If he was rude, maybe he felt he had a right to be.
I had to post this because I cannot stand how rude and disrespectful it is. Mr. O’reilly may have questions he wants answered. But to continuously interrupt the President of the United States is just rude and disrespectful of the office. The President was very gracious and tried to be respectful while standing up for himself. Letting Bill know he should listen and not keep talking over him and interrupting him.
Regarding the questions he was asking, I am really tired of this Benghazi nonsense. The president has gone over the uprising/attack in Benghazi over and over and over. Whistleblowers have been found to be lying. This is all just being blown out of proportion. Our government isn’t perfect but they did what they could.
Did you think Oreilly was rude in this interview? What did you think about President Obama’s responses?
Please O’Reilly wasn’t even close to rude. That’s ridiculous to even match the two together. Obama is a total flop as commander in chief and actually he doesn’t even want the job! He wants to be grammy award winning Barack Obama.
Bill O’reilly doesn’t need anyone to come to his defense because he is very good at what he does. O’reilly was respectful to Obama but he was also smart enough to know that if you let Obama run he can talk about something as meaningless as the color of mold for hours on end and therefore monopolize the interview, making the interview worthless.
Perhaps your inability to understand this is why you are not a good journalist, but that is neither here nor there.
You focused on the Benghazi “nonsense” to use your ill-chosen word. To say this was a matter of four Americans being killed is to grossly understate the problem. It is bad enough when four Americans get killed while on vacation but unfortunately that happens. If these four Americans had been on vacation you could ask why they were vacationing in an extremely dangerous part of the world.
Americans have the freedom to do this because we are FREE people. However, as most of us know, these four people were NOT on vacation. The United States does not often make high level decisions and coordinate defense postures when four Americans get killed on vacation.
HOWEVER, the United States of America DOES move heaven and earth to defend itself when attacked by enemy forces TO INCLUDE terrorist attacks against our country. The NUMBER ONE purpose of the federal government is to guarantee to defend our freedom. This guarantee is by solemn oath, you might remember their oath of office even though it seems Obama forgot his oath.
The United States does not guarantee you a secure vacation in whatever part of the world you wish to visit but if you are a citizen and in this country, that security is guaranteed with all the power of the federal government.
There is one more very important part of this puzzle that you are so quick to dismiss. That same guarantee extends to those who officially represent the United States of America abroad. Lest you forget we are discussing the official representation of the United States of America in Libya, specifically the United States Ambassador.
This very clearly separates this from just being four Americans killed while on vacation. Again, this country doesn’t often move heaven and earth to defend Americans on vacation but we do, by constitutional requirement (and sworn oath to that constitution) move heaven and earth to defend the United States against enemy attack.
We, the United States of America, not four Americans on vacation, were attacked while performing OFFICIAL duties in Benghazi. It is the single-most important duty of the President to defend our country, to include any official extension of our country such as Ambassadors, and to do so ANYTIME meaning EVERYTIME we are attacked. My question to you and a question that if you are a patriot and love your country will also be demanding an answer to is as follows:
What did the United States of America, specifically Barack Obama who is the Commander-in-Chief of ALL the armed forces AND all other defense mechanisms of the United States, do in response to that deadly attack to defend the United States?
As a patriot you will be demanding an answer to that question and you won’t stop until you get a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, if you hate your country (not saying you do) or you have a political agenda that does not place the best interest of this country first and foremost, you will indeed be tired of this subject and you will make statements like “Regarding the questions he was asking, I am really tired of this Benghazi nonsense. The president has gone over the uprising/attack in Benghazi over and over and over. Whistleblowers have been found to be lying. This is all just being blown out of proportion. Our government isn’t perfect but they did what they could.”
A common attempt by the liberal left is to say something irrelevant like “there was no way we could have placed enough defense forces there in time to save the life of the Ambassador.” The first fallacy of that statement is that by the time we knew it was an attack (the first few minutes) we had NO IDEA that the Ambassador would even be killed and therefore the statement falls apart on its own (most intelligent people understand this).
To take it a step farther, let’s just assume the Ambassador would be killed (we really had no way of knowing that but let’s assume we did). How long, in minutes, after the start of the attack, or more accurately after the time we knew it was an attack and not a demonstration (which was a matter of a very few minutes) was the Ambassador going to be killed?
With the luxury of hindsight we know that number (within reason) but when the attack started we had no idea, and the truth is that we had no idea that the Ambassador would even be killed and therefore this is a ridiculously bogus defense designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the least intelligent (sadly it is working). Anyone with an IQ exceeding two digits knows that this most cherished defense the administration has is totally worthless. Only you can determine where you fit in relation to that matrix.
Back to the question: what did the United States do to defend itself that night? Answer: NOTHING.
Question: could we have placed enough forces there in time to save the Ambassador? Answer: nobody will ever know for certain.
Question: Even if we couldn’t save the Ambassador there were others there in an OFFICIAL capacity that our country was duty-bound to defend – what did we do to help them? Answer: NOTHING.
Question: Even if we could not save even one life that night there were still documents there that the United States needed to secure to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, what did our country do to make sure that security was in place albeit after the fact but as soon as possible? Answer: NOTHING.
In reference to that last paragraph it is well documented that the FBI was unable to get in to secure the place for 30 days. This is TOTALLY unacceptable. Sovereignty was no longer an issue as that had already been violated by the terrorists AND by the Libyan government for failure to do their job. In other words sovereignty was NOT a limiting factor.
