U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (10 Viewers)

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

I will take a shot at No. 2.

Obama said this in the UN speech:

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

There he clearly links Stevens' killing with "intolerance." I have no idea what version of the English language allows for terrorism to be encapsulated within the word "intolerance" - religious intolerance found in a crudely made video fits extremely well within the word "intolerance", but somehow it just doesn't begin to capture the essence of acts like what happened at the WTC on September 11, 2001 and the USS Cole.

Would you agree?

 

[pittstownkiller]

So I am still waiting for: 1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided. 2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times. 3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue. 4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

Yes Tim, I am a coward because I did not accept your bet. "Do you wanna bet?"; really, what are we in 4th grade? I have also seen most of the bets you make turn into some sort of twisted, unverifiable, term that vaguely resembles the original debate. Hillary Clinton in 2008 raised the most money of any candidate in history, only to have her campaign finish $22 million in debt...and she lost. But I am intrigued by your bet, and all the hedging that you are doing, so let's get one issue out of the way: the bet (if it happens, since I do not bet) will be that "Hillary Clinton 2016" raises more money than any other candidate in history, including topping her previous campaigns, not including DNC money, and not reliant upon her deciding to run or staying in the race. What odds are you going to give me since you are so brave and you are all hot and bothered for Hillary - the heir apparent?The fact is Hillary was personally on the hook for nearly $11 million of her campaign debt and it took her to 2013 to pay it off. Her donors, and even Obama's, did not care to help her out. The Clinton's have baggage, whether you like that or not. You cite polls that show her favorables but her unfavorables run so strong that she would have a hard time winning the nomination - just like 2008. The main difference are the people who backed her once in a losing effort, only to have to bail her out of her debt -when she so stupidly stayed in with very little chance of winning - will be reluctant to give her even more money. You do realize that she lost to a relatively unknown lightweight who had no money, and she had her hands full with Edwards till he imploded. She came into the race with nearly $14 million left over from her senate race, raised more money then anyone else, and finished soundly beaten and severely in debt - without being forefront of a possible scandal. Hillary has no stockpile of money now, is not in elected office, and is hiding so she does not have to answer question on Benghazi; how will she raise money?

Look, you're the one who made the claim that Hillary would have trouble raising money. And now you want me to offer you odds? You didn't say that there is a 33% chance that Hillary will have trouble raising money. You stated it like a fact. You don't need odds. Back up your statement. As for your question: I advise reading the book Game Change, by John Halprin, about the 2008 election and how it changed American politics, especially in the way money was raised for candidates. Essentially Hillary's team went about things the old way: fundraisers, big name donors, etc., while Obama greatly expanded Howard Dean's idea of taking advantage of the Internet. This time around, the lesson is learned and every candidate will focus on the Internet as a primary source (as they did in 2012). As far as Hillary "hiding from the Benghazi questions", that's a load of crap. Trust me, if Hillary decides to run, she will come out of hiding. Finally, you make the claim that I am "hot and bothered" for Hillary. While I have a lot of respect for her, and I believe she has been abused unfairly by her opponents, I doubt I could ever vote for her for President. I could vote for Bill at this point- he is much more of a moderate. But alas Hillary is not Bill.

Oh Tim, you are even more trying on this subject than most. I think that I wrote that Hillary will be hurt by this but certainly not crippled; you, on the other hand said that she will not be hurt one iota. I am also laughing that you readily admit she is hiding. How many other do you think share your opinion that they would never vote for her; those are called "negatives" and her polling data shows that she has a high negative rating.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Congressional approval/disapproval

April, 2013: D 46+/48-, R38+/54-

May, 2013: D 52+/43-, R35+/59-

That's the lowest Republican approval rating since CNN started polling in 1992.

Keep up the good work in here guys. You're doing your part!

 

[drummer]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

See: Rice, Susan

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

The real question is why Stevens and his staff were there in a dangerous situation in the first place, given the lack of security that most Consulates have. There is a whole lot more background as why, such as Blackwater, funding, etc.

This is just pure hand wringing by the kook Right.

