PDA

View Full Version : I knew nothiiiinkkk!!!



huntinman
01-23-2013, 10:04 AM
Hillary is a waste of time and so are those kissing her butt.

Tom. P.
01-23-2013, 03:30 PM
Its amazing how little coverage this got even before the election! It all depends what party has control off the Whitehouse as the whether any of these issues gets covered at all. I am tired of the double standard and I thought enough people were also but we have four more miserable years of one big Lie after another. What a shame!!

Gerry Clinchy
01-23-2013, 03:49 PM
How dare she say, "What does it matter now?" If she, the State Dept, and whomever else, were incompetent & lied to the American people, it matters a LOT. If Bush was a jerk, that does not excuse these people who were "supposed" to be so much better than Bush. Not to mention that I simply cannot accept that the whole cover-up was to save the re-election of Obama.

It seems evident from her testimony that she was in touch that night with people across all levels of govt that the President was not among them. Also seems evident that SOMEbody had the support "stand down" ... could that have come from anyone but the CIC?

If we used MLK's measure to judge one by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, both Hillary and Obama would be keeping each other company.

Franco
01-23-2013, 03:52 PM
Its amazing how little coverage this got even before the election! It all depends what party has control off the Whitehouse as the whether any of these issues gets covered at all. I am tired of the double standard and I thought enough people were also but we have four more miserable years of one big Lie after another. What a shame!!

There was a lot of misinformation that came from the White House in the days after the attack. Then, we had Fox News fabricating stories that troops in position to help were told to stand down. The whole affair demonstrated some of the worse media coverage/journalism in modern times. You had some media covering for Obama in the days leading up to the election and you had media making up stories to feed the frenzie like Fox News.

It appears simple to me. Hillary dropped the ball and four Americans were killed. Obama made Hillary Sec Of State. They should both share in the blame of not providing adequate security and Fox should face some sort of fine or have their ability to broadcast suspended for several weeks for their irresponsible story.

Now, that is fair and balanced!

road kill
01-23-2013, 04:01 PM
There was a lot of misinformation that came from the White House in the days after the attack. Then, we had Fox News fabricating stories that troops in position to help were told to stand down. The whole affair demonstrated some of the worse media coverage/journalism in modern times. You had some media covering for Obama in the days leading up to the election and you had media making up stories to feed the frenzie like Fox News.

It appears simple to me. Hillary dropped the ball and four Americans were killed. Obama made Hillary Sec Of State. They should both share in the blame of not providing adequate security and Fox should face some sort of fine or have their ability to broadcast suspended for several weeks for their irresponsible story.

Now, that is fair and balanced!

And what penalty for the state run media that perpetuated the Whitehouse lieing points they issued???


You are reminding me more and more every day of the lunatic on the corner downtown preaching the end is near!!!!

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx13/tinfoilskeptic/End-is-near-785574.jpg

Franco
01-23-2013, 04:19 PM
A lunatic is one that can't reason, like you!

All the national media, including your beloved Fox News aired the information given to them by the White House regarding the protest as the reason for the attack.

Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself. Never did read on that thread where you were apologetic for your false accusations!

BTW, you may want to attempt some objective thinking for a change.

starjack
01-23-2013, 04:20 PM
There was a lot of misinformation that came from the White House in the days after the attack. Then, we had Fox News fabricating stories that troops in position to help were told to stand down. The whole affair demonstrated some of the worse media coverage/journalism in modern times. You had some media covering for Obama in the days leading up to the election and you had media making up stories to feed the frenzie like Fox News.

It appears simple to me. Hillary dropped the ball and four Americans were killed. Obama made Hillary Sec Of State. They should both share in the blame of not providing adequate security and Fox should face some sort of fine or have their ability to broadcast suspended for several weeks for their irresponsible story.

Now, that is fair and balanced!Video ring a bell???

Franco
01-23-2013, 04:25 PM
Video ring a bell???

Which video are you speaking of? Post it up.

huntinman
01-23-2013, 04:38 PM
A lunatic is one that can't reason, like you!

All the national media, including your beloved Fox News aired the information given to them by the White House regarding the protest as the reason for the attack.

Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself. Never did read on that thread where you were apologetic for your false accusations!

BTW, you may want to attempt some objective thinking for a change.

How do we know it was real... maybe there never was any clot... she sure is looking rested and fit as someone noted earlier... Maybe she was at a spa working on her facial features...

Franco
01-23-2013, 04:58 PM
How do we know it was real... maybe there never was any clot... she sure is looking rested and fit as someone noted earlier... Maybe she was at a spa working on her facial features...

And you believe your own statement. All the while according to your statement she had the doctor and hospital lie about her brain clot.

road kill
01-23-2013, 05:05 PM
A lunatic is one that can't reason, like you!

