White House Told Within 2 Hours of Benghazi Attack that Terrorists Claimed Credit For

#1
#2
Adding insult to injury, He went to bed after the news and the next day carried on with His campaigning.
I'm sorry JJH. You know from my earlier posts that I am not a rabid anti-Septic, and I admire you for your normally balanced views of life across the pond, but what should he have done?

I suppose he should have fabricated intelligence, sent a bloody good man to the UN to commit political suicide by claiming that the other side had weapons of mass destruction on the behalf of his manipulative vice president and his business interests, and then conned a close ally (not difficult, it must be said) into adding respectability to his actions by commiting itself to an unwinnable war. He could then have claimed "Mission Accomplished" and ignored the carnage that went on afterwards. That would at least have been acceptable to the Republican-leaning voters and politicians.

I apologise for my possible shortsightedness, but I really can't see anything beyond a political/intelligence/PR breakdown of communication that had extremely regretable consequences for a relatively small number of people. As I have said in an earlier, separate thread, it all pales into insignificance against what President Cheney did for us all, and what that expert on foreign affairs Mitt Romney would end up doing.

I suppose you will now take me off you invitation list for a range day sometime in the future! :). Take care!
 
#3
This gets "curiouser and curiouser" as well as increasingly malodorous. Even the uber-supportive Reuters is reporting the inconvenient truth that our Masters apparently have tried unsuccessfully to cover up.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

Adding insult to injury, He went to bed after the news and the next day carried on with His campaigning.
Only the foolish act on single source reporting whose reliability cannot be judged. Often groups claim responsibility for things they haven't done. Anyway what do you think Obama should have done?
 
#4
Repeating the lie often enough that this attack was some Obama conspiracy doesn't make it the truth.

Your single minded obsession to blame all the ills of the Universe on President Obama is making you look foolish and just a tad unhinged.


 
#5
Adding insult to injury, He went to bed after the news and the next day carried on with His campaigning.
As opposed to? Leading a posse to Libya in person to hunt down the bad guys? Crushing his prick between two bricks in mortification and in empathy with the deceased? Ordering a bombing run on some randomly-chosen bit of geography and whatever poor bastards lived there?
 
#6
This gets "curiouser and curiouser" as well as increasingly malodorous. Even the uber-supportive Reuters is reporting the inconvenient truth that our Masters apparently have tried unsuccessfully to cover up.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

Adding insult to injury, He went to bed after the news and the next day carried on with His campaigning.
I thought he stood on the White house lawn and made a statement about it! thre president has "generals" to sort out stuff, and the fact he went to bed, doesnt mean he slept easy.
 
#7
As opposed to? Leading a posse to Libya in person to hunt down the bad guys? Crushing his prick between two bricks in mortification and in empathy with the deceased? Ordering a bombing run on some randomly-chosen bit of geography and whatever poor bastards lived there?
Perhaps he could have taken a leaf out of Bush the Youngers script and carried on reading 'My little goat' as planes were being crashed into tall buildings killing thousands in New York live on breakfast TV?

 
#9
The Economist had a good slant on this last week: The town-hall debate: The utterly useless Benghazi argument | The Economist

The reason Mr Romney couldn't make hay out of the Benghazi argument is that the argument is a confused mess. The people who are making it don't understand what point they're trying to make, so it's not surprising that audiences don't tend to understand it either... the problem isn't so much with Mitt Romney's delivery yesterday as with the argument itself. Specifically, it's incomprehensible. What on earth would it mean to claim that the Obama administration is unable to say that terrorism exists? Who do Republicans believe the administration thinks it is killing when it approves drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? What exactly is it that Republicans are trying to say about the attacks in Benghazi? Are we to believe that Democrats are predisposed to blaming terror on spontaneous mobs of Muslim zealots, as opposed to more organised groups of the same? Putting aside the shoddiness of such an analysis, what sort of indictment of the administration is that supposed to imply, in Republican eyes?
It's clearly an attempt to do an Iran Hostage Crisis-style October Surprise on Obama, whether it makes sense or not. One could argue that the administration can be faulted for lax security in Benghazi, or for having their No1 there at a time of growing tension etc etc... but this? It's nonsense, and it reeks of a desperate need to find offence in something for political ends... in an oddly similar way to the Muslim protestors themselves.
 
#10
Its beginning to sound like an updated version of Swiftboating
 

CplFoodspoiler

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#11
Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead
Adding insult to injury, He went to bed after the news and the next day carried on with His campaigning.

Point of interest JJH, did Romney pause his campaigning?

Id be going straight to bed if I knew Mrs O was waiting to suck me off!
Hottest First Lady ever, two's up!
 
#12
The Economist had a good slant on this last week: The town-hall debate: The utterly useless Benghazi argument | The Economist



It's clearly an attempt to do an Iran Hostage Crisis-style October Surprise on Obama, whether it makes sense or not. One could argue that the administration can be faulted for lax security in Benghazi, or for having their No1 there at a time of growing tension etc etc... but this? It's nonsense, and it reeks of a desperate need to find offence in something for political ends... in an oddly similar way to the Muslim protestors themselves.
"Clearly?" I admire your certitude. I think the fact Reuters and other such "news" sources are reporting these developments demonstrates this is not new political election season theater.

As I have said before on this matter (and you can believe what you want as to the honesty of my motives which in this case--posting on ARRSE--are focused on not letting the apparently preventable deaths become lost in partisan bickering), 4 Americans are dead and the answers we are getting about the entire affair are at best unsettling. This is so regardless of the obvious and to be expected political dimension (one can but imagine the different treatment a conservative administration would be getting in the "press").

One can but wonder how my British cousins would react if the earlier assassination attempt on your ambassador had succeeded or if the warning signs of impending trouble were ignored as they apparently were in this case in order to fit a "pie in the sky" political template (the evil Christians made a film that in turn "made" the Muslim street riot) that Al Qaeda was defeated.
 
#13
You misunderstand me, I assume unintentionally. As I said, there's much to criticise in the Benghazi incident, but when and whether your president called it 'terrorism' isn't it. It's this weird semantic rabbithole the GOP are clambering down that seems so baffling from the outside: I presume it's a dog-whistle thing, but we're on a different frequency. And if you genuinely think this is unrelated to your ongoing election, then, well... shrug.

As for it being AQ, rather than a local affiliate or wannabe, I've not seen any proof of that. If you have, you should probably forward it to the State Dept rather than moan about it here. And regarding claiming that AQ were defeated, who in your administration did that? If anyone did, they're an idiot, but your post clearly implies this was the case.
 
#16
Id be going straight to bed if I knew Mrs O was waiting to suck me off!
I would love a 3some with her and Sarah Pailin.

Little bit of coffeee and cream MILF action. Hell yeah!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top