“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.Exactly.
“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
१६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१२
"If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team..."
A statement by U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९७ टिप्पण्या:
I noticed a little shot in Sec'y Clinton's statement yesterday:
the President and Vice President are not involved in security decisions..
Seems to me that statement absolves them and damns them at the same time. They aren't involved in the decisions, so it's not their fault.
they aren't involved in the decisions...
...by which Hillary falls on her sword and thereby impales Obama and Biden.
The Buck Stops with Obama's Female Subordinates.
Clearly, they're racists.
So the protypical modern "feminist" yet again puts herself in an unflattering position to make a man look better.
Isn't modern feminism grand?
PS: You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette!
At least, today the NY Times has discovered the story and placed it on its front page.
They're still peddling the "It's the Video" line!
And, they acknowledge that Hillary is trying to "innoculate President Obama from criticism" prior to the next debate.
O'Reilly's take on the media malfeasance, and I paraphrase:
If this were a Republican president, the media would be camped out on Susan Rice's front lawn 24 hours a day until they got an answer to this question:
Who instructed you to peddle the phony story about the video?
There are so many people under the bus right now, the wheels have lost traction.
Shorter: He was either aware of it, or not aware of it, and either case isn't very good.
Surprise!
I can't imagine anyone thinks this will work, especially Bill.
Shouting Thomas
The media wouldn't be able to get close to Susan Rice, she's got adequate security.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility
If so then it saddens us to accept her resignation. And the buck stops with Himself so he'll be going too.
It only took five weeks for Obama and Hillary to figure out who was responsible.
It only took five weeks for Obama and Hillary to figure out who was responsible.
It was an epic game of rock, paper scissors.
How, as Ace notes can Obama appear Presidential, if a mere underling takes responsibility for such extremely important matters, when the executive should at least be aware of them, if not in charge of them?
Hillary just presented Romney with a very sharp rhetorical sword.
Leadership is the art of convincing others to accomplish what you need done. Competence is foundation of that art. This administration displays neither on a regular basis.
Hillary stood next to Ambassador Stevens' casket and blamed a YouTube video for his death.
Is that lie part of the "responsibility" here or what?
Our daily Benghazi post.
Only the "video" gambit was dumber than this latest attempt by Obama Inc. to run out the clock.
It will stoke the flames. Hillary isn't taking "full responsibility", she isn't taking any at all.
And none of this is pertinent, as the latter says, to the "video" cover up.
Who are the morons that but these chuckleheads in charge?
It makes more sense that she made the statement on her own. Doing it the day before the debate gives her cover, because it can be interpreted as trying to draw fire for Obama. But she made him look ineffectual and out of touch.
Yes, as Gerry said, it presents Romney with a very sharp rhetorical sword.
When a consulate requests more security, who do they contact? A newbie at State? The janitor who they tell to inform higher ups? A person(s) made these decisions not to provide more security. What are their names?
Imagine these f*cjtards handling a 9/11/01 event? I wonder how many Americans are doing that.
I wouldn't trust them to was my car.
But we are leading from behind and we are intentionally altering the American posture as an ally and a source of military strength in the 60 year Pax Americana.
What's a matter with you guys? Do you want a peaceful world like the last 60 years??? That world was and is equally hateful to Harvard professors, Obama mentors and Fidel Castro!
A crisis from America's total collapse is what the Marxist Maniac in the White House DEMANDS. Collapse in energy, military power, and economic activity
The Media is supposed to help cover this up until the day after Marxist Maniac is reelected.
Scott M said...
Leadership is the art of convincing others to accomplish what you need done. Competence is foundation of that art. This administration displays neither on a regular basis.
This administration just convinced an underling to take responsibility for the President's failure less than a month before the election. Obama might not be accomplishing the things that you think need to be done (securing our nation's interests), but it's still a crap shoot as to whether he'll succeed in accomplishing what he thinks needs to be done (clinging to power).
Shouting Thomas said...
O'Reilly's take on the media malfeasance, and I paraphrase:
If this were a Republican president, the media would be camped out on Susan Rice's front lawn 24 hours a day until they got an answer to this question:
Who instructed you to peddle the phony story about the video?
