• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rand Paul: "I WOULD HAVE RELIEVED YOU"

Steve

Well-known member
I suspect that most of the outrage of the right re what happened in Benghazi centers on two main points: 1) that in a post 9-11 era we put Americans in the heart of an anti-American region and left them woefully underprotected, and 2) that the president of the US later joked about, and made light of their deaths after misleading the American people for a week or two about the leading cause of the incident.

Where's that cartoon of the president in his golf cart calling them bumps in the road as he was driving over the graves of the 4 dead?

I suspect there is one other major point... why the failure?.. after spending billions if not trillions on the new homeland security,..CIA and other intelligence agencies, and mountains of new laws to enable the bureaucrats so they could "prevent" these attacks.. and they failed again...
 

flounder

Well-known member
Mike said:
After the first World Trade Center bombing, and the Embassy bombing, Clinton treated Al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. He had several chances to get Bin Laden but didn't.

There was an election coming up and he didn't want to rock the boat.

Hank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."

The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html



and after 8 years of bush never getting bin laden, President Obama et al took care of bin laden in the first 4 years. :nod: :tiphat: :wave:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
flounder said:
Mike said:
After the first World Trade Center bombing, and the Embassy bombing, Clinton treated Al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. He had several chances to get Bin Laden but didn't.

There was an election coming up and he didn't want to rock the boat.

Hank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."

The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html



and after 8 years of bush never getting bin laden, President Obama et al took care of bin laden in the first 4 years. :nod: :tiphat: :wave:

If that's your complete understanding of what took place, then I have a much better understanding of why you post the silly crap you post.
 

Steve

Well-known member
and after 8 years of bush never getting bin laden, President Obama et al took care of bin laden in the first 4 years.

and where is your proof? you have doubts about 9-11 that played out on your TV , yet you believe a secret mission and an at sea body dump...


isn't it funny how liberals work... an orchestrated event on US soil in the busiest city in the world.. our government can pull off a CIA operation.. yet in a desert we can't plant a few antique WMDs..

but can pull an reclusive terrorist out of a country right under their noses..

incredible logic, you liberals have.. or is it blind cult-like faith in your leaders..
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
After the first World Trade Center bombing, and the Embassy bombing, Clinton treated Al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. He had several chances to get Bin Laden but didn't.

There was an election coming up and he didn't want to rock the boat.

Hank Crumpton, a former CIA officer and top counterterrorism official, said in a recent interview that President Bill Clinton's White House missed a golden opportunity to take out terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 1999.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 1999, Crumpton told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a segment that aired on Sunday. His convoy had been clearly identified by an early edition Predator drone, which at the time didn't have weapons capabilities.

"We saw a security detail, a convoy, and we saw bin Laden exit the vehicle, clearly," Crumpton told CBS's Lara Logan, describing aerial images captured by a drone flying somewhere outside of Kandahar. "The optics were spot in, it was beaming back to us, CIA headquarters. We immediately alerted the White House, and the Clinton administration’s response was, ‘Well, it will take several hours for the TLAMs, the cruise missiles launched from submarines, to reach that objective. So, you need to tell us where bin Laden will be five or six hours from now.' The frustration was enormous."

The administration also denied the CIA's request to engage their on-ground forces, Crumpton said, which could have acted more quickly. The missed opportunity led the CIA to speed the process of arming the unmanned drones with Hellfire missiles, so that they could act more swiftly if they found bin Laden again. U.S. forces have since come to rely heavily on unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes on targets in hostile territory, much to the disapproval of some human rights groups.

Clinton has been criticized for a supposed failure to seize opportunities to kill bin Laden on multiple occasions. A 9/11 commission report, which brought the original release of the drone footage that Crumpton is referring to, led to accusations from Clinton's opponents that he had neglected to act despite a wealth of convincing intelligence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html

I also seem to recall that while bin Laden was based in Somalia, the Somali government as well offered him up to Clinton.....a simple arrest of the guy on Somali soil and hand him over to the Americans.

I forget now who in the Clinton admin was chicken shyte about the reprecussions of a bin Laden arrest (might have been Panetta), but Clinton passed on the offer.

Too bad bin Laden didn't have a puzzy, he'd have been in Clinton's custody in 24 hours.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
what about the 3,000 plus dead right here in the good old USA, Sept. 11, 2001, months before that slaughter happened, the White House was warned that an attack on USA soil was immanent, yet the warnings went ignored.

where is that outrage from the republican hypocrites there? oh, that's right, that was on their watch, so those 3,000 plus slaughtered Americans, of which the slaughter took place on American soil, they don't count do they, not in the eyes of the Republicans that were responsible for letting this slaughter happen.

let me tell you republican hypocrites something, you come back and talk to us on Benghazi and the 4 dead there, when you inform the American people, how and why, the Republicans sat and watched 3,000 plus Americans get slaughtered on their own soil, when they knew months before hand that this was coming, but yet did nothing. ...