We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we wanted to go in there with an anti-terrorist force and a security force to secure the premises, we could have done so and there is NO country that would have even tried to stop us, not even Libya. Why then didn’t we do that? Why didn’t we, the United States of America, defend ourselves when our country was attacked? There is one reason and one reason ONLY and that is faulty decisions at the highest levels of government, to include the State Department AND the Commander-in-chief (president).
We are the most-free people in the world. We have rights bestowed upon us by our creator (not given to us by man). These rights, even though not given by man can be taken by man in a heartbeat. We have a constitution that absolutely guarantees without doubt that these rights and freedoms will be defended. The constitution guarantees that protection and the mechanism by which it enforces that protection is that it requires the President of the United States (and all other government personnel) to swear a solemn oath to that guarantee.
That guarantee (sworn oath) was NOT HONORED the night of the attack in Benghazi nor was it honored in the following days. Even to this day it has not been honored (well over a year later).
Your president, your commander-in-chief, who is duty bound by sworn oath to defend our country and your freedom; my president, my commander-in-chief, who is duty bound by sworn oath to defend our country and my freedom, even with all the incredible power at his disposal, did absolutely NOTHING to defend our country and yours and my freedom.
You can make the case that this is impeachable, and I believe it will be made if the Republicans win the Senate in the midterm elections (and the RINOs don’t interfere). I believe you can possibly even make a good case for this being treasonous by way of giving aid and comfort to the enemy (I don’t expect you to understand that so you probably shouldn’t even try).
What puzzles me, what absolutely astounds me, what I believe is unacceptable as an American patriot, is the notion that you have no desire to get the answers to this dereliction of duty.
Again, here is your statement and let’s see if I can properly analyze it piece by piece:
“Regarding the questions he was asking, I am really tired of this Benghazi nonsense. The president has gone over the uprising/attack in Benghazi over and over and over. Whistleblowers have been found to be lying. This is all just being blown out of proportion. Our government isn’t perfect but they did what they could.”
We are all tired of this Benghazi thing. However those who truly love this country will not rest regardless of how tired they are until they get the answers and act on those answers.
As far as the president having gone over and over the attack, maybe he has. However to most of us (again, those with more than a double digit IQ) he has not completely answered anything and the cover-up is painfully obvious. If it isn’t obvious to you please refer to the IQ requirement. By the way, this is not a personal attack because many liberals see this the same way you see it. The only thing that associates you with this is the fact that you were the author of those statements in your post.
Whistleblowers have been found to be lying? According to whom? What is the proof? Is your proof found in a political agenda? Like perhaps the political cover-up of Benghazi in order to win the 2012 election? I am not ready to hitch my wagon to that falling star just yet.
“This is all blown out of proportion”? Really? Just how important is your freedom to you? This all boils down to the United States of America, led by the commander-in-chief (president) having not just the ability to defend itself and your freedom but more importantly having the desire or in the case of the president’s sworn oath, the integrity to defend itself and your freedom. Proportion? I am quite certain this is not receiving the attention it deserves – this should be first and foremost on the minds of ALL Americans.
“Our government isn’t perfect but they did what they could”? Sorry, wrong again. You are correct that our government isn’t perfect and only a fool would expect perfection from a non-perfect human system. That said, clearly the government DID NOT do everything they could to defend the United States against attack, neither before, during, or after.
Sorry Julia, have to side with everyone else on this one. President Obama works for us. He needs to answer to us. The media you probably adore is so easy on him. They ask him softball questions and stroke his ego so they can get invited to his parties and get nice and buddy buddy with him. We need real journalists that will hold him accountable. Bill Oreilly is being a REAL JOURNALIST in this interview asking the President questions he should answer. We deserve answers, you deserve an answer Julia. Why do you want a President that lies to you? Why do you want a press that doesn’t demand answers for you??
Although I will say one thing about the interview… I think some of Obama’s answers would have been more damaging than when Bill interrupts him. The problem is that Obama is a wimp and wont give Oreilly an interview longer than just a couple of minutes. I’d like to see him commit to an hour with anyone from Fox News. Won’t happen.
I have seen Bill Reilly be rude before but this was not rude.
It seems like whenever a journalist who isn’t in Obama’s pocket asks tough questions & tries to hold him accountable for his many lies Obama supporters turn into cry babies saying he was rude or unfair.
This is how the free press is supposed to work – Obama should be no exception to the rule.
@kevlar I referred to the Benghazi nonsense because its ridiculous to me that Republicans are OUTRAGED over it while they didn’t seem to care at all when it happened under Bush.
Where is the outrage?
1. Jan. 22, 2002: Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Attacks Indian U.S. Consulate
Five policemen were killed and 16 injured in the eastern Indian city of Calcutta because of an attack on the U.S. consulate by militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami. American employees including the consul-general in Calcutta, Christopher Sandrolini, were unscathed, and those injured and killed were all Indians.
2. June 14, 2002: Suicide Car-Bomb Outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
Twelve people died in an attack outside the U.S. consulate in Karachi when militants exploded a car bomb. A Taliban splinter group referred to as Al-Qanoon, or “The Law,” claimed responsibility for the attacks that also injured 51 people. Two hired guards, a Marine, and five Pakistani staff members were among the injured in the attack that followed then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to the country.