All the national media, including your beloved Fox News aired the information given to them by the White House regarding the protest as the reason for the attack.

Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself. Never did read on that thread where you were apologetic for your false accusations!
BTW, you may want to attempt some objective thinking for a change.
You find the post where I made that allegation, I will apologize for it.

And when you realize I never made such a post, you can apologize to me.

Standing bye............................................... .....

Gerry Clinchy
01-23-2013, 05:13 PM
Franco, if Fox made up the story about inaction on a rescue operation, they are still reporting the same:


Fox News has learned from senior U.S. defense officials that a FAST team of Marines out of Spain was asked by State Department officials to change out of their Marine uniforms after being asked to leave for Libya to help -- this required them to deplane and delayed them by about 90 minutes, according to Pentagon officials.

Then there is the decision by Clinton and State Department Undersecretary of Management Patrick Kennedy not to mobilize the Counterterrorism Security Group, which is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and makes recommendations on the response to crises involving terrorism.

Further, there are questions about the perceived delays CIA officials -- stationed in Benghazi -- encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi. It wasn't.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/clinton-denies-delay-in-benghazi-response-despite-accounts/#ixzz2Iq3tO7Wr

One of the decisions is attributed to Patrick Kennedy ... who made the other decisions.

In Hillary's own words:


"I directed our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government," she said. "No delays in decision-making. No denials of support from Washington or from our military."


If there were no denials of support from DC or the military, why was there no support? Somebody made a decision to act or not act. Who was responsible for making such a decision? Did those in DC let Obama sleep through all this? If so, who acted on his behalf? It seems that nobody knows who is responsible for such a decision. Doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about our security situation in an emergency.

starjack
01-23-2013, 05:29 PM
Which video are you speaking of? Post it up.For two weeks they kept saying iit was a video. They even made a commercial about IT just cant find it no where HUMMM.

Franco
01-23-2013, 05:33 PM
Franco, if Fox made up the story about inaction on a rescue operation, they are still reporting the same:

One of the decisions is attributed to Patrick Kennedy ... who made the other decisions.

In Hillary's own words:

If there were no denials of support from DC or the military, why was there no support? Somebody made a decision to act or not act. Who was responsible for making such a decision? Did those in DC let Obama sleep through all this? If so, who acted on his behalf? It seems that nobody knows who is responsible for such a decision. Doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about our security situation in an emergency.

Well, tomorrow she goes before the house and they won't be as gentle as the Senate. Lets see if any of this comes up in the questioning.
You do know that the story of troops being told to stand down has been denied by an active General and various intellegence agencies?

Franco
01-23-2013, 05:37 PM
For two weeks they kept saying iit was a video. They even made a commercial about IT just cant find it no where HUMMM.

All the major media aired that false story including Fox. Hillary gave some poor excuses today as to why they thought it had to be about the anti-Islam video. I am not Hillary fan, but I do believe in an open mind and fairness to all and I certainly do NOT think that everything coming from the major news outlets, especially Fox and MSNBC to be accurate!

starjack
01-23-2013, 06:17 PM
All the major media aired that false story including Fox. Hillary gave some poor excuses today as to why they thought it had to be about the anti-Islam video. I am not Hillary fan, but I do believe in an open mind and fairness to all and I certainly do NOT think that everything coming from the major news outlets, especially Fox and MSNBC to be accurate!Yes that is true they both said about the video but it was fox backing off and brought it to the peoples attion that it was not the video and the lame stream just kept hammering it was. All up to the election mum was the word. Now you have hillary being coached by the best her hubby. BTW She is doing a bang up job and we will never know the truth just to cover there political A$$ES. But 4 dead americans can just get swept under the rug and thats OK.

Franco
01-23-2013, 07:03 PM
Yes that is true they both said about the video but it was fox backing off and brought it to the peoples attion that it was not the video and the lame stream just kept hammering it was. All up to the election mum was the word. Now you have hillary being coached by the best her hubby. BTW She is doing a bang up job and we will never know the truth just to cover there political A$$ES. But 4 dead americans can just get swept under the rug and thats OK.

You may want to checkout Media Matters, an independent media watchdog often quoted by Fox. All the media backed off of the video about the same time when it became obvious that it wasn't about the video. No heads rolled when our government sent several thousand to their deaths when no WMD's were found and I doubt heads will roll on this one. It is the way both the Dems and Repubs operate. Just as no heads rolled when the Repubs and Dems let many Wall ST executives walk with trillions and made the tax payer cover the thef.

road kill
01-23-2013, 07:46 PM
You find the post where I made that allegation, I will apologize for it.

And when you realize I never made such a post, you can apologize to me.

Standing bye............................................... .....

