Requests to help and for help DENIED (Page 2)

The embassy grounds had been attacked twice including the breeching of a wall once. Why weren't Specop teams on alert given that this was the anniversary of 9/11?

I'm not sure what you are getting at or trying to say Tony.

Could you provide some details or expand on what you are trying to say?

This is an interesting response.

The President says he called this a terrorist attack the day after it happened
correct?

Yet for two weeks after he had his spokespersons saying it was due to a bunch of
people unhappy about a video.

And you are outraged that people are bashing the President on his handling of this?

Forget about all the requests that were denied well before the attack, forget about
all of the attacks on the compound months before and noting appears to have
been done?

The President when asked direct question refuses to answer them.

Your outrage at people who want answers seem misplaced at best.  

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here, but here goes anyways:

The way people are making this out as if Obama himself were on the phone with the embassy that day denying support requests.  Who are the people who actually make that decision?  Are they seasoned military veterans that have been around for much more than the past 4 years?  Aren't these military officers who are trained and responsible to act according to a longstanding set of rules?  Rules that have no allegiance to a specific political party?

I mean, really, was it a politician who denied requests for beefed up security and backup during that firefight?  This whole thing seems like it's skipping an awful lot of responsible parties and just going right to the Commander in Chief to place blame.

Military action is the call of the Commander in chief, not some politician. I am sure there are some on here that are more educated on this subject but that is my knowledge of it.

One of my questions seems to be lost on the media. Why was he there on that day to begin with? That was not the Embassy.  The Embassy is in Tripoli the Ambassador was concerned about security in Benghazi The consulate was not up to standards so why was the Ambassador in a location with know terror threats with no real security in a sub standard building on 9/11? Who told him to go there and why?

That really doesn't make anything clearer in my book

I heard and I don't know if it's accurate but that one of the two locations in Benghazi was actually a CIA safe house and not part of the State Dept. and that he was there meeting with the Turkish Ambassador regarding getting arms to the Libyan militia. The Turkish Ambassador left unharmed and shortly after our Ambassador was attacked.

On the other hand, why did Congress cut State Department security funding?

I thought there was still a lot of fighting and violence in Libya, not so?

?

As the sworn testimony in congress said that funding had NOTHING to do with the lack of security or security assets available in this situation.

But to answer you question maybe it was because of the over $100,000.00 charging station for a couple of Chevy Volts in some other country to provide the appearance we care about the environment. But it really has nothing to do with this situation.

This is just a wild guess but maybe because the Obama administration thinks it's more prudent to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on charging stations for the GM Volt so they look like the cool hip kids while failing to provide security in dangerous places like Libya?

??????

As was stated in the Congressional testimony, that funding cut had NOTHING to do with the assets available to Libya.

While I'm guessing, maybe Congress was concerned that those funds were being used to run guns to Syria or Libya militia?

It's NOT an asset or lack of asset problem crowny, it's a PRIORITY problem.

The real problem is the Presidents complete lack of transparency on this.  We're going back and forth about various leaks coming out, but the real reason is because that's the only information that's coming out.

If President Obama would simply have a press conference and answer basic questions about what happened and who made certain decisions then we wouldn't have all this confusion.  If the military was unable to respond he simply has to say there was nothing we could have done.  Yes he would get dinged by not having the foresight to prepare, but Americans can forgive that.  They cannot forgive having the ability to respond and choosing not to.

My personal opinion is whatever happened they feel it will hurt the President politically so they're laying low and the mainstream media is more than happy to let them.  Therefore people (like me) who want to know what really happened are stuck with various unconfirmed leaks to form our opinions.  It also makes me assume the worse because the Administration won't set the record straight.

What I'm thinking is that there is more to the event BECAUSE she took the public hit for the administration. Why isn't the GOP screaming for her head too? I know they're focused on smearing the POTUS, but taking Hillary down a peg has to be pretty high on their list too. Seems that having your SOS resign in disgrace would be very damaging to this admin. in it's own right. Unless the buck doesn't stop with Hillary.