 investigations? They changed their opinion of why the attack happened when they realized they were wrong. Why has the investigation gone from Obama to Hillary? Even if Hillary ORDERED less security, which is preposterous, that action can't be the sole cause of the death of an ambassador. You remember that Stevens two separate times denied additional security? How about the GOP lawmakers cutting WH admin. request for additional diplomatic security in 2012? None of those actions are scandals. It is all just an unfortunate circumstance. Sure in hindsight we can say we should have had 40 tanks there and 2000 solders and this wouldn't have happened. So by all means, try to find the damning lies that there is no evidence of, just presumption because it would be a great gash to a democrats campaign. Go ahead and focus on this because we do not have pressing issues that actually matter right now.
Except for when bush ignores/lies regarding evidence to promote a fake war: The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) War and 5,000 troops dead, 9/11 no link -flying into a freaking building no less - crazy worst ever bloodshed on USA soil. and to use the blood from USA citizens to promote a war? nice work.good job. Talk about lin only fans they are the 'no shame only fan'. NSOF I thought for sure treeman might come back with some of those WMDs himself. Well it was all a big joke anyway: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YjXPOxnu2N8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> longer sicker actual version: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GvliUuXjbL4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> HARDY HAR HAR I SAY
The truth. Is that too much to ask? The fact is that they lied about the nature of the attack for over a week because 1) there was an election going on and the fact that terrorists sacked a US diplomatic mission and killed a US ambassador flied in the face of the "Al Qaeda is on the ropes" message the WH was putting out, and 2) they thought that we were stupid enough to believe it. That your government would so casually lie to you, and you have no problem accepting that, gives me the willies. It tells me you couldn't care less about the truth, only power. Like most liberals, you cloak your desire for control in a message emphasizing tolerance, freedom, and wise governance. Shame on anyone dull enough to fall for your schtick. Also damning is the fact that in this particular case *multiple* requests for increased security measures were ignored. Multiple warnings by different agencies were ignored. Every other western nation had at that point pulled its diplomatic missions at that point because of the clear descent into lawlessness in Benghazi and the growing influence and power of the Al Qaeda-affiliated militias there. Specific, credible threats were made against this particular annex, yet all requests for increased security measures were ignored. Why? It was not for budget issues. It was almost certainly because someone didn't think it was important enough to bother with. Perhaps that someone had fundraisers to attend? As for this landing on Secretary Clinton's doorstep, newsflash: The office of the SecState is responsible for security of all diplomatic missions. Of course I do not expect the Secretary to micromanage the security of every station - they have underlings whose jobs are to do that. But there was obviously a lapse in this case, and it came on Secretary Clinton's watch. The party of "the buck stops here" ought to recognize the need for accountability of its failures, dontchathink? We want a full accounting. We want and deserve to know where the process broke down and why (and on whose orders) we were lied to. Again, for the third time, the American people do NOT like being lied to. We can forgive occasional lapses and incompetence - everyone makes mistakes. But own up to it, tell the truth, and fix it - don't insult our intelligence by trying to lie to us - for a year and a half now - and expect us to simply accept it and shut up. You guys made your bed, you WILL sleep in it now.
