# consulate in Benghazi



## seasoned (Oct 21, 2012)

US slow to react...........


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_watched_as_terror_raged_AypAEEA9OK23rPf7Z5BHWO


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 21, 2012)

I'm beyond furious about the entire affair.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be removed from her post at the minimum over this.

When the Marine barracks was blown up in Lebanon, President Reagan immediately stepped up and took responsibility for our strategic errors, although they happened at a variety of levels that did not involve him personally.  That was correct; as the Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with him.

When this event happened, at first the Secretary of State refused to even talk about it in public.  Then she denied all responsibility and apparently lied about what requests had been made by the Libyan consulate regarding security.  Only now, as it begins to rub off on President Obama, does she step up and fall on her sword.  Too little, too late.

It appears that this Administration does nothing but shift blame for everything to someone or something else.  Name one time that our current President or any of his Cabinet or heads of various departments have said "THAT IS MY FAULT, I MESSED UP." Name one.  Nobody does anything wrong, and if bad things happen, it's someone else's fault.

That is the dysfunctional federal government we have today.  Incompetent, liars, obfuscators, and scape-goaters of the first water.  They disgust me.


----------



## seasoned (Oct 21, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm beyond furious about the entire affair.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be removed from her post at the minimum over this.



I'm with you on this one, Bill. As a whole she has been very active as Secretary of State, but should not draw a pass on this one.



> When the Marine barracks was blown up in Lebanon, President Reagan immediately stepped up and took responsibility for our strategic errors, although they happened at a variety of levels that did not involve him personally.  That was correct; as the Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with him.



This *is *what Commander in Chief is all about. "The one in charge". 



> When this event happened, at first the Secretary of State refused to even talk about it in public.  Then she denied all responsibility and apparently lied about what requests had been made by the Libyan consulate regarding security.  Only now, as it begins to rub off on President Obama, does she step up and fall on her sword.  Too little, too late.



I heard her make a comment about not running in 2016, and also perhaps dropping out of politics altogether after the Secretary job.



> It appears that this Administration does nothing but shift blame for everything to someone or something else.  Name one time that our current President or any of his Cabinet or heads of various departments have said "THAT IS MY FAULT, I MESSED UP." Name one.  Nobody does anything wrong, and if bad things happen, it's someone else's fault.



Agreed



> That is the dysfunctional federal government we have today.  Incompetent, liars, obfuscation, and scape-goaters of the first water.  They disgust me.



And agreed


----------



## seasoned (Oct 21, 2012)

I guess my question for anyone interested would be, how do you think the investigation is going? 




> Libyan guards at the Benghazi compound and other witnesses told journalists working for The New York Times as early as Sept. 12 that the streets outside the mission were quiet in the moments before the attack had begun, without any prior protests.




Some insight below
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 22, 2012)

http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=629942

Hehehehe.  "The Benghazi attacks were because of the video..."  Just keep saying it...


----------



## seasoned (Oct 22, 2012)

I can't wait until tonight for the debates. 

The next best thing is to try and convince the country that none of it happened, or, if it did happen, some how it was the US fault.


----------



## billc (Oct 22, 2012)

Apparently, Chris Mathew's still believes it is "...All about the video..." as he makes fun of a Romney supporter...in the embedded video...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-sh...porter-benghazi-was-all-youtube-video-read-ne



> Going around the rope line at the bottom of his 7 p.m. Eastern edition of Monday's _Hardball _to ask folks whom they are supporting in the presidential race, Chris Matthews found a young man who said he was backing Romney because, unlike Obama, "he doesn't cover up scandals in the Middle East."
> "What was the scandal? Get to it, nail it, what was the scandal?!" Matthews rudely barked at the Romney backer. Upon the young Romney supporter answering that he was referring to Benghazi and the administration's early dogged insistence that the fiasco was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video, Matthews barked back (emphasis mine), "Yeah, *it was about the video. Read the newspaper.* Thank you. *Everybody* *knows* it's about the video. *It's all about the video.*" [video follows page break]



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-sh...i-was-all-youtube-video-read-ne#ixzz2A5iaCVIv


----------



## billc (Oct 26, 2012)

New information on the attack...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/26/breaking-fox-news-reports-cia-command-refused-to-help-benghazi-consulate-during-attack/




> Fox News&#8217; Jennifer Griffin  now reports that the CIA got at least three requests for support from  the annex in the city to help fend off the attack &#8212; and that the chain  of command not only refused the requests, but ordered its personnel to  &#8220;stand down.&#8221;  Two of the Americans killed in the terrorist attack  disobeyed orders and attempted to rescue their fellow Americans:





> Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small  team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate  where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they  heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell  them what they were hearing. They were told to &#8220;stand down,&#8221; according  to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again  to headquarters and were again told to &#8220;stand down.&#8221;
> 
> Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made  their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were  exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those  who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the  initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the  CIA annex at about midnight.
> At that point, they called again for military support and help  because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The  request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex,  according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio  contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the  team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when  mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser  on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support  from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special  Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the  ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex  went on for more than four hours &#8212; enough time for any planes based in  Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also  learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told  to wait, among them Delta Force operators.





> It&#8217;s not as if there was no resources to respond, either:
> 
> A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for  Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved  to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second  force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at  Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources.  According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less  than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that  were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the  Special Operations community to provide close air support.
> ​


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

You will notice that President Obama's supporters are going silent now that new information is coming out.  It's clear that the Administration lied, obfuscated, and foot-dragged, in addition to flat-out blowing it with regard to events leading up to the attack in Benghazi.  They ignored pleas for help from the Embassy itself, they watched the attacks take place LIVE on TV via drones as it was happening, and they did nothing; then they stalled and lied that it was due to some other cause.

Frankly, I think if it was not a week before the election, say mid-cycle, we'd be talking impeachment hearings.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/intern...rs_were_denied_request_nrrlX4LgmkNPh1xjhzte7L



> Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
> At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by US Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.



SPECOP's personnel have started coming forward saying that an attack on an embassy would have gone IMMEDIATELY to the WH situation room and military HQ at AFRICOM would have known and "Should have" deployed forces on their standing orders...orders that appear to have been countermanded by someone. Either the President himself or some quibbling 4 star who was more worried about his career than being a warrior for our country.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/...at-the-president-is-lying-about-benghazi.html



> Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
> 
> One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target.  That means that Specter WAS ON STATION!  Probably an AC130U.  A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser.  You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
> 
> ...



This should be a scandal of Watergate proportions IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

I dont give a **** what you think about Rush..you need to listen to what this caller is saying.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...ackup-benghazi-were-repeatedly-denied/58419/#

The CIA is not someone to throw under the bus....



> &#8220;We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.  Moreover, no one at any level* in the CIA* told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night&#8212;and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.&#8221;


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

This thing is unfolding even now.  Getting worse for President Obama.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ns-in-benghazi-were-denied-requests-for-help/



> Oct 26, 2012 6:31pm
> President Obama Begs Off Answering Whether Americans in Benghazi Were Denied Requests for Help
> In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he&#8217;s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong.
> After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it&#8217;s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won&#8217;t be released until after the election, the president said, &#8220;the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.&#8221;
> ...



No, Mister President.  You said exactly what happened.  You said it was a reaction to a Youtube video.  Your Administration insisted on it.  You had a narrative and you maintained it until it fell apart, now you're saying something else.  That's called 'lying' Mister President.

And the Democrats will not stand up for you on this.  They will not dare.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

Even the New York Times has thrown Obama under the bus.  It's over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/o...ystery-of-benghazi.html?_r=2&ref=rossdouthat&



> When Mitt Romney reacted to the attack with a partisan broadside, portraying a news release sent out by the Cairo embassy before any violence began as a White House apology to the attackers, the presidents path forward seemed clear. He would be disciplined and careful, show anger and steel but also coolness under pressure, and let the rally-round-the-flag effect do its natural work.
> 
> What happened instead was very strange. Having first repudiated the embassys apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the Obama administration decided to embrace that apologys premise, and insist that the movie was the crucial ingredient in the Sept. 11 anniversary violence.
> 
> ...



