What Was Obama Doing While Americans Were Dying in Benghazi?

[red states rule]

Was he out campaigning? Attending a fundraiser? Shooting a round of golf? He sure as hell was not doing his job and trying to save the lives of US citizens being murdered by terrorists bastards





Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed Friday to hold President Obama "accountable" for his leadership on Benghazi, after the top two Defense Department leaders testified that they had just one conversation with Obama during the course of the Sept. 11 terror attack.


During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said they spoke with Obama at 5 p.m. ET on Sept. 11 last year. They were both on the same call, and said it lasted about 30 minutes.


Dempsey said they did not speak again until the attack was over.


Graham, who had demanded that Panetta testify on Libya as a condition for allowing the nomination of Chuck Hagel to proceed, aggressively questioned both witnesses on the president's actions.


Graham wrote on his Twitter account Friday: "President Obama has to account for his leadership on #Benghazi and I intend it hold him accountable."
He said Thursday on Fox News that "thus far the White House has delayed, denied, deceived and stonewalled and this has to come to an end. He has to account for his leadership."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/08/panetta-recalls-just-1-conversation-with-obama-during-benghazi-strike/#ixzz2Kdj9yjvE

[bingster]

Was he out campaigning? Attending a fundraiser? Shooting a round of golf? He sure as hell was not doing his job and trying to save the lives of US citizens being murdered by terrorists bastards

Lindsey Graham, what a jackass. When are we going to hold George W. Bush responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq after attacking the wrong country?

[jimnyc]

Lindsey Graham, what a jackass. When are we going to hold George W. Bush responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq after attacking the wrong country?

Congress voted and there was UN authority. Why resort to GWB instead of addressing the thread topic? Your question, quite frankly, is asinine.

[jimnyc]

Was he out campaigning? Attending a fundraiser? Shooting a round of golf? He sure as hell was not doing his job and trying to save the lives of US citizens being murdered by terrorists bastards

Both himself and Hillary were AWOL while this went down. At least Hillary had the audacity to respond and make excuses for her dereliction of duty. Obama won't even go near the topic. There was major failures here by those in charge and they danced around it the entire time, and again there is no accountability. Shouldn't be too awfully surprising, considering they walked away in the same manner when other Americans were killed along the border, in direct thanks to those and their horribly poor decisions.

[bingster]

Congress voted and there was UN authority. Why resort to GWB instead of addressing the thread topic? Your question, quite frankly, is asinine.

Because the whole concept of this thread is ridiculous. Who cares what they were doing? Do you think they had prior notice? This whole thing is just political. There's been hearings, reports, and actions are being taken.

It was awful that 4 people died, but comparing 4 deaths to the outlandish attention this story gets is way our of proportion.

Lindsay Graham wants to hold Obama responsible for 4 unfortunate deaths after being supportive of thousands of deaths during a war that was in its entirety a mistake. Maybe you've read something else, but I never heard the UN was for it, and the intelligence was so thin, there is no doubt that Bush was either incredibly stupid, or lied his ass of to us.

This issue is miniscule and has drawn a trumped up reaction from Obama enemies.

[jimnyc]

Because the whole concept of this thread is ridiculous. Who cares what they were doing? Do you think they had prior notice? This whole thing is just political. There's been hearings, reports, and actions are being taken.

It was awful that 4 people died, but comparing 4 deaths to the outlandish attention this story gets is way our of proportion.

Lindsay Graham wants to hold Obama responsible for 4 unfortunate deaths after being supportive of thousands of deaths during a war that was in its entirety a mistake. Maybe you've read something else, but I never heard the UN was for it, and the intelligence was so thin, there is no doubt that Bush was either incredibly stupid, or lied his ass of to us.

This issue is miniscule and has drawn a trumped up reaction from Obama enemies.