Flounder Fudpucker.....FDR was warned that Pearl Harbor would be attacked too...what about it???????????????
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I was mistaken, it wasn't Panetta who worried about the arrest and transfer of bin Laden to US custody, it was Sandy "I don't know how those documents got in my underwear" Berger.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

So while Clinton didn't have sufficient evidence that could be brought againt bin Laden (a foreign national) in an American court refused to touch the guy, Obama targeted for execution an American citizen who had never had a day in court and everyone's fine with that.

Yeah, I can see how that makes sense in liberal lala land. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Presidential Leadership skills certainally suck in the US, don't they...

Bush sucked, and now that gives obama reason to suck more.


:roll:


"he did this, so we can now do this" "But he did it"



You all sound like a bunch of school yard kids, blaming Bush, while giving obama the leeway to do the same, because "Bush did it"

slippery slope
 

Tam

Well-known member
Time to bring this thread back to the orginial topic, Hillary. I have never had any respect for that political skank but how dare she say that it should not matter to the American people and the World that her and her slimey leader Obama BOLD FACE LIED TO THE PUBLIC FOR WEEKS about their inability to do their friggin jobs while they protected their political futures. :mad:
This like Fast and Furious will be swept under the rug and nobody will ever know the full extent of what Obama and his corrupt Administration knew and when they knew it. I put the blame for that on the Republicans as they don't seem to really care to get to the bottom of anything if it is going to make the handlers/money in DC mad at them. :mad:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Tam said:
Time to bring this thread back to the orginial topic, Hillary. I have never had any respect for that political skank but how dare she say that it should not matter to the American people and the World that her and her slimey leader Obama BOLD FACE LIED TO THE PUBLIC FOR WEEKS about their inability to do their friggin jobs while they protected their political futures. :mad:
This like Fast and Furious will be swept under the rug and nobody will ever know the full extent of what Obama and his corrupt Administration knew and when they knew it. I put the blame for that on the Republicans as they don't seem to really care to get to the bottom of anything if it is going to make the handlers/money in DC mad at them. :mad:

I ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT AGREE MORE, TAM.
We have a bunch of GOP wimps that are going to let Obama take the country
down. This is on their shoulders too. And we have paid them to do this
for way too many years. :mad:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Tam said:
Time to bring this thread back to the orginial topic, Hillary. I have never had any respect for that political skank but how dare she say that it should not matter to the American people and the World that her and her slimey leader Obama BOLD FACE LIED TO THE PUBLIC FOR WEEKS about their inability to do their friggin jobs while they protected their political futures. :mad:
This like Fast and Furious will be swept under the rug and nobody will ever know the full extent of what Obama and his corrupt Administration knew and when they knew it. I put the blame for that on the Republicans as they don't seem to really care to get to the bottom of anything if it is going to make the handlers/money in DC mad at them. :mad:

I ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT AGREE MORE, TAM.
We have a bunch of GOP wimps that are going to let Obama take the country
down. This is on their shoulders too. And we have paid them to do this
for way too many years. :mad:


Maybe the Repubs. are only allowing Dems. to make their own mistakes, in hopes that the ideology they advocate dies.

In a few years, people will realize what Democratic policies have meant for them and their children.

I firmly believe only a conservative ideology will correct the situation. Hopefully people will see that "leftist" policies have only hurt them through the years and will continue to hurt them, if they don't make a change in direction.

For the Dem. "example" to make an impact, it will have to be fast and sudden, not incremental.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Tam said:
Time to bring this thread back to the orginial topic, Hillary. I have never had any respect for that political skank but how dare she say that it should not matter to the American people and the World that her and her slimey leader Obama BOLD FACE LIED TO THE PUBLIC FOR WEEKS about their inability to do their friggin jobs while they protected their political futures. :mad:
This like Fast and Furious will be swept under the rug and nobody will ever know the full extent of what Obama and his corrupt Administration knew and when they knew it. I put the blame for that on the Republicans as they don't seem to really care to get to the bottom of anything if it is going to make the handlers/money in DC mad at them. :mad:



:lol: :lol2: :disagree: :liar:




why was information months before 911 2001, secret information on an attack on the USA, why was this covered up by the republicans?


why didn't the bush administration warn the public about that?


what about those 3,000 plus Americans slaughtered in the USA because of it?

no outrage there from republicans?


what about the funding for Embassies security cut/refused by CONGRESS?


seems the finger for Benghazi should be pointed at congress for not properly funding for security at Embassies.





