Help me out here with these events as I think I am missing something.

 

At the moment of attack on the ambassador and others, and they are killed, what were we to do? Wouldn't anything we would have done at that point been retaliatory (ignore the fact of justified or not.) At that point their lives can not be brought back no matter what we do correct? In other words, should we have made some sort of strike first before the attack to prevent it? Wouldn't then had made us the provoker?

 

Then there was the classification of the event, it wasn't terrorist, no wait it was, or was it......Really just semantics in the grand scheme, whether it was one person who committed the act, or a group from an organization (terroristic or otherwise) its still an act of murder correct?

 

Dude, you need to do a little more digging into this...

 

People asked for help (multiple times) before this event and while it was going on. Those pleads for help went unanswered.

Spare me the theatrics and insults. Not one post in this thread up until this point discussed anything you cite here. This “scandal” continues to be about semantics – Obama didn’t say “terrorism” quickly enough and Susan Rice said "based on the best information we have to date" on a Sunday talk show. Petraeus’s testimony was supposed to be the smoking gun on both of those points (it isn’t) and is the subject of this thread. I agreed with you in another thread that there are legitimate questions about this case. Perhaps if you want those to be front and center you should direct your ostentation toward your Republican brethren who continue to focus on trivialities.

You're going under the impression that this administration is telling us the truth. You (or any of us) don't know that.

You're going under the impression that this administration is telling us the truth. You (or any of us) don't know that.

That would be a gullible position.

Anyone seen Hearsay? He came in firing with a high-powered machine gun and then vanished.

Anyone seen Hearsay? He came in firing with a high-powered machine gun and then vanished.

 

Guess he got taken out with a nerf gun.

Anyone seen Hearsay? He came in firing with a high-powered machine gun and then vanished.

I'm sure he's busy, he'll be on soon enough. I've never known Hearsay to duck anyone.

I'm sure he's busy, he'll be on soon enough. I've never known Hearsay to duck anyone.

 

I'm not saying he's ducking anyone. I just want him to follow up on his post.

Edited November 19, 201213 yr by Clyde

I'm not saying he's ducking anyone. I just want him to follow up on his post.

Gotcha. I'm sure he will.

Anyone seen Hearsay? He came in firing with a high-powered machine gun and then vanished.

 

Maybe Obama had him arrested and put away for speaking against him.

Maybe Obama had him arrested and put away for speaking against him.

 

Your contributions to this are consistent.

Sen Feinstein to David Gregory:

 

 

DAVID GREGORY (host) Senator, you said that two days before that, Director Petraeus said it was terrorism. Why didn't Ambassador Rice call it terrorism two days later?

 

FEINSTEIN: Because she could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points. I have some concern with those speaking points. But let me correct one thing.

 

GREGORY: Right. But what are the concerns and why speak at all? In other words, why was there a reference to it being a terrorist attack taken out of the public talking points?

 

FEINSTEIN: That is something that we're going to find out. But it was. That's the point. Now, with the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false. There is only one thing that was changed, and I've checked into this. I believe it to be absolute fact. And that was the word "consulate" was changed to mission. That's the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.

 

About the 5:30 mark.

 

NBC Meet the Press - AT&T U-verse

Sen Feinstein to David Gregory:

 

 

DAVID GREGORY (host) Senator, you said that two days before that, Director Petraeus said it was terrorism. Why didn't Ambassador Rice call it terrorism two days later?

 

FEINSTEIN: Because she could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points. I have some concern with those speaking points. But let me correct one thing.

 

GREGORY: Right. But what are the concerns and why speak at all? In other words, why was there a reference to it being a terrorist attack taken out of the public talking points?

 

FEINSTEIN: That is something that we're going to find out. But it was. That's the point. Now, with the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false. There is only one thing that was changed, and I've checked into this. I believe it to be absolute fact. And that was the word "consulate" was changed to mission. That's the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.

 

About the 5:30 mark.

 

NBC Meet the Press - AT&T U-verse

 

I posted this because it caught my attention that a Senator had access to the talking points yet we're still going back and forth on what was or wasn't int here. Did she have special access?

Where does the cut of $300M from the Embassy security budget come into play? Or where should it?

 

Gentlemen in the video says we have to make hard choices and we have to prioritize.

 

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

^ - is this the budget that Reid refused to consider.

 

The Republicans have not cut anything from the Budget. There simply is no actual budget and has not been since 2009.

 

The House did its legal responsibility and passed a budget resolution. The Senate has not done anything. So regardless of what anyone has voted for budgetary-wise since 2009 its just political fodder. The claim of and blaming of budget non-existant constraints is interesting but probably not germane.

 

What is germane is that security was outsourced to a British firm that agreed to hire locals who would work unarmed. And these security forces left their post minutes before the attack. Indicating they had knowledge of what was coming. i.e. - this was an inside job and security policies established by the State Department (no armed security guards) contributed to this attack. And they knew the formal, outsourced security guards left their posts before the attack the night of attack - they saw the video that night. This action clearly indicated this was no 'protest'.

^ - is this the budget that Reid refused to consider.

 

The Republicans have not cut anything from the Budget. There simply is no actual budget and has not been since 2009.

 

The House did its legal responsibility and passed a budget resolution. The Senate has not done anything. So regardless of what anyone has voted for budgetary-wise since 2009 its just political fodder. The claim of and blaming of budget non-existant constraints is interesting but probably not germane.

 

.

 

The cuts were part of a continuing resolution.