Kotite,

Everything I wrote is 100% true.

Should the US have invaded? I think not and how it was sold the public is a whole other discussion that I do not care to delve into.

I was simply responding to those that wrote " no WMD's " and only invaded for "profit" because those are nonsense.

 

My thoughts about HRC and the embassy attack are as follows:

Embassies are attacked at an all too regular basis. Attacks/attempted attacks have been pretty consistent since the early 70's.

My objections to this particular attack is the response by those appointed to keep embassies safe and to explain when things go bad.

HRC claimed over and over again to the American public that some obscure video was the cause of the attack. At the same time, HRC informed her daughter, the Egyptian president and Libyan president that it was a terror attack. 

HRC coldly and cruelly stood over the caskets of the dead and explained to the families that it was the video.

I 'm also amazed that HRC's lies about this were exposed and the media still touted her "performance" at  the hearing as a success.  

 

Lastly, I truly believe there was a stand down order given to rescue forces by someone.  I believe this because one of the SEALS painted the attackers positions with a laser. That would have immediately given away his position.  I'm certain he would not have used that laser unless he thought or knew help was inbound.

We'll never find out who issued the stand down order or why but I firmly believe there was one issued.

---