It's not out of proportion at all - THEY made it so anyway, by dodging this for months before responding, and then still not having accountability. This was a terrorist attack and you act like it wasn't such a big deal. Our CIC and Secretary of State were nowhere to be found during an EIGHT HOUR terror attack. And then stunningly, they avoided discussion of this terror attack for FAR too long. Then when anyone, like Hillary, gets in front of cameras and tells us what the hell happened, it was all double speak and lame excuses, no actual answers. And if legit, and just can't get answers, then that IS a direct dereliction of duty. How can one be directly in charge of this stuff but be missing while a terror attack is ongoing?

As for the UN, try reading back all the way to the late 80's and early 90's, the UN voted on various resolutions, no less than 17 in fact prior to the 2003 invasion.

The UN, Bush, Iraq - or NOTHING from back then - has any bearing or explains the responsibility of those in charge in Benghazi.

[Voted4Reagan]

Lindsey Graham, what a jackass. When are we going to hold George W. Bush responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq after attacking the wrong country?

Link please...

And a valid one... not a Blog or WIKI...

Back it up BINGSTER or be quiet..

[bingster]

Link please...

And a valid one... not a Blog or WIKI...

Back it up BINGSTER or be quiet..

Sorry, there are no government websites that add up all of the deaths in Iraq. I know the US government has credited 4000 American soldiers killed, but you need to look at numerous other websites to get Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. I personally think Wiki is the best site since all information does have accredited footnotes, which is better than most sights.

Accuracy of the number 160000 or 200000, hardly is applicable to an outrage over 4.

[Voted4Reagan]

Sorry, there are no government websites that add up all of the deaths in Iraq. I know the US government has credited 4000 American soldiers killed, but you need to look at numerous other websites to get Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. I personally think Wiki is the best site since all information does have accredited footnotes, which is better than most sights.

Because you MADE IT UP... plain and simple...

Either you made it up or you are parroting what the Liberal Talking points are...

Another Bing Fail...

And just for clarification.... Soldiers are fair targets in a WAR...

More Iraqi Civilians have died at IRAQI hands then at the hands of Americans.....

[Robert A Whit]

Lindsey Graham, what a jackass. When are we going to hold George W. Bush responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq after attacking the wrong country?

You are something else Bingster. Being out of work has made you very cranky as of late.

Graham did his job. His job is to get the truth. First Obama put the word out using Susan Rice it was not terrorists but some muslims cranky about a video film.

Bush is not responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq. I am not sure that many Iraqis died to begin with but how was Bush supposed to stop the massive use of IEDs? You saying Bush planted all those explosives?

You forget. Clinton went after Saddam. I remember very well posting that Clinton had to either get the congress to approve or stop bombing the hell out of Iraq. Where I come from, bombing other nations is an act of war. Clitnon went to war with Iraq and had no congressional approval. So he got a law passed to make it legal to get rid of Saddam.

Well, Bush becomes president and what do you know. Democrats were berating Saddam and wanting him gone. So Bush asked them if he could invade. They said, hell yes. Go get Saddam.

Well, how can you blame Bush when he simply extended the Clinton policy?

[bingster]

Because you MADE IT UP... plain and simple...

Either you made it up or you are parroting what the Liberal Talking points are...

Another Bing Fail...

And just for clarification.... Soldiers are fair targets in a WAR...

More Iraqi Civilians have died at IRAQI hands then at the hands of Americans.....

Yea, fair targets in a declared war with someone who attacked you. This was not the case in case you missed it.

Killing less civilians than Sadam Hussein is not a good measure of success. And, by the way, he was our beloved ally when he killed the civilians. He was Reagan's buddy then.

[bingster]

You are something else Bingster. Being out of work has made you very cranky as of late.

Graham did his job. His job is to get the truth. First Obama put the word out using Susan Rice it was not terrorists but some muslims cranky about a video film.

Bush is not responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq. I am not sure that many Iraqis died to begin with but how was Bush supposed to stop the massive use of IEDs? You saying Bush planted all those explosives?

You forget. Clinton went after Saddam. I remember very well posting that Clinton had to either get the congress to approve or stop bombing the hell out of Iraq. Where I come from, bombing other nations is an act of war. Clitnon went to war with Iraq and had no congressional approval. So he got a law passed to make it legal to get rid of Saddam.