I am waiting.................

Franco
01-23-2013, 07:59 PM
I am waiting.................

I revived those threads and highlighted the cheap shots. I was waiting for you to hide behind semantics.

road kill
01-23-2013, 08:21 PM
Franco, you are just plain FULL OF CRAP!!!

Everyone knows it.

Aa a matter of semantics, I never said this.
"Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself."

You accused me of saying something, I NEVER SAID, and accuse me of hiding behind semantics.

Pathetic.

Raymond Little
01-23-2013, 08:29 PM
Hillary is a...........rhymes with RUNT.

Franco
01-23-2013, 08:50 PM
Franco, you are just plain FULL OF CRAP!!!

Everyone knows it.

Aa a matter of semantics, I never said this.
"Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself."

You accused me of saying something, I NEVER SAID, and accuse me of hiding behind semantics.

Pathetic.

The truth too much for you? Do you really think people can control the TIMING of when they get blood clots in the brain?

I noticed how you've stayed away from those threads that I revived. But, I will admit that your comments weren't as hateful as some others.

I don't care for Hillary either, but I wouldn't stoop to the lowness of some of those comments, others worse than yours. I for one am not afraid to call a spade a spade and I see the ugly in both the Dems and the Repubs! To think that one is better than the other is folly!

P S

I'll interpret the personal attacks as your lack of being able to defend your comments.;-)

Gerry Clinchy
01-23-2013, 09:44 PM
You do know that the story of troops being told to stand down has been denied by an active General and various intellegence agencies?
Let's make it simpler ... An American ambassador is being attacked. Some former SEALs try to help him. Have they refuted the story that the SEALs were told NOT to go the aid of the ambassador?

The SEALs call for immediate support. I don't think anyone has denied that they asked for support, have they? Who is responsible for deciding that support is not sent?

The CIA has said they sent messages within an hour (or 1/2 hour?) of the attack beginning. Hillary has said that she was in touch with the crisis all night, throughout govt. If there were no delays, exactly what were they doing during the time that this was going on? I could make a vulgar suggestion here, but I won't. Were they just watching the live video feed saying, "OMG, OMG,"? There can be no question that there should be protocols in place for situations like this that should have had a "rescue" operation in action automatically; or at the very least at a "go" command from the right person (whoever that may be; we don't know).

If she was also in touch with the Libyan govt, and there were no delays or denials, then the obfuscation of needing Libyan approval for a rescue should be a moot point.

There is also no question that there is support at Sigonella ... but it wasn't used. That doesn't even address the question of why Stevens went to Benghazi anyhow. He knew it wasn't safe, even if Hillary insists she didn't know that since she didn't receive any of the requests for additional security. One would have to be pretty far out in left field not to know that the place was dangerous given the Libyan chaos.

There is really no way to cover the odor coming from this steaming mess ... that is for those who know that Ben Gazi is not the name of the guy who made an offensive video.

Franco
01-23-2013, 10:26 PM
Gerry, I was watching Fox News earlier tonight just because of your post regading that Fox was still suggesting that troops were avialable in a timely manner to rescue. I was expecting to hear on Fox why these questions were not asked of Hillary today. Well, O'Reilly was talking about Byonce lip syncing her song and that was all I could take so I switched channels.

Didn't the two Seals in the area try to rescue the ambassador and were killed?

Wasn't it stated that there was no one that could have gotten to the scene in a timely manner?

Hillary screwed up, what's new? Could be why she has resigned as SOS.

Stevens was asking for additional security since mid-August and was denied.



Fox is alleging one thing and the State Dept is saying another. Hopefully, the truth will come out. In matters of Foreign Affairs, the truth seldom does.

Rand brought up an interesting subject today with the question of whether arms were being smuggled out of Libya to Turkey destined for Syria and that is why Ambassador Stevens was there. Surely Hillary would know the answer to that but she said she didn't know anything about it.

We can all speculate but, the public doesn't have nearly the information that the State Dept and Congressmen have. Lets just hope they do their jobs in this investigation. But like so many government scandels, they get swept under the rug because of a kind of gentlemen's agreement between the two parties in matter like this and much of the investigation is nothing more than a sharade. They know that the public loses interest the more it drags on.

JDogger
01-23-2013, 11:20 PM
Franco, you are just plain FULL OF CRAP!!!

Everyone knows it.

Aa a matter of semantics, I never said this.
"Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself."

You accused me of saying something, I NEVER SAID, and accuse me of hiding behind semantics.

Pathetic.

"I have my doubts as to the legitamcy and timing of all of this," RK 12-31-12


Hmmm....did someone just overdraw their RTF account?


''But I don't like mean people.
So I now have 2 on ignore.
They are both very negative and flat out mean.
I have never seen a positive post from either of them on any subject....EVER!!!