And where have all the Obama supporters gone all of a sudden?  I think it's safe to say they're not exactly rushing in to 'correct' this 'misinformation' here.  Hmmm?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And where have all the Obama supporters gone all of a sudden?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

Still developing...Panetta has been ordered to fall on his sword now...

http://world.time.com/2012/10/26/panetta-us-lacked-early-info-on-benghazi-attack/



> Panetta: US Lacked Early Info on Benghazi Attack
> 
> By Associated PressOct. 26, 2012
> As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.
> ...



Lies.  We're now being told that the Embassy asked again and again for help and were told 'no'.  We are being told that the White House watched the attack on live TV via drones watching it as it happened.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

http://www.9news.com/news/article/2...-on-Libya-attack?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large


Listen to this....pathetic.


----------



## billc (Oct 26, 2012)

Some questions...

What was the ambassador doing in Bhengazi, and who was he with before the attack?  Did the White House hesitate to provide assistance because they didn't want to draw attention to what was going on at the embassy?  Did they think the attack might not be a big deal since the consulate had been attacked twice before, and nothing bad came of it, and therefore sending in military aid might have brought undue attention to the consulate and what was going on there?  Yes, or no, did someone bring the attack to the President before he left for Las Vegas?  From what the caller on Rush described, this attack would have been top priority and would have gone to the State Department, the White House, the C.I.A. in langley, the African Command in the military, because anytime an ambassador is attacked it goes to the top of the chain of command.  Who knew, and who refused to send in help?

Keep in mind, Fox news and the conservative radio hosts are the ones actually investigating what happened in Bhengazi.  None of the other networks are pursuing what actually happened.  The washington post reporter on the Fox news round table on the Brett Bair show supported the White House line about not putting in help because they didn't know what was going on.

Imagine if a Republican was President and how different the coverage would be...


----------



## billc (Oct 26, 2012)

Just saw this...I was wondering where Patreus was on this...apparently he didn't refuse aid...who did?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/26/Petraeus-on-Benghazi-It-Wasnt-Me



> *Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus's denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist "would have been a presidential decision."*
> 
> Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were "happening."
> Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

This isn't a Fox news story anymore.  What started as a typical-sounding rightwing attack has been discovered to be truthful for a change.  I do not love the rightwing noise machine, but this is something real.  The liberal media is also getting onto it.  The New York Times has already condemned the Administration's lies.  This is going to make noise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

The Nation has weighed in with a defense of sorts.  Unfortunately, no one is going to buy this except die-hard liberal sycophants and operatives.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...t-post-on-us-politics-and-the-benghazi-attack



> Did Obama and his subordinates make mistakes in the aftermath? Undoubtedly. They should have said less, and what they did say should have made it clear that information was still coming in. They should have admitted uncertainty and caution, never mind that uncertainty doesnt play well in the middle of a reelection campaign. Those missteps may have harmed the president politically, and did lead to confusion among the US public at large. But is it relevant to the efforts to find the killers, and to address the security missteps that left the US operation in Benghazi so vulnerable? No.



First, let's make it clear what The Nation is saying above.  They don't like to use the words, but they are saying that the President knowingly lied.  Yes, that's what they are grudgingly admitting to, through gritted teeth.  But they are then trying to turn this around and say IT DOESN'T MATTER that the President lied, because it won't harm efforts to catch the killers.

Yes, we have to catch the killers.

We also have to know what the President knew and when he knew it, and we have to get to the bottom of why the Embassy requested aid and got none while the White House watched the situation live on TV in the Situation Room from an overhead drone and did nothing.  THAT is what we have to know.


----------



## billc (Oct 26, 2012)

There may have been a spectre gunship on site as well...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_our_citizens_were_murdered_in_benghazi.html



> CBS reported late last week that the Benghazi debacle was being surveyed by a Spectre gunship that could have turned the tide.
> Fox News is now reporting that, in fact, an AC 130 Spectre was overhead, and the motor team who eventually killed our SEALs was painted with a laser for pinpoint counter-battery fire...and yet _nothing_ was done.The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights[.] ...
> According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from. ​


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Nation has weighed in with a defense of sorts.  Unfortunately, no one is going to buy this except die-hard liberal sycophants and operatives.
> 
> http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...t-post-on-us-politics-and-the-benghazi-attack
> 
> ...



Thats the same meme the POTUS is going with:

http://www.9news.com/news/article/2...-on-Libya-attack?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large

Avoid the "who denied aid" part and divert it to the "we will bring the attackers to justice" meme...they could have written his script.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> There may have been a spectre gunship on site as well...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_our_citizens_were_murdered_in_benghazi.html



The American Thinker blog is exaggerating what Fox New said.  Read the linked article, they are claiming Fox said something they did not.  There was no Spectre overhead as AT is claiming.  But there was a Spectre within distance to have made a difference if it had been dispatched.

That's the biggest problem I've always had with these ultra-right blogs; they distort and ignore what's being reported, or just flat out make up stuff that isn't true.

The truth is bad enough in this case.  There is no reason to make up crap to make it seem even worse.  Not you, I mean A.T.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 26, 2012)

Bill, why I am not commenting on this is because I believe most of this is just political.  In two weeks many people pushing this story will no longer care about it.  Then the investigation can continue without the political pressure and truth will come out, whatever that may be.  I think right now there are a lot of supposition not supported by fact.  If when the investigation is made public, and it is known that the president withheld help to Benghazi, I'll join you in condemning him for that non-action.  If it comes out that the president is not directly responsible, then I'll support him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Bill, why I am not commenting on this is because I believe most of this is just political.  In two weeks many people pushing this story will no longer care about it.  Then the investigation can continue without the political pressure and truth will come out, whatever that may be.  I think right now there are a lot of supposition not supported by fact.  If when the investigation is made public, and it is known that the president withheld help to Benghazi, I'll join you in condemning him for that non-action.  If it comes out that the president is not directly responsible, then I'll support him.



My anger is not political.  I'm still not voting for Romney.  My anger is based on what I am now perceiving as the President telling lies and knowing they were lies - tell me *that's* not political, given the election season.

I'm really really angry, which I said weeks ago when this happened, and now I'm getting even madder.

And I'm not playing quarterback for the GOP, because they're not getting my vote; not now, not ever.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2012)

Lame...

The whole "You tube" story..thats been forgotten too...and a guy is sitting in solitary for his "role in this attack". Political? You betcha!

Drones watched as 2 SEALS who disobeyed orders to stay out, in order to save lives, were killed while asking for help that was denied. Political? Sure was.

Ya'll just want to backburner this fiasco till after the election to help out O...facts? Please.


----------



## seasoned (Oct 27, 2012)

> On Fridays America Live on the Fox News Channel, Chip Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods said the lack of response from the Obama administration on Sept. 11, 2012 showed cowardice. And he labeled as murderers the administration officials who stalled the decision to act immediately to the terrorist attack that claimed his sons life, and lied about it afterward.





> While Woods disapproves of the White Houses response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, he told host Megyn Kelly that his decision to speak out had nothing to do with politics.
> *This is not about politics, Woods said. If it were about politics it would dishonor my sons death. This has to do with (honor, integrity, justice.)*




My feelings exactly....
The only reason I put this Fox news piece up is because no other new outlet is giving Chip Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, any air time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2012)

Factcheck.org is now weighing on the matter.  While not able to make a determination about who knew what when, they make it clear what the timeline is, and they make it clear that liberal attempts to pretend that President Obama did NOT blame the attack on the Youtube video are false.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/



> We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come &#8212; both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.
> 
> But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.



I like Factcheck, and I trust them.  I admire the fact that they're not saying things that cannot at this point be proven, but they have the courage to speak the truth; whether it hurts the left or the right.