I don't discount your point, it's a good one. But the thing that keeps getting stuck in my craw is Obama's speeech at the UN.

>>Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

...

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&singlePage=true

Where exactly does "intolerance" come into what happened to Stevens?

And on and on he went about the video and free speech. If he was talking about AQ and terrorism, it sure does not appear in that speech. That's Pres. Obama, it was September 25th, and that was two weeks after the events of 9/11/12.

ETA: As an aside (because this is not my point) why would that video be an "insult ... to America"? Did the president watch it before making that point? Has anyone watched it?

I dunno if I care to parse a speech given the Admin's record against AQ. I take the success against AQ more than a speech that has to be parsed or qualified.

It isn't a whole "Axis of Evil" one that lumped a whole region that the US still meddles in that's the root cause of terrorism, dating back to even before I was born.

 

[Stinger Ray]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

No you didn't. We have no idea how the State Department responded to that request. In fact, we have no idea what the specific request was. We have no idea what the hell happened. The answer is absolutely insufficient.

Yet you seem to know....you're an idiot Tim.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Congressional approval/disapproval

April, 2013: D 46+/48-, R38+/54-

May, 2013: D 52+/43-, R35+/59-

That's the lowest Republican approval rating since CNN started polling in 1992.

Keep up the good work in here guys. You're doing your part!

shhhh.........

Please dont feed the KooKs.

 

[adonis]

Congressional approval/disapproval

April, 2013: D 46+/48-, R38+/54-

May, 2013: D 52+/43-, R35+/59-

That's the lowest Republican approval rating since CNN started polling in 1992.

Keep up the good work in here guys. You're doing your part!

shhhh.........

Please dont feed the KooKs.

They self-feed.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..

Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.

And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

If you hire a someone and/or a company to do something, big or small, when they don't perform the task properly, the company is responsible. Not the incapable technician delegated to handle that responsibility for them. Whether the president has done a poor job, or the person he delegated the job to, or the people that person delegated to, it all shows poor judgment.

Obama is in charge, he places people and or manages people , who place people and or manage people, and so on.. When mistakes are made, it is indirectly the fault of upper management.

Members of the state department are trusted with a job, trusted by the higher ups, in this case foolishly. The higher ups, if did not directly perform improperly, are indirectly responsible for placing their responsibilities in incapable hands..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

He will continue to claim that never happened for the duration of this thread, you're words are falling on def ears

 

[drummer]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

He will continue to claim that never happened for the duration of this thread, you're words are falling on def ears

So this thread really is about you guys.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Link

lol.....

You're definitely trolling, the president talking about the Youtube video at the UN speech is widely accepted as fact in history... By both sides..

And that transcript has been posted in this thread many times

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks after the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

'Cuz its what the media and general populace found to be catalyst for those current issues.

When addressing the UN about the Benghazi incident the president brings up the Youtube video, yet again (was already blamed for the incident by the administration the day after).. You have an explanation for this?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

No you didn't. We have no idea how the State Department responded to that request. In fact, we have no idea what the specific request was. We have no idea what the hell happened. The answer is absolutely insufficient.

You seem to be asking for an answer.. There was obviously some dialogue there... Shouldn't the administration be forthcoming with that information? And when they are not, is it unreasonable for congress to ask for it? They have a bit more pull then you do right? You seem to not have a problem asking for that proof yourself...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

 

[drummer]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

 

[FlapJacks]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

1. do your own homework. according to multiple testimonies, the WH knew very quickly that one our emabassy was under attack. We also know that the military was not sent in per Leon Panetta's public comments. Put 2 and 2 together here, Tim.

2. Again, do your own homework, There is a ton of testimony that the government knew this was not some protest. Who brings mortar rockets to a protest?

3. I think the public deserves answers to some legitimate questions.

4. I don't give a crap

 

[FlapJacks]

on 9/14 after a briefing with the DoD/Panetta:"I think it was a planned, premeditated attack," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.McCain expressed a similar view."People don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons," he said, adding that the facts suggest "this was not a 'mob' action [or] a group of protesters."

So the administration either lied, or they are dumber than John McCain and Carl Levin

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

Obviously I've researched it more than you have... This question has been answered numerous times in this thread..

