Pulitzer Price winner Tom Ricks Wont be back on Fox
And before any partisan hacks jump to bash Tom Ricks, better do some research.
And before any partisan hacks jump to bash Tom Ricks, better do some research.
Apples and oranges. What does the number of contractors killed in Iraq have to do with a US ambassador being killed?
Were said contractors defending a US embassy in Iraq? Why not ask how many murders happened last year in Detroit, it would have about the same pertinence.
Were said contractors defending a US embassy in Iraq? Why not ask how many murders happened last year in Detroit, it would have about the same pertinence.
That stat is not why its a funny fail.
But since you mention it. Are Ambassador's lives worth more than contractors?
But since you mention it. Are Ambassador's lives worth more than contractors?
As a said former contractor, in short, yes. When I arrived in Baghdad in April of 04, we drove from the airport to the Olympic training facility on the other side of Baghdad in a Toyota. No helicopter ride, no up-armored Hummer, no Marine escort.
Now back to the fail...
Hey John, get your facts out of my Foxnews fail thread
Facts are not synonymous with Fauxnews
I did. Looks like a Soviet operation, as it appears the current Abminustration loves that bunch of Ivy Leaguers. Yes, i see they have some former military officers.
I will bash as a Libertarian hack.
The Bush administration almost certainly had knowledge that Bin Laden, and others, wanted to directly or indirectly attack US assets and personnel including in the homeland. However, that is a far cry from having specific information about a particular time/place/method of attack.
The key issue is not about whether the US can attacked under a given President - it can if the enemy is smart, determined, resourceful, and careful enough. The issue of Benghazi was whether despite knowing the source of the attack the Obama Campaign machinery purposely, to avoid election upset for the incumbent, hijacked the assessment process to protect their "messaging". In my opinion that is clearly what happened. There is a separate issue of whether requests for additional security in Libya were turned down so as not to interfere with rosy US assessments about the Arab Spring. At least in the Bush administration Rumsfeld eventually paid, with his job, for the mis-assessing he did over Iraq. In the Obama administration no responsibility is ever laid anywhere except at a political opponents doorstep.
The key issue is not about whether the US can attacked under a given President - it can if the enemy is smart, determined, resourceful, and careful enough. The issue of Benghazi was whether despite knowing the source of the attack the Obama Campaign machinery purposely, to avoid election upset for the incumbent, hijacked the assessment process to protect their "messaging". In my opinion that is clearly what happened. There is a separate issue of whether requests for additional security in Libya were turned down so as not to interfere with rosy US assessments about the Arab Spring. At least in the Bush administration Rumsfeld eventually paid, with his job, for the mis-assessing he did over Iraq. In the Obama administration no responsibility is ever laid anywhere except at a political opponents doorstep.
The questions you mention about additional security are real questions, and they deserve real answers. Fortunately for the administration, idiots have buried the real questions under this Who said What When B.S.
If you saw the second presidential debate, you might have noticed that Romney himself claimed the President didn't call Benghazi a terrorist attack for two weeks. When Obama said he called it terrorism the next morning in the Rose Garden, Romney looked like he'd been poleaxed.
Thanks Fox News. That Rice didn't tell all the details (which weren't known yet known anyway) on the Sunday morning talk shows, well, that was a crime wasn't it?
Why wasn't there more security at Benghazi? Oh,we smothered that real question under a massive pile of absurd minutia. Now, nobody remembers why.
If you saw the second presidential debate, you might have noticed that Romney himself claimed the President didn't call Benghazi a terrorist attack for two weeks. When Obama said he called it terrorism the next morning in the Rose Garden, Romney looked like he'd been poleaxed.
Thanks Fox News. That Rice didn't tell all the details (which weren't known yet known anyway) on the Sunday morning talk shows, well, that was a crime wasn't it?
Why wasn't there more security at Benghazi? Oh,we smothered that real question under a massive pile of absurd minutia. Now, nobody remembers why.
Romney looked like that because he could not believe a sitting prez would lie like that on national TV. Even the moderator of that debate had to admit later that Obama did not say it was terrorist. As for Rice, team DOHbama set her up as the sacrificial lamb and now wants to promote her.
There is a new fangled thing called VID E O Tape. and what it does is it records stuff that people say. Maybe the Fox photographer was sick that day?
Ok. He didn't say it was a terrorist attack, He said it was an act of terror. Ok, I give up.
He didn't talk about the extent of the planning. He didn't talk about whether or not it was coordinated with the stuff that was happening in Cairo, because he didn't know. It was the morning after, and he didn't say any number of things that he didn't know.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
North East OK WTS : Glock 17 Gen5 ( EARLY with NO front Serrations ) $550- Latest: Anonymoose913
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