They say this is what's happening, and this is what's happening.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 27, 2012)

As to Panetta's "Monday Morning Quarterback" line, had those who were supposed to safeguard our people and consulate done their jobs, rather than whatever they were doing, there would be no need for "Monday morning quarterbacking."


----------



## billc (Oct 27, 2012)

Actually, I think Glen Beck was the first media person to talk to the father.  His comments on obama, hillary and the crass comment by biden went out from there.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 27, 2012)

Been watching cnn, msnbc anf fox news this morning. Nobodies talking about bengahzi. Its all about the race and the east coast storm.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 27, 2012)

Finally fox reported briefly. Tomorrow 3pm they have their special report. I don't believe half of what's on the net. If its credible it will make the Sunday morning politic shows.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2012)

Good Lord, Joe.  Shut your damned mouth.

http://www.examiner.com/article/joe-biden-tells-parents-of-seal-killed-benghazi-their-son-had-balls



> The language of condolence, it has been observed, has a limited vocabulary. Leave if to Vice President Joe &#8220;B.F.D.&#8221; Biden to attempt to expand those horizons. Standing over the coffins of the four Americans killed in Benghazi in the terrorist raid of Sept. 11, Biden rhetorically asked the grieving parents of one of the slain service members, &#8220;Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?&#8221;


----------



## Big Don (Oct 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good Lord, Joe.  Shut your damned mouth.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/joe-biden-tells-parents-of-seal-killed-benghazi-their-son-had-balls


Yup, Joe is Impeachment insurance, nobody wants that idiot as president.


----------



## billc (Oct 27, 2012)

Yup, that was the comment that I mentioned...



> and the crass comment by biden went out from there


----------



## billc (Oct 28, 2012)

Some points on obama and Bhengazi...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-september-11-phone-call_658027.html



> What was President Obama doing Tuesday evening, September 11, while Americans were under assault in Benghazi? Which of his national security team did he meet with, whom did he speak with, what directives did he issue? So far, the White House won't say.
> But we do know one thing the president found time to do that evening: He placed a call to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to defuse a controversy about President Obama's refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later at the U.N. General Assembly, and, according to the White House announcement that evening, spent an hour on the phone with him:





> While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call&#8212;and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call&#8212;came first.
> So here are a few more questions for the White House: While President Obama was on the phone for an hour, did his national security advisor Tom Donilon or any other aide interrupt the call or slip him a piece of paper to inform him about what was happening in Benghazi? Or was President Obama out of the loop for at least an hour as events unfolded and decisions were made? On the other hand, national security staff were obviously with the president during and immediately after the phone call&#8212;otherwise how could they have put out their statement right away? Surely his aides told the president about what was happening in Benghazi. Was there then no discussion of what was or what wasn't being done to help, pursuant to the president's first directive that everything possible be done?


----------



## billc (Oct 28, 2012)

I'm a real fan of Brit Hume.  He and Tony Snow were the real journalists on Sunday morning.  The Bhengazi situation just shows it even more...the embedded video is Hume tallking about the main stream media's lack of interest in the Bhengazi attack...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-...rkably-reticent-pursue-benghazi-cover-burden-



> That reticence extended to Sundays talk shows. While _Fox News Sunday_ host Chris Wallace raised Benghazi, and the newest revelations about how requests for support by CIA operatives on the ground were rejected, with four U.S. Senators (Democrats Mark Warner and Mark Udall, Republicans Rob Portman and Ron Johnson), none of the hosts of the ABC, CBS or NBC shows bothered to bring it up.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2012)




----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2012)

If this was under Bushes watch...don't even disgrace yourself by saying the press would have acted the same way.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)




----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 29, 2012)

Tgace said:


> If this was under Bushes watch...don't even disgrace yourself by saying the press would have acted the same way.



Just how many Americans were killed under Bushes watch? He financially ruined our great nation with "his" un-needed Iraq war and he's the one that caused the world to hate us.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2012)

SO? You still dont address the medias silence...


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2012)

You mean how many were killed while past Presidents and congresses (esp. Bill "the sex predator," clinton) failed to address radical islamic terrorism even after the Cole, the first attack on the twin towers, the attacks on our African Embassies, the Kobar towers bombing?  You don't do all of those things to people you like.  The world didn't like us then, they don't like us now because we are independent and dislike their ways of life, as they do ours.  A lot of them didn't like us because in just over 200 short years we surpassed them in every way.  

The financial ruin wasn't from the wars, it was from corrupt practices from congress and past Presidents that came to a head during Bush's term.  Remember, obama was in congress when the mess was building to a head and he voted "present," on trying to fix them.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 29, 2012)

So you blame the predident for the deaths in Begahzi but you don't blame the former president for the deaths in Iraq?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> So you blame the predident for the deaths in Begahzi but you don't blame the former president for the deaths in Iraq?



I think we're getting off-track here.  This is the 'worse criminal' argument.  Don't look at the criminal I like, he's not as bad as the criminal you like.  The point isn't how bad a different President was.  The point is what's happening now.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 29, 2012)

*
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
American         Military Casualties in Iraq                                                                                 Total                                                                  In Combat
                                                                                                                                             1st column-TOTAL                                                       / 2nd column-IN COMBAT

Since war began (3/19/03):
4488
3532

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)​4347
3424
Since Handover (6/29/04):
3627
2899
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09):
257
128
Since Operation New Dawn:
68
39
American Wounded
Official
Estimated
Total Wounded:
33184
Over 100000


*


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2012)

This whole situation seems very strange to me. It's a good bet we'll never have all of the information. Suffice to say, I think it's logical to say that I don't know what happened. 

That said, since the government is involved, my guess is someone is lying and trying to cover something up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> *
> http://antiwar.com/casualties/
> *


*

Again, off-topic and not the point.*


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 29, 2012)

Bengahzi is a tragic and unfortunate situation. Compared to our recent presidents past it rates very low on bad things that have happened.

What im seeing more than anything is a political smokecreen to drumm up votes for the election. I know, I know off topic. 

I see posts asking about the silence but you don't like the response. Whatever. Im waisting my time.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 29, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> Bengahzi is a tragic and unfortunate situation. Compared to our recent presidents past it rates very low on bad things that have happened.
> 
> What im seeing more than anything is a political smokecreen to drumm up votes for the election. I know, I know off topic.
> 
> ...



It's not a matter of not liking the response. The matter is that you are throwing in a red herring.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## seasoned (Oct 29, 2012)

seasoned said:


> * US slow to react*...........
> [URL]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_watched_as_terror_raged_AypAEEA9OK23rPf7Z5BHWO


[/URL]
Which was my original point.



seasoned said:


> I guess my question for anyone interested would be, *how do you think the investigation is going? *
> Some insight below
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...nghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



My next question was, *how do you think the investigation is going?*



seasoned said:


> I can't wait until tonight for the debates.
> The next best thing is to try and convince the country that none of it happened, or, if it did happen, *some how it was the US fault.*



Answer, cover up.



seasoned said:


> My feelings exactly....
> The only reason I put this Fox news piece up is because no other news outlet is giving Chip Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, any air time.



This guy wants answers, and any red blooded American should went them too..................


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> So you blame the predident for the deaths in Begahzi but you don't blame the former president for the deaths in Iraq?





People on BOTH sides die when fighting a war. Far fewer die when one side, with decisive edge militarily and financially actually FIGHT to win and aren't hamstrung by wussies in congress...
No Islamic Terrorists attacked Consulates during Bush's term... No American ambassadors were murdered by terrorists during Bush's term... Bush didn't go to Vegas September 12 2001, Obama did go to Vegas September 12 2012...
HUGE difference


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This whole situation seems very strange to me. It's a good bet we'll never have all of the information. Suffice to say, I think it's logical to say that I don't know what happened.
> 
> That said, since the government is involved, my guess is someone is lying and trying to cover something up.


Most Transparent Presidency EVAR!!11!!