Bingo.
But we are leading from behind and we are intentionally altering the American posture as an ally and a source of military strength in the 60 year Pax Americana.
What's a matter with you guys? Do you want a peaceful world like the last 60 years??? That world was and is equally hateful to Harvard professors, Obama mentors and Fidel Castro!
A crisis from America's total collapse is what the Marxist Maniac in the White House DEMANDS. Collapse in energy, military power, and economic activity
The Media is supposed to help cover this up until the day after Marxist Maniac is reelected.
I tend to disaggregate the two issues:
1. How much responsibility Obama had for internal State Dept security staffing considerations.
2. If Rice, Obama, Jay Carney and the usual media mouthpieces dispatched (Cutter, Rosen, Axelrod, etc.) were clueless it was a terror attack or were engaged in a deliberate deception of the public to bash Romney, blame the video and keep the "narrative focused" that "Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were dead, GM alive thanks to Obama".
Certain Republicans that place undue emphasis on issue #1 are on a fools errand. The real problem is with the coverup or the unfitness of our present leaders to see a terrorist attack for what it was.
Issue #1 is of course covered under the rubric of "the President hving ultimate responsibility when anyone is killed, and it was on HIS watch!" But realistically, we assign reasonable levels of responsibility. When a Navy ship grounds, the careers of the Captain and any responsible underlings are kaput. But we don't can Fleet Admirals, the JCS, the Secretary of DOD and demand the President apologize and perhaps resign over it.
It, and McCain has always had difficulty with this...is determining the appropriate level of responsibility.
Issue #1 is also open to unprovable speculation. Like claiming if only a reasonable level of security staffing was in place and we all knew an attack could come, all Americans would be 100% SAFE and no one would die. Hard to swallow that when it was 50-80 enemy hitting them in a coordinated attack with heavy weaponry.
The far more fruitful path is having Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice and other principals like the NSC head Donilon and Petreaus over at CIA explain if the White House knew it was an obvious terror attack within hours and covered it up...Or the whole intel apparatus there to serve the Key decision-makers broke down in the aftermath of a lethal terrorist attack.
Scott M said...
Leadership is the art of convincing others to accomplish what you need done. Competence is foundation of that art. This administration displays neither on a regular basis.
This administration just convinced an underling to take responsibility for the President's failure less than a month before the election. Obama might not be accomplishing the things that you think need to be done (securing our nation's interests), but it's still a crap shoot as to whether he'll succeed in accomplishing what he thinks needs to be done (clinging to power).
So, ReasonableMan, would you rather talk about Lance Armstrong? Would that topic be more comfortable for you?
Imagine these f*cjtards handling a 9/11/01 event?
To find that out we need to ask Republicans how they handled a 9/11 event under their watch.
Our daily Benghazi post.
Drip, drip, drip...from now 'till Nov. 6. spuh-LASH! if Hillary resigns before then.
Jennifer Rubin, one of the more astute pundits writing today, says in her WaPo column:
However, there is another way to read the Clinton statement. Frankly, no one believes she is responsible. She gets the gold star for being the loyal underling. And — this is key — the president looks small and weak. The pressure rises on him to shoulder the blame and to explain what occurred. His remaining three weeks of the campaign are spent in a death spiral of scandal. Clinton comes out looking like a rose. The 2016 nomination is hers for the taking. She (and probably Bill) in this version is the ultimate political manipulator, undermining the president by her own act of faux bravery. (From Peru. After the evening broadcast.)
The senators seem to be asking why, after losing the Democratic primary in 2008, Hillary Clinton is still the one stuck answering the phone when it rings at 3 am.
Pretty sure W didn't just go to sleep and then head out to a Vegas fundraiser, Garage.
AReasonableMan said...
Our daily Benghazi post.
Don't you mean your daily attempt to change the subject, lie, dissemble, and make an ass of yourself?
Clown.
Patrick said...
Pretty sure W didn't just go to sleep and then head out to a Vegas fundraiser, Garage.
And then lie about the cause of the attack for weeks.
Public hearings within 30 days, and someone taking full responsibility. Yea, that's exactly how Republicans handled 9/11.
