anyone that disagrees with you particular spin apparently ...you, of course, are very impressive...:)

See, you could have saved up those last three posts and made just one good one.

-spence

Now now, its obvious that Obama is a horrible idiotic half muslim half swahili nazi sympathizer with aryan-chinese roots. I mean its not like tactical missions have a hundred advisors and a thousand ways to go wrong and run on probability of success.

"What are your unbiased Canadian newspaper subscritions saying about the matter" ? :huh: :devil: :)

"We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it."

We did not "try" to reduce the US presence, we did reduce the presence. The resukts speak for themselves, 4 dead.

Spence, do you really think that removing 24 security team members from an ebmassy is going to make these people like us more.

Peace through strength.

God, do you ever get one right, even by accident? Spence, when you have large numbers of armed people trying to kill diplomats, what's the benefit of pulling out the security, but leaving the diplomats behind?

That's one of the more honest things you have posted here. But it's more than a one-time bungle. This administration has, time and time again, refused to label something as a "terrorist attack" when it is clearly just that.

Spence, I have been there, I have interrogated these people, and I have witnesses over 100 interogations. When Obama goes on TV and denies, for example, thatthe Ft Hood massacre was a terrorist attack, it makes him look weak and stupid in the eyes of the enemy. That emboldens them.

we've come a long way from Churchill's "we'll fight them on the beaches" speech...The peoblem is, this enemy is even more determined than the Nazis Churchill referred to, as the Nazis didn't have voluntary suicide bombers.

It's a weak, mixed message Spence. And that's exactly what you do not want to convey in a time of war. Hell, this administration won't even use the phrase 'war on terror', and there's no earthly reason to justify that. I hear liberals refer to the "so-called war on terror" all the time.

Why would anyone deny we are at war with terrororists? Why do liberals want to do that? Can you shed any light on that? We're not rounding up Muslims and putting them in refugee camps, Bush made that clear within hours of the 09/11 attacks.

I don't get it.

Don't usually read them but here's the first thing that came up from their biggest newspaper...

U.S. officials turned down requests for more security at Libya consulate - thestar.com

Seems pretty objective to me.

-spence

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.

Well, that's not really what appears to have happened.

Here's a pretty interesting write up from the WP.

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say - The Washington Post

It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.

But Benghazi happened right before the election...

-spence

"A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one."

You're so thoughtless. Spence, the head of embassy security in the region, cited dozens of threats and acts of violence against westerners, in the weeks leading up to 09/11/12. That's precisely why he said that those teams needed to remain in place.

"which likely gave him a false sense of comfort"

OK. Sp a lefty rag can no read the mind of a deam ambassador, and even worse, they're saying that the ambassador, and not the incompetent ass that you are in love with, is to blame. That's just great.

"it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in."

Correct. And precisely because he puts himself in harm's way, the Obama administration has the responsibility of not placing him in unnecessary danger. The guy who knows more about this than anyone at the Washington Post, is the head of security who begged for for more security. I guess he is just a Muslim-bashing knuckle-draggingm war monger?

"Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time"

And that's why they deserve to have security apparatus that's at least equal to (if not overwhelmingly superior to) any credible threat.

You liberal kooks just don't get the notion of 'responsibility', it's just not in your vernacular.

That you would suggest that Stevens recklessly contributed to his own death is beyond repugnant. I almost typed that 'you're better than that', but you're not. You have no shame, there is no level to which you will not sink to protect your true love.

Nothing you say, nothing, passes the common sense test.

that's interesting, charge Monday Morning Quarter Backing and then proceed to blame the dead guy....how low can you go?:uhuh:

Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

I'm listening to political talk radio in the truck today (as I do most every day) they are saying Bill Clinton is pissed about this situation possibly being dumped on Hillary as a scapegoat and Bill is lining up legal representation.

you had to expect this showdown eventually on some matter...should be fantastic...Obama throws everyone under the bus, Clinton's had to figure they'd get run over at some point:uhuh:

went across the pond for this...contracting out the security of our Ambassadors to foreign private firms...wow?...at a time when a "terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time'"

double WOW

British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience - Telegraph

Congress told terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time' - Telegraph\


I was just reading a story indicating that the intelligence community and State have, for sometime, been very frustrated with the Administration and their lack of focus and interest in these matters, the continued veto of previous attempts on OBL by Obama via Valerie Jarrett caused Panetta to assume authority and move ahead in that matter, bringing in O at the last possible moment having penned a legal out for the Pres., leaving him out of the loop , which was why he was dragged off the golf course suddenly and sat off to the side in a chair looking like a kid that had tagged along as the adults(even Biden) sat at the table in the situation room in that now infamous picture... of course he's been spiking the golf club ever since which is par for the course, pardon the puns....guess it's possible that he was completely unaware of what was going on and probably "focused like a laser" on that Nickelodeon interview

God damn right. Not only is the paper (and Spence) blaming the dead guy, they are doing it in a way that necessarily means they can read his mind. And conveniently, their explanation (blaming the dead guy) absolves Obama of any responsibility.