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 29, 2012)

Big Don said:


> People on BOTH sides die when fighting a war. Far fewer die when one side, with decisive edge militarily and financially actually FIGHT to win and aren't hamstrung by wussies in congress...
> No Islamic Terrorists attacked Consulates during Bush's term... No American ambassadors were murdered by terrorists during Bush's term... Bush didn't go to Vegas September 12 2001, Obama did go to Vegas September 12 2012...
> HUGE difference



Quite right, Big Don.  Instead 3000 people were killed on George Bush's watch (yes, 9/11 was on Bush's watch) and a war started that shouldn't have been that killed more than 4000 more Americans.  Also, Mr Bush took more vacation time than any other president.  So stop with the revisionist history.  Yes, there might be something to the Bengahzi attacks that makes Obama look bad.  That is why they actually have the investigation, to find out the facts.  To act as if Bush had no problems on his watch that cost American lives though...that's just plain dishonest or ignorant, or both.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Yes, there might be something to the Bengahzi attacks that makes Obama look bad.


The sun MIGHT come up tomorrow...
I defy you or anyone to explain how going to Vegas to campaign was doing the right thing.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

Smart Diplomacy does NOT include letting your ambassadors get murdered and your consulates stormed.
The Most Transparent Presidency Ever is sure good at stonewalling.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 29, 2012)

...and it seems some conservatives are very good at forgetting thier own foibles while casting dispersions about something they obviously have little knowledge on.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> ...and it seems some conservatives are very good at forgetting thier own foibles while casting dispersions about something they obviously have little knowledge on.



Dude, look at the top of the screen. The thread's title is Consulate in Benghazi, not, George W Bush is a poopy head.
Why not try addressing the topic at hand rather than whining about how much of a meany Bush was?


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 29, 2012)

Big Don said:


> No Islamic Terrorists attacked Consulates during Bush's term... No American ambassadors were murdered by terrorists during Bush's term... Bush didn't go to Vegas September 12 2001, Obama did go to Vegas September 12 2012...
> HUGE difference



Sorry Don, you don't get to have it both ways.  If in your arguement you bring up Bush, then you shouldn't squack and cry foul when that argument is turned against you.

As far as Benghazi, once again you don't know what happened.  Try waiting for facts before you start condemning people, even politicians you don't like.  As far as smart diplomacy, Clinton and Obama have done a far better job than the previous administration...especially if you use American body counts as a marker.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2012)

It's the Obamanation...Blame Bush.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 29, 2012)

My favorite conspiracy theory so far is that Obama orchastrated this thing to have an October Surprise, to have the ambassedor captured and negotiate a release, but it didn't work out right. The ambassador and Americans fought to hard and got everyone killed. That's why the ambassador was being dragged out of the embassy with his cell phone in his mouth.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Sorry Don, you don't get to have it both ways.  If in your arguement you bring up Bush, then you shouldn't squack and cry foul when that argument is turned against you.
> 
> As far as Benghazi, once again you don't know what happened.  Try waiting for facts before you start condemning people, even politicians you don't like.  As far as smart diplomacy, Clinton and Obama have done a far better job than the previous administration...especially if you use American body counts as a marker.


You could get a job in the media! Look upthread a bit, I didn't start throwing Bush in...


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 30, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Smart Diplomacy does NOT include letting your ambassadors get murdered and your consulates stormed.



Smart diplomacy also does not include using Specter Gunships to fire at a handfull of terrorists in the middle of a crowd like some seem to be suggesting. 

Bottom line is that embasies can never be adequately protected against concerted attacks without the help of the local authorities.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 30, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Smart diplomacy also does not include using Specter Gunships to fire at a handfull of terrorists in the middle of a crowd like some seem to be suggesting.



Difficult to say.  If they were isolated, then yes.  If literally in a crowd of otherwise-innocent people, then no.



> Bottom line is that embasies can never be adequately protected against concerted attacks without the help of the local authorities.



US Embassies have a variety of defensive capabilities, including a US Marine detachment.  They had none.  They *reportedly* had requested such aid in the weeks leading up to the attack and were denied, for what appears to be political reasons.  This, in hindsight, would appear to be a stupid decision on the part of the State Department, at the very least.  I do not know of the reports are true, but reporting so far suggests that there is some merit to the accusations.  I hope we learn more about it.

_"They told (us) to open up the Embassy, or "we'll blow you away." *And then they looked up and saw the Marines on the roof with the really big guns*, and they said in Somali, "Igaralli ahow," Which mean "Excuse me, I didn't mean it, my mistake." ~ Karen Aquilar, in the U.S. Embassy; Mogadishu, Somalia_

Two former SEALS is not enough.  SEALS are great, but no replacement for a Marine Security detachment with heavy weapons.

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

More specifically:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rity-at-consulatethough-it-lacked-m/?page=all



> U.S. defends security at consulate, though it lacked Marine guards
> 
> The senior administration official said a force of locally contracted Libyan guards was stationed outside the compound, as is standard practice, and there was &#8220;a robust security presence&#8221; inside. The guards reportedly fled as the attack intensified in the eastern Libyan city.



...


> The Washington Guardian website reported Wednesday that the State Department&#8217;s own internal watchdog, its Diplomatic Security office, recently acknowledged it lacked the funding for some recommended improvements, including security training, and was instead looking for workarounds.



If you read the recent interviews, when asked specifically about security arrangements and whether or not the consulate asked for and was denied more security PRIOR to the attack, no one in the Administration will answer the question with a yes or a no.  All they will say is that their first priority is to catch the bad guys.  Uh, that wasn't the question.  Did the consulate or did they not ask for more security, and was it or was it not denied?

Also, while not being touted by the Administration that supposedly wants to catch the bad guys, mainstream media has reported that one suspect has already been killed, another captured in Tunisia.  That was days ago.  Why no mention from the White House?

Yeah, lots of questions.  Lots of stonewalling.  I don't like the smell of this at all.   And the 'Embassy life is dangerous, **** happens" response doesn't get it for me.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 30, 2012)




----------



## WC_lun (Oct 30, 2012)

Embassies no longer have marine detachments.  Part of the cut backs made in congress.  They have private contractors as security, both from the home nation and from other sources, such as retired Navy SEALS.  Supposedly it is the job of the host nation to provide adequete security.  Keeping in mind that Lybia lost lives of thier own, I think they did try to live up to thier part of the agreement.  I do know that Lybia has increased thier security of all the western embassies now.  Looks like we've also increased the security in the embassy as well, though it is kinda like shutting the gate after the cows have walked out of it.

Don, you used Bush in your arguement.  Stop whining that your arguement was countered with the same point you used, whether you were the first in thread to mention Bush or not doesn't really matter.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2012)

Some thoughts on Bhengazi from candidate Tom Cotton...

From wikipedia on Tom Cotton...



