Skip to comments.Chris Matthews Thinks It's 'A Little Ridiculous' to Blame Obama Admin for Benghazi Security
Posted on 05/02/2014 3:24:30 AM PDT by PoloSec
MSNBC's Chris Matthews ranted on Thursday's Hardball that "it's a ridiculous" to hold the Obama administration culpable for the lack of security around the Benghazi compound during the September, 2012 attacks.
"But the idea that somebody else should have been covering for him [Ambassador Chris Stevens], that someone else should have the army there waiting to defend him, I think it's a little ridiculous," Matthews insisted. "How would the President even know he [Stevens] was going on that trip out there to Benghazi?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Chris must be bucking to be Obama’s personal man-servant.
Just one question. If George Bush were president who would you blame?
So The Benghazi Consulate was under attack and Obama never made it downstairs to the Situation Room---so what?
When will these conservatives figure it out?
Obama was w/ Valerie, doing what he does best: adding up his holdings. (You forget--- Valerie is Boobamba's "senior policy advisor," In Chicage gangland parlance, that means "wire transfer artist.")
The two were probably opening up new offshore accounts---"getting Al Quada on the run" is very profitable and so is war profiteering. The money accumulates so fast.
Heck, when Obomba and then-SOS Hillary staged "military" raids in Libya and offed Khadafi, they gained access to the National Bank of Libya. (No paper money there---just solid gold bars. Solid Gold. Not the Chinese tungsten filled bars
(That's over and above the $6 billion missing from the State Dept under Hillary's watch.)
I guess it is a little ridiculous to expect Obama to do his job as C in C; protecting American citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Spin as you may Chris, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Most Americans were already convinced Obama lies on most issues before this news broke. This further reinforces the public perception that Obama is not trustworthy.
So Chrissy, any CEO of a major corp with muliple sites in hostile countries is not responsible for making sure there is adequate security and people the defend against possible attack....?
So your NBC news bureau say in Pakistan has void of security.....?
Chrissy, and you still think that people are watching your show. More people will read about what you say on FR than hear it on your show.
If Bush was responsible for a soldier putting underwear on the head of an Iraqi prisoner in a Baghdad prison, then of course Obama should be accountable for his consulates. But that reasoning would require logic....
How many days did the Abu Ghraib story run above the fold on the NYT? Just saying.
Chris, Obama is the Commander in Chief. He is supposed to be aware of these things. It isn’t like he is some new private out doing guard duty for the first time.
We all know. It was Bush’s fault.
Who really give a rats behind what Matthews “thinks”.
...Because George Bush was really still president.
Go change your depends Chrissie. That tingling in your leg means that you wet yourself again.
If not legally, aka obama was morally duty-bound not to leave the Americans in Benghazi in the lurch (especially the four who lost their lives). He (or his string-pulling puppeteer, Jarrett of the face of bat) actively denied their rescue attempt, which was already automatically immediately underway. This flouts basic moral decency and all military tradition (run toward the sound of guns, no one left behind) unless the lives of many more American citizens (at home or abroad) were immediately and directly at stake. There is absolutely no evidence of this or even the slightest reasonable supposition of any justifying circumstance of any kind.
An honest investigation would likely reveal that the Benghazi betrayal actually was intended to enable our enemies to succeed in capturing ambassador Stevens, either to trade him later for the Blind Sheik or to kill him outright in order to cover aka obamas tracks in supplying weapons to our enemies in Syria or elsewhere. While the simple act of denying a rescue attempt might not by itself be high treason, when coupled with the reason behind the denial, it most certainly is.
Even the most addle-brained leftist Kool-Aid drinker cant help but see that the rescue denial was an extreme act of self-serving cowardice in an attempt sweep under the carpet and hide that aka obama was adhering to [the USAs] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (i.e., TREASON).
By the way, this kind of treason is normally punishable by the death, but I, for one, would be perfectly satisfied to see aka obama just sentenced to do five to ten years of really hard time in the electric chair (Id even allow the power to be shut off during non-business hours out of deference to the loony leftist greenies).
Didn’t someone once say “The bucks stops here.”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.