Benghazi Cover Up - Page 5

Smokescreen.

Anything to get the focus off Benghazi.

Regarding world opinion, while China supports Obama over Romney, Obama's favorability ratings have gone down about 30 points according to a Pew survey.  And while the people may like Obama, many world leaders don't because he either tells them what to do or snubs them.  There are three notable exceptions:  Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and Vladimir Putin have all endorsed Obama.  As I am sure does Francois Hollande, as he taxes his remaining millionaires at a 75% rate.  Very impressive.


My own opinion about the Benghazi cover up is that the Americans were killed with guns supplied to Libyan and Syrian rebels by the US.  Obama does not want another international Fast and Furious.  I'm sorry for the parents of the victims who deserve some answers. 

Duh.
Obviously deer can read ...

How in the world did racism enter the picture?  Has nothing to do with it.  It is about an administration that refuses to answer questions about 4 Americans who were murdered, one of which was a U.S. ambassador.  

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/01/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack?ft=1&f=1001

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-usa-libya-cia-idUSBRE8A102T20121102

---

These categories should cover the basic forms of terrorist attacks against Americans whether abroad or on our soil.








http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all

Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of War Defense between 2001 and 2006, so none of this should be news to him:

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.

So did those attacks (and the 9/11 ones, for that matter) happen because of "perceived American weakness"? Is that what Rumsfeld wants to argue—that our country's diplomatic missions were targeted because George Bush's America was perceived as weak?

As for Obama, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are the first two attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in an ostensibly peaceful country during his entire presidency—and they were sparked by that idiot wingnut Islamophobe Terri Jones. The embassy in Afghanistan was targeted by the Taliban last Sept. 13, but that's a country at war.

If you buy Rumsfeld's nonsense, you can tally the numbers to determine which administration was "perceived weaker."




BTW, plenty of Americans were killed under the Bush administration and we are still waiting on answers. I guess when you lie about weapons of mass destruction to give reason for your war crimes, that is perfectly fine with you all, lmfao.

The problem is GSDAdmin, you can draw up pretty graphs all the way back to George Washington and it doesn't explain why President Obama is not answering these questions about our dead and murdered US Ambassador. I mean, what do you say to the next person he picks as US Ambassador to a terrorist-friendly, anti-American country? Can you imagine? I can, maybe something like this:

"Here's your paycheck, hope it covers you and your family incase you are attacked and murdered. We won't come to rescue you.  Um, we'll just give you a 'heads-up' on that sticky point, right off he bat."

Did Bush explain? And in the links posted in the beginning of my post explains what happened. I guess you didn't bother reading those links.

No, I admit I did not, now, I will have to go do that, and report back, to rise to the challenge. However, you would seem to prefer to not want to comment on my above scenario, either?

 Freshly back from reading the "Bush" link. Well see, now this is the thing, your article and I assume, you're in agreement of this same article, is speaking of a "perceived weakness" because American Embassies are attacked. And that is not the issue here that is of importance, IMHO.  The issue is whether Obama knew about the attack and did nothing. None of your listings convey this type of detail, that I could tell. If he left the US Ambassador to fend for himself when he could have sent aid, this is very disturbing to me for a Commander in Chief.

I watched McCain say (on TV), his criticism of Obama's handling, and I too, thought it lacking.
 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/game-on-mccain-blasts-obama-on-benghazi-at-storm-relief-rally/

No, just super busy. Will say this, it is like a soldier, here here is your check now go get shot at. Ambassadors know they could be putting it on the line everyday, it comes with the job.