HILLARY 2016 !!!
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
flounder said:
why was information months before 911 2001, secret information on an attack on the USA, why was this covered up by the republicans?


why didn't the bush administration warn the public about that?

Could you please provide a link to the "secret information" on an attack on the USA that was covered up by the republicans?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
flounder said:
why was information months before 911 2001, secret information on an attack on the USA, why was this covered up by the republicans?


why didn't the bush administration warn the public about that?

Could you please provide a link to the "secret information" on an attack on the USA that was covered up by the republicans?


He's obviously talking about the info. clinton had, that he never thought to let Bush know about.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Hey Flounder was it not Hillary Clinton that met the caskets at Andrews and claimed the attack was a spontanious reaction to a video? Did she not tell the father of one of the victims they were going to get the guy that made the video and prosecute him? Yep I think it was :?

A lot of people in Washington apparently forgot how good Hillary Clinton is at not telling the truth.

Wednesday, in her testimony before the Senate and, later, the House, Clinton brilliantly fudged, dodged, and filibustered. Of course, she’s a pro. Clinton was slow-walking depositions, lawyering up, and shifting blame when many of her questioners were still civilians down on the farm.

Aided by a ridiculous format, she outfoxed most of the Republicans with ease.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, almost uniformly, seemed singularly interested in celebrating Mrs. Clinton as a global diva who somehow manages to carry the burden of her awesomeness with humility and grace. If smoking were still allowed in the Capitol, one could easily imagine her removing a cigarette from a gold case and tapping it nonchalantly on the witness table, and the entire Democratic caucus leaping over their desks for the chance to light it for her.

The most dramatic moment came early, when Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson tried to get Clinton to explain why the State Department blamed the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi on an impromptu protest over an anti-Muslim video. In a rehearsed moment of spontaneous outrage, Clinton yelled back, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

It is a measure of Clinton’s cult-like status on the left and among much of the press that this passed for a satisfactory, never mind impressive, response. But it’s also a tribute to Clinton’s gift for mendacity that it worked so well.

Even among the administration’s harshest critics, people seemed at a loss to fully explain what difference it makes whether the administration’s spin was true or not. For many, the answer is simply that government officials shouldn’t lie. That’s a necessary criticism, but hardly sufficient.

Just to be clear, Clinton lied and is still lying. When asked about the claim that the attack was sparked by a protest over a video, she responded, “I did not say . . . that it was about the video for Libya.”

That’s simply untrue. When she stood by the caskets of the four Americans killed in Libya, she directly blamed an “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Afterward, she reportedly told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Why tell the man that if the video had nothing to do with it?

Moreover, Clinton was part of an administration that crafted an entire PR strategy to blame these attacks on “an awful Internet video.” White House press secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal: This was a “response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” In his address to the United Nations, President Obama mentioned the video six times but al-Qaeda once. When he appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman, he blamed the video directly. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday shows blaming the video. All of this happened when they already knew it was not true on the day of the attack, and even the president of Libya had publicly called the protest explanation ridiculous.

But again, the lying, while outrageous, is incidental to the real offense, which is twofold. First, why did the administration lie? Well, it wanted to conceal its utter failure to prepare for terrorist attacks on September 11 — which is like being surprised by Christmas falling on December 25. Also, the Obama administration, by which I mean the Obama campaign, was desperate to protect its hyped record of fighting terrorism. A “spontaneous” attack invited not by the administration’s shortcomings but by some nutty video was just the ticket.

Indeed, on this score, Clinton was true to her word. While none of the murderers have been apprehended, the filmmaker is in jail, the picture of his arrest splashed across the globe.

Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler’s veto on what Americans can do or say.

Clinton was in on that lie, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Why would the Obama Administration LIE for weeks to the point of sending out Susan Rice to the Sunday shows pumping their video story?

ANSWER: THEIR POLITICAL FUTURES IE THE 2012 ELECTION.



By the way if the Repubican cuts were responible for the lack of Security in Benghazi why did the State Department spokemen tell the Congress in the hearing the cuts HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?

Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary for Management, and Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for diplomatic security, maintained that security arrangements were adequate. Lamb said, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.” She denied that budget cuts had affected decision making on security arrangements, as some had charged
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1LRKGOrRkT4

Are you saying you know more about her decision than she testified to at the Congressional hearing Flounder? :roll:

FACE THE FACTS Your Skanky Hillary lied through her teeth and she still is and you will support her no matter what? :roll: .
 

Latest posts

Top