Well, Bush becomes president and what do you know. Democrats were berating Saddam and wanting him gone. So Bush asked them if he could invade. They said, hell yes. Go get Saddam.

Well, how can you blame Bush when he simply extended the Clinton policy?

Yea, Clinton bombed some sites after Sadam tried to assassinate Poppy Bush. Clinton didn't launch an all out overthrow like Baby Bush who should have taken his Daddy's advise.

And your re-writing history with this: "Democrats were berating Saddam and wanting him gone. So Bush asked them if he could invade. They said, hell yes. Go get Saddam" is crap. Bush took the flimsiest evidence ever to see the light of day and ran a campain to mislead the American people that we could not wait for "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
His most compelling evidence was uncovered in his infamous "sixteen words" that amounted to an obviously counterfeited letter.

[jimnyc]

Yea, Clinton bombed some sites after Sadam tried to assassinate Poppy Bush. Clinton didn't launch an all out overthrow like Baby Bush who should have taken his Daddy's advise.

There's a reason a lot of liberals get labeled as making decisions on emotion, and not dealing with the facts, and playing with more rhetoric. This kind of blabber only makes you sound like the far left loonies who don't get taken seriously.

[bingster]

There's a reason a lot of liberals get labeled as making decisions on emotion, and not dealing with the facts, and playing with more rhetoric. This kind of blabber only makes you sound like the far left loonies who don't get taken seriously.

What, his nickname was "Poppy". I wasn't taking a shot at H.W.
Yea, I shoot at Baby, but who on this entire forum doesn't slash and burn on Obama? But it doesn't even register with you anymore. I use nicknames, and it's "blabber"?

[aboutime]

There is ONE FACT all of us have learned with this thread lately.

Bingster really is a dummy! Sounds more like a liberal, democrat who follows the DNC talking points manual than the person who wrote the manual.

But I guess, we should all be thanking bingster for being so open, and willing to demonstrate how dependent FALSE FACTS, and MADE UP LIBERAL facts really are.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because the whole concept of this thread is ridiculous. Who cares what they were doing? Do you think they had prior notice? This whole thing is just political. There's been hearings, reports, and actions are being taken.

It was awful that 4 people died, but comparing 4 deaths to the outlandish attention this story gets is way our of proportion.

Lindsay Graham wants to hold Obama responsible for 4 unfortunate deaths after being supportive of thousands of deaths during a war that was in its entirety a mistake. Maybe you've read something else, but I never heard the UN was for it, and the intelligence was so thin, there is no doubt that Bush was either incredibly stupid, or lied his ass of to us.

This issue is miniscule and has drawn a trumped up reaction from Obama enemies.

Just like Hillary, you say who cares!!???? By God we care, so does the families of those murdered Americans!! Your revelation that you do not care points to your mental state and complete lack of honor IMHO.

ffkk you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

We all know why Dubya invaded Iraq. It is because Saddam said bad things about Daddy Bush during the Gulf War.

And yes, we know exactly what Bush and Cheney did while Americans were dying in Iraq. They were watching Gitmo torture videos.

[aboutime]

We all know why Dubya invaded Iraq. It is because Saddam said bad things about Daddy Bush during the Gulf War.

And yes, we know exactly what Bush and Cheney did while Americans were dying in Iraq. They were watching Gitmo torture videos.


Thanks gabby. Thanks for worming your way out of answering the threat title question, and doing the typical, liberal, DNC trained kind of response by ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION...to protect you, and your tiny, little brain from being stressed, or put to any kind of Mental test that would have required an HONEST answer.

But. As we have all seen so many times here. You will never change, or improve any of the mental, of educational challenges facing you here. That would totally change the kind of person you are trying to be. Which really isn't saying too much, or complimentary.

[Voted4Reagan]

Yea, fair targets in a declared war with someone who attacked you. This was not the case in case you missed it.

