Benghazi Cover-Up?

[Jermyn Davidson]

And then Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) exploded:

Ackerman said, “The stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city today emanates from this room. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the President of the United States and others in the administration using [the] terms ‘deliberate’, ‘lies’, ‘unmitigated gall’, ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust’, ‘coverups’. If you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror!”


He accused the Republicans of, according to NBC, having:


“the audacity to come here” when the administration requested, for worldwide security, “$440 million more than you guys wanted to provide. And the answer is that you ______ didn’t provide it! You REDUCED what the administration asked for to protect these people. Ask not who the guilty party is, it’s you! It is us. It is this committee, and the things that we insist that we need have to cost money.”

He added, “Could you tell me which of my colleagues on this committee was as bodacious in their insistence that we provide more money for American security in the State Department budget. I would appreciate it.”

Ackerman then asked them to raise their hands and gave them a count of five to do so. None did.


http://www.politicususa.com/democrat...uy-mirror.html



So the GOP actually REDUCED America's ability (financially speaking) to secure State Department missions (like Benghazi) all around the world!

Do you think the GOP was waiting for this "gotcha" moment?

Furthermore, from the begining, I found the focus on the President for whatever happened at Benghazi to be profoundly political, but not very practical.

The GOP pretty much gave the State Department a pass on all this. But, the GOP was trying to make Obama look bad so that he would lose the election, so I guess our party's actions were acceptable.

[n david]

If you really want to have an honest, unbiased discussion...here's a fact check by CNN from after the VP debate.

link

1) there were requests for additional security made and denied. What is not known is who denied the requests, how far it went.

2) the alleged cuts by Republicans...paltry and likely had very, very little impact in undermining the security in Benghazi.

The admin wanted 2.64 billion and the final bill passed gave 2.37 billion. 270 mil less than requested. Again, not enough to cause the problems with security in Benghazi.

I don't blame Obama for the attacks. However, I do have a right to criticize him for going campaigning while this was going on. While the situation was still fluid and protests were still going on, his campaign and re-election meant more to him. Then his admin continued the disputed story that it was the result of a youtube video. And Obama couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it was even a terrorist incident until weeks later.

Had this been W...we know full well you'd be going off against W. Yet again, you give Obama a pass and look to blame the Republicans.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

If you really want to have an honest, unbiased discussion...here's a fact check by CNN from after the VP debate.

link

1) there were requests for additional security made and denied. What is not known is who denied the requests, how far it went.

2) the alleged cuts by Republicans...paltry and likely had very, very little impact in undermining the security in Benghazi.

The admin wanted 2.64 billion and the final bill passed gave 2.37 billion. 270 mil less than requested. Again, not enough to cause the problems with security in Benghazi.

I don't blame Obama for the attacks. However, I do have a right to criticize him for going campaigning while this was going on. While the situation was still fluid and protests were still going on, his campaign and re-election meant more to him. Then his admin continued the disputed story that it was the result of a youtube video. And Obama couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it was even a terrorist incident until weeks later.

Had this been W...we know full well you'd be going off against W. Yet again, you give Obama a pass and look to blame the Republicans.

You may think you know I'd be going off against GWB. However, I don't think I'd b so quick to blame the President on something that I have seen as a failure at the State Dept level.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

If you really want to have an honest, unbiased discussion...here's a fact check by CNN from after the VP debate.

link

1) there were requests for additional security made and denied. What is not known is who denied the requests, how far it went.

2) the alleged cuts by Republicans...paltry and likely had very, very little impact in undermining the security in Benghazi.

The admin wanted 2.64 billion and the final bill passed gave 2.37 billion. 270 mil less than requested. Again, not enough to cause the problems with security in Benghazi.

I don't blame Obama for the attacks. However, I do have a right to criticize him for going campaigning while this was going on. While the situation was still fluid and protests were still going on, his campaign and re-election meant more to him. Then his admin continued the disputed story that it was the result of a youtube video. And Obama couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it was even a terrorist incident until weeks later.

Had this been W...we know full well you'd be going off against W. Yet again, you give Obama a pass and look to blame the Republicans.

Says who?



The fact of the matter is that he acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack.

[Hoovie]

You could cut our military by a full 50% and we would still have no problem responding to a Benghazi type attack. We had military personnel and equipment on standby in multiple locations wanting to intervene. Now, months later, there has been no serious retaliation for this attack on the USA.

What was the missing link that night? A Commander in Chief that would put Americans before his politics!

Oh, Yeah! Lets say it was a You Tube video!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

You could cut our military by a full 50% and we would still have no problem responding to a Benghazi type attack. We had military personnel and equipment on standby in multiple locations wanting to intervene. Now, months later, there has been no serious retaliation for this attack on the USA.

What was the missing link that night? A Commander in Chief that would put Americans before his politics!

Oh, Yeah! Lets say it was a You Tube video!

Hoovie,
So you really don't think that what the Senator said had any bearing on what happened that day?

The military have Commanders and the Commanders have publicly acknowledged that they were the ones who made the decision to not respond to a situation where intel was sketchy at best.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Says who?

The fact of the matter is that he acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack.

Well over a month after the fact. And that was fact-checked. Even CNN's Candy Crowley admitted to making a mistake covering for Obama during the debate she moderated when Romney was hitting Obama on the fact that Obama did not call Benghazi a terror attack.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Initially, he didn't call it a "terrorist attack", but eventually he did.

Furthermore, the language that President Obama used in his speech in the Rose Garden in the day or days following the attack mentioned "terror"-- the root word of terrorism. So, in fact he never denied the possibility that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism.

Some one the GOP want to insinuate or even state that President Obama FLATLY DENIED that terrorism had anything to do with what happened and that is simply a lie.


What some GOP wanted the President to do was to use language that would purposely upset, even paralyze some on our country-- which is exactly the kind of effect that terrorists want to have on us when they do what they do.