Let's look at this a different way. We have been told for years that Iraq was all wrong, that the model for military operations was to "lead from behind", to de-emphasize boots on the ground, use covert assets, airpower, etc. Libya was the model for this. It didn't exactly work out swimmingly on the ground. The problem with not having boots on the ground - as anyone with any military experience will tell you - is that you can't control the situation without it. If you refuse to devote the resources and manpower to control a situation on the ground, then guess what? Those who DO - usually the people who actually live there - are going to control the situation. This is EXACTLY what happened in Libya. We broke the door down and killed the master, and then let the servants sort out the mess. We broke it and didn't bother to fix it. In Iraq we at least tried to fix it, but the servants there are too stupid/crazy to create a stable society. Given that precedent, it's actually understandable why we didn't want to get involved in another "if you break it, you must fix it" situation" - who wants to get punched TWICE in the nose, eh? But such decisions have consequences. Libya is a lawless country since Qaddafi's fall. No one really runs the place. AQ type militias have effectively free run of the place, and they are trying to make the most of it. We created that environment by not being willing to commit resources to "fixing" the situation that we helped to break. The fact that we left a relatively lightly defended State annex in the middle of that environment is a definite lapse, but it's understandable in the larger context of things. A fireable offense, to be sure, but not one that should damn a soul or anything. It's forgiveable. What is NOT forgiveable is lying to us about it. And while we will tolerate some ineptitude, we are not at all pleased about a governing philosophy that has created such hellholes as current-day Libya, current-day Syria, current-day Iraq... ALL of these situations are out of control. And that's the point. The United States USED to be able to keep the peace in that region. It's always been full of a$$hole leaders, but we always kept them in check. Now all of a sudden we have an administration that wants to "lead from behind" and wants to avoid boots on the ground. Guess what? You just ceded control and gave the bad guys free reign, and - predictably - they are doing their best to steamrolling their way to power. If a few US State annexed have to get broken in the process, so what? It's not like they're going to do anything about it, because there's a cool guy who likes muslims in the WH right now. So, Who exactly HAS been held accountable for Benghazi so far? Last I saw the likely head of the operation was having tea with a reporter spilling his guts about it, and he was still breathing. He should be feeding bacteria right now, but he's still breathing. You libs don't actually care about ANY of this. It's all politics to you. You don;t give a flying F$%^ that because of our current foreign policy incompetence we have virtually ZERO say in ME security, our diplomatic outposts there are under attack quite frequently (which happens when no one fears or respects you), the dickheads of the world are empowered (like Russia), and we have NOTHING to show for all of this "smart power". You wanna know why we are going after Clinton for this? Because it exposes her for an incompetent. You want this woman to be President? She presided over some MONUMENTAL international policy failures that will likely take DECADES to fix, if they ever can be fixed. You now want to hand over the keys to the WH to her? Why in God's name would we trust her with that power if she was such an abysmal failure at a Secretary position?
No, I answered questions, at which point the clown show continued, so I'm done. Anyone who doesn't have their questions answered regarding Benghazi doesn't WANT answers because the answers are clear and they are available. For some reason, you just choose not to actually look for them.
No, the problem is that I HAVE answered the questions in this very thread, with answers provided in the House report. You have ignored those answers and, should I go back and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V them for you, the goal posts will move and you will claim some OTHER questions need to be answered. It has happened with at least two other posters in this very thread and would happen with you, if I were to waste my time, again.
How many Americans would have died had Woods/Doherty not answered those calls for help that went unanswered by State?
How many Americans have any clue who or what you're talking about? Answer: Not enough, good luck in 2020.
Nice. Really? I guess that's a sore spot for you if you have to immediately jump to name calling. One could argue that it is Republicans who are continually digging up Banghazi. I am just pointing out the consistent hypocrisy of your argument. Evidence was flimsy at best. UN Inspectors had admitted to spying. The entire world knows Bush and Co wanted to go to war. This has already been investigated to death. And I don't understand how going with the protest angle cost any lives. The mistake was in underestimating the security requirements. Bush's mistake was making a bad decision on thin evidence, which hurt the nation far more deeper. I am talking about the issues. You are the one b****ing about Benghazi and trying to avoid Iraq. I am just asking for equivalency here. Your first reaction to my post is to label me a "libtard" Who is the one who doesn't want to talk issues but rather spew vitriol
Republicans: "An American was murdered in Benghazi years ago. Obama covered it up" America voter: "Where the hell is Benghazi?" Republicans: "It is in Libya. An few Americans were murdered in Benghazi years ago, it was Obama's fault." American voter: "Riiight, well okay.. I was more interested -" Republicans: "Aren't you outraged!?!" American Voter: "Dude... I want to be able to pay my mortgage."
Did treeman find those WMD yet? Hate to dredge that up but it was the reason for an eight year war that cost the lives of 4,500 American soldiers and $2 trillion dollars. No big deal compared to Benghazi.
I don't think he's looking anymore, he's too busy trying to hold people accountable for their actions. Maybe we'll circle back to it never.
From wikipedia: So the administration got misleading intelligence and mucked up in communicating what happened in the press. That mucked up intelligence did not impact policy and certainly did not led the POTUS to invade a foreign country and a trillion plus dollars and 4,500 American lives.
Democrats: "Pay a mortgage? There needs to be a tax established. We can't have people out there burdened by paying mortgages we should be paying those for them."