> [h=2]Early life and education
> [/h] After Dardanelle High School, he attended Harvard College, where he was as a columnist for the Harvard Crimson, and a member of the Harvard Republican Club; after graduating from Harvard magna cum laude with an A.B. in Government[SUP][1][/SUP], he went on to Harvard Law School, where he received his law degree.[SUP][2][/SUP] He served as a clerk at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for Judge Jerry Edwin Smith and then engaged in private practice[SUP][3][/SUP] as an attorney with the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.[SUP][4][/SUP]
> [h=2] Military career[/h] In 2004, Cotton enlisted in the U.S. Army as an infantryman, and served as a leader of an infantry platoon near Baghdad.
> In June 2006, Cotton gained fame after he wrote an open letter to the New York Times  criticizing the paper's publication of an article detailing a Bush  administration secret program monitoring terrorists&#8217; finances in which  he called for three journalists, including the Times' editor, Bill Keller, to be imprisoned for espionage.[SUP][5][/SUP] The article was widely circulated online and reprinted in full in several newspapers.[SUP][6][/SUP]
> After returning from Iraq, Cotton served as a platoon leader for ceremonial functions at the Arlington National Cemetery.[SUP][7][/SUP] In 2008, he served overseas a second time as operations officer on a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan, engaged in counterinsurgency operations.



http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/e2f7d573-5017-4902-ba82-3eba30b1103c




> HH: Now as you see all these reports, Tom Cotton, what sticks out  with you? And we can stay on that report or anything else. What are your  questions?
> 
> 
> 
> TC: The President says he wants to have an investigation. We don&#8217;t  need an investigation. The President knows what he was doing from 4-10PM  Eastern time on September 11[SUP]th[/SUP]. We know what he was doing  for some of that. He was in the White House with the Secretary of  Defense. He was also on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu, who of all  people would understand the need to get off the phone when you&#8217;re under  attack. We had calls of distress from Tyrone Woods, the ex-SEAL, who was  a CIA operative on the ground at the CIA annex in Benghazi, who was  requesting air assets, and then requesting military backup. Now there  was a security team that moved from Tripoli to Benghazi. I believe that  that was authorized by the CIA and within their rules of engagements.  But to move military assets from Italy into Libya, which is almost as  close as Tripoli was to Benghazi, would require, obviously, approval of  the Department of Defense. And I doubt that the Department of Defense  would deny or grant such a request without taking it directly to the  President. You&#8217;re talking about moving military assets into a sovereign  country. So we need to know when the President was briefed on the  situation in Benghazi, what the military proposed to do, what the  President did in response to that briefing, because Hugh, here&#8217;s the  reporting, and no one&#8217;s denied this reporting. Tyrone Woods used a  ground laser designator to illuminate an enemy mortar team. For all  those veterans out there, you know that infrared discipline in combat is  just as important as light and noise discipline. You don&#8217;t use an  infrared illuminator until you&#8217;re ready for fire support. Tyrone Woods  is a Navy SEAL. A private in the infantry knows not to do that. He would  not have illuminated that mortar team unless he expected air fire  immediately as soon as he did so. I strongly suspect there was an armed  drone, or even a Specter gunship overhead that did not fire, even though  Tyrone Woods expected it to. I wanted to know who gave that order. Was  it a local commander? Was it General Ham, the commander of African  Command? Was it Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Was it  Leon Panetta? Or was it the President?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 30, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Embassies no longer have marine detachments.  Part of the cut backs made in congress.  They have private contractors as security, both from the home nation and from other sources, such as retired Navy SEALS.  Supposedly it is the job of the host nation to provide adequete security.  Keeping in mind that Lybia lost lives of thier own, I think they did try to live up to thier part of the agreement.  I do know that Lybia has increased thier security of all the western embassies now.  Looks like we've also increased the security in the embassy as well, though it is kinda like shutting the gate after the cows have walked out of it.



Do you have some support for that statement?

http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/

_MISSION
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States._

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...eading-to-libya-to-reinforce-security-091212/



> U.S. embassies, particularly in major countries and in unstable or less secure nations, *usually have a resident contingent of Marine security guards*. Early indications were that there were not at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. A consulate is a branch office in major cities outside the capital. These guards work under the supervision of the senior diplomatic officer at an embassy.
> 
> The main role of Marine security guards is to protect classified national security documents, according to the website of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group, which administers the security guard mission from a Marine base in Virginia. Their secondary role is to protect U.S. citizens and U.S. government property in the event of an emergency.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2012)




----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2012)

n would shame them:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2012)

Ill say it again. If this was a repub administration there is no way this would not be huge news.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Ill say it again. If this was a repub administration there is no way this would not be huge news.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



I think you will find that many agree with you.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/art...Debra-Saunders-there-Benghazi-media-cover-up-



> Before FBI investigators ventured into Benghazi, CNN reporter Arwa Damon found the journal of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in Benghazi, at the mission. CNN then reported on Stevens&#8217; concern about security in Benghazi.
> 
> From the Rose Garden the day after the attack, President Barack Obama declared, &#8220;We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.&#8221; Yet on Oct. 19, The New York Times reported that Ansar al-Shariah leader and suspected Benghazi ringleader Ahmed Abu Khattala was seen in a crowded Benghazi luxury hotel sipping mango juice as he claimed that no Libyan authorities had questioned him and that, by the way, he had no plans to go into hiding.



...




> Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president and the press didn&#8217;t know what he did on the evening of the Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 30, 2012)

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/w...rnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all



> By June, Benghazi had experienced a string of assassinations as well as attacks on the Red Cross and a British envoy&#8217;s motorcade. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September attack, *e-mailed his superiors in Washington in August alerting them to &#8220;a security vacuum&#8221; in the city*. A week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a &#8220;state of maximum alert&#8221; in Benghazi after a car bombing and thwarted bank robbery.



...



> In the heady early days after the fall of Colonel Qaddafi&#8217;s government, the administration&#8217;s plan was to deploy a modest American security force and then increasingly rely on trained Libyan personnel to protect American diplomats &#8212; a policy that reflected White House apprehensions about putting combat troops on the ground as well as Libyan sensitivities about an obtrusive American security presence.
> 
> In the following months, the State Department proceeded with this plan. In one instance, State Department security officials replaced the American military team in Tripoli with trained Libyan bodyguards, while it also maintained the number of State Department security personnel members at the Benghazi compound around the minimum recommended level.



So let's be clear here.  The NYT is saying that the State Department DID NOT MESS UP when they used OLD DATA to provision security around the consulate in Libya.  They based their responses NOT ON THE THREAT but on the situation as it existed immediately after the toppling of the former dictator.  BUT THAT'S OK!

...



> But the question on the minds of some lawmakers is *why the declining security situation did not prompt a fundamental rethinking of the security needs by the State Department and the White House*. Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.
> 
> &#8220;Given the large number of attacks that had occurred in Benghazi that were aimed at Western targets, it is *inexplicable to me that security wasn&#8217;t increased*,&#8221; said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the senior Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, one of the panels holding inquiries.
> 
> Defending their preparations, State Department officials have asserted that there was *no specific intelligence* that warned of a large-scale attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which they asserted was unprecedented. The department said it was careful to weigh security with diplomats&#8217; need to meet with Libyan officials and citizens.



What the State Department is saying is that they chose not to step up security because the threats were not SPECIFIC.

What, GENERAL THREATS are not acceptable?  Car-bombings, assassinations, and the general rise in violence in the general area are NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO REACT TO?

...



> At one point, Mr. Nordstrom, the regional security officer, proposed establishing guard towers, but the State Department rejected that on the grounds that it would make the compound more conspicuous.
> 
> There was no doubt, however, that there were many in Benghazi who knew the compound&#8217;s location. On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission&#8217;s outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole. No one was injured.



Could we have some more security?  NO!  We don't want to look aggressive.  But they blew a hole in the wall!  Well, no one was killed were they?  DENIED!

...



> On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador&#8217;s convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver. The British envoy left Benghazi the next day, and the British post in the city was closed on June 17.
> 
> About the same time, the Red Cross in the city pulled out after it was attacked a second time. &#8220;When that occurred, it was apparent to me that *we were the last flag flying in Benghazi*; we were the last thing on their target list to remove,&#8221; said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, the head of the military security team in Tripoli.



...



> American intelligence agencies had provided the administration with reports for *much of the past year warning that the Libyan government was weakening and had little control over the militias*, including Ansar al-Shariah.
> 
> By early September, some Libyan officials in Benghazi were echoing the same security warnings as Mr. Stevens was relaying to Washington.



...



> Looking back, Mr. Nordstrom told a House hearing last month that a major question was the inability of the administration to react to the worsening environment on the ground.
> 
> &#8220;I was extremely pleased with the planning to get us into Libya,&#8221; Mr. Nordstrom said. But after the initial security teams began rotating out of Libya months later, he said, *&#8220;there was a complete and total absence of planning.&#8221;*



Anyone still unclear on this?