3. Oct. 12, 2002: String Of Bali Bombings Included U.S. Consulate
The U.S. consulate in Indonesia was attacked as part of the ‘Bali bombings’ on a devastating October night. While there were no fatalities at the consulate, seven Americans were among the 202 dead at the coordinated blasts inside a bar and outside a nightclub.
4. Feb. 28, 2003: Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked For the Second Time in One Year
Gunmen rode up on a motorbike to the U.S. consulate’s security checkpoints and rained gunfire killing two Pakistani police officers. One gunman arrested by paramilitary officers was found to have several rounds of ammunition prepared for what could have been a far more devastating attack.
5. May 12, 2003: 36 People Including 9 Americans Die After Terrorists Storm U.S. Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
The State Department had warned of a potential strike against the Saudi days before gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village and two others killing 36 people and wounding 160. This was the most devastating attack on a State Department employees to occur under Bush. The Saudi government cracked down on terrorists group but that did not prevent another attack to occur a year later in Jeddah.
6. July 30, 2004: Islamist Attacks U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Two Uzbek security guards died in a bombing on the U.S. embassy in Tashkent days. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan claimed responsibility of the bombing after 15 alleged Islamist militants went on trial.
7. Dec. 6, 2004: Five Staff and Four Security Guards Die in U.S. consulate attack in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Gunmen fought their way into the complex, reportedly taking 18 staff and visa applicants hostage for a short time before Saudi security forces stormed the building. The final dead counted four security guards, five staff, and three attackers. No Americans were among the dead.
8. March 2, 2006: Third Attack on Karachi U.S. Consulate Killed U.S. Diplomat
U.S. Diplomat David Foy was specifically targeted in the third attack in as many years on the Karachi consulate compound. He was one of four people killed. The bomb occurred two days before President Bush was to visit Pakistan and also targeted the Marriot hotel in an upscale neighborhood of Karachi.
This was a planned and coordinated attack that nobody covered as more than a news item.
9. Sept. 12, 2006: Four Gunmen Stormed the U.S. compound in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen yelling “Allahu akbar ” – “God is great” – fired on Syrian security officers guarding the U.S. embassy. The gunmen used grenades, automatic weapons, car bombs, and a truck bomb and killed four people and wounded 13 others. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State praised the Syrians that defended the U.S. employees: “the Syrians reacted to this attack in a way that helped to secure our people, and we very much appreciate that.”
10. Jan. 12, 2007: Greek Terrorists Fired a Rocket-Propelled Grenade at the U.S. Embassy
An antitank grenade was fired into the empty consulate building by leftist terrorist group Revolutionary Struggle angry at American foreign policy. Even though nobody was in the building at the time the attack was a blatant breach of security and showed enormous security loopholes.
And that is only to name ten! There are many more.
Republicans love to talk about Benghazi, they love to mention the biased left and the baised media. Okay well where is your outrage for the people killed in the above attacks under Bush? Are you demanding hearings? Are you demanding an investigation? I’d like to see you be unbiased and demand some justice for the above attacks as well.
Your media is just as biased as the media on the left. You probably didn’t even hear of the attacks because just like msnbc, just like cnn, Fox News does not cover stories that hurt the right. They cover the narratives that play out the story they want to tell.
Lets all be unbiased for real.
The whistleblower that was found lying was the one that went on 60 minutes.
Regarding whether I want answers or not, I do. But I feel like I got them. I think our government did what it could, it wasn’t enough. Government isn’t perfect. But I would rather focus on the fact that we are trying to help Americans that are sufferring right now. I am tired of the wars and the foreign policy nonsense. Lets focus on our home and our neighbors. We shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.
Our military is out of control and our foreign policy is out of control.
So, you think Mr. O’Reilly should have just knelt down and kissed his backside, ala Chris Matthews, and allowed the president to just prattle on? It’s not rude to insist on direct answers to direct questions. I call it good journalism, something the country has been lacking. May be why Mr. O’Reilly’s show has been number one for fourteen years, and FNC as a whole ranks tops in cable news
I am going to have to agree with the majority regarding Bill Oreilly and the interview. I don’t think he was rude and I think journalists need to be tougher on our politicians. As coffee addict said “They work for us” and we should demand answers. We need to hold their feet to the fire regarding truth and information.
However, regarding the Republicans being unbiased…. I have to somewhat agree with Julia. I don’t remember anyone being outraged demanding why our security forces or military couldn’t save some of the Americans killed in the attacks she listed above. I know not all of them resulted in the deaths of Americans but some of them did and in fact their were more than she listed:
Republicans need to be unbiased as well.
We watched the interview and I think it’s fair to say that Mr. O’Reilly was very rude to the president. O’Reilly had every right to ask the president what he felt were “Challenging Questions” however, there is a certain level of respect that should be given to people in letting them respond. O’Reilly did not do that.
Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a few days.
Your question now is “where is the outrage”? The answer seems obvious to me but then I am not sure you even asked the right question. Regardless, I will try to answer your question, first with a short analysis of each of your ten examples.