It's repugnant.

I agree Spence, it "seems" :D objective.

He only played 100 rounds of golf in his first 3 and1/2 years. :(

Maybe his morning T time interfered with Intel Meetings. :huh:

Nobody is blaming Stevens, but his apparent comfort with the situation is certainly an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation.

Now Rep. Issa is calling for increased security after the House slashed the overall budget. I wonder if that's part of his investigation? Romney I'll remind you jumped to blame the Administration for Egypt before he even had his facts right.

These guys are chomping at the bit to paint this as Obama's 9/11.

Shameful.

-spence

It is, and should be, Obama's 09/11.

Bush got blamed for the subprime mortgage crisis, and though he never personally bought a house he couldn't afford, nor did he invent the fishy derivitives that leveraged all the worthless paper. But he gets the blame, and to some extent at least, that's fair. Because the buck stops with him.

Your hero would do well to remember that.

Biden said "we" weren't told about requests for increased security. Not true.

The US Ambassador to the UN said on 5 (five!) Sunday morning shows that there was no evidence to suggest this was anything to other than a spontaneous demonstratuion against the video. Tha's absolutely, 100% not true.

Here are the facts...there was violence and threats against Western agencies in the weeks leading up to the attack. Against the wishes of the man in charge of security in that region, security was reduced. there was no demonstration at the embassy preceding the attack. There was no demonstration, none whatsoever, at the embassy preceding the attack.

Ther feds (of which Obama is the head) blew the obvious need for heightened security. They continued to say it was a reaction to the video LONG after no one could possibly believe that.

And Biden says at the debate that we'll know when Iran is close to getting a nuke? For a week, this administration clung to the false story that there was an anti-video protest at the embassy that spurred the attack. They stuck to that story long after everyone knew it was garbage. So now, how are they now so skilled that they know exactly what's happening behind closed doors in Iran?

Biden specifically said it was our intelligence officials who believed the attack was a spontaneous protest over the video. If our intelligence officials believed that long afetr everyone else knew it was a lie, then why should I trust those same intelligence officials to know what's hapening behind closed doors in Iran?

This absolutely will be his 09/11, with a big difference. Bush came out of 09/11 looking very favorably to most Americans. In this case, Americans are waking up to the fact that the Obama administration was either incredibly ignorant, or willfully dishinest. There is no third option. And neither option is acceptable.

Keep shifting blame to the dead guy Spence.

"an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation. "

OK. So because Obama appears to have made an ass out of himself, it must be that there's more to this than we can grasp. It can't be that he just blew it.

yup..."apparent comfort"....right

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.


Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, has told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that he and many other senior staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, "felt we needed more, not less" security personnel in the country, but were told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."


Wood and others have portrayed a State Department in Washington that was either unwilling to provide American officials in Libya with the security they required or ignorant of the pressing security concerns in a country where the central government is weak, and Islamic extremist militias have enjoyed virtual free reign in the power vacuum created by the toppling and killing of long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.


Top U.S. counterterrorism adviser John Brennan in Libya amid questions over security missteps - CBS News

Yes, stationed in Tripoli. But we're also talking about a small number of agents.

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due to sectarian violence, not violence directed specifically at the US or Jim's large number of armed terrorists out to kill diplomats.

You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

I'm starting to believe that you don't actually read a whole lot and what you do read isn't all that informative :uhuh:

Obama doesn't need help from us...he's doing a fine job doing a terrible job and looking really bad in doing so :)

is MoveOn trying to make Obama look bad?

Remember, 3-4 want-to-posts for every real post.

-spence

Pants On Fire: Obama Scrambles For Cover As Benghazi Lie Explodes - Forbes


In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video, information released in a letter from Representative Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Clinton shows that the situation in Libya had been deteriorating for months. It reads: “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

Those attacks began in April when two Libyans threw an improvised explosive device into the consulate compound. In June, postings on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page encouraged Libyans to attack Ambassador Stevens during one of his early morning runs around Tripoli. And in the weeks leading up to September 11th, Libyan guards were being warned by their family members to quit their consulate jobs because of rumors about an impending attack. These are but a few of the escalating series of incidents. There were also carjackings, shoot-outs, and even a rocket-propelled grenade being shot at a convoy carrying the British ambassador.

Spence, you said Stevens had a false sense of security. That's your opinion. The fact is, he requested more personal security.

Wrong. For example, I have repeatedly given him kudos for using drone strikes to kill terrorists. I am fair. You are the biased one, who will say anything (even blaming an assassinated anbassador) to deflect any criticismof Obama.