This is very much like the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in the 1980s.  There was a lack of security, a lack of planning, a lack of understanding of the threat at high levels.  When it happened, President Reagan did not run from responsibility.  He stepped up and took it.  He said it happened on his watch, he was ultimately responsible, the blame was his.

Where is President Obama?

How about his Secretary of State?

Dodging and ducking.  Not their fault, nope.  None at all.  No one is to blame.  Can't stick anything to me, by golly!

There are your leaders.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 30, 2012)

_"This is very much like the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in the 1980s.  There was a lack of security, a lack of planning, a lack of understanding of the threat at high levels.  When it happened, President Reagan did not run from responsibility.  He stepped up and took it.  He said it happened on his watch, he was ultimately responsible, the blame was his."

_Didn't watch the 2nd debate?  He actually did take responsibility, saying that Secretary Clinton was not responsible because he was the president and ultimately he is responsible.  He's also said that in an interview.  Yes, there were failures in Benghazi.  Yes it needs to be investigated to find the details.  This constant blaming of Obama is nothing more than politics.


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

Is the media sitting on e-mails that could show the White House called off the rescue mission...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/31/gingrich-rumor-says-networks-have-white-house-emails-telling-counterterrorism-group-to-stand-down-on-benghazi-rescue/




> On Tuesday nights On the Record with Greta Van Susteren on the Fox  News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news  networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled  plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.
> 
> Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.
> There is a rumor  I want to be clear, its a rumor  that at least  two networks have emails from the National Security Advisers office  telling a counterterrorism group to stand down, Gingrich said. But  they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and  the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House  stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is  true, and Ive been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that  is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the  presidents role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisers role,  the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own  shoulders, that he said dont go. And that is, I think, very dubious,  given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to  do everything they could to secure American personnel.




I guess we will see in the next couple of days if the obama minions in the media are sitting on these e-mails...
​


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 31, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Is the media sitting on e-mails that could show the White House called off the rescue mission...
> 
> I guess we will see in the next couple of days if the obama minions in the media are sitting on these e-mails...
> ​



I would like to see those emails, if they exist.  I'm not a New Gringrich fan, but it seems he's being pretty clear.  However, given the recent 'bombshell announcement' made by that idiot Trump, I have my doubts.  We'll see.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2012)

There is a rumor floating that General Han was fired in relation to this attack. Can anybody corroborate?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 31, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> There is a rumor floating that General Han was fired in relation to this attack. Can anybody corroborate?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



General Ham's retirement is going to seem rather coincidental, and it may well be that he was pushed, and didn't jump.  However, the reports that he had been 'arrested by his second in command' and so on appear to be at the very least, wildly inflated.

In other words, something happened, and Ham is retiring.  However, the reason could be nearly anything, from he's just ready to retire (and it's not unusual for a person with his time in service and major command under his belt) all the way to he is the reason assistance was denied and not the White House and he's retiring to avoid having to stand before a courts-martial, and anything in between.  No idea what the truth is; if I had to guess, I'd say it was somewhere in the middle, probably a bit less on the paranoid tip, but not as innocent as "I'm just ready to pack it in now."


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

And a nice take down of obama's situation room picture from hurricane Sandy...vs. Bhengazi non-intervention...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...mer-SLAMS-Obama-Over-Hurricane-Sandy-Photo-Op



> Charles Krauthammer: Well, he says hes not concerned about the impact on the elections. Im sure hes very sincere on that. But it is a little odd that he shows up in the Briefing Room where he hasnt shown up in the Briefing Room for what, a month-and-a-half? For Libya or for anything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying I guess the utility crews who restore power all over America. Where you would think he might want to use the Situation Room to convene high level people during the night hours when our people were under attack in Benghazi. Its hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in whats a natural disaster that really doesnt require a lot of from the White House. Its up to the governors mostly. The White House and the government release money. Thats all they do and hes really good at releasing money.


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2012)

From a freinds post on facebook, I don't know if he got it somewhere else...



> Obama called the SEALs and they got Osama bin Laden.
> When the SEALs called Obama THEY GOT DENIED.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 31, 2012)

Not to nitpick, but they were ex-SEALS. Private contractors.


----------



## billc (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't think there is ever an "ex" to being a seal...just saying...


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)




----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2012)

I liked this - it's actually from Chicago, too:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._1_benghazi-october-surprise-mainstream-media



> Benghazi: No mere 'October surprise'
> October 31, 2012|Jonah Goldberg
> If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?
> 
> ...


...


> *If true, the White House's concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims. Yet, last Friday, the president boasted that "the minute I found out what was happening" in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel.
> 
> That is either untrue, or he's being disobeyed on grave matters.
> 
> This isn't an "October surprise" foisted on the media by opposition research; it's news.*



...



> I am willing to believe that journalists like Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don't share his instincts, it's *hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink*. Indeed, it's hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all.



This dovetails with my thinking.  Most MSM are liberal in their personal beliefs; this affects their reportage, IMHO.  But that doesn't mean there is a 'conspiracy'.  It's more as described above; groupthink.  I get that.  But I also get that the author points out that for many conservatives, it's a distinction without a difference.

And the conclusion the author makes is valid; this is news.  Report it as news, investigate it as news.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2012)

This may tie in with the video posted above, don't know, can't watch it right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...-attacks-smoking-gun-warning-why-didnt-obama-



> Uncovered classified cable could be Benghazi attack's 'smoking gun warning' - why didn't Obama save four Americans?
> Published October 31, 2012 | On the Record | On the Record
> Special Guests: Fox News Correspondent Catherine Herridge, Rep. Jason Chaffetz
> This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 31, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
> ...



If this cable is not a forgery, this is a very, very, bad thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2012)

My next favorite conspiracy theory is that Obama, ordered the government to strengthen Hurricane Sandy with HAARP and steer it into the most populated section of the East Coast in order to knock the consulate story out of the news feeds. Obama had to do this because the attack was a botched kidnapping where Obama was going to negotiate for the release of the ambassador, but ended up getting him killed instead.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I don't think there is ever an "ex" to being a seal...just saying...



You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'. 

Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> My next favorite conspiracy theory is that Obama, ordered the government to strengthen Hurricane Sandy with HAARP and steer it into the most populated section of the East Coast in order to knock the consulate story out of the news feeds. Obama had to do this because the attack was a botched kidnapping where Obama was going to negotiate for the release of the ambassador, but ended up getting him killed instead.



Laugh all you like, but I'm kind of surprised you're not latching onto this yourself, you're the big conspiracy-believer around here.

And if you want one that is at least semi-plausible, try this...  The consulate in Benghazi was working with local Libyan militia groups, including those linked to Al-Qaida either loosely or directly, to repurchase firearms and heavy weapons that had been stolen or looted from various Libyan armories after the fall of Khadaffi.  These weapons, purchased with State Department funds, were then sent via various routes to the rebel forces in Syria, whom we wish to assist, but not be shown to be sending military arms to.  These rebels in Syria are also at least partially affiliated with A-Q.

Some or all of the above is true, and even (the gun buyback part) admitted by the State Department.  What is speculated is that the weapons were going to Syria after that.  The 'conspiracy' part is that the reason why the consulate team was left to die was to avoid blowing the whistle on what was clearly a very Colonel Oliver North type deal gone south.  Only this time, instead of having a NSA and former US Marine officer to take the fall, the buck would go all the way to the Secretary of State and possibly to the White House.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?  I am not subscribing to it, but it as at least based partially on fact and sounds semi-plausible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'.
> 
> Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.