As a matter of foundation, the issue with Benghazi is not that four Americans died, which is tragic in itself and worthy of intelligent discussion, but the Benghazi thing is a matter instead (for purposes of our discussion) of the president of the United States, whose sole job it is to defend the freedom of America and its citizens, did absolutely NOTHING to even try to defend the United States and its OFFICIAL representation. It isn’t even that he tried and failed (I would have some respect for that) but that he didn’t even try to defend the United States of America. This means that your case about these people died or those people died is of no matter to our conversation (it does matter but not for this conversation), because the whole point is did the president do something to defend us or did he do nothing.
This is the frame of mind one needs to have to accurately analyze your calling out of George Bush for what you believe to be the same thing. Sadly, I believe the intelligent reader will quickly see that these events you listed are very different from Benghazi where Obama did NOTHING. For clarity I will rephrase – you might find examples where George Bush could have done more to protect and if so then shame on him. However, in ALL of your examples you will find the common theme of terrorism. George Bush was actively and aggressively waging war (globally) on terrorism. Obama on the other hand is trying to run away from that war on terror every chance he gets. His first official attempt you might remember was on day one when he declared that Gitmo would be closed no matter what.
Number one: HuJI is an Islamic terrorist organization who has been known to support the Taliban. As you recall the Taliban are directly and 100% the reason for our going to Afghanistan in the first place. I would explain that to you but I have done that numerous places on this site so I ask you to use both that and your knowledge of history. Two words stand out here, Islamist and Terrorist, neither of which you should concern yourself with yet because one data point does not a trend make. Just put this in the back of your mind and make note of it.
No Americans killed. This is certainly not something by which we can say good or bad but on a scale of good/bad this can help put things into perspective. As you know we do not go to war because somebody killed somebody who is not an American – seems obvious but then I remember going to war under Obama in Libya in 2011 (before Benghazi) when we had absolutely no national security interest there, so maybe we do go to war to avenge the deaths of non-Americans. Actually if we consider the United States constitution we would know that this is a violation of constitutional authority and an impeachable offense.
Number two: A Taliban splinter group – wow. Let’s look at the Taliban, the group with the last opportunity to stop us from ever entering Afghanistan (see above) and decided to spit in our face and invite war. I guess they got what they asked for didn’t they. Julia, you did know this didn’t you? All you had to do was be of age to understand logic in late 2001 (I have no idea how old you are).
Taliban – Islamic terrorist organization, just adding to the list you are making
By the way, I was in-country shortly after the Taliban told the United States to “take a hike” for the last time.
Number three: Official duty does not include nightclubs. That is not in any way meant to reduce the significance of this attack. However, it does kinda elevate the importance of the Attack in Benghazi that killed the United states Ambassador who is on duty 24/7
Your little news bite does not list the group but clearly this is terrorism (add that to your list)
Number four: Terrorism – you can add one more to your list. I was in country during this time and we were actively involved in a war on terrorism even inside Pakistan. In case you missed the obvious, if you are actively involved in engaging war against terrorism that means you are at least trying to do something to stop the attacks. This is in extreme contrast to Obama who, although we are still technically still involved in a war on terrorism, has done everything in his power to convince people that the war on terror is over and has been over for quite some time. Consider the fact that he surrendered in Iraq because he didn’t want to dirty his hands. “Surrender” is a term that those who support his actions will deny. However, to the fighting man, running away from the battlefield without victory is very much the same as surrendering.
Number five: A terrorist attack inside a country that supports terrorism – who coulda seen that one coming? This was devastating but once again we were actively engaged in a war on terrorism as opposed to Obama who is doing his level best to convince the public that there are no more terrorists. It sucks to get hit by terrorists when we are fighting a war against terrorists to get them to stop attacking us. However, it sucks even more to get hit by terrorists after the president (Obama) has tried to convince everyone that the terrorists are on the run.
Number six: Islamist terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan. I’ve been in Uzbekistan plenty times but not at that time. Anyway here are two more key words to add to your list. Are you starting to see a theme here? Let’s continue.
Number seven: Yet another terrorist attack inside country that supports terrorism. And all along I thought terrorists were only interested in attacking the United States because we were “occupying their land.” Wow, the terrorists seem to be killing many people who are not Americans, which kinda blows that theory. Happy to say that according to your little report, no Americans died here. Don’t forget to add to the keyword counter.
Number eight: Another terrorist attack in a country that supports terrorism, absolutely noteworthy don’t you think?
Number nine: Islamic Terrorists. Please add this event to your keyword counters.
Number ten: Terrorists (counter please). Finally, out of a research list of ten events you have come up with something. Even though this is the best you have done it is fairly meaningless because this tells us something that we have been looking for, yet sadly not much.
You think we are looking for examples of people being killed and then holding presidents responsible no matter the cause. If that is all you can find to indict Bush then I would say your case is extremely weak. We are looking for examples of people being killed (in the line of duty, not on vacation) where the president failed to take any actions to either prevent or combat the attack. I don’t think you will find many examples of that on Bush’s watch. Clinton had a couple and Obama has several.
I hope this was your research and not something you plagiarized, but I have my doubts based on the flimsy research you have done in the past. Nine of your examples cannot list even one thing that was done wrong or that could have been done better (although the intelligent person can see some areas needing improvement).
The tenth in a series of ten contains the idea that there may have been some “enormous loopholes” in security. I happen to think that there were probably security loopholes in all ten of these examples but in your extensive research you can only reasonably admit one time that there may have been security loopholes?
