Dumb Question Regarding "Benghazi attack was terrorism"

wow...a little behind on the news

basically The president and his staff said it was an out of hand protest not a terrorist attack... for weeks

then reports showed that not only did they deny it was a terrorist attack but they knew in advance it was going to happen and did nothing to aid in the situation

other reports seem to indicate that they did quite a bit to aid the terrorists to a large extent with the lack of action even after the events started

Three that I can think of:

- Spontaneous mob action
- Terrorism
- State sponsored attack

thanks to both of you. I am not getting "it"

To me, the overwhelmingly biggest issue is Obama going before the UN and lambasting free speech by criticizing the video, placing blame on "free speech" rather than terrorist ACTION.

This alone is IMPEACHABLE.

Our president let our ambassador and three other US citizens die, the Libyans WARNED obama, CIA warned obama, but he chose to do nothing because obama thought the libyans liked him, and would take ambassador stephens as a hostage/bargaining tool so they could get their blind sheik returned to them instead of sitting in jail like he is. And obama WANTS to give the blind sheik back because he thinks it will score points with muslims on his behalf. Need more explaining??

Last Edited by M*walk on 11/16/2012 09:39 PM

Is that the shit theory bouncing around in the reich-wing media?
The Blind Sheik was Obama's motivation?





Nutjobs

I think maybe the good will of the Muslim world could be Obama's motivation...

Perhaps the Sheik was just a tool to further that goal?

Why else would the WH deny permission for our troops to help when that's what they were there to do?

Why else would a General defy those orders and end up getting canned for it? (I know, he refused orders and that's grounds in of itself -- But they were orders to let his own countrymen die.. What country-serving man would knowingly leave their own to die?)