I think he's referring to how they seem themselves, not their official capacity.  US Marines consider themselves US Marines forever, no matter how long ago they served.  Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued a directive stating that US Marines were not to be referred to as 'ex' Marines or 'former' Marines for any reason.  If they serve honorably, they are always "Marines," period.  I suppose SEALS feel the same way.  But technically, yes, you are right, they were no longer working for the DoD/US Navy.  As far as we know.  Transfers sometimes happen between the military and the CIA.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Laugh all you like, but I'm kind of surprised you're not latching onto this yourself, you're the big conspiracy-believer around here.
> 
> And if you want one that is at least semi-plausible, try this...  The consulate in Benghazi was working with local Libyan militia groups, including those linked to Al-Qaida either loosely or directly, to repurchase firearms and heavy weapons that had been stolen or looted from various Libyan armories after the fall of Khadaffi.  These weapons, purchased with State Department funds, were then sent via various routes to the rebel forces in Syria, whom we wish to assist, but not be shown to be sending military arms to.  These rebels in Syria are also at least partially affiliated with A-Q.
> 
> ...



That sounds plausible and I have seen others put it forth as an explanation. The clandestine support of AQ groups in Libya and Syria is another sleeping bombshell.

The only problem is that this bombshell isn't limited to just the Obama administration. The US government has been supporting AQ groups for over thirty years. Osama Bin Laden's CIA alias was Tim Osman. They flew him to the US in 1986 and began coordinating what we later call AQ.

Now that is what I call blowback.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> You are no longer part of the military. You are an 'ex'.
> 
> Those guys were working for a civilian contractor. They were 'ex'.



So who really cares if they died right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2012)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/the-benghazi-drip-drip-drip/



> Nov 1, 2012 4:29pm
> The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip
> As of now, the White House has disclosed that *President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm* by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
> ...
> ...



Seriously, are there any doubts that something REALLY BAD happened?

Even if there were no lies, no denial of military assets on the day of the attack, it's pretty clear that the Ambassador himself wanted more security, ASKED for more security in the weeks leading up the attack, and didn't get it.

In the best possible situation for the White House, they failed utterly to understand the nature of the security situation and to provide for it for American citizens and employees of the government.  That's even if no actual criminal negligence was involved.  That's the BEST possible reading of this fiasco.

But the continued foot-dragging and obfuscation on the part of the White House just makes it look bad, bad, bad.  Even if it's not as bad as some claim, it's bad.  And dragging feet and lying are NOT going to help.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)




----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think he's referring to how they seem themselves, not their official capacity.  US Marines consider themselves US Marines forever, no matter how long ago they served.  Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps issued a directive stating that US Marines were not to be referred to as 'ex' Marines or 'former' Marines for any reason.  If they serve honorably, they are always "Marines," period.  I suppose SEALS feel the same way.  But technically, yes, you are right, they were no longer working for the DoD/US Navy.  As far as we know.  Transfers sometimes happen between the military and the CIA.




I'm sure that's what he meant. But they are often reffered as SEALs, implying active duty. They are to be commended for what they did, but as far as them interacting with the chain of command to request things, they were little different than you or I.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 1, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So who really cares if they died right?



How the hell do you get that???

The story often refers to the 2 SEALs doing and asking. that they were no longer part of the active military has a bearing on the subject. They were civilians. Highly trained, but civilians. Their death is tragic. But it is disingeous to try to mention that there were SEALs on the groud asking for reinforcements and were denied.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)

Hmmm...2 SEALS contracted to the CIA Annex in Benghazi. Apparently with commo gear and frequencies to communicate with the military and possibly carrying laser designators for air strikes but they had no ability to request military assets "any more than you or I"???

....OK


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)

...I have to agree on one point though. With the ambassador dead, the real chain of command was likely the chief of station at the annex. But while these guys were contracted security, I find it likely that that, since they were the QRF for the annex, that they had significantly more resources at their disposal than "you or I".

My shot previous was about the "well they were contractors and not military" tone...somehow implying that that fact changes anything in this debacle.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 1, 2012)

Tgace said:


> My shot previous was about the "well they were contractors and not military" tone...somehow implying that that fact changes anything in this debacle.



This might be a different topic, but do you think "contractors" have the same political fallout as active duty servicemen when they die? 

For myself, I could care what the label is, they are human beings doing an incredibly dangerous job and when someone is killed, it's tragic. However, do you think that maybe there might actually be a political difference, as horrible as that sounds?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2012)

In this situation no...even if you want to minimize the value of the "contractors" lives, all of the CIA/DOS personnel they were PROTECTING had extreme political value.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 2, 2012)

Tgace said:


>



Qft.

The upside of Romney winning the election is that the ACLU and the antiwar left will actually kick back into gear.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Qft.
> 
> The upside of Romney winning the election is that the ACLU and the antiwar left will actually kick back into gear.



QFT. Because hypocrisy is awesome.


----------



## billc (Nov 3, 2012)

More on the timeline...of course, from Fox...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...als-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/



> The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive.
> According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, to the CIA annex about a mile away.
> 
> But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began.
> ...




Sooo...even before the actual attack people on the ground saw heavily armed, organized groups...not the disorganized crowds protesting a video that obama mentioned at the U.N. well after the event...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-libya-challenge-cia-account/#ixzz2BBa5QKGV


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2012)




----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2012)

CBS held back footage during their 60 minute interview with obama where he refused to call the attack in Bhengazi a terrorist attack, having just come from the rose garden...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up




> KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid  the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do  you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
> 
> 
> OBAMA: Well it&#8217;s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what  group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we  are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we  bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
> ...





> CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this  footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the  later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
> 
> Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:
> These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after  getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate  and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is  asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does  not push back.
> ...





> There are many questions, and here are a few more.
> 
> 
> Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in  the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy  debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
> ...


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 5, 2012)

It would seem that a majority on here believe in some Obama conspiracy that he deliberately allowed the Amabasador to be put in harms way or at best totally willfully dropped the ball and then covered it up? I am more concerned that someone in the military for political reason's  put the Amassador at risk to make Obama look bad?


----------



## seasoned (Nov 5, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> It would seem that a majority on here believe in some Obama conspiracy that he deliberately allowed the Amabasador to be put in harms way or at best totally willfully dropped the ball and then covered it up? I am more concerned that someone in the military for political reason's  put the Amassador at risk to make Obama look bad?


Either way, he still didn't have a glue what was going on.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 5, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Either way, he still didn't have a glue what was going on.


That's right I said it, no glue or clue...


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 5, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Either way, he still didn't have a glue what was going on.


 Given that the Ambassador was a leading expert on thearea having personally infiltrated the area collecting data that showed thatparticular area supplied the largest number of insurgents to the Iraq war overthe last ten years why in his right mind given the instability and previousattacks by that training camp the last two years previous and current unresteven reports of threats to the embassy and a previous attack leaving a hole inthe outer wall It is a major failing and somebody should pay for that with theirjob and the president should have stepped in front of it and said he wasresponsible but some say with 230 embassies globally he can't know and controleverything but also given if we can believe ex CIA people being unbiased thatmen and material were available to protect and get them out and the president activelyrefused to do that if so he should explain why and if reelected I would like tohear him explain what was done wrong and how he intends to fix that. There willalways be high risk areas and Reagan and Clinton both dropped the ball each butthey countered for it possibly we are not to know what is being done?


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 5, 2012)

The CIA has said there was no stand down order.  They responded to the attacks as fast as they could.  There are questions that need answered on this, but that isn't one of them.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2012)

Well, it doesn't matter anymore what happened to those men in Bhengazi.  There is nothing that will be discovered that will matter to anyone but the families of those who died there.  The election ended this story.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...fHfw7g?docId=c116e763ff084c0289aa2bd1b519032d



> LOS ANGELES (AP)  The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that roiled the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in prison for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction by lying about his identity.
> U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder immediately sentenced Mark Basseley Youssef after he admitted to four of the eight alleged violations, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver's license.
> None of the violations had to do with the content of "Innocence of Muslims," a film that depicts Mohammad as a religious fraud, pedophile and a womanizer. The movie sparked violence in Libya and other parts of the Middle East, killing dozens.
> Youssef, 55, was arrested in late September, just weeks after he went into hiding when deadly violence erupted in Libya and other parts of the Middle East in response to the movie.



