< 1 2
2 of 2
Benghazi attack
Posted: 01 November 2012 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

when you deny facts submitted by your own administration, then there’s not a damn thing more i can say.  it’s what comes from leftist ideology.  hence, the whew!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

I have not denied any facts submitted.  I merely pointed out that you can’t say someone is covering something up (or wrong as you put it) based on data that comes to light long after she was asked about the attack.  She clearly stated that extremist elements were involved in the attack with heavy weapons taking advantage of a demonstration.  I guess you should be working for the CIA since you clearly knew what happened immediately.  Rice prefaced her answer with a qualifier which you completely ignore.  Why is that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

because i’m not into qualifiers.  i listened to her closely that day and said to julia, ‘i like this woman.  she knows her stuff.’  that was later proved to be false.  she didn’t know it or covered it up.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

What the hell does that mean?  Qualifiers only count when they prove your point?  The position of the right is that the truth was covered up.  That position is based on a portion of Susan Rice’s statement on September 16th as compared to what we know today.  Unless you knew better than our intelligence community on September 16th, you could not have disputed her statement that day.  Only with an investigation that brings more data to light, can one reach any conclusions as to what really happened.  So, there is no evidence of a cover-up (which by the way was the original question).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

Ned:

I’m curious.  Did you suggest a cover-up occurred after any of these incidents?  Or, are you just picking on the Obama administration?

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls’ school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Administrator
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-11-24

No suggestion intended. Just asking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

The reports coming from the President and his staff are disingenuous.  They clearly lack the truth and the President appears to not want the truth out on the table until after the election, if at all.  Several versions of what took place have been repeated by various media sources.  Not sure any of the versions are totally accurate.  One point that has not been made by the media or any other group is the fact that the Ambassador may himself be partially to blame.  It appears he knew that Benghazi was dangerous and that he did not have adequate security.  It seems like he might have just left the area, returning to Tripoli or at least moved and collocated from his compound into the CIA compound.  It was after all 9-11.  Bad choices were made by the Ambassador and those in charge of security.  Once the attack began only a couple of folks appear to have gone to the sound of the guns.  But it seems strange that the terrorists suffered zero casualties (the reports do not indicate any injuries on the part of the bad guys).  Friction as articulated by Clausewitz in On War was clearly in play.  The only conclusions that can be drawn is that it is a Cover Up or friction got the better of the CIA, DOD, the State Department, the Ambassador and POTUS.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-07-27

“The only exercise some folks get is jumping to conclusions…”

Profile
 
 
   
 < 1 2
2 of 2
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.