Ishmael Pequod
Banned
You claim to be military. You tell us who makes the decision to send additional security.
Senators: Benghazi attack ‘likely preventable’
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
You claim to be military. You tell us who makes the decision to send additional security.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Who else could it be that would deny additional security? Pus head.
Is that what this debate is about Commander Dunce? Try again shit-for-brains; prove to us that you can comprehend anything past your dimwitted memes and DNC talking points.
maineman
Banned
people on the right bitch that we didn't hightail it and run from Benghazi like the rest of our allies. That sure sounds like they would advocate a foreign policy where we take our marching orders from our allies..... I tend to disagree. But hey... surrender monkeys are fucking everywhere these days, it would seem. I just don't happen to be one of them.
maineman
Banned
a deputy under-secretary for north african affairs, perhaps? or is the existence of a layered regionally focused bureaucratic organization within the department of state something new to you, piss brain?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
you're a pretty impressive internet tough guy to threaten to let someone else "have a discussion" with 007, while you abduct his children.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Okay. Show us your evidence. Empty scrote.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
You'd drink Hillary's piss.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Then she's incompetent if she wasn't involved while her embassy is under attack. Idiot.
They'll just wave it off and keep being Democrats.
maineman
Banned
so... you don't have any evidence that she was directly involved?
why not just be a man and admit it, piss brain?
Close your hole, maineman. The truth is refreshing.
I’m amused that you think protecting diplomats is “hightailing” it. Are you purposefully stupid or born that way? I think you were born that way.
But again you keep fabricating your own version of the debate to fit that narrow false dialogue you want to convince everyone of.
We aren’t bitching about running from Benghazi; we’re pissed we were lied to about it. I am guessing that if we type this 100 times it won’t prevent you from being the dishonest dumbass we know you to be.
But what we are also saying is that if our allies recognized the terrible danger their personnel were in, and our President and Sec State were warned on NUMEROUS occasions of the dangers by their Libyan allies, AND they could not adequately protect our personnel, then yes, doing what our allies did would be the ONBVIOUS and competent choice.
But I digress; I must remember that I am trying to have a coherent dialogue with a dishonest hyper partisan asshole.
Wow; that is quite a leap in logic. But alas, no one could ever accuse a dishonest hyper partisan dumbass like you of bring logical.
So after all of the previous deflections and strawmen didn’t work, you now claim we are “surrender” monkeys. How dishonest and moronic of you.
How is pulling out of the “mission” in Benghazi that we could not adequately protect surrendering?
So do you support Obama’s surrender on Syria? Do you accept Obama’s surrender in Iraq? Do you accept Obama’s surrender on Afghanistan?
You’re a buffoon filled with irony and hypocrisy aren’t you?
Close your hole, maineman. The truth is refreshing.
Dishonest hyper partisan dunces like him hate the truth.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
She's the boss and the Committee said it could have been prevented. She would only be responsible if she was a republican. That's why you are a deranged cockroach.
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”
The truth contained in this paragraph cannot be diminished:
This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.
But again, dunces like you wish to pretend that such decisions are not made with the knowledge of the President or the Secretary of Defense; underlings were all acting out on their own without any direction. ::wink wink::
Would you take Hillary's word?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on Monday that she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts. The comments by Clinton were made in response to the political firestorm that has surrounded the attack on the Benghazi, Libya US Consulate on September 11.
Clinton stated during a visit to Peru that she “take
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/364797/hil...r-poor-benghazi-security/#IiGkeFQ13tyjVomR.99
It's their comfort with dishonesty that's most disturbing.