So the manufactured  truth about this is now back to the movie...incredible...but expected...


----------



## seasoned (Nov 12, 2012)

Not going away.............

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/us/petraeus-cia-resignation/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories



> Days after Petraeus' resignation stunned Washington, information continues to emerge. Among other things, a video has surfaced of a speech by Petraeus' paramour in which she suggested the Libya attack was targeting a secret prison at the Benghazi consulate annex, raising unverified concerns about possible security leaks.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2012)

I find the simplest solution the most believable here: David Petraeus is male, and did what men do.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2012)

Gee, remember back in 1996 when having an affair with a much younger woman was no one's business and had absolutely no bearing on how a man would do his job no matter how highly placed he was in government?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 12, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Gee, remember back in 1996 when having an affair with a much younger woman was no one's business and had absolutely no bearing on how a man would do his job no matter how highly placed he was in government?



Well, I remember when that wasn't an international conspiracy...


----------



## seasoned (Nov 13, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I find the simplest solution the most believable here: David Petraeus is male, and did what men do.



(Thread drift) "Not all men, the loser types, yes". (Now back on thread).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

And here it comes...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/house-intel-chair-cia-story-on-benghazi-changed/



> House Intel chair: CIA story on Benghazi changed
> The talking points that the Obama administration initially used to explain the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya don't correspond with the CIA's original talking points, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter King said this morning after a closed door briefing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.
> "The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out," King said. Originally, he said, they were "much more specific on al Qaeda involvement."
> 
> ...



In brief, the CIA prepared 'talking points' and immediately delivered them to the White House, explaining that this was a terrorist attack.  Sometime between the time the White House got the talking points and the time they began to issue statements, they CHANGED the talking points to make it appear that the attack was a response to the anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

Anyone still want to deny that the White House is involved in an epic, planned, set of lies and coverups?

I want to see impeachment articles drawn up.  Yes, I do.  This is worse than Watergate.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And here it comes...
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/house-intel-chair-cia-story-on-benghazi-changed/
> 
> ...


Nobody died in Watergate...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Nobody died in Watergate...



My point exactly.


----------



## billc (Nov 16, 2012)

Billmattocks, you forget, this is a democrat President...this stuff is just right wing theatrics...


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And here it comes...
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/house-intel-chair-cia-story-on-benghazi-changed/
> 
> ...



Bill, your posts are some of the ones I do enjoy reading although this isn't one of them. If for no other reason, our country can't handle any more sideshows or some of the BS that the "two B's" are hoping for, I mean predicting  may come true. Then we'd really be f####d as a nation.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

James Kovacich said:


> Bill, your posts are some of the ones I do enjoy reading although this isn't one of them. If for no other reason, our country can't handle any more sideshows or some of the BS that the "two B's" are hoping for, I mean predicting  may come true.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



I'm sorry you don't care for my posts, but I feel very strongly about this.  Something is very wrong here.  Four Americans are dead, and it appears to me that our President and his staff lied to us about it, repeatedly, until they were forced to come clean.  We need and deserve to know as a nation what transpired here; and whether or not the President engaged in a criminal conspiracy.  I do not care a whit for how hard this might be on our nation or our economy; this cannot wait.  My 2 cents.


----------



## billc (Nov 16, 2012)

I agree, something is wrong here and I'm not sure the surface issue, the lying about the video, is where the heart of the matter lies.  I have to think that something "interesting," was going on at the Bhengazi consulate and it is that, that they are trying to avoid talking about.  We'll have to wait and see where the information goes next, but once they get done with the lying about the video, let's hope we find out what they were doing in Libya that made them lie about it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I agree, something is wrong here and I'm not sure the surface issue, the lying about the video, is where the heart of the matter lies.  I have to think that something "interesting," was going on at the Bhengazi consulate and it is that, that they are trying to avoid talking about.  We'll have to wait and see where the information goes next, but once they get done with the lying about the video, let's hope we find out what they were doing in Libya that made them lie about it.



I agree.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 16, 2012)

From what I have been seeing in the news, the CIA is actually who changed the talking points in Langley before it even arrived at the White House.  They bleached out references to terrorist attack because they knew who was responsible and did not want to alert them.  The White House passed that info on to the media and to Rice.  Of course all the conspiracy theories make it sound much more than it is.  For anyone interested, you might look at where those theories are coming from and any PROOF they have for floating such theories.  It is a bunch of conjecture that keeps changing according to what seems to be most damaging to the president at that particular moment.  It is a bunch of nonsense until proven otherwise.


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry you don't care for my posts, but I feel very strongly about this.  Something is very wrong here.  Four Americans are dead, and it appears to me that our President and his staff lied to us about it, repeatedly, until they were forced to come clean.  We need and deserve to know as a nation what transpired here; and whether or not the President engaged in a criminal conspiracy.  I do not care a whit for how hard this might be on our nation or our economy; this cannot wait.  My 2 cents.



I do like most of your posts. Thought I'd clear that up.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## seasoned (Nov 16, 2012)

It looks like plain English to me.................

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/15/petraeus-benghazi-senate-hearing/1705695/




> 2:42AM EST November 16. 2012 - A video shown Thursday to lawmakers investigating the attack on the U.S.Consulate in Libya provides no evidence of it starting with a spontaneous protest as the Obama administration insisted for days, according to a Republican senator at a hearing.





> *"It was very clear from day one that this was a terrorist attack,"* Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News. *"This would be obvious to anyone. That is very clear." [*/quote]


----------



## Big Don (Nov 16, 2012)

seasoned said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/15/petraeus-benghazi-senate-hearing/1705695/





Those who believed it was all about a video, yeah, should pull their heads out of their asses


----------



## seasoned (Nov 16, 2012)

seasoned said:


> It looks like plain English to me.................
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/15/petraeus-benghazi-senate-hearing/1705695/
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 26, 2013)




----------



## arnisador (Jan 26, 2013)

She schooled them something fierce--good for her!


----------



## Big Don (Jan 26, 2013)

arnisador said:


> She schooled them something fierce--good for her!



"What difference, at this point, does it make?" Clinton, when asked why the attack was blamed on a video
I'm pretty sure it makes a pretty big difference to the poor bastard locked up for it.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 26, 2013)

Big Don said:


> "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Clinton, when asked why the attack was blamed on a video
> I'm pretty sure it makes a pretty big difference to the poor bastard locked up for it.




And the families of the dead....


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2013)

"At this point what difference would it make."  

Well, it would make a difference as to determine wether her incompetence was just negligent or criminally negligent.  If the embassy wanted more security in general, and was denied, then if the attack was organized or spontaneous doesn't make much difference, she would just be negligent in her duty to protect the embassy.  If the embassy was concerned because of increasing threats, and had asked for more security because of these threats, which they were, and then they were refused, which they were, her actions would be criminally negligent and she should have been fired and possibly sent to jail, much like killing someone with a car because the breaks fail, or killing them with a car knowing your breaks are about to fail and you drive anyway...

She didn't school them...she faked outrage and lied to cover up the mistakes that led to the death of an Ambassador and three other Americans, in a hotspot that should have been protected.  She has been and will always be a despicable person.

Oh, by the way...some of the lines she used...where she started tearing up...were almost word for word for ones she used during her run for President back in 2008.  I saw this on The Five on the Fox news channel, they played both clips and again...she is a despicable person through and through...


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2013)

this is the clip they played on "The Five," where she tears up using the same words she used at the hearing...she starts the fake crying at the 14 second mark...







Here she is at the Bhengazi testimony...fake tearing up again...


----------



## arnisador (Jan 26, 2013)

Big Don said:


> "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Clinton, when asked why the attack was blamed on a video



Did you see that quote not taken out of context, or just on Fox News?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 26, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Did you see that quote not taken out of context, or just on Fox News?



Yep I was watching her when she said it


----------

