US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

[RoccoR]

Cruella, et al,

It is hard to believe, sometimes, but leaders that are far removed often don't get emotional. Foreign Service and Military Officers - and the contractors that support them, take risks. It is the nature of their job.

First, the disaster in Benghazi "was just a bump in the road"

Now Obama says that 4 dead Americans getting killed is not "Optimal"

he sounds like a cold fish

(COMMENT)

I don't believe The President is a "cold fish." He is a man, a leader, with the responsibility for the posts, camps and stations - military, trade, and diplomatic missions all over the world. At nearly any time, word can arrive in the situation room of a disaster, a life threatening condition, or an upheaval that can effect any number of people. The President doesn't think just about one critical incident, he has to think in terms of all those hundreds and hundreds of stations and the thousands and thousands of people out there that make it all come together. It is "not optimal" (it is never optimal) for senior leaders and staff to get killed; but it is bound to happen; especially when the US engages in interventionist policy all around the world. And when you have that much responsibility on your shoulders, you cannot afford to be to emotional - when there are still people in harms way. And there are still US personnel in Benghazi. And The President has to weigh those risks every hour of every day.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Texas_tea]

Cruella, et al,

It is hard to believe, sometimes, but leaders that are far removed often don't get emotional. Foreign Service and Military Officers - and the contractors that support them, take risks. It is the nature of their job.


(COMMENT)

I don't believe The President is a "cold fish." He is a man, a leader, with the responsibility for the posts, camps and stations - military, trade, and diplomatic missions all over the world. At nearly any time, word can arrive in the situation room of a disaster, a life threatening condition, or an upheaval that can effect any number of people. The President doesn't think just about one critical incident, he has to think in terms of all those hundreds and hundreds of stations and the thousands and thousands of people out there that make it all come together. It is "not optimal" (it is never optimal) for senior leaders and staff to get killed; but it is bound to happen; especially when the US engages in interventionist policy all around the world. And when you have that much responsibility on your shoulders, you cannot afford to be to emotional - when there are still people in harms way. And there are still US personnel in Benghazi. And The President has to weigh those risks every hour of every day.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a sick justification Rocco ....

This hasn't happened since 1979 when we had another brainless liberal in charge. Your excuse and justification for this incompetent president is absolutely appalling! These are Americans who lost their lives at the hands of a incompetent president, who went on to make up some false story, to lie to the families of the deceased, the American people and the people of the world.

Your comment has absolutely no credibility with the normal thinking Americans in this Country.

Respectfully of course .....

TEXAS!

 

[RoccoR]

Texas_tea, et al,

The way of leadership and the associated thinking, is not normal - it is something more than the average view - especially in the political-military context. Let's look at what the context was and what it was said.

"When four Americas get killed, it is not optimal. And we're going to fix it." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-pounce-obama-optimal-comment-article-1.1187424

It wasn't an answer to a question on sympathy, but a way forward; a "what do we do - now" kind of dialog.

I neither defend nor criticize The President on this one. It is election-time over dramatization using the traject events of the day; attempting to word-smith the phrasing to The Presidents disadvantage.

That is a sick justification Rocco ....

Your comment has absolutely no credibility with the normal thinking Americans in this Country.

(COMMENT)

In February and March of 1836, COL Bill Travis, COL Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett, and others, defended an old Catholic Mission (Mission San Antonio de Valero).

The epic battle cost the lives of about 200 Americans, at the hands of GEN Santa Anna. There was absolutely no strategic or tactical value to holding The Alamo. General Sam Houston had asked permission of the Governor to withdraw from and destroy The Alamo; but the GOV (Henry Smith) of Texas declined after hearing from COL Bowie.

Many of the Texan leaders, including General Sam Houston, felt that San Antonio was not worth defending: it was too far from the rebels' power base in eastern Texas. Houston ordered Jim Bowie, a former resident of San Antonio, to destroy the Alamo and retreat with the remaining men. Bowie decided to remain and fortify the Alamo instead: he felt that with their accurate rifles and a handful of cannons, a small number of Texans could hold the city indefinitely against great odds.
SOURCE: http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/TexasIndependence/p/The-Battle-Of-The-Alamo.htm

MYTHS in the Battle of The Alamo: In a letter to GOV Smith from COL Bowie:​

​

"The Salvation of Texas depends in great measure in keeping Bejar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard . . . . Col. Neill & Myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy."​

SOURCE: http://www.thealamo.org/battle/myths.php

GOV Smith's direction prevailed and COL Bowie was allowed to defend The Alamo to the death. The decision to defend The Alamo was neither favorable to the military advice of the senior commander (GEN Huston), nor was the outcome desirable in any practical way. Today, we might use the word: "optimal;" meaning favorable or desirable. But it is one of the most remembered battles of the time and all the key players became famous.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[dogtowner]

Texas_tea, et al,

The way of leadership and the associated thinking, is not normal - it is something more than the average view - especially in the political-military context. Let's look at what the context was and what it was said.

"When four Americas get killed, it is not optimal. And we're going to fix it." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-pounce-obama-optimal-comment-article-1.1187424

It wasn't an answer to a question on sympathy, but a way forward; a "what do we do - now" kind of dialog.

I neither defend nor criticize The President on this one. It is election-time over dramatization using the traject events of the day; attempting to word-smith the phrasing to The Presidents disadvantage.