How did Republicans handle the 7 embassy attacks under their watch? who knows! They were never even asked. Your liberal media hard at work.
In hindsight, Kerry should have ran on embassy attacks under Bush.
I am still trying to decide if Sec.'y Clinton's statement is a non-apology apology or if it is a subtle means of stabbing the President in the back.
I think she and Bill are smarter than he is.
You seem to remember a lot about national security in those days, garage. So please tell me, how many ambassadors were killed in those 7 embassy attacks?
garage mahal said...
Public hearings within 30 days, and someone taking full responsibility. Yea, that's exactly how Republicans handled 9/11.
I think you should go about pretending that the largest terrorist attack on American soil, plans of which were years in the making, is like the exact same thing as an embassasy attack where more security was asked for and denied.
Really, you should, idiot.
To find that out we need to ask Republicans how they handled a 9/11 event under their watch.
Really garage? Sometimes you should say nothing. We already expect you to play fast and loose with facts but this statement shows you are out of your league on intelligence, no pun intended.
"His remaining three weeks of the campaign are spent in a death spiral of scandal."
-Jennifer Rubin
h/t creeley23
I think she and Bill are smarter than he is.
Very low standard.
Why is Susan Rice out there lying? Again - lying.
garage mahal said...
Public hearings within 30 days, and someone taking full responsibility. Yea, that's exactly how Republicans handled 9/11.
The administration is holding public hearings? Not sure how the only public hearings I've heard about are being conducted by the GOP controlled House. I'm sure you'll provide a link to show I'm wrong.
How did Republicans handle the 7 embassy attacks under their watch?
And how in the world did I miss 7 embassies being completely sacked and 7 ambassadors being murdered and dragged through the streets during the Bush years? I really need to get out more.
"They're still peddling the 'It's the Video' line!"
It's interesting. The whole NYT article reads as a defense of Obama (and spins the political angle greatly), so I guess the NYT is following every mother's dictum: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. They waited and waited til they had something nice to say (or at least beneficial to Obama) before they put a story on the front page. When it looked bad for Obama, articles were relegated to the inside pages.
Here are the first nine words of the article, "After a month of conflicting statements and partisan criticism,"
I do believe there has been plenty of non-partisan criticism. And also note that, unlike Joe Biden, I can count.
Garage, re-litIgating the past as a distraction because he can't defend the present.
I tweeted today
"If I were Obama, I'd make sure Hillary hasn't effed up the brake lines while she's under his bus. #overthecliff"
and I also liked
"The Cankles takes the rankles."
There was also a deja vu comparison of Hillary taking responsibility for Benghazi the way Janet Reno did for Waco.
That didn't go so well for POTUS.
So, where are we with the investigation...and if it's taking so long, is this due to incompetence, or some calculated reason to placate the Middle East, like claiming the video was responsible (which it wasn't)?
How's the War On Terror going?
How are the drone strikes...the surge?
Why did we involve ourselves in Libya, and not Syria (and if it's as Biden said, for tactical reasons...what about the policy reasons...is the policy working?)
How's Syria? How's Egypt? How's AfPak? How's Israel? How's Iran? How's Asia?
The senators seem to be asking why, after losing the Democratic primary in 2008, Hillary Clinton is still the one stuck answering the phone when it rings at 3 am.
Nicely put
Garage - You do know about the 9/11 commission report, right?
Did GWB send out a Susan Rice type character to lie about how and why the attack happened?
You seem to remember a lot about national security in those days, garage. So please tell me, how many ambassadors were killed in those 7 embassy attacks?
Wait a sec, you don't know? I thought Republicans were experts on embassy attacks. Surely they investigated every single one to find out who was culpable?
And surely Republicans were very concerned with embassy security in this region just before these attacks?
Lindsay's a squish. I don't want him anywhere near the levers.
Are you suggesting republicans run the State Dept. GM?
"Exactly."
Right.
So, how many Obama voters change their minds based upon this rationale?
I'm guessing somewhere between zero and fifteen.
Nationwide.
Obviously, garage, you seem to not remember that when BJ Clinton was president, the Twin Towers were bombed then. Remember that? I do, and you know what, BJ wanted to treat it as a crime, not terrorism.