Hillary just came out and is taking 100% of the blame for this.....great timing the night before the debate, not sure it will help much...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as she should, it will be interesting to see if there are any consequences for her failure or if, as politicians often do, "pro"claiming to take responsibility for something and then assume "that is that"...move along... she's just made the man who blames everyone else for whatever is wrong appear even smaller if that were even possible, there's still the little issue of all of the intentional misinformation in the aftermath, that falls on the White House and is other part of this entire mess.... maybe Valerie Jarrett(since she appears to make all of the decisions up there) will take
"100% repsonsiblity" for that one, should help with the female vote:)

OUCH!!!
Poll: Romney, narrows gap with women, leads Obama in the swing states

I disagree with Hillary on many things but I respect her, she has far more courage, devotion and integrity than her boss :uhuh: probably would have made a better President..


double OUCH!!! forboding:uhuh:

I missed this one from a while back.but e'splains a alot..

"Well, four years have passed and Obama has adroitly steered the bankrupted United States he inherited away from the precipice but has not provided a “different future” worthy of the hope invested in him; and that imagined team of rivals became a team, or rather a coterie, of idolizers.

There is only one star in the galaxy at this White House and his name is Barack Obama. Everyone in the Sun King’s court has drunk the Kool-Aid.

The Obama inner circle remains a group of tough political tacticians: David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett. The White House national security team does not boast a single name of strategic stature. Anyone outside Washington would be hard pressed to name one.

The policy upshot has been predictable: cerebral, cool, and with one big exception, cautious. Obama has corrected big mistakes — abandoning the unwinnable global war on terror and pulling out of Iraq. To his immense credit he took a big gamble on killing Osama Bin Laden. But elsewhere he has been cautious to a fault, eyeing the political calendar.



But the president’s semper wary political operatives, focused on votes, may well calculate otherwise."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/op...idolizers.html

I believe this is factually incorrect as there was initial reporting, with interviews of the attackers, that indicated the video was a reason for the attack.

It's just one of the many mistakes in the OPINION piece you're referencing as a credible source.

Perhaps the largest is the flagrant use of al Qaeda to construct a narrative based on GOP talking points. I don't believe there is any evidence yet that this attack was planned or supported directly by al Qaeda in any material way.

The danger here is substantial. By exploiting this event for partisan gain the GOP risks undermining US security by attributing rock star status to a local militia.

-spence

update...forboding and prescient :uhuh:

if you read the NYT article it ends with reference to John Kael Weston, a former State Department officer imploring the President to present the Presidential Unit Citation during a ceremony held in honor of 2nd MEB, Sept. 14.

“Next month, Marines will gather at Camp Lejeune, N.C., to receive the PUC award. Secretary of the Navy Mabus is set to present it. While an honor, I know Marines hope you opt not to delegate the day’s special gathering to someone else. I feel the same way given ongoing Marine and troop sacrifice in Afghanistan.”

Weston added: “Please pardon my bluntness: I believe it is simply the right thing to do.”

and Roger Cohen suggesting that he ought to attend but wondering if political calculations might dictate otherwise...

"Obama needed more people in the Situation Room saying, “Please pardon my bluntness.” Having sent the Marines in (and concluded a Camp Lejeune speech in 2009 with “Semper Fi”) he should indeed present the award himself."


I guess he wondered right...I can't find any evidence that he attended

Secretary of the Navy awards 2nd MEB with Presidential Unit Citation > II Marine Expeditionary Force > News Article

maybe it conflicted with Letterman or Nickolodeon or that guy in the Pirate Suit, The VIEW, Beyonce or JayZ....so many things to do...so little time :uhuh:

haaaa.haaa.haaaa

"I believe"...of course you do:uhuh:
" I don't believe"....of course you don't :uhuh:

"Everyone in the Sun King’s court has drunk the Kool-Aid."

pfffft....Lybia is "a tiny country"....:uhuh:

It's a pattern of behavior that eclipses Libya. It's political and irresponsible...

-spence

you are hilarious :spin:

First established poll I've seen that has Romney ahead, on an aggregate basis, in the swing states. Romney up 4 among likely voters, in a Gallup poll, is very significant. One thing is for sure, Romney is 'peaking' at the right time.

He could be...I'm sure not sure an aggregate swing state poll means all that much unless it's weighted for OH and FL.

Once again Ohio is going to be the key, it's why the Boss is out and Paul Ryan is pretending to wash clean dishes..

Charity president unhappy about Paul Ryan soup kitchen ‘photo op’

Seriously :biglaugh:

-spence

I think if Romney does well tonight he takes the election, if not the momentum is lost and it will be dog fight to the end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Regression towards the mean...

Last debate Romney over performed and Obama under performed. If I was to wager I'd say tonight will be somewhat even.

Contrary to the evil liberal bias we keep hearing about, the media seems have loved the Romney resurgence story.

-spence

Yes they do!!
I hardly hear any talk about Libya :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or maybe they saw it like it was, Romney kicked Obamas ass in the first debate. If Obama won, could you imagine how over the top that "evil liberal bias" media would be..........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turn on the TV.

-spence

I did....it's all Hillary:rotf2: The most brilliant person in the administration and she just proved it:rotf2:

I'm surprised they waited this long to get her out.

You're looking at the 2016 POTUS don't you know :hihi:

-spence