I would call that flawed research on your part Julia but I still think you probably plagiarized this instead of researched it on your own (please advise if I am wrong here). So only one out of ten hints that there might have been a security loophole. Ten percent success rate ain’t bad when it comes to defending our freedom is it? Excuse me but that is one hundred percent wholly unacceptable.
Freedom cannot be maintained at rates of ten percent, but who really cares about that? Ok, so ten percent is acceptable for you? Yet even your ten percent cannot identify anything in particular that went wrong or could have been done better. How does this relate to Benghazi? It relates directly because even the most casual observer can list for you several things that could have been done better in Benghazi. I have mentioned a few already in other posts.
You give me a list of ten things that tell me little more than someone (maybe not even an American) died on the very same day that (coincidently) George Bush was president. You give no cause/effect, and you make no attempt to associate a failure of one part to be possibly causal for another part. Are you kidding?
This is what you use to try to shame me into stating that Obama is a better president than George Bush? I don’t think so. The only thing Obama is better at is… I’ll have to get back to you on that because I can’t think of a single thing. That last wasn’t a joke, I can’t think of a single thing Obama has done that is good for this country.
Julia, your examples do not seem to support your disgust at all. Could your disgust be entirely political? I think it might be.
Did you notice the theme of the examples that unlike Obama in Benghazi, not once did George Bush stand by and do nothing to defend against an attack. Could Bush have done better? In many cases probably but even your research (whether is it truly your own or plagiarized) NEVER identifies Bush as acting in a cowardly manner in front of the enemy.
Many people to this day believe that Obama doing nothing to defend the country when it was attacked constitutes cowardice in front of the enemy. I believe that is a court-martial offense and although the president is not subject to court-martial, it says a lot about his character – or lack thereof.
Did you also notice the theme of “terrorism?” This is why I suggested keeping a running count. During all but the first seven months of the Bush presidency he was actively engaged in the war on terror and vowed to keep at it until terrorism around the world was beat down to the point that it no longer posed a 9/11 scale threat on the United States. He told us many times that this would be hard work, costly, and take many years. Many in the administration thought it would take 50 years.
As a side note did you notice the other theme in your research? I asked you to track the word “Islamic” as relates to terrorism. Indeed your research indicates that almost all terrorism is Islamic. This is not directly applicable to this topic but it is a point of interest from your research.
On the other hand Obama, as soon as he was elected and in office in 2009 tried to minimize the war on terror and put an end to it even though it was far from over. You might remember that his first action (failed action) was to try to close Gitmo and allow battlefield captives access to our civil court system DURING the conflict from which they were captured as ILLEGAL enemy combatants.
This hurt our country dearly as we have seen over the last five plus years. Less than four years into his first term we were attacked in Benghazi. The United States of America was attacked in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, a country that supports terrorism. Not only that but we were attacked on the very anniversary of the deadliest attacks this country has ever seen. Who could have seen that one coming?
My neighbor has a brain-dead cat that could have seen that one coming, but Obama (and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) never saw it at all. If only there would have been some warning or someone telling the administration that things were getting desperate from a security standpoint and were asking for more security. Oh wait, that did happen – seems that too was ignored by Obama. Yet somehow you think I am naive enough to take your research (or someone else’s as I suspect) and on that decide that Obama is a greater president than Bush? Sorry but your research only goes to convince me that Bush was better than I thought and Obama is worse than I thought.
Then your final thoughts, after the ten little adventures in research, just serve to put icing on the cake. You start by saying “And that is to only name ten! There are many more.” Suggestion: if there are more like this and you still want to convince people how bad Bush was and how good Obama is – don’t use them. That said, please do use them because they are good ammunition to discount your position.
Finally, a few thoughts on your paragraph that goes as follows:
“Republicans love to talk about Benghazi, they love to mention the biased left and the biased media. Okay well where is your outrage for the people killed in the above attacks under Bush? Are you demanding hearings? Are you demanding an investigation? I’d like to see you be unbiased and demand some justice for the above attacks as well.”
This is the paragraph of yours that I love to hate. Read on and maybe you will agree with me.
I don’t care about the biased media because my life isn’t governed by them, although they do exist and are sometimes annoying. I do however care about the biased left because my life is governed by them. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that my life is governed by the incompetence and lack of integrity of the biased left.
Where is my outrage for people killed in service to their country? I wear it on my sleeve. It focuses me every day to do all I can to help the uninformed become informed so that they might cast an informed vote. Julia, my outrage for the people killed in the line of duty is more than you will ever know. Perhaps this is why I proudly wore the uniform for 22 years, and yes, like many others who did the same, I left part of my life on the battlefield. Even though this has a major impact on daily life I have no complaints.
I have no complaints and neither do most of the veterans I know. But you should know one thing. No soldier in the history of this country has EVER been paid what he is worth. Still, I have no complaints and neither do my fellow veterans. I mention that to let you know that all the money in the world, all the gold and silver from here to there, won’t add up to enough to justify even one soldier volunteering to lay down his or her life to defend your freedom, yet many people who take their freedom for granted, yes including RINOs, are willing to reduce the pensions of veterans.
Am I outraged at the deaths of the people you mentioned in items 1-10? Yes I am. Those who died defending your freedom paid the ultimate price for that freedom (please use it wisely) and those of us who didn’t die are the lucky ones because no matter how you look at it war is hell, often necessary but always hell (there is truly no other way to explain it).