@garage, I'll take that as a "none."
Now go sit quietly somewhere and figure out the difference b/w a successful attack and a successfully defended attack.
Garage - You do know about the 9/11 commission report, right?
Sure do. How long did that eventually take, and who didn't want that commission in the first place?
garage mahal said...
Wait a sec, you don't know? I thought Republicans were experts on embassy attacks. Surely they investigated every single one to find out who was culpable?
List these 7 attacks and the dates, you fat clown.
Go ahead.
If Obama lets Hillary take the fall for Benghazi, why won't he let Eric Holder take the fall for Fast 'n Furious?
Is it his patented 'bros before hoes" approach?
Garage: The thing is, to fully find out who lied to us about Libya, you know what we have to do? Walk down the hall at Foggy Bottom. To figure out what went wrong on 9/11? We actually had to conduct a thorough investigation; intelligence failed us on 9/11. Politicians failed us in Libya.
There's a difference.
GM isn't seriously suggesting State - which is under the Admin/Exec Branch is really under the Legislative Branch, is he?
Now go sit quietly somewhere and figure out the difference b/w a successful attack and a successfully defended attack.
Right. Why don't you give us your results of the google search you just did:
"bush+embassy+attacks+deaths"
By the way, this, if true, should be a bigger story.
Repartee with an encephalitic troll is like mud-wrestling with a pig.
garage, don't be such a Democrat. Do the work you want done yourself.
Garage: ... and who didn't want that commission in the first place?
Jamie "Chinese Wall" Gorelick, who drafted the DoJ guidelines banning intelligence sharing between CIA and Justice.
garage mahal said...
Right. Why don't you give us your results of the google search you just did:
List these 7 attacks and the dates, you fat clown.
Go ahead.
I imagine you've got to have talent to handle the Clintons.
They tried to defeat Barry, and Bill was/is until recently the elder Statesman for the Democrats. Hilary, after defeat, probably signed on to team Barry in part for shared ideological reasons. They sucked it up and/or they coldly, (they can be ruthless with a lot of experience in the pit) started planning for the future.
Slowly, like many Democrats, and Barry's fellow ideological travelers and the base (elites, true believers and the dependents), they're realizing that they have to keep rescuing Barry, and speaking for him.
Barry's team probably really does see this as motivated by Republicans only, and vaguely the disgruntled bitter, clingers. There are many people who just didn't want Barry to bring them the light.
@AllenS
You should be hired by a professional news organization just based on your questions alone.
However, we don't have any of those orgs around...
C4:
Your 8:56 spot on.
I found the comment above by the Obama people 4 years ago to be interesting. Their view was that Hillary was too hands-on, and that wasn't the job of the President. He was supposed to, what?, be above it all, and play coach? Judge?
I think that attitude is emblematic of the problem here, and with the Obama Presidency in general. The guy had no management or leadership responsibility, training, or education whatsoever before ascending to the highest office in the land. So, it is not the least bit surprising that he has no conception whatsoever of running anything larger than a Senate office. No idea of how to delegate, how to pick his top subordinates, how to oversee them, and make sure that he is getting the right information, the information he needs.
Of course, it didn't help that he skipped the PDBs the week before the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Playing golf and raising money for reelection were much more important than making sure that the United States was adequately defended from our enemies. And, that maybe is the scariest part of it - that Obama truly seems to believe that protecting this country isn't his primary responsibility as President, but rather, taking care of himself, and that all those perks, the big house, two 747s, helicopters, armed guards, personal band, etc. are somehow owed him for being so wonderful, or something like that.
The tragedy is that McCain does know these things, having spent a career in the Navy before entering politics, having attended War College, and been offered flag rank. He spent his first career in an organization where you have to be aware of what your subordinates are doing and the important stuff that is going on below you in your organization.
Luckily for this country right now, the other candidate who has been trained, educated, and is experienced in this area is Mitt Romney. Maybe even better prepared than McCain, having achieved long ago the civilian equivalent of the flag rank that McCain turned down for politics.
For the life of me, Darcy, I can't understand why others can't think to ask these questions. The questions are so obvious. Perhaps I'm far enough away not to be blinded by the smoke and mirrors.
