Benghazi Hearings | The War on Terrorism Homeland Security | Forum


Please consider registering

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

— Match —

— Forum Options —

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Benghazi Hearings
February 8, 2013
5:20 am
Forum Posts: 417
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The senate had the hearings on the Benghazi attack today. I would hope that most Americans would go find video of it and watch the entire thing.

As I suspected would happen, the democrats asked mostly softball questions and tried to mis-direct the hearing by concentrating on budget issues. This was a serious failure by the current administration and they're talking about budget issues! What a disgrace.

Republicans did ask some hard questions but they appeared to be grand standing and this is too serious a topic to be grand standing.

I have two questions:

1. We deployed an ambassador to a hostile territory that just had a major regime change, and we knew there was a threat of attack, and the ambassador was not in a protected embassy. Now he comes under attack by terrorists, and our response is, nothing? How does Secretary Panetta respond to this?

2. We have first responders who respond to emergencies everyday in the US, fire, police, medical, utility. And they can respond on a moments notice. And we have a military, which can do great things, but is a big machine that takes a lot of effort to get moving in a particular direction. The al Qaeda terrorists have been targeting the cracks between these two. And they are using tactics from the Vietnam War, moving into an area and conscripting the local population to fight for them, then starting a battle with the US and when we respond, the leaders fallback to a safe area and leave the locals to continue fighting. The tactic works. Is it not time to consider that we need a third entity to act as the perverbial 911 service? We need an organization whose primary mission is that of civil first responder but has access to some military resources.

Secretary Panetta argued that the military is not a 911 service, and that is correct, but to say, "by the time we respond it will be too late, so why bother" is completely unacceptable. And Obama didn't even call to ask how our response was going. And they didn't contact Obama to tell him that they had no response. Talk about asleep while on duty! This was dereliction.

And the dems just want to talk budget issues! The things being done in your name...

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: Will
39 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10268

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24522

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8854

Posts: 123884

Newest Members:

MyOpicvoid, Dee, Gabriel, Dave, ieltsboss75, Mia, Art, Ryan L, donaldburton, Hyperian

Administrators: John Greenewald: 622, blackvault: 1776