In the bank account known as the "RTF," some folks are seriously "overdrawn."

Dayum, where did I read that?:-P

Gerry Clinchy
01-23-2013, 11:34 PM
Franco, yes the two SEALs were with the CIA in the nearby CIA compound. It was reported that they wanted to assist, but were told not to. They went anyhow, and were credited with getting some of the others at the consultate out of danger.

Sigonella is only about an hour away by air. Surely the SEALs were aware of the logistics for the support they needed. They would have known that it could be made available to them ... as long as someone gave the "go" order. There must have been communication from the CIA compound, since the CIA send a message to DC shortly after the whole thing started.

And the timeline says the firefight went on for something like 6 or 7 hours. If rescue had been dispatched from Sigonella immediately, an hour away, some of those four might have been saved. Could it be that someone didn't want anyone left alive who knew the details?

What happened to those others who escaped the consultate? They were taken away, and we've heard nothing about those survivors. Who were they? What could they tell us?

None of the perps have been found. More incompetence, or more cover-up?

We know for a fact that there were requests for additional security. For no one to take any action on that is, alone, an indictment of incompetency. If Stevens was considered such an expert on the area, why would they ignore his advice?


I think that dragging this out till the public loses interest has exactly been the plan. Unlike Watergate, there are no investigative reporters to be outraged; or with the courage to dig out the truth. It seems that politics has gotten even dirtier since Nixon, since now the media has become a party to it as well.

It occurs to me that the Clintons have their own definitions for common words. So, it is consistent to believe that Hillary has some convoluted definition of denials or delays, just as Willie has his own definition of sex.

JDogger
01-23-2013, 11:49 PM
Franco, yes the two SEALs were with the CIA in the nearby CIA compound. It was reported that they wanted to assist, but were told not to. They went anyhow, and were credited with getting some of the others at the consultate out of danger.

Sigonella is only about an hour away by air. Surely the SEALs were aware of the logistics for the support they needed. They would have known that it could be made available to them ... as long as someone gave the "go" order. There must have been communication from the CIA compound, since the CIA send a message to DC shortly after the whole thing started.

And the timeline says the firefight went on for something like 6 or 7 hours. If rescue had been dispatched from Sigonella immediately, an hour away, some of those four might have been saved. Could it be that someone didn't want anyone left alive who knew the details?

What happened to those others who escaped the consultate? They were taken away, and we've heard nothing about those survivors. Who were they? What could they tell us?

None of the perps have been found. More incompetence, or more cover-up?

We know for a fact that there were requests for additional security. For no one to take any action on that is, alone, an indictment of incompetency. If Stevens was considered such an expert on the area, why would they ignore his advice?


I think that dragging this out till the public loses interest has exactly been the plan. Unlike Watergate, there are no investigative reporters to be outraged; or with the courage to dig out the truth. It seems that politics has gotten even dirtier since Nixon, since now the media has become a party to it as well.

It occurs to me that the Clintons have their own definitions for common words. So, it is consistent to believe that Hillary has some convoluted definition of denials or delays, just as Willie has his own definition of sex.

It seems you make a lot of assumptions based on information gleaned from the internet. Is your date a french model? Bon Jour.

HPL
01-23-2013, 11:51 PM
I really don't get why we didn't have either F-15's or F-18's screaming at supersonic speeds at treetop level over Benghazi. If there were F-18's in Sigonella, that's only 460 miles or about 20 minutes at high speed for an F-18 although I don't know how long they can go that fast.

JDogger
01-24-2013, 12:26 AM
I really don't get why we didn't have either F-15's or F-18's screaming at supersonic speeds at treetop level over Benghazi. If there were F-18's in Sigonella, that's only 460 miles or about 20 minutes at high speed for an F-18 although I don't know how long they can go that fast.

Aircraft are not always a good response to a small firefight.

Was it a good idea to have an open consulate in Benghazi? Or a large international staff in a NG facility in Algeria? We have diplomatic and private industry staff placed around the globe. Is it possible to forsee every contingency and event? I don't believe so. I think that we do the best we can, but events will sometimes happen beyond our control.
Imagine yourself as a middle level intelligence analyst in the CIA or the NSA? Thousands of reports of intelligence cross hundreds of desks in a day. What do you pass upward? What do you give credence to? Intelligence failures happen (9-11...). Not every bit of intelligence is passed on to the SOS or the POTUS. The people working those desks are just like you and me. Prone to failures.
Was it unfortunate that the events in Libya and Algeria unfolded as they did? YES! The world is a risky place.

You can make judgements about the people who do the shadow jobs, but put yourself in their place. Your condemnation of the SOS and the POTUS, is condemnation of them, and they are much like you and me.

Making such events political does not serve us well. JD

aandw
01-24-2013, 09:10 AM
[QUOTE=JDogger;1059485]Aircraft are not always a good response to a small firefight.

it would have been better than they got. i agree people make mistakes and it is easy to condemn now. but once it started there should have been no holds barred, do whatever needs to be done. if there was collateral damage, too bad. if the attitude was we can't save them anyway, then kill as many of them as possible in the process.

road kill
01-24-2013, 09:20 AM
Franco, you are just plain FULL OF CRAP!!!

Everyone knows it.

Aa a matter of semantics, I never said this.
"Maybe you should go back to accusing Hillary of inflicting that concussion and brain blood clot on herself."

You accused me of saying something, I NEVER SAID, and accuse me of hiding behind semantics.

Pathetic.

Franco, my apologies for saying you're full of crap.
That was out of line.

I NEVER said she self inflicted her leg/brain clot!!!

huntinman
01-24-2013, 10:18 AM
Aircraft are not always a good response to a small firefight.

Was it a good idea to have an open consulate in Benghazi? Or a large international staff in a NG facility in Algeria? We have diplomatic and private industry staff placed around the globe. Is it possible to forsee every contingency and event? I don't believe so. I think that we do the best we can, but events will sometimes happen beyond our control.
Imagine yourself as a middle level intelligence analyst in the CIA or the NSA? Thousands of reports of intelligence cross hundreds of desks in a day. What do you pass upward? What do you give credence to? Intelligence failures happen (9-11...). Not every bit of intelligence is passed on to the SOS or the POTUS. The people working those desks are just like you and me. Prone to failures.
Was it unfortunate that the events in Libya and Algeria unfolded as they did? YES! The world is a risky place.

You can make judgements about the people who do the shadow jobs, but put yourself in their place. Your condemnation of the SOS and the POTUS, is condemnation of them, and they are much like you and me.

Making such events political does not serve us well. JD

You may be like them, but I don't think I am and I don't think the "average" American is anything like these power hungry jerks that go into public office as average Joes and become multi-millionaires... Lavishing themselves with every perk, while telling us we need to cut back... At the same time they are increasing our taxes. They surround themselves with armed guards, but want to take our guns. (To keep us safe).

No they are not like me.

Franco
01-24-2013, 01:09 PM
Franco, my apologies for saying you're full of crap.
That was out of line.

I NEVER said she self inflicted her leg/brain clot!!!

First of all, you accuse me of more than just being full of crap. Second, questioning the legitamacy of the timing of the brain blood clot is the same. I don't care for Hillary either but I didn't participate in the two threads that consisted of cheap shots at Hillary.

No need in apologizing to me as long as we can ALL keep it above board.

Peace out,

helencalif
01-24-2013, 01:10 PM
What happened to those others who escaped the consulate? They were taken away, and we've heard nothing about those survivors. Who were they? What could they tell us?

None of the perps have been found. More incompetence, or more cover-up?.

Gerry,

You have made some excellent points in your posts. While there are so many unanswered questions, I am focusing on these two.

1. Congress has asked, but has not been told, how many survivors, where they are, or who they are. It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the White House do not want them interviewed. We can only speculate as to what the survivors might be able to tell. My questions would be ... who was at the safe house and what was it being used for? Why was the ambassador at Benghazi ?

2. 4 months later and only 1 person was apprehended (in Tunisia) and he was let go by the Tunisians.

Helen

1/27/13 I changed my avatar. Now I am using a photo of Don with our Flyway's Long Tall Sally.

Gerry Clinchy
01-24-2013, 09:25 PM
It seems you make a lot of assumptions based on information gleaned from the internet. Is your date a french model? Bon Jour.
The SEALs died at the compound. They were assigned to the CIA annex. I believe that has been well-documented from many sources.

I try to be polite to everyone on this Forum. If your comment was meant to be an insult to my intelligence, I commend you on your success.

JDogger
01-24-2013, 11:32 PM
The SEALs died at the compound. They were assigned to the CIA annex. I believe that has been well-documented from many sources.

I try to be polite to everyone on this Forum. If your comment was meant to be an insult to my intelligence, I commend you on your success.

They were not SEALS working for their country under orders. They were FORMER seals working as contract labor for a foreign security company for MONEY. They knew and understood the risks. Chris Stevens knew and understood the risks he took by being in the frontlines of the Diplomatic community. He chose that path. Please do not belittle any of these men. They were there doing what they chose to do. No one let them down. Your understanding of frontline intelligence and responces is lacking. Have you ever served in a similar situation?
I did not imply an insult to your intelligence. Merely a challenge to your first hand experience in situations such as Bengahzi.
BTW nothing in regards to Bengahzi has been well documented. Hence my comment with regards to relying on information gleaned from the internet. JD

Gerry Clinchy
01-25-2013, 12:58 AM
They were not SEALS working for their country under orders. They were FORMER seals working as contract labor for a foreign security company for MONEY. They knew and understood the risks.

I stand corrected. I did know they were "former" SEALS. In spite of the fact that they were no longer military personnel, they went to the aid of their fellow Americans in danger. I have no doubt they understood the risks.


Chris Stevens knew and understood the risks he took by being in the frontlines of the Diplomatic community. He chose that path. Please do not belittle any of these men.

I do not belittle these men in any way. I don't know how you got such an implication from any of my posts. Stevens was a civilian. He knew the risks, but he also had asked for additional security. He persevered in spite of having his requests go unanswered. All indications are that his requests were made. No one has refuted that the requests were made.


They were there doing what they chose to do. No one let them down.

I respectfully disagree. Every ambassador should expect his govt to provide adequate security. Even Hillary has admitted that the State Department had failings in this, and steps have been taken to rectify those failings. To me that says that somebody did, indeed, let Stevens down.

Your understanding of frontline intelligence and responces is lacking. Have you ever served in a similar situation?

No, I have not.

However, I find it impossible to believe that our govt/military/State Dept. does not have protocols in place for situations like this. If they don't, then it is a gross oversight. If they do, and those protocols did not function, that is just as bad, or worse. I do not have this frontline experience, but why is it not fair to expect that those in charge should have such experience? Surely they were aware of the unstable situation in the area around Benghazi?


I did not imply an insult to your intelligence.

Could of fooled me.

Merely a challenge to your first hand experience in situations such as Bengahzi.
BTW nothing in regards to Bengahzi has been well documented.

There has been testimony from officials that could be considered "documentation" ... like the record of requests for more security, and the CIA messages that credited the incident to an AQ-related group within an hour (or half-hour) of the beginning of the incident. The only response to that testimony was that there was too much email traffic for those messages to get to the SOS. To my knowledge, that testimony has not been refuted or denied. Hillary's only response has been that the messages did not get to her.

Hence my comment with regards to relying on information gleaned from the internet. JD

I believe that there are documented facts. One of the State Dept. officials who testified actually provided a map of the compound and notation that the intruders never entered the "safe room". Quite a lot of detail was given. Everyone has now stated that there was no "spontaneous demonstration" as a result of the obscure video.

As for getting facts from the Internet ... fewer and fewer people read news in print anymore. Broadcast news, newsprint, and internet are the way most of us get most of our news information. It can take sifting through it to find what things are unsubstantiated.

I am still wondering where the other survivors of Benghazi are ... the two former SEALS were not the only ones at the CIA annex. There were Libyan militia who were supposed to be protecting the ambassador's compound.

JD, do you really believe that there was no incompetence and/or cover-up in this whole affair? Now, Hillary and the administration are saying that AQ and/or related groups are far from "defeated" ... yet they didn't know this on Sept. 11? If that is true, then the intelligence network is really pretty bad. Personally, I think they did know, but didn't want to interfere with the campaign that was trumpeting that AQ was in retreat.

huntinman
01-25-2013, 08:01 AM
They were not SEALS working for their country under orders. They were FORMER seals working as contract labor for a foreign security company for MONEY. They knew and understood the risks. Chris Stevens knew and understood the risks he took by being in the frontlines of the Diplomatic community. He chose that path. Please do not belittle any of these men. They were there doing what they chose to do. No one let them down. Your understanding of frontline intelligence and responces is lacking. Have you ever served in a similar situation?
I did not imply an insult to your intelligence. Merely a challenge to your first hand experience in situations such as Bengahzi.
BTW nothing in regards to Bengahzi has been well documented. Hence my comment with regards to relying on information gleaned from the internet. JD

1. They were let down all right. By the very govt that sent them there and denied them security and then ignored their pleas for help.

2. Nothing has been well documented because your political heroes choose to give the American people the Proverbial Middle Finger. (See Hillary Clinton's clot impudent "testimony" before Senate and Congress)

Gerry Clinchy
01-25-2013, 02:54 PM
Documentation:


But just to be clear, Clinton lied and is still lying.

When asked about the claim that the attack was sparked by a protest over a video, she responded, "I did not say ... that it was about the video for Libya."

That's simply untrue. When she stood by the caskets of the four Americans killed in Libya, she directly blamed an "awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." Afterward, she reportedly told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, "We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." Why tell the man that if the video had nothing to do with it?

This happens to be from Townhall today, but the father of one of the former SEALs attested to it publicly, as I recall.

Wouldn't this, alone, be considered perjury in front of the Congressional Committee?

It's been a while since I have viewed the ad she did for ME distribution about the insulting video story, so I don't remember if the wording artfully avoided direct mention of Benghazi ... but she certainly did apologize for the video. It might have been carefully worded to appear to refer only to the attack on the embassy in Egypt. That ad was aired after they had ample time to determine that the video was not the cause of the Benghazi event.

huntinman
01-25-2013, 02:58 PM
Documentation:


This happens to be from Townhall today, but the father of one of the former SEALs attested to it publicly, as I recall.

Wouldn't this, alone, be considered perjury in front of the Congressional Committee?

It's been a while since I have viewed the ad she did for ME distribution about the insulting video story, so I don't remember if the wording artfully avoided direct mention of Benghazi ... but she certainly did apologize for the video. It might have been carefully worded to appear to refer only to the attack on the embassy in Egypt. That ad was aired after they had ample time to determine that the video was not the cause of the Benghazi event.

Everything that either of the Clintons say is "artfully worded"... What does it matter?

Gerry Clinchy
01-25-2013, 03:23 PM
Documented:

Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler's veto on what Americans can do or say.

Hillary was part of this administration. By the time Obama made his appearance at the UN, and again mentioned the video (which even the President of Libya called a ridiculous story), if she really had any honor, how could she stay affiliated with a POTUS who could say: "The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohammed."? Truthfully, I was stunned by that statement (for which there is ample documentation). By then, she KNEW, and Obama knew, that the video was not relevant to much of anything.

The Constitution states that the govt shall not establish a religion or prevent free exercise of religion ... so why didn't his words, instead, refer to slandering any (or all) "faiths" ... that would include Jewish and Christian, as well as many other faiths who might claim smaller numbers of adherents; even atheists. The Constitution protects ALL faiths, not just Islam. If there are members of the UN who are Hindu or Buddhist, they should be just as offended by such a statement as Jews and Christians. If they are Coptic Christians in the ME countries where they are persecuted, they should be absolutely appalled and frightened by such a statement from an American President.

Is it a coincidence that the same Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion also guarantees free speech? Maybe not a coincidence in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 06:33 PM
Buzz, this is from American Thinker. I've quoted what appears to be factual stuff.


...why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi. The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

...an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver. On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Obama's answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing. The most damaging part of Obama's evasive answer (http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-begs-off-answering-whether-americans-benghazi-223110979--abc-news-politics.html) is this:

... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.

This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar. The president says here that immediately, "the minute I found out what was happening," he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do "whatever we need to."

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done. We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room. Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down. He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.
Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too "risky" to send in reinforcements or air cover. It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done. The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily. All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi. And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn't happen. No one believes that; the president is lying. He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to "secure our personnel" and "do whatever we need to do."
We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate. The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi. A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:
No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/).

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e4W1LDSs5X4#%21) during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.
On October 18, General Ham resigned.
Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do "whatever we need to."

Panetta admitted we did nothing. He says the military had the readiness and capability to help. He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding "to any contingency."

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed. He says the top leadership of our military didn't want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm's way. It was too risky. Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama's supposed directives to do "whatever we need to" to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack.

"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.
Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support.

Panetta's statement that we didn't have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible. We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail. We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest. When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations?

Max Boot writes in Commentary:

Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/26/more-evidence-of-the-administrations-failure-in-benghazi/), especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.
We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if President Obama had given orders to do so. There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead. The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests. They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended. This is what Navy SEALs do. We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy. According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available. Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.
If there weren't a manned drone and a gunship sent out -- it was now six hours into the battle -- that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary. If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances.

Bing West (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/26/more-evidence-of-the-administrations-failure-in-benghazi/), a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331125/first-aid-living-bing-west) a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. "Stationed at Sigonella," he notes, "were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft - a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy."
President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to." It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_chose_to_let_them_die_in_benghazi.html#i xzz2J7sbNuRU


Yet, Hillary was never informed of what was going on? It's not clear when POTUS was informed. He only states, "The minute I found out ..." No time of when that was. After it was over? Within a 1/2 hr of when it began? It should be easy to document the timing at the WH, shouldn't it?

Marvin S
01-26-2013, 07:32 PM
I try to be polite to everyone on this Forum. If your comment was meant to be an insult to my intelligence, I commend you on your success.

I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.


Aircraft are not always a good response to a small firefight.

Was it a good idea to have a basically unguarded open consulate in Benghazi? Or a large international staff in a NG facility in Algeria? We have diplomatic and private industry staff placed around the globe. Is it possible to forsee every contingency and event?

Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).

JDogger
01-26-2013, 11:08 PM
I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.



Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations

I'll leave you to do your own research.

In conclusion, I'll state that I believe IRT Benghazi we will never know with certainty...Were there mistakes made that night....? Yes. Were there mistakes made afterward...? Yes.
Was there a conspiracy and cover-up... No. SH** happens. The world is a dangerous place. It's not likely to get any better any time soon. JD

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 11:20 PM
You may be like them, but I don't think I am and I don't think the "average" American is anything like these power hungry jerks that go into public office as average Joes and become multi-millionaires... Lavishing themselves with every perk, while telling us we need to cut back... At the same time they are increasing our taxes. They surround themselves with armed guards, but want to take our guns. (To keep us safe).

No they are not like me.

Bill, I think he meant that the people working in the intelligence dept were just like us ... not the POTUS and SOS.

JDogger
01-26-2013, 11:25 PM
Bill, I think he meant that the people working in the intelligence dept were just like us ... not the POTUS and SOS.

Thank you!

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 11:30 PM
I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.



Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).
To add to this, again from American Thinker, Marine General James Mattis is being fired. According to a Pentagon reporter, Tom Ricks, this is because Mattis is insisting on complete contingency planning.

I think we have to believe that if Tyrone Woods thought air support would not be useful, he wouldn't have been laser painting the target for what he believed would be an armed drone. He was the one with boots on the ground.

Marvin, being polite does not mean befriending ... I even am polite to my ex :-)

Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 11:38 PM
Buzz, the intelligence people may have only been a scapegoat. We know that the CIA sent a timely message calling the incident a terrorist attack ... but we didn't know that until much later, from testimony before the Congressional Committee. DC did not deny that such a message came from the CIA ... but that it "got lost" in the volume of incoming messages. It would appear that the sender of the message was competent, but whoever was supposed to read those messages was much less so.

JDogger
01-27-2013, 12:03 AM
Buzz, the intelligence people may have only been a scapegoat. We know that the CIA sent a timely message calling the incident a terrorist attack ... but we didn't know that until much later, from testimony before the Congressional Committee. DC did not deny that such a message came from the CIA ... but that it "got lost" in the volume of incoming messages. It would appear that the sender of the message was competent, but whoever was supposed to read those messages was much less so.

Gerry, I don't see where Buzz has ever posted in this thread. I do agree with you, however that the thousands of messages sent within the intelligence community sometimes get lost or misinterpreted. Much the same happens within the news reporting community. It is unfortunate that much information is dissiminated before it is substantiated. Then it gains legs of its own, and is repeated often enough to appear as true. One of the risks of our internet 24 hour news cycle, blogs, and just outright disinformation is the repeating of stories and theories. We distrust our government and distrust our news sources as well.
Where do we go? JD

Gerry Clinchy
01-27-2013, 01:11 AM
Gerry, I don't see where Buzz has ever posted in this thread.

You're right ... my mistake there.

I do agree with you, however that the thousands of messages sent within the intelligence community sometimes get lost or misinterpreted.

I have to think that they have some kind of prioritization system to separate out the routine from the urgent; and 9/11 has been a higher alert date ever since the original attack.

Much the same happens within the news reporting community. It is unfortunate that much information is dissiminated before it is substantiated. Then it gains legs of its own, and is repeated often enough to appear as true. One of the risks of our internet 24 hour news cycle, blogs, and just outright disinformation is the repeating of stories and theories. We distrust our government and distrust our news sources as well.
Where do we go? JD
I think that we have to actually pay attention to things as Helen did by listening to the actual testimony, public statements that are not adulterated.

I would grant that govt statements would have some duty to protect "assets" in the intelligence community.

I think it is reasonable that there are some weapons out there from Gadafi's "collection" that have gotten into the hands of AQ & its affiliates. That would be unintended consequences of US assistance in ousting Gadafi.

Perhaps the more disappointing thing is that the Inauguration Speech does not indicate that policies that have not worked in four years will not be "recalibrated" to account for what hasn't worked.

Just read about $120 million in Medicare fraud of payments that went to prisoners and illegals (who are NOT eligible for those programs) ... and an admission that there was no mechanism to detect this fraud in time to prevent the payments being made & no mechanism to get the $ back. Now they're going to work on it. In the latter scam, no services were ever rendered, just fraudulent claims submitted. Newt's suggestion of turning this high-tech stuff over to American Express seems more attractive in the face of this report. Too bad they didn't take IBM's offer to give that free software to the govt four years ago. We'd be $120 million less in the hole ... and more, since this was just one small area of fraud.

I once had one of my credit card #s lifted from a receipt; some years ago before the new electronic readers ... there were about $1000 of fraudulent purchases when the CC company called me to make sure they were not my purchases. The card # had already been refused at a 5th location. Private sector has done a good job on stuff like that since it is their own $ at stake. Govt has no skin in the game, so to speak.