There was a request for security before the incident, but additional security was not provided. There are many theories as to why, but to this point the answers from the people up top have not been forth coming. Just more diversion..

 

[drummer]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

Obviously I've researched it more than you have... This question has been answered numerous times in this thread..

There was a request for security before the incident, but additional security was not provided. There are many theories as to why, but to this point the answers from the people up top have not been forth coming. Just more diversion..

I don't think you have. You're still on the conspiracy meme. So maybe you just didn't understand that research after all.

Or you're just flat out biased and too gutless to admit it.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

on 9/14 after a briefing with the DoD/Panetta:"I think it was a planned, premeditated attack," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.McCain expressed a similar view."People don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons," he said, adding that the facts suggest "this was not a 'mob' action [or] a group of protesters."

So the administration either lied, or they are dumber than John McCain and Carl Levin

Or someone thought differently at the time. Oh the horror.

 

[drummer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

There is more to this ya know.

"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

Again, who is qualified to call a 'fly-by', and just how naive is Hicks to think that would had stopped the attack? Ask yourself if the aircraft had to fire upon the situation, and who gives that call.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

Obviously I've researched it more than you have... This question has been answered numerous times in this thread..

There was a request for security before the incident, but additional security was not provided. There are many theories as to why, but to this point the answers from the people up top have not been forth coming. Just more diversion..

I don't think you have. You're still on the conspiracy meme. So maybe you just didn't understand that research after all.

Or you're just flat out biased and too gutless to admit it.

Why don't you explain the events yourself then? Why will no one from the left explain? Aside from calling it a protest gone wrong.. Or just dodging the questions completely and giving it the "Make no mistake, we'll find the people responsible and bring them to justice" line..

Lets hear an explanation from a lefty here, rather than force the right to pry this information from tight clinched hands..

 

[sporthenry]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

It's been posted 50 times at least.. They choose to ignore it.. Tim will contrive some ridiculous reason why that information is inconclusive if he responds to it at all.. Others will just attack you personally or start talking about Iraq/Bush again..

 

[drummer]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks am fter the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

Obviously I've researched it more than you have... This question has been answered numerous times in this thread..

There was a request for security before the incident, but additional security was not provided. There are many theories as to why, but to this point the answers from the people up top have not been forth coming. Just more diversion..

I don't think you have. You're still on the conspiracy meme. So maybe you just didn't understand that research after all.

Or you're just flat out biased and too gutless to admit it.

Why don't you explain the events yourself then? Why will no one from the left explain? Aside from calling it a protest gone wrong.. Or just dodging the questions completely and giving it the "Make no mistake, we'll find the people responsible and bring them to justice" line..

Lets hear an explanation from a lefty here, rather than force the right to pry this information from tight clinched hands..

Well, I just posted above a situation that maybe only Doctor Detroit can answer, since he, ya know has worked in that region of the World. We don't. So we are left to debate 'conspiracy theories', combating biased slants among each other.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..

Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

There is more to this ya know.

>"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

Again, who is qualified to call a 'fly-by', and just how naive is Hicks to think that would had stopped the attack? Ask yourself if the aircraft had to fire upon the situation, and who gives that call.

Who provides there men with no back up or air support in a hostile area?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You have a right to ask the President anything. But one thing I hate about conspiracy theorists is that, rather than offering proof, they always ask a question. How do you explain this or that? So I put the question right back to him. If he truly believes that Obama deliberately lied about the video two weeks later for some nefarious reason, let him come out and say it. It seems completely ludicrous to me, but to each their own.

People died.. Other people who were there said they asked for help.. The obama administration are tight lipped about the details on that incident.

So, instead of believing the folks who said they were there, asking for help they did not receive, you choose to believe that maybe they didn't ask for help, and your rational is that the administration has admitted nothing..

The real question is why they were there in the first place. You can choose to ignore all of the other background to satisfy your hankering for a conspiracy, but you ain't doing yourself any good by not doing any research yourself. Nor this board.

But carry on my wayward son.

