Thanks to Clinton/OBAMA our state department has to be a running joke amoung many nations

Yeah it kinda reminds me of the stand down when NY and The Liberty were bombed

As soon as it was occuring I was asking, how this could have happened on all dates? why wouldnt we have extra security in place especially in those countries...


but then I remembered who we have in charge. As soon as the media went afer Rommney, I knew they were trying to create the narrative and would not pursue the HOW? question immediately...

You can say that Bush was dirty with oil/war profits, but Obama owns being dirty with the media and playing the blame game.


How on earth is he and his state department not blamed for this is beyond me. Instead its Romneys fault??? Are Americans truly this stupid?

This world runs the same cartoon over and over.



Get over the left/right paradigm. Its embarrassing...that's the TRUE running joke.

Last Edited by Serenity777 on 09/14/2012 05:14 AM

Hillary was crying because 2016 ended for her...

Four more years and Canada will snatch Alaska from this pussy.

you don't know shit about the Liberty.

Yes ... the state's apologies for our freedom of speech (the film) is very embarassing.

Neither does the US navy (officially)

Starve your enemies.

It will work.

Canada got fucked up by an A-10 while doing a practice in A-Stan. Lots many men.

We accept it was a fuck up, no hard feelings.

That's enlightening. not too sure about the families and friends of those men having no hard feelings about it, but ok, they painted over it so nobody will know what's at base.

2:19 shows debt ratio

makes you wonder why repukes arent calling for Clinton's resignation over this.

lmao, pussy doesn't snatch pussy, I could conquer Canada with a pcoketknife.

[link to www.foxnews.com]


Guys read this article it is great



:dubya:

oopppssssssssss i did that wrong

When the men who killed our ambassador to Libya were in the final stages of their preparation, Hillary Clinton was in the Cook Islands, being regaled by locals in traditional dress. Her seemingly endless world tour has prioritized symbolism and pageantry over substance. So too has the administration of her boss, Barack Obama, and the costs are now becoming clear.

This explains why Obama’s chief diplomat said of the Libya attack: “I asked myself—how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

Madam secretary, it is time for you and your boss to wake up and smell the global jihad.

There are people in this world—and not a small number of them—who share the vision bin Laden had and have the will and means to act. No amount of apologizing for America, embracing our adversaries or mistreating our allies will change that.

It is worth recalling that Cairo, the city where a mob entered the US embassy compound and burned an American flag, was the epicenter of what critics call Obama’s “apology tour.” It was there that he apologized for critical steps American officials took in the Middle East to defend against the Soviets eight years before Obama was born. It was there that he criticized his own nation’s response to 9/11.

That was the reason US diplomats in Cairo instinctively put out an apologetic condemnation of those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” They were simply channeling the Obama view of the world.

Hillary also said that the attack was the result of a “small and savage group.”

Wrong again.

Viewed correctly, the attack was perpetrated by a very large group. Terrorism as we have known it since 9/11 is but the violent vanguard of the Islamist political ideology. This ideology unifies diverse terrorists from Jemmah Islamiyah in Indonesia to Al-Shabaab in Somalia to Boko Haram in Nigeria to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Haqqani network in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While the groups are diverse and at times antagonistic toward each other, their hatred of America unites them, and they work toward a generally common goal. Behind them is a large body of people who cheer on and support Islamists—a minority of Muslims, but hardly a body of people we should ignore.

The American people have instinctively understood this threat since Islamists took over Iran and took our diplomats hostage there in 1979. Our political class never has never understood this.

Instead, our foreign policy establishment, led by presidents of both parties, has spoken of “violent extremists” as if they had no common thread or clear ideological motivation. More recently, President Obama has thumped his chest about killing Al Qaeda’s founder and implied that Al Qaeda is our only real enemy. This is convenient and politically correct—but it is wrong.