By the way, this, if true, should be a bigger story
Gov. Romney should point out that Administration priority dictated that domestic policy advisor Valerie Jarrett gets a security detail (Secret Service) but Ambassador to Libya Stevens didn't.
Since garage is too lazy to provide any documentation, a Republican has to do his work for him. Here's the list he appears to have in mind:
Yemen, 2008: No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded
Serbia, 2008: A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd.
Athens, 2007: An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty...
Syria, 2006: Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.
Saudi Arabia, 2004: Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed
Uzbekistan, 2004: Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards
Karachi, 2002: No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast
Summary:
Number of US ambassadors killed: Zero.
Number of attempts by Bush to blame mobs incited by rogue videos: Zero.
Number of silly talking points from garage mahal: countably infinite.
And still phx wonders why people call garage silly names.
Issue #1 is of course covered under the rubric of "the President hving ultimate responsibility when anyone is killed, and it was on HIS watch!" But realistically, we assign reasonable levels of responsibility.
C4, I think it's more that. It's not just "wasn't responsible", it's Obama's willful blindness and utter disinterest in the facts on the ground. Those have led to the distorted priorities his appointees have imposed, top-down. They created, quite intentionally, an environment where reality was a distant second behind the President's campaign and the administration's party line.
This isn't the first major screw-up from this administration and certainly wouldn't be the last one. Whoever one thinks is responsible, it's obvious these problems aren't going to fix themselves with these same incompetent people in charge. Fortunately, we have a chance to change that next month.
PS: You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette!
The funniest thing about that comment is that Tammy Wynette left George Jones because of his drinking and carousing, while Hillary is the one still 'standing by her man', at least on paper.
Karachi, Pakistan June 15, 2002
Uzbekistan. July 31, 2004
Saudi Arabia.December 6, 2004
Syria.September 13, 2006
Athens January 12, 2007
Serbia February 21, 2008
Yemen. September 17, 2008
Those are newspaper dates, btw. The attacks may have happened the previous day. No US dead, although some local security people were killed. And strangely, only terrorists were blamed--not YouTube videographers. No false stories put out either. Imagine that--handled like adults were running the show.
So... over early six years, seven attacks... compared to, how many in under four?
I'm sure it is all Bush's fault though.
It is fascinating to see who actually doesn't give a shit about the deaths of our Ambassador and three other Americans.
We've got A Reasonable Man who considers it old news, not worth discussing anymore.
We've got garage mahal, who is trying every possible "But what about ____?" trick in the Democrat talking point book.
We've got the Obama administration, who was blaming a video 2 weeks after they knew it was a terrorist attack.
We've got Hillary Clinton, who stood by Stevens' casket and blamed his death on a video, then "took full responsibility" by blaming a subordinate.
We've got the New York Times, that doesn't consider it as newsworthy as Lance Armstrong doping allegations that have been going on for years...
Some people are actually bothered when Americans are killed, and would like to know why/how it happened, enforce accountability if bad decisions were made in what seems like an easily-stymied attack (after all, just 2 SEALs using personal arms seem to have held off a planned attack using heavy weapons for several hours), improve the decision-making process to diminish the possibility of it happening again, and dismantle the organization behind the attacks...not just lob a missile to kill a few of the foot soldiers involved.
That takes lots of discussion, investigation, consideration.
To repeat, it is very interesting to see who is disparaging that effort, and trying to stop it.
But I'll take the high road and not stoop to questioning motives for that...
Civil war in the Democrat Party 3 weeks before election.
I love it when a plan comes together.
And, to answer the Senators' original statement, when did they ever have it?
garage mahal said...
Imagine these f*cjtards handling a 9/11/01 event?
To find that out we need to ask Republicans how they handled a 9/11 event under their watch.
A Hell of a lot better.
So... over early six years, seven attacks... compared to, how many in under four?
And in none of them were the embassay's completely blown to bit as in East Africa in 1998.
Garagie was all upset about that one.
Really, he was.
It is also telling that in all the discussion of the actions of the various people in the Obama Administration, no one ever assumes that anyone in the Obama administration made a statement or took an action for the motivation of making the US safer or stronger.
It's always about political calculations.