Killing less civilians than Sadam Hussein is not a good measure of success. And, by the way, he was our beloved ally when he killed the civilians. He was Reagan's buddy then.

hey genius... Hussein used Poison Gas on his Civilians and Iran and Tossed his Soccer team into Wood Chippers.

Do not lecture anyone on his treatment of CIVILIANS... his human rights abuses are Legendary.

Lets ask the Kuwaiti's how he treated them... Rape, Robbery, Torture, 10's of thousands of women missing

nice to see youre defending a mass murderer.... i always say Libs love their Dictators...

you want to debate 1 on one Bing? I'll take you on in the cage

bring it Hippie.... lets go

[Robert A Whit]

Yea, Clinton bombed some sites after Sadam tried to assassinate Poppy Bush. Clinton didn't launch an all out overthrow like Baby Bush who should have taken his Daddy's advise.

And your re-writing history with this: "Democrats were berating Saddam and wanting him gone. So Bush asked them if he could invade. They said, hell yes. Go get Saddam" is crap. Bush took the flimsiest evidence ever to see the light of day and ran a campain to mislead the American people that we could not wait for "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
His most compelling evidence was uncovered in his infamous "sixteen words" that amounted to an obviously counterfeited letter.

What sort of con job are you pulling? So, because of a threat, you claim that it was legal for Clinton to hurl bombs and missiles into a country that had not attacked the USA? Maybe you feel the Japs bombing pearl harbor was fine too? And more than that, Clinton waged war on Saddam way more than one time. Not saying I felt sorry for Saddam but check it out, at no time did Clinton have permission of the congress.

Bush waited until he had permission before he invaded.
Actually I have argued this very point hundreds of times. To make sure, I also read half a dozen books by the actual experts that were part of that war by Bush. Gen. Tommy Franks in his book spoke of the King of Jordan insisting to the Gen that Saddam has WMD. And then president Mubarak of Egypt also told the general he was facing WMD. Some of you guys argue what Bush was told by the CIA. Well it was the CIA that told both Clinton and Bush that Saddam was loaded with WMD. Don't blame Bush for believing them. I have videos of plenty of top Democrats begging to make war and invade Iraq. You must have forgot those 16 words but I have not. And you have to prove to me, and you can't, that Bush said Niger. He said Africa. And he was told Africa.

Guess what? There was tons of yellow cake Uranium found by our men in Iraq. But had you dug deeper, you would have read an Iraqi Generals book where he explained how and when Saddam moved a lot of his stuff to Syria. General Sada is his name in case you want to stop being wrong. Even Tony Blair backed up Bush about that letter. England in fact did believe those 16 words. But Bush did not go to war over 16 words and you know that to be fact.

[Robert A Whit]

There's a reason a lot of liberals get labeled as making decisions on emotion, and not dealing with the facts, and playing with more rhetoric. This kind of blabber only makes you sound like the far left loonies who don't get taken seriously.

Man, he sure came unwound over what I told him, didn't he? LMAO

I bet he sat there spanking the monkey as he fought back tears when I brought up what Clinton did.

That Bingster has his democrat talking points down very well. But I have heard his nonsense many other times.

These people are so ignorant they won't read the proper books to learn the truth.

I did not see his reply till a short time back. I took care of his problem.

I was going to spank Gabby a bit but figured she might enjoy it too much. LOL

:beer:

[red states rule]

Lindsey Graham, what a jackass. When are we going to hold George W. Bush responsible for 200,000 deaths in Iraq after attacking the wrong country?

Add another caring, tolerant, and compassionate liberal to the long list of people who do not give a damn that four of their fellow citizens were murdered by terrorists on 9/11/12 and the President was out fundraising as they lay dead in the streets

It is clear form your post you are more angry and full of rage toward a US Senator asking questions about the murders and Obama's lack of response then the terrorist bastards who did the killing

[red states rule]

Thanks gabby. Thanks for worming your way out of answering the threat title question, and doing the typical, liberal, DNC trained kind of response by ASKING ANOTHER QUESTION...to protect you, and your tiny, little brain from being stressed, or put to any kind of Mental test that would have required an HONEST answer.