I have several permanent disabilities stemming from service connected issues. I pay out of my own pocket over $3,000 per month for the privilege of having these disabilities just so that you, the taxpayer whose very freedom is the reason for my disabilities, won’t have to pay for them. In case you didn’t quite get that I pay over $3,000 each and every month to the Veterans Administration to fund my own service-connected disability just so you won’t have to pay for the defense of your own freedom. There are several hundred thousand veterans who suffered permanent service connected disabilities on your behalf and yet pay the VA every month so that your freedom, that they put their lives on the line to defend, will not cost you a penny as they live out the rest of their lives with that disability.
In addition to covering for you in retirement, I have seen things in war that I hope you never have to see and even at that what I saw was nothing compared to the really bad parts of war.
We clearly aren’t talking about Americans killed while on vacation to a country they probably shouldn’t be visiting. We established that in previous posts. We are talking about people killed in the line of duty, whether they be uniformed service personnel (military), CIA, Ambassadors and Foreign Service personnel, State Department, or whatever they might be. It takes an awful lot of people to defend your freedom so again, please use it wisely. You ask if I am outraged at the killing of people in the line of duty? You’re damn right I am!
Sorry about the language but I pay dearly, both physically and financially, for the right to have that opinion. There is nothing I cherish more than my freedom and the ability to decide for myself what I want to do or not do. Every time I see someone in uniform I thank them for their service and for my freedom. There are many others who defend our freedom and their uniform is a suit and tie. These folks are difficult to identify in a crowd (this is often purposeful) and the downside is that they do not often get the thanks they deserve. Did I mention that it takes an awful lot of people to defend your freedom? Please use it wisely.
Many people put their lives on the line every day to defend your right to have an uninformed opinion but if you ask them they would prefer that your opinion be an informed opinion. Sadly Julia, you have your work cut out for you here.
You ask if I am “demanding hearings.” No, I lived through those listed events and I paid attention to the world around me. I was able to ascertain that Bush was actively engaging the enemy (terrorism) and that he WAS doing something about it (I’m kinda surprised you didn’t see that as well). I even had a front row seat to some of these. Yes, I was in-country for a couple of the events you mentioned and yes, we re-checked our security each time.
Am I demanding an investigation? No, see above. If the president is properly using his resources to deal with the threat then why would I need to investigate that? For the most part Bush used his resources properly; sadly I can’t say the same for Obama.
Do I “demand some justice?” That is exactly what I did. We were unprovokedly attacked on 9/11/2001 and to the extent my AFSC would allow, I not only “demanded” but exacted justice. Since you called me out on that I think it is only appropriate to ask what did you do?
Reading on you said “We shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Excuse me but could you please tell me what the heck you mean by that?
That statement is both so wrong and so wide open that to truly answer it would require a medium size book. I know my posts get lengthy but that scares even me.
Do you think that on 9/11/2001 we should have looked at each other and said “I know they murdered 3,000 innocent Americans in cold blood but I just don’t have the energy to go all the way over there to settle this thing.” Do you think we should have said “shucks, let’s just wait and see if these guys want to come over here to continue their fight (the one THEY started). If they come here it will be a lot easier for us. Don’t plan on building that dream home you always wanted because the United States is going to be a war zone for the next ten or so years. By the way, tell your wife to duck for the next ten years just in case there might be a stray bullet.”
I would love to address the wrongheadedness of your statement but it would be easier if you could narrow it down for me.
By the way, before you attempt to justify your ill-conceived statement (because I know how you want to do it) please read your history first. Reading your history first will save you some embarrassment (and hopefully save me some typing).
So Julia, what do you want to talk about next? Perhaps politics, national security, and international affairs aren’t a good subject because you know very little about either!
I really don’t see the comparisons. In most of these attacks rescue attempts were made. The sites were clearly defended,although in some cases the forces were too strong,but all seemed to have better forethought than Benghazi.
Benghazi was not only undefended but had warned that need more defense and as Kevlar so clearly pointed out apparently not one tried to rescue them.
The argument that there was not enough time to help them fails unless one knew ahead of time how long they could hold out and how long the attackers were prepared to continue the assault.
The question I would liked to have heard when Mr.Obama said there was not enough time to get there was how did you know how long they could have held on?
Oh! by the way ,where were you and what were you doing during the attack?
That has yet to be disclosed.
People still don’t know the difference between Political Parties, Media, and the Executive Branch? And, not knowing anything about Politics except that it is just covert communications, what possibly could ever be wrong in America? Most people don’t use English in the imperative command forms English is most useful, realizing that how can you say someone is rude when you weren’t there live hearing the tones used? And being selectively tone deaf is just as silly. America just needs to review their standards they rely on for communication.
And, being an adverse talker, and not giving time of day to lesser levels of conversation, it’s impossible to claim someone is rude to another unless it is taken into consideration the positions people achieved in their lives, the Universities they graduated, and amongst many other reasons, the ability they are able to be patient.
And, with political sense in mind, Bill was rude to ‘Barack’? Or was he rude to the Presidential position? Or was he, quote unquote, rude to the President? Talking politics, lest you be in politics or media, is a waste of time.