Obviously I've researched it more than you have... This question has been answered numerous times in this thread..

There was a request for security before the incident, but additional security was not provided. There are many theories as to why, but to this point the answers from the people up top have not been forth coming. Just more diversion..

I don't think you have. You're still on the conspiracy meme. So maybe you just didn't understand that research after all.

Or you're just flat out biased and too gutless to admit it.

Why don't you explain the events yourself then? Why will no one from the left explain? Aside from calling it a protest gone wrong.. Or just dodging the questions completely and giving it the "Make no mistake, we'll find the people responsible and bring them to justice" line..

Lets hear an explanation from a lefty here, rather than force the right to pry this information from tight clinched hands..

Well, I just posted above a situation that maybe only Doctor Detroit can answer, since he, ya know has worked in that region of the World. We don't. So we are left to debate 'conspiracy theories', combating biased slants among each other.

So when people die, and many there have made some pretty concerning claims, and the administration throws up a smoke screen and has to be forced to give answers by congress, you're just going to give them a pass.... Gotcha...

 

[drummer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

There is more to this ya know.

>"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.<

/span>

Again, who is qualified to call a 'fly-by', and just how naive is Hicks to think that would had stopped the attack? Ask yourself if the aircraft had to fire upon the situation, and who gives that call.

Who provides there men with no back up or air support in a hostile area?

If they had known there was a eminent danger involved prior to that day, then it really was up to Stevens to get his staff to the Embassy in Tripoli, which is more fortified. Because Consulates aren't meant to be fortress'. Most of them aren't secured like they are Embassies. The budget backed by the GOP shows that. That's why they had contractors such as Blackwater.

I'm starting to see you can not care less about who died. You're just trying to score points. You lose either way. Because you are trying to make this about you.

 

[sporthenry]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

There is more to this ya know.

>"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.<

/span>Again, who is qualified to call a 'fly-by', and just how naive is Hicks to think that would had stopped the attack? Ask yourself if the aircraft had to fire upon the situation, and who gives that call.

Who provides there men with no back up or air support in a hostile area?

If they had known there was a eminent danger involved prior to that day, then it really was up to Stevens to get his staff to the Embassy in Tripoli, which is more fortified. Because Consulates aren't meant to be fortress'. Most of them aren't secured like they are Embassies. The budget backed by the GOP shows that. That's why they had contractors such as Blackwater.

I'm starting to see you can not care less about who died. You're just trying to score points. You lose either way. Because you are trying to make this about you.

Pretty disingenuous claim here since we spend more on defense now then ever in the history of this country.. This meme has already been dismantled btw.. You're better off sighting Iraq death toll statistics (as if that matters either).. Since this is obviously a partisan issue for you..

Nice you blame a dead man for being where he was commissioned to be though.. Very tasteful..

 

[sporthenry]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

>The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

So you have testimony that they could have gotten there in time. Because I have testimony saying they wouldn't.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

The guys at the annex where told to stand down, but refused, and went to the consulate anyways. They brought all of the survivors they could find back from the consulate..

You haven't a clue do you?

 

[drummer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

There is more to this ya know.

>"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.<

/span>Again, who is qualified to call a 'fly-by', and just how naive is Hicks to think that would had stopped the attack? Ask yourself if the aircraft had to fire upon the situation, and who gives that call.

Who provides there men with no back up or air support in a hostile area?

If they had known there was a eminent danger involved prior to that day, then it really was up to Stevens to get his staff to the Embassy in Tripoli, which is more fortified. Because Consulates aren't meant to be fortress'. Most of them aren't secured like they are Embassies. The budget backed by the GOP shows that. That's why they had contractors such as Blackwater.

I'm starting to see you can not care less about who died. You're just trying to score points. You lose either way. Because you are trying to make this about you.

Pretty disingenuous claim here since we spend more on defense now then ever in the history of this country.. This meme has already been dismantled btw.. You're better off sighting Iraq death toll statistics (as if that matters either).. Since this is obviously a partisan issue for you..

Nice you blame a dead man for being where he was commissioned to be though.. Very tasteful..