(COMMENT)

In February and March of 1836, COL Bill Travis, COL Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett, and others, defended an old Catholic Mission (Mission San Antonio de Valero).

The epic battle cost the lives of about 200 Americans, at the hands of GEN Santa Anna. There was absolutely no strategic or tactical value to holding The Alamo. General Sam Houston had asked permission of the Governor to withdraw from and destroy The Alamo; but the GOV (Henry Smith) of Texas declined after hearing from COL Bowie.





GOV Smith's direction prevailed and COL Bowie was allowed to defend The Alamo to the death. The decision to defend The Alamo was neither favorable to the military advice of the senior commander (GEN Huston), nor was the outcome desirable in any practical way. Today, we might use the word: "optimal;" meaning favorable or desirable. But it is one of the most remembered battles of the time and all the key players became famous.

Most Respectfully,
R

"is not optimal" may be appropriate in describing the scenarios in a video game but, as Obama pointed out in the 2nd debate, he knew the deceased ambassador and that he was a friend. does he value friends so little ?

no, this was an obscene comment but one that perfectly demonstrates his disregard for all but himself and his sick agenda. and I find the fact that you would attempt such a defense an eve more telling view of the sort of man you are.

 

[Cruella]

He not only said "it was not optimal" he also called the massacre "a bump in the road". None of this should have happened in the first place. Stevens asked repeatedly for more security, and the Admin replied with pulling out the additional security they did have. Two of the men murdered weren't even supposed to be there - they came to help from another location. The other two inside the compound with Sanders only had pistols. If they had been allowed to have weapons, like a machine gun, maybe they could have staved off the attackers. How does cold fish Obama respond? By trying to cover up what happened. Has he even called this a terrorist attack yet?

 

[dogtowner]

He not only said "it was not optimal" he also called the massacre "a bump in the road". None of this should have happened in the first place. Stevens asked repeatedly for more security, and the Admin replied with pulling out the additional security they did have. Two of the men murdered weren't even supposed to be there - they came to help from another location. The other two inside the compound with Sanders only had pistols. If they had been allowed to have weapons, like a machine gun, maybe they could have staved off the attackers. How does cold fish Obama respond? By trying to cover up what happened. Has he even called this a terrorist attack yet?

helps explain why murdering babies is no problem to them.

 

[Texas_tea]

Again ....... That is a sick justification Rocco ....

Your comment has absolutely no credibility with the normal thinking Americans in this Country.

 

[Cruella]

Lots of spinning at the White House and Obama's propaganda arm going on today

State Dept. Email to White House at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12: 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack'

On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

The email, which was sent from a State Department address at 6:07 PM on Sept. 11, 2012, was obtained by CBS News and posted online by the news agency in a PDF file. This email and others posted by CBS News had certain elements redacted--particularly the exact identities of the person who sent it and the persons who received it.

 

[steveox]

Did Anyone see those E-Mails on Fox news caught Jay Carney lying to the press. This is what Jay Carney said on sept 14

He said its about the Video the movie of course. But the Memo came on Sept 11 it was warning them perhaps an attack was comming. You see DEMOCRATS LIE!! Pocketfullofshells will never admit his party is ever wrong. He will defend them like a biased lawyer

 

[Cruella]

Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-clinton/2012/10/26/report-hillary-asked-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no#ixzz2AQdWe2TK

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.
(Even as an old and dying, feeble man--Billy still has those "Urgin's")


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-clinton/2012/10/26/report-hillary-asked-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no#ixzz2AQdWe2TK

No greater sport I know of than--
Liberals tossing one another under a parade of big double-decker articulated buses!
More than one big storm coming to Washington--

 

[Cruella]

This Benghazi thing is really blowing up all over the television.

Nash a Navy captain just said this was malfeasance, and Lt. Gen McInerney USAF said this is criminal negligence and we need answers now.

Obama's going down

 

[Cruella]

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

 

[Cruella]

I'm really surprised that no one seems interested in all this breaking news coming out of Benghazi-gate.

Something new tonight, I just heard from Woods' father, that there were 30 other people that Woods helped to save during the seven hour fire-fight, that our government wouldn't help.

This battle on 9/11 and the coverup is huge. We deserve honest answers and we need an indepedent council investigation, your whole government is in total CYA mode.

 

[Gipper]

I'm really surprised that no one seems interested in all this breaking news coming out of Benghazi-gate.

Something new tonight, I just heard from Woods' father, that there were 30 other people that Woods helped to save during the seven hour fire-fight, that our government wouldn't help.

This battle on 9/11 and the coverup is huge. We deserve honest answers and we need an indepedent council investigation, your whole government is in total CYA mode.

Agreed. And where are the Rs in Congress on this obvious fraud and cover up? They are rather meekly demanding the drone video. WTF is that? They should be demanding much more and threatening to take action TODAY. They are typically a bunch of pussies...don't want to upset the apple cart...and the apple is the big government gravy train they all have used to enrich themselves.

And we know the MSM is doing their level best to protect their messiah. I am betting that many Obama lovers do not even know about this story or think it meaningless.

The bravery of those men who fought to the death to save others, should be known to all Americans. They are true heroes. But, in a nation infected with liberalism, ruled by a socialist fool, their heroism is ignored. It really is most distressing how far this nation has fallen.