@Kevlar I disagree with your statement that ” Obama on the other hand is trying to run away from that war on terror every chance he gets. His first official attempt you might remember was on day one when he declared that Gitmo would be closed no matter what.” Obama has not run away from fighting terror, in fact he has killed many terrorists using drone strikes. He receives a lot of criticism from the left for killing terrorists with drones, although I think it is better than using troops and putting our troops in harms way. Also, Gitmo is still open, so whatever Obama said about that doesn’t matter. Its still open, terrorists are still housed there. I think we should judge him based off his actions not off his words. Of course, Obama wishes to close Gitmo and he wishes to not blow people up in the Middle East because there are always casualties. But he is getting information about direct threats and making the difficult calls he has to make, he is doing it in a more responsible way than George Bush and protecting our troops by using drones. Lets not forget, he did take down Osama Bin Laden too! So the argument that he’s running away from fighting terrorism is just not true when you judge his actions rather than his words. Therefore making most of your arguments about fighting terrorism the difference between Bush and Obama.
But to make my point clear…
The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency:
There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May 2011.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki
Al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.
‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda
One of Al Qaeda’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan.
In Yemen, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed.
In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.
Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.
In September of 2009, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.
In December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.
In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.
In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin – accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.
In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.
In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.
In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.
The above isn’t even the full list but i think I made the point. Obama has done a fine job fighting terrorism. The problem is that the war on terror needs to end. We need to get out of there. Drones, troops, it all just makes them hate us more. Lets mind our own business.
There may not have been Americans killed in all of these attacks, but there were in some of them, and no one on the right asked for an investigation. No one asked why there wasn’t more security. No one asked why they didn’t receive help. No one talked about it for an entire year after. No one cared. Republicans care about Benghazi because it kills two birds with one stone in their minds, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The only argument I agree with them on is what were we doing at the consulate in the first place? I think something illegal was going on there. At least extremely unethical. Thats what I’d like to know because I don’t think we should be there in the first place. Bill Oreilly didn’t ask that question though.
My comment that you disagreed with (re-posted here for clarity) still holds: “Obama on the other hand is trying to run away from that war on terror every chance he gets. His first official attempt you might remember was on day one when he declared that Gitmo would be closed no matter what.”
You do NOT take captured enemy combatants and put them through a civilian court system (which is what Obama wanted to do) especially while the conflict is on-going. If you ever put them through the civilian court system (even that is questionable) you wait until AFTER the war or conflict is over.
For one thing you will almost certainly reveal important classified information that will tie your hands for the rest of the conflict and this in turn puts American lives needlessly in jeopardy. If you truly were interested in defending the United States of America, why would you do that?
If you put them through a civilian court system while the conflict is on-going and they are found not guilty on a mere technicality and released, because you have now given them “rights” that they are not entitled to, they will likely as has been proven time and again return to the battle and kill more Americans. If you had ANY interest in defending the United States why would you do that?
You then said, as your justification that Obama is fully engaged in the war on terror, the following: “Obama has not run away from fighting terror, in fact he has killed many terrorists using drone strikes. He receives a lot of criticism from the left for killing terrorists with drones, although I think it is better than using troops and putting our troops in harms way. Also, Gitmo is still open, so whatever Obama said about that doesn’t matter. Its still open, terrorists are still housed there. I think we should judge him based off his actions not off his words.”
While I am NOT against the use of drone strikes (as many seem to be), if that is your most used tactic you are once again shooting yourself in the foot and ensuring that the war will last longer and more people will die, both combatants AND non-combatants and on both sides.
The problem with Drones is that you don’t capture the enemy. While you don’t need to capture them all (hence my support for drone strikes) you do need to capture some for interrogation and intel gathering purposes. Good intel shortens wars and saves lives.
Wait a minute, I forgot, you might need to deprive them of sleep or something like that and that is now considered torture and apparently the so-called “rights” of enemy combatants who want to kill Americans are more important than the rights of freedom loving Americans. If you had ANY interest in defending the United States why would you do that?
On your comment and claim to fame/justification that Obama has our best interest at heart: “Lets not forget, he did take down Osama Bin Laden too!” Even the most incapable moron sitting in the oval office would have made the same decision lest he be tarred and feathered and hauled out. That said, there were political consequences to that decision and he did make it (correctly).
There is ONLY one thing in Obama’s tenure that he has done good for this country and this is it. However he completely wasted that “good” for several reasons. He used that to emphasize that “bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run” and that mindset has and will continue to hurt this country for years to come.
Additionally he revealed so much classified information (by trying to take credit) that the end result is that we were better off before bin Laden was killed. In other words he completely negated ALL good that came from that and ultimately hurt this country.
Intel is what shortens wars and saves lives. Without intel all you can do is fight a war of attrition which is based on money, bodies, and who can last longer. These wars can last decades (as many civil wars do) and be very expensive.
Think about the cold war and how it was largely a war of attrition. That took decades to win and was costly. Now consider an active (or hot) war lasting that long, where the only tactic is to wear down (not destroy) the enemy. This is extremely expensive in lives and money.
Is the purposeful use of drones, while avoiding capturing enemy combatants for the purposes of gaining intel to shorten the war and save lives, really a valid method by itself to defend the United States of America? I don’t think so.
Sorry, but this completely destroys your notion that Obama “is doing it in a more responsible way than George Bush and protecting our troops by using drones.”
