Quote: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.

I don't dispute it. But mustard gas is hardly a nuclear warhead or a "dirty bomb" that Americans need to worry about being launched from Iraq. As mentioned earlier, Benghazi was not designated as a full time embassy and was not held to the same type of security standards as other embassies which made it especially vulnerable. When you couple that with an ongoing war which drained our coffers and forced politicians to cut embassy security funding, it makes managing those risks difficult. Was HRC still responsible for doing the best she could with what she had? Absolutely. The attack occurred in an election season which I feel influenced how things were framed in how this was presented to the American people. I don't excuse HRC for wearing a political hat and framing a narrative which was intended to place a terrible situation in a less incriminating light. That said, politicians framing narratives to place themselves in a better light than what is entirely truthful is older than George Burns. The mock outrage that accompanied this tragedy was beyond absurd. The right knew they caught HRC trying to sugarcoat a turd and pretended to be SO concerned about these people and this situation because they saw an opportunity to damage Obama's chance of re-election (as if Mitt Romney had a chance) while also attacking the biggest perceived threat in the next major election. They didn't care about American lives. Otherwise they would have had a tenth of the outrage when those other attacks took place. They saw an opportunity. My biggest issue with this recent breed of Republicans is that they have completely lost their way. The GOP used to be the party of ideas. Since Obama took office all they have done is attack and stall. This hearing is just another waste of time and money. I do not believe HRC had any credible evidence of an imminent attack or that they had enough time once the attack was underway to stop it. The comments about the SEAL and the laser pointer are really sad. He may have been hoping for a rescue that was never coming, but I do not believe anyone was close enough to deflect this attack once the embassy was swarmed.

---