If we killed everyone in Al Qaeda tomorrow, we would still have a problem that Obama, Hillary and the Washington foreign policy establishment refuse to recognize. There is a tyrannical political force in the world that is waging war on us wherever it can—both politically and militarily.

On Obama’s watch, the Islamists have done very well. They have taken over Egypt and are set to take over Syria and its chemical weapons arsenal without a change in US policy. They look ahead to the day U.S. forces leave Afghanistan—which Obama has conveniently announced to them. And in the country where modern Islamism first came to life at the nation-state level, Iran, the government is set to gain a nuclear weapons capability—another Obama legacy.

Hillary ought to park the plane and understand that diplomacy—or more accurately statecraft—ought to be about recognizing and fighting these problems. Pageantry, apologies and photo ops are obviously not getting it done.

Christian Whiton was a State Department senior adviser from 2003-2009. He is principal at DC International Advisory. Follow him on Twitter @ChristianWhiton.



Christian Whiton was a State Department senior adviser from 2003-09 during the administration George W. Bush administration. He is principal at DC International Advisory. Follow him on Twitter@ChristianWhiton.


Read more: [link to www.foxnews.com]

You talk like things aren't going as planned.

My ? is:

"SO why werent our embassy/ambassador caught "off guard" on 9-11 of all dates, and especially in countrys that are in a current state of revolution?"


Where is the media asking this ?

wow...Whiton nailed it.

those two are a joke. anyone with half a brain knows it.......

The biggest problem with these two, is that they are both in love with themselves, they think they know better than anyone else...

Not The Movie...

What's the political fallout for a attack on the USA on the anniversary of 911

This had nothing at all to do with that movie, she just threw this shit against the wall, and the libtards believed it and ran with the story...

They rather sacrifice some poor christian, saying it was an anti Muslim movie, than have their election chances hurt, by looking incompetent on the anniversary of 911

But then what's new...She and Barry have done this before...

Remember Waco, and Ruby Ridge?

not caught off guard, they ARE off guard....Berkley lib types have too much influence....theyre whole modus operandi is a pipedream...

fool they were not protected for a reason you have no idea how your government manipulates you.

Through association? It was his ball to drop! Through association are you kidding?

He's the top dog "the buck stops here" guy, it is through HIS actions and his alone the Marines didn't have live ammo to protect the Egyptian embassy that security wasn't beefed up for 9/11 anniversary.

There is NO wiggle room for him in fact after he apologized I'm convinced it was deliberate.

Knowing some folks in the State Dept, I'll lay this out there.

Those guys were set up by a foreign intelligence service, most likely the Russians, providing information to Group X, whoever did the attack. 400 attackers??? That means this was a hardcore, all-out, balls to the wall fight. Why? Perhaps they wanted what was in the Embassy--oil contracts, etc.--or they wanted to ignite something worldwide (probably both). We have to remember who are the big dogs the area. I don't think the Iranians could pull this off. It's just the Russians or the Israelis, very possibly the Chinese.

Sometimes you don't present a big profile because you, the State Dept., just want to slip in, do something quickly, then slip out. In hindsight, in order to fight off 400 attackers, security would have had to include several SEAL Teams, or their private security equivalent, including attack helicopters, drones, etc. I don't really think anyone would have/could have anticipated a strike of that size, and if they had tried to sound a warning--HEY, I think we're going to get whacked by 400 attackers!!!--they would have been laughed off.

Yes, they should have been a little more robustly prepared, but, fuck, 400 ATTACKERS?? That's pretty hard to anticipate. Now, of course, the entire area will be cross-hatched with drones . . .

And I'll add this from a piece in the Guardian. The man speaking is the man who owns the property where the consulate stood.

"Better security would not have stopped this," said Adel Ibrahim, the owner of the accommodation building where blood is now spattered beneath a hole smashed in a wall by a heavy projectile. "A security unit is fine if you are facing 10 persons, but there were 400 attackers. [The Americans] would have needed an army to stop them."

No one has anything reasonable to say?