Hillary Has More Balls Than Bobo: "I take Responsibility for Benghazi"

Yup. It was a cop-out.

 

Wow, did I hit a nerve?

 

No. No, not really.

You set the bar for yourself very, very low. And then failed to go over it.

 

Wrong, that was the Gulf War, do you even know history?

 

Ahhh, another righties that does not know history. Amazing that you righties would even attempt to discuss history, since you know so little of it.

 

I knew you would catch it...LOL Your too good....

 

I know history. I agree with the person you disagree with. That is the reason we invaded Iraq. Hussein's constant violations of the cease fire agreements is the reason we re-invaded Iraq.

 

Do you ever wonder if you give yourself way more credit than is due?

 

Um there were riots everywhere. In bengahzi there were none, it doesnt mean region wide riots are not a cover for a planned attack.

Indeed the lack of riots in Bengahzi is normally a good reason not to have a protection squad in Bengahzi rather than Tripoli.

By the way why do people need to be fired? Is there some law you have in mind that has been broken? Arent you really just making it up as you go along?

 

Must be a liberal thing "You can only be fired if you break a law".

I guess that being able to be fired for incompetence scares the living $hit out of liberals ............

 

The PRESIDENT is responsible for foreign policy and national security which includes our embassies and personnel. HE appoints HIS SecState. The SecState reports to HIM.

He has declined to take part in 47 briefings the last year. THAT is were the administration is suppose to address these national security matters and it is the PRESIDENTS job to deal with them. As many of the other presidential COS have stated publicly their Presidents attended them everyday. It was their top priority. Then of course is the question..............the embassy in Lybya had been attacked twice previously. Were the President and Vice-President NOT TOLD of these attacks? If not have the fired the people who hide them from them? If so then what did he do about it?

 

THERE WERE NO RIOTS IN LYBYA IT WAS A PLANNED AL QAEDA ATTACK. What don't you understand. It was mostly I think if direct response to Obama's braggadocios and repeatedly spiking the ball and declarations the HE killed OBL.

Because it was a flat out lie she told, the knew it was a planned terrorist attack and that NO demonstrations let alone riots had occurred in Libya.

You can't figure that out?

 

Well now it seems you can go out and lie to the American people about a terrorist attack against us and that's OK you don't lose your job.

 

I understand the concept of "the buck stops here"...but that must apply 100% of the time for everything...including the good things that happen...like getting Bin Laden.

But you really didn't refute the notion that Obama MAY have had no knowlege of the consulate security situation prior to the attack, and maybe he didn't have anything to do with the how's and why's in the days following. We have people that do that. But yeah....if you want to play the "buck stops here" card...do it ALL the time, even when good things happen

 

Except that it is not plausable that he was that ignorant. During the House testimony, Nordstrom made it clear that he had been told that the security could not be expanded not because of funding, or resources, but because they needed to keep the negative political footprint small. That it was about appearances, that he might as well ask for "the sun, the moon, and the stars". He made it absolutely clear that it was politics. He even went to testify that "The Taliban were inside the building".

That policy comes from the very top. While Obama may not have seen specific requests, he absolutely directed the policy that made those decisions.

 

Fair enough...just give him the credit for good things too, because if the "buck stops at Obama's desk", then the buck for killing OBL stops at Obama's desk.

Are you ready to admit that Obama should get 100% of the credit for killing OBL, and 100% of the blame for the B-gazi consulate attack?........or are you going to try and spin this and convince me there are extenuating circumstances whereby fairness doesn't apply?

 

The Secretary of State is supposed to have more balls than POTUS. POTUS is the head of the snake. Secretary of State is the fangs.

 

Same old "Don't offend the Muslims" notion. Let all hell break loose, but don't ever offend the Muslims. Phheeeeeeww !! Did it ever occur to Obama, Hillary and crew, that there is no wway that Muslims are ever going to be not offended.

They need to stop worrying about offending Muslims, and get the jobs done they need to do, starting with protecting Americans here, there, and everywhere.

 

I do not accept your premise. Perhaps others will argue differently, but I have never bashed Obama directly for the killing of Stevens. Nor have I blamed Hillary completely. The security judgements were a group effort, and as ex-military, I know that the enemy has a say in it. I think it was a lousy policy, and the intel was napping, but (*)(*)(*)(*) happens in combat. Stevens is a diplomat to us. To Al Qeada, he's a target. Likewise, Obama gets little direct credit for killing OBL. He made the proper call, but that was also an enormous team effort covering 4-5 years, and it was an easy decision to give the go-ahead on.

My complaint is the cover-up. The deliberate lying to the American people so as to mislead them about the success, or failure, of our ME policies. That has been my complaint since 9-12.

 

I wrote, "There were no riots in Benghazi. There was a coordinated attack. It consisted of an assault team armed with small arms. There was a weapons support team armed with rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and probably machine guns. And there was an intelligence exploitation team. In about four hours they took down two locations killing four Americans in the process and ransacking the two locations.

But there were no riots."

To which you replied,

Stay on the point.

See how easy it can be to stay on point? Thank you.

 

Oh my bad....I thought you agreed with the concept that anything that happend under an Obama admin can be blamed on Obama because it happened on "his watch"

I should have had more faith.

 

The day after the terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans, Obama left for a Vegas fundraiser.

He attended another fundraiser the same day he met their coffins at Andrews AFB.

Shall we hold him responsible for being disinterested in his job, too?

 

But do you understand how the executive branch works and who is responsible for national security? The PRESIDENT.

If he didn't then why hasn't somebody been fired. Our Embassy has a hole blown in the security wall big enough that 40 people were able to rush through and he wasn't told. That is either preposterous on its face or we are in deep trouble if this is how our security is being handled.

Yes the buck stops with him, has he called in the parties involved into his office sat them down and demanded to know who knew what and who denied the request for security and who sent Rice out to lie about it? And the key question is, what did he do about the previous attacks.

 

And that is suppose to mitigate this gross violation of the public trust and gross mishandling of our national security, this total fiasco how?

And if so SO WHAT? How does that mitigate this failure of his administration to protect the lives of our ambassador and other citizens and then lying about it to the people?

 

But it goes beyond the cover up to the lack of action and refusal to listen to the people on the scene and denial of their desperate attempts to get themselves some protection. The consulate had been bombed TWICE since JUNE. One an IED thrown over the wall, the second a bomb that blasted a hole in the wall allowing more that 40 people to run in and invaded the compound. To believe the President was not informed of these acts stretches credulity. I have heard former top level officials of several administrations, of both parties, just reel in disbelief and rattle off the chain of command that would bring that top priority information to him where ever he is no matter what the time. Did he ignore it? What did he do.

They had REAL TIME communications before and during the attacks. They knew immediately there were no demonstrations that day or that night. It was quiet all day long. They knew it was a coordinated attack with indirect fire. You were military, you know what indirect fire is, you know it is no something spur of the moments crowds can successfully engage in. There were flanking attacks. There were heavy weapons that require special training to use.

WE KNEW ALL THAT IN 24 HOURS.

And if he really didn't know, was never informed then we have a bigger problem, a dysfunctional out of control administration with a man who wants to play President not be President and we need to get them out pronto.

I fully believe this was an concerted attempt by this administration to cover up their intelligence failures and security failures, failures due to political positions, and covered up to avoid political damage in the election. They thought they could get away with it and it blew up in their incompetent faces. And they think we are all a bunch of idiots who would have fallen for it.