Fascinating, isn't it?
Especially with all the attempts to imply closeness by calling Ambassador Stevens "Chris", it is interesting that accountability for his murder is clearly the last thing Obama, Clinton, Rice, et al, are thinking about.
Number of US ambassadors killed: Zero.
Number of repeated attacks: Zero.
Number of requests for add'l security denied: None indicated, so Zero.
And in at least one of the attacks (Karachi), Marines were present (one was injured).
Give the Administration some credit, they were able to round up a Marine detail to act as pallbearers for Amb. Stevens.
Give the Administration some credit, they were able to round up a Marine detail to act as pallbearers for Amb. Stevens.
Armed with blanks, of course. More than the local guards hired by that British security firm were allowed to have according to State Dept. directives.
As Mr. Obama prefers perpetual campaigning, golf and basketball to attendance at Security Briefings, we should not be surprised at his (Or, is it "His") ignorance.
As he has done whatever he can to build up Islmmists, we should not be surprised at the removal of diplomatic security where there is proven danger.
We are in the midst of a huge recovery, though, according to some in the White House. I can't wait to see the vacations the next four years bring.
Summary:
Fine, let's sum it all up:
Under Republicans: 3000 dead Americans in NYC.
Under Obama: 4 dead Americans in Libya.
What's the next question?
garage mahal said:
Fine, let's sum it all up:
Under Republicans: 3000 dead Americans in NYC.
Under Obama: 4 dead Americans in Libya.
What's the next question?
See? "But what about ____?!?"
The point of looking into and enforcing accountability is to ensure it doesn't happen again.
9/11/01 was unprecedented.
9/11/12 was not.
The investigation into 9/11/01 resulted in recommendations to prevent 9/11/12.
They didn't.
But garage mahal, you are one of the few who doesn't care why 9/11/12 wasn't prevented.
You don't seem to care about the deaths of Americans, as long as President Obama gets re-elected.
Why is that, garage?
Why is partisanship more important to you than the lives of Americans?
What's the next question?
The next question is, What is the childhood trauma that gave you the strange compulsion to post inane internet comments?
Garage's point is that since embassies were attacked when GWB was president that it is fine for embassies to be attacked going forward. Have at it, seems to be GM's attitude since under no circumstance has this administration erred. Ever. Even once.
Garage's point is that since embassies were attacked when GWB was president that it is fine for embassies to be attacked going forward. Have at it, seems to be GM's attitude since under no circumstance has this administration erred. Ever. Even once.
I'm saying Republicans do not care about embassy attacks. They obviously did not care when it happened when they were in charge. They care now because an election is around the corner. But please continue on pretending you do.
Nathan Alexander said...
garage mahal said:
Fine, let's sum it all up:
Under Republicans: 3000 dead Americans in NYC.
Under Obama: 4 dead Americans in Libya.
Apples and submarines.
Try again SFB
great stuff by Mickey Kaus:
…Note how Carney moves the goalposts on what Biden is denying: Biden said “We weren’t told they wanted more security.” What Carney denies is that a request for security was made to the President or White House. But of course Biden denied much more than that–he denied even knowing (or being “told”)about a request made to the State Department or any other agency;
Here's White House Press Secretary Carney's exact words:
"In over four hours of testimony, the testimony that you just referenced the other day, no one who testified about this matter suggested that requests for additional security were made to the President or the White House. These are issues appropriately that are handled by security professionals at the State Department."
Wow! Democrats are really good at lying!
clinton, bush, democrats, republicans -- we were all naive for believing the unthinkable would never happen before 9/11. but once it did, once we realized how far our enemies will go to attack us, there is no excuse for naivete. there is no excuse, after you spike the football about killing bin laden to believe there would be no blowback, no retaliation, especially in an area of the world al-queda has been gaining strength. bad things happen in this part of the world, but not to be prepared is inexcusable. to lie to the american people is inexcusable. that is why i feel betrayed. and if the president wasn't aware of what was going on as he says, then why not. what kind of national security team do we have? why was obama so unconcerned about the attack he went off to vegas as if nothing important had happened? bush wouldn't have done that. clinton wouldn't have done that.
This is not true.....
tubal reversal
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा