Benghazi Facebook Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by L Capuano, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. L Capuano

    L Capuano Administrator Staff Member

    Rolondo's post on Facebook:

    "Here is my take on this. There is an attack in Benghazi and 4 people die. This is tragic. Was it miss stated as not a terrorist attack sure go ahead. My question is this. Did it change anything if it was or not a terrorist attack? Was it a presidential election? Yeah. Again my question is did it matter at the time if it was called a terrorist attack or not? What would that had accomplished? What lives where put in danger? Please tell me. But let's say it was labeled a terrorist attack considering it was a presidential election couldn't we had put the lives of Americans of Americans back home in danger during a time of turmoil? You see political gain by not calling it a terrorist attack right away. The way I look at it it didn't matter. Maybe I will use an excuse a cop can understand. If there is a dead person and the police knows it was a murder but they need evidence to catch the killer or potentially stop other murders should they call it a murder right away and potentially hurt their investigation? Or should they not label that right away don't say much and try to find out what's happening while the trail is hot. How many other terrorist attacks happened right after this one? How many maybe were stopped because the official story was that the video was to blame and it wasn't premeditated? Other than political gain would calling it a terrorist attack would it accomplished? So answer this has in the past the police not say everything they know in hopes of catching the perpetrators. (Btw Lou you know I am married to a person that works with evidence right?) I know that you know the answer to this question. Let's see if you answer it logically and not with political eyes."

    Let me begin by saying, I appreciate your time and effort in this discussion, and I respect your civility. I admit to sometimes getting frustrated and letting my emotions get the best of me in my responses. I shouldn't do that, because it weakens my position. My responses:

    "Here is my take on this. There is an attack in Benghazi and 4 people die. This is tragic. Was it miss stated as not a terrorist attack sure go ahead. My question is this. Did it change anything if it was or not a terrorist attack?"


    Why was it not called what it was? I have a problem with lies Rolando. The President and the Secretary of State have an obligation to tell the American people the truth. Misleading the public is not something I condone or expect from elected officials. If it was a matter of security, if the public had needed to be mislead in order to serve some security reason, PERHAPS I could condone the lies. This was not the case. Further, the lies were denied even after being exposed, and no justification was ever made for the lies, other than to say, "We weren't sure", which was ANOTHER lie, as Hillary's private emails prove. They DID know, they LIED, and then LIED again to explain the lie. Unacceptable to me.

    Was it a presidential election? Yeah. Again my question is did it matter at the time if it was called a terrorist attack or not? What would that had accomplished? What lives where put in danger? Please tell me.

    It was a Presidential election, and I don't think it is wrong to presume that, because up until this point, there had not been a terrorist attack against the U.S., that President Obama was reluctant to acknowledge that a U.S. embassy was attacked and American citizens were killed. In fact, I think it is somewhat foolish to believe there was any other reason than this. Again, DECEPTION. Accountability from our elected officials is not too much to ask.

    Aside from that, there is now evidence that there were requests for greater security in Benghazi that were denied:

    Issa and Chaffetz say they've "been told repeatedly" that the Obama administration not only "repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels," and did so "to effectuate a policy of 'normalization' in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war."

    By JAKE TAPPER via NIGHTLINE, THIS WEEK, WORLD NEWS

    Further, the Obama administration has not given decisive answers as to why this was the case. So, there were requests made for additional security, which were denied.

    I expect answers from the administration. I expect politicians to explain their actions, not downplay investigations into their actions.

    Obama’s Comments About Clinton’s Emails Rankle Some in the F.B.I.

    When all is said and done, I resent the lies. I resent the attempted cover-up. I resent the private email server (which again, only strongly implies an attempt to hide something), I resent the deleted emails, the hampering the investigation. I resent politicians thinking they are above the law. I say this unequivocally: I would not support a politician who engaged in the behavior that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have displayed in the Benghazi incident. I respect your right to not care about this Rolando, I really do. I just absolutely disagree with you on this issue. Plain and simple.

     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2015
  2. L Capuano

    L Capuano Administrator Staff Member

Share This Page