See? You doing it again, trying to score points. You really don't care about who died, nor care about attacks on Embassies and Consulates being attacked for decades. You're just feigning outrage because you have nothing better to do. This is just some sort of exercise for you.

 

[sporthenry]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

The guys at the annex where told to stand down, but refused, and went to the consulate anyways. They brought all of the survivors they could find back from the consulate..You haven't a clue do you?

Well for one, the whole standing down thing, is again, conjecture.

The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to Fox News .

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate.

Maybe this is more correct.

Woods overrode the objections of the CIA chief of base and promptly organized a seven-man GRS rescue team.

But that is a stand down order from someone on the ground. So I guess if you want to go after the CIA chief of base.

And then the 31 people. So they got all 31 people into 2 Toyota Land Cruisers? There were 31 people at the Consulate? I'd love to see that link.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

The guys at the annex where told to stand down, but refused, and went to the consulate anyways. They brought all of the survivors they could find back from the consulate..You haven't a clue do you?

Well for one, the whole standing down thing, is again, conjecture.

>The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to Fox News .

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate.

Maybe this is more correct.

Woods overrode the objections of the CIA chief of base and promptly organized a seven-man GRS rescue team.

But that is a stand down order from someone on the ground. So I guess if you want to go after the CIA chief of base.

And then the 31 people. So they got all 31 people into 2 Toyota Land Cruisers? There were 31 people at the Consulate? I'd love to see that link.

So now we're quoting un-named sources? Was there something in the rest of that article you didn't want us to see?

 

[sporthenry]

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..

Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

The guys at the annex where told to stand down, but refused, and went to the consulate anyways. They brought all of the survivors they could find back from the consulate..You haven't a clue do you?

Well for one, the whole standing down thing, is again, conjecture.

>The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to Fox News .

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate.

Maybe this is more correct.

Woods overrode the objections of the CIA chief of base and promptly organized a seven-man GRS rescue team.

But that is a stand down order from someone on the ground. So I guess if you want to go after the CIA chief of base.

And then the 31 people. So they got all 31 people into 2 Toyota Land Cruisers? There were 31 people at the Consulate? I'd love to see that link.

So now we're quoting un-named sources? Was there something in the rest of that article you didn't want us to see?

Oh, so you actually have named sources? I'd like to see that.Just to recap, these are things you allege but haven't backed up at all.

1.) 31 Americans rescued at the consulate.

2.) The Special Ops would have arrived before the attack on the annex.

3.) The CIA team at the annex was told to stand down

As for nothing else to see in the article, swing and a miss. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

The article actually backs up more of my argument about the military doing everything they could with little if any interference coming from the White House or State Department as so alleged.

 

[tommyboy]

Must be getting tiresome defending incompetent people day after day.

 

[sporthenry]

Must be getting tiresome defending incompetent people arguing with morons about things that were already proven false day after day.

 

[drummer]

Must be getting tiresome defending incompetent people day after day.

Says the dude who paid Otis and others a whole buttload of cash.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Must be getting tiresome defending incompetent people arguing with morons about things that were already proven false day after day.

Amen.

 

[tommyboy]

it appears this might get even uglier:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.


According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

 

[Lutherman2112]

it appears this might get even uglier:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.


According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

and the next page of the article:

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

 

[glock]

it appears this might get even uglier:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.


According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

Who speaks with PJMedia?

 

[sporthenry]

it appears this might get even uglier:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.


According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

and the next page of the article:

>

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

Well, we are at least getting closer to what actually matters. As the last sentence says, this is all hearsay at this point and I highly doubt these inflammatory sentences will be that complete. I'm not sure how they say it isn't a CIA mission when most of the assets in Benghazi appeared to be CIA.

But I do agree that my main questions are about what we were doing there and why it was so secretive. Then at that point, I don't think it is a conspiracy so much as it just becomes, was it good policy or not.

 

[pittstownkiller]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

>>The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

>

So you have testimony that they could have gotten there in time. Because I have testimony saying they wouldn't.

Since we are talking real-time, how did they know when the attack would end, or if there was going to be a third?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

Who speaks with PJMedia?

HFS, PJmedia