As for the difference between Obama’s actions and his words, his actions would be as weak as his words except that some people in this country think that freedom is worth preserving and are making it difficult for Obama to surrender.
Let’s look at your “list” of things that make your “point clear.” Killing enemy leaders is fine, in fact one could say this is important. However, the true measure of success is to answer the question “are we safer because of this?”
This is a nice list of “who’s who” but tell me how it is relevant? Tell me how the world, as Americans participate in the world, is safer now than when Obama took over? At least the rest of the world respected us then.
If you kill an enemy leader and they put another in his place who is just as effective, then how did you improve your situation? Maybe they didn’t replace that leader because they saw that they didn’t need a leader there. A who’s who list of those killed does not by itself make the world any safer.
Your comments get even stranger. Take this one for example: “Obama has done a fine job fighting terrorism. The problem is that the war on terror needs to end. We need to get out of there. Drones, troops, it all just makes them hate us more. Lets mind our own business.”
A “fine job?” Really? Is this why terrorism is spreading to other parts of the world, because Obama has done a “fine job?”
“The war on terror needs to end?” According to whom? Why does it need to end? Should it end because we have won the war? Is there any other reason for it to end? If we engaged the enemy in the war on terror in order to defend America and the freedom it guarantees to its people, should we just end the war before it has been won? Is our freedom worth so little to you that you would back out of defending it?
“Let’s mind our own business?” Whose business were we minding in the early hours of September 11th 2001? If I recall we were minding our own business. I know exactly what I was doing as I had just returned home the night before from being mission commander for a military MAFFS fire fighting deployment to fight wildfires that were killing civilians and burning their houses.
Yes, this was what your military was doing just before 9/11. Deployed on a peacetime mission and not indirectly but DIRECTLY serving the public. MAFFS is one of a very few missions where the civilian population gets a chance to personally observe, as in not on the evening news but with their own eyes, their military in action saving their lives and property not abroad but here at home. The rest of America was minding its own business too.
Several hundred of us military types were flying our butts off dropping retardant on fires trying to save civilian lives and property from destruction. We were minding our own business and the terrorists attacked us WHILE we were minding our own business.
As a person who has seen combat in defense of this nation and one who would rather not ever have to do that again, every second of every day spent in defending our country and our freedom from terrorist attack is ABSOLUTELY our business and if you think defending ourselves is none of our business you are free to move out of this or any other country you hate. Freedom (in your case) to hate your country is also a freedom many people have died to defend.
Your next paragraph takes the cake – let’s look at it together: “There may not have been Americans killed in all of these attacks, but there were in some of them, and no one on the right asked for an investigation. No one asked why there wasn’t more security. No one asked why they didn’t receive help. No one talked about it for an entire year after. No one cared. Republicans care about Benghazi because it kills two birds with one stone in their minds, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.”
That is just about as messed up a paragraph as I have seen. Julia you are shooting yourself in the foot with this. I’m not sure I could have written a better statement to refute your position if I had tried.
“There may not have been Americans killed… and no one on the right asked for an investigation.” In every one of the cases you presented there was a terrorist leader killed and we were at war with terrorism. What exactly surprises you, that nobody on the right would ask for an investigation when a “bad” guy was killed in war? Thanks for inferring that the “left” would ask for an investigation when an enemy combatant was killed on the battlefield. I hope you re-think that one.
“No one asked why there wasn’t more security.” Please tell me the military, political, social, psychological, or whatever misguided theory you might have that would cause you to want the bad guy to have more security? Especially at our expense! You are now supporting the bad guys and you want me to answer as to why we didn’t defend them. I hope this isn’t what you meant but if it is what you meant and you really do hate this country, please select another country to call home.
“No one asked why they didn’t receive help.” Really? You know, for the 22 years that I wore the uniform it never occurred to me to ask why our enemy, especially during war when they were actively trying to kill us, didn’t receive help from us!
Wait a minute, maybe it did occur to me when I swore that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (which guarantees your freedom, nothing else ever will) against all enemies foreign and domestic. Perhaps it was at that point and every second since then that I decided to NOT help the enemy as you clearly suggested we should do (you wrote it, not me).
“Republicans care about Benghazi because it kills two birds with one stone in their minds, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.” That might be true for some of the politically motivated RINOs but a patriot knows that those two, Obama and Clinton, do not have what it takes to defend this country and this was very accurately depicted in Benghazi with their complete lack of will to even TRY to defend our freedom.
We don’t care either way about the political careers of Obama or Clinton but we very much care about this country and the freedom it guarantees to you and me!
You can Monday-morning quarterback the operations at the consulate all day if you want and if you find evidence of misdeeds you can prosecute all you want and I will probably help you prosecute any wrongdoing.
The extremely important point you are missing, and the point that is larger than life yet somehow you have once again failed to see it, is that these people were not just U. S. citizens. They were the OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES of the United States of America in a foreign country. They were attacked and killed while in service to this country and yet our country, the United States of America, did absolutely NOTHING to even try to defend them. Our president is constitutionally bound by sworn oath to defend the United States, yet he stood by and did NOTHING!
The Secretary of State (then Hillary Clinton) is bound by the exact same oath and she also stood by and did absolutely nothing!
Do you really want a leader of the United States of America who does not place any importance on the defense of the United States of America? I don’t and there is NOTHING political about that. It is the patriot in me that makes me say that, not any political motivations I may or may not have.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.