But. As we have all seen so many times here. You will never change, or improve any of the mental, of educational challenges facing you here. That would totally change the kind of person you are trying to be. Which really isn't saying too much, or complimentary.

I seriously believe Gabby would have the same "who gives a shit" attitude if a close friend, co-worker, or family member was one of the people murdered by the terrorists. Libs like Gabby always put their politics ahead of all else. Like Bing she hates the political opposition to Obama more then the terrorists who want to kill her and her family

[taft2012]

We all know why Dubya invaded Iraq. It is because Saddam said bad things about Daddy Bush during the Gulf War.


:fart:


Hey, Bill Clinton launched missiles into Iraq because Saddam was putting a plot together to assassinate the first President Bush.

Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

[taft2012]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324880504578295701078826488.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read




Thanks to the congressional testimony of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey late last week, we know they met with President Obama on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. in a pre-scheduled meeting, when they informed the president about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The meeting lasted about a half-hour. Mr. Panetta said they spent roughly 20 minutes of the session briefing the president on the chaos at the American Embassy in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi, which eventually cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and information officer Sean Smith.


Secretary Panetta said the president left operational details, including determination of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." We also learned that President Obama did not communicate in any way with Mr. Panetta or Gen. Dempsey the rest of that evening or that night. Indeed, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey testified they had no further contact at all with anyone in the White House that evening—or, for that matter, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Hillary-Clinton/6344).


And we learned one other thing: Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey both knew on the night of the assault that it was a terrorist attack. This didn't prevent President Obama, Secretary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (http://topics.wsj.com/person/R/Susan-Rice/7113) from peddling a false version of events in the days and even weeks that followed, as the administration called the incident spontaneous, said there was no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack and blamed the violence on an anti-Muslim video. So the White House, having failed to ensure that anything was done during the attack, went on to mislead the nation afterward.

[jimnyc]

We all know why Dubya invaded Iraq. It is because Saddam said bad things about Daddy Bush during the Gulf War.

And yes, we know exactly what Bush and Cheney did while Americans were dying in Iraq. They were watching Gitmo torture videos.

Another reason why a lot of liberals aren't taken seriously.

[red states rule]

Looks like Bing has pulled Gabby. He is becoming more and more like her - especially on those Obamacare threads

[taft2012]

Yea, fair targets in a declared war with someone who attacked you. This was not the case in case you missed it.


Allow me to point out to you what you may have missed.

The first gulf war never "ended." A cease fire was agreed upon, sort of like the current state in Korea. The terms of that cease fire allowed coalition forces unfettered access for weapons inspections. Saddam violated that cease fire policy repeatedly.

He practically begged for a resumption of hostilities, which he got.

In 1947, if the Japanese turned around and said, "Enough already, the war is over, get your troops out of here."

Would Harry Truman have tolerated that? Because that's basically what Bill Clinton repeatedly tolerated from Saddam Hussein.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While those Americans were dying the SOB obama was as usual taking care of obama!
Now he as usual got by with his lies and bullshat and gets to further weaken this nation.....-Tyr

[Drummond]

We all know why Dubya invaded Iraq. It is because Saddam said bad things about Daddy Bush during the Gulf War.

And yes, we know exactly what Bush and Cheney did while Americans were dying in Iraq. They were watching Gitmo torture videos.

To supply a painfully obvious answer to this (.. I wonder why I'm even bothering ..) .. there was that 'little' matter of UN Resolution 1441, and Saddam's defiance of world concern over the WMD stocks he was widely believed to have. But, 'perhaps this slipped your mind' (?) ...

And your typically Leftie concern for terrorist welfare is duly noted.

[red states rule]

:fart:


Hey, Bill Clinton launched missiles into Iraq because Saddam was putting a plot together to assassinate the first President Bush.

Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

and Bill did take out an aspirin factory and killed a janitor in an attack on Iraq