#1 "Illegal wars"...I take it you're referring to Iraq and I guess Afghanistan though Afghanistan was pretty much given the "thumbs up" from everyone. The HISTORIC deal is this whether people like it or not: FDR "illegally" got the United States involved in the European Theatre of World War II vie the Lend-Lease Act, John F. Kennedy got the United States "illegally" involved in Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and so on and so forth so acting all butt hurt about Iraq where an invasion WAS GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHO WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is kind of a moot point.
#2 Much like Pearl Harbor people in the intelligence community knew AN attack could happen, but not what kind of attack, and not specific details.
-#2 B, For 9/11 planes striking buildings were the extent of the attacks, there was no follow up ergo it became a rescue/clean up operation immediately after the attacks
#3 The Benghazi attacks were long and drawn out, the United States had significant information and resources in the area to prepare for & limit the damage of those attacks and instead of allowing the military to do their job somebody, somewhere in the Administration said "No, stand down"
#4 The last time a United States Ambassador was killed in the line of duty was Adolph Dubs, February 19, 1979 in Kabul, Afghanistan during a kidnapping attempt done by the Maoist Settam-e-Melli in which they wished to have the leader of their party freed. So Ambassadors being murdered isn't something that usually "just happens", in the case of Adolph Dubs, the US was attempting to free Amb. Dubs safely via diplomacy and before those talks went anywhere the Soviet aligned Afghanis attacked and Dubs was killed in the gun battle.
#5 "The Buck Stops Here", the famous slogan used by Harry S. Truman and every President thereafter....someone is responsible for the gross negligence that occurred in Benghazi and whoever that person or those persons are should pay for their negligence.....is it wrong to expect a President who PROMISED transparency actually provide it? Is it wrong to hold a President who is Commander-in-Chief accountable for inaction during a terrorist attack? Is it wrong to want clarification on why talking points were changed surrounding this event?
If this event happened under George W. Bush everyone else would be irate....you're all hypocrites...all of you.
Bookmarks