Seriously, if the Administration has nothing to hide, release all the unclassified
e-mails, have Rice testify as to who sent her out with the talking points and interview the wounded that were there in real time.
The e mails have already shown the State Dept made the majority of the CIA
report changes and Carney lied that there was only 1 change made when there
were 12 changes.

Seriously, if the Administration has nothing to hide, release all the unclassified
e-mails, have Rice testify as to who sent her out with the talking points and interview the wounded that were there in real time.
The e mails have already shown the State Dept made the majority of the CIA
report changes and Carney lied that there was only 1 change made when there
were 12 changes.
You should really read the actual emails released. Interestingly enough they seem to pretty much back what Gen. Petraeus testified to before Congress...i.e. that the process wasn't politicized.

-spence

You should really read the actual emails released. Interestingly enough they seem to pretty much back what Gen. Petraeus testified to before Congress...i.e. that the process wasn't politicized.

-spence

Which dated e mail was that?

Spence -

Now, you're saying that since there wasn't an armed garrison in Libya, there was no cavalry to send.

Spence, in these situations, you don't need an entire airborne division. A few special-forces types make all the difference. And for some reason, we didn't move any of those assets, full steaam, towards Benghazi. It's my understanding that there was some kind of force in Tripoli that was ordered not to go to Benghazi. If that's true, I want to know who gave that order, and why.

You also said that the fighting was over before the Libyans could have flown some forces in. Here's what you don't get...when the fight was going on, no one knew when it was going to be over. The commanders aren't supposed to say "well, this guy is fighting for his life and begging for help, but he'll probably be dead before we get there, so I'll stay put".

The fact that the fight ended before some assets could have gone there, is not a valid excuse for not sending in those assets.

Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.

The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.

I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.


Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.


The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.



There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.


Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.



Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"




Keep making things up.

-spence

"The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded."

I agree. And in any rational perspective, we helped the people in Iraq, we did not conquer them. Spence, is Saddam not gone? Did the US military confiscate the oil fields? Did we rape all the women, and murder all the men?

"There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country."

And we didn't routinely do anything to cross that line. They have free elections, which we don't try to influence.

"Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings"

Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.

Now, you're saying that since there wasn't an armed garrison in Libya, there was no cavalry to send.

Spence, in these situations, you don't need an entire airborne division. A few special-forces types make all the difference. And for some reason, we didn't move any of those assets, full steaam, towards Benghazi. It's my understanding that there was some kind of force in Tripoli that was ordered not to go to Benghazi. If that's true, I want to know who gave that order, and why.
We know all this. The order to stay put was given by the head of Special Ops Command Africa because they weren't armed for combat and they were concerned about threats to the embassy in Tripoli.

The Military stated this just recently and it was also confirmed by Hick's testimony.

-spence

Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.
You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

Not to mention the common sense aspects. Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

It is obvious that "the Libyan people" are ideologically divided. Which perspective should we take, or should we take any or either perspective? How about the perspective of the American people? Do we, as a people, as a nation, have a perspective re the perspectives of the Libyan people? Do we The People have a say about our perspective? Are we even told all of the facts which would allow us to have a perspective? Or is our government acting with impunity, deciding what our perspective is or should be?

Not to mention the common sense aspects.

Let us not mention the common sense aspect of providing security for our people in a dangerous place, or at least a backup plan for emergency support/evacuation. I doubt that if our ambassador had known that he would become a martyr for the cause of being a partner with an unformed nation which wants our help, or doesn't, depending on which perspective we should take, and that his staff would also be martyrs, I doubt that he would take such an assignment. And if he was so deluded, such a mind should not be in charge of a mission where others could suffer the same fate. Nor should a government who would accede to the delusion that all was safe and no support was needed, be in charge of taking in mind the perceptions of Libyans or Americans, especially when it acts with the impunity of disregarding all perspectives but its own .

Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

Radicalization? From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?

We know all this. The order to stay put was given by the head of Special Ops Command Africa because they (special forces) weren't armed for combat
-spence

Can you show me support for that? you said before that they weren't sent in due to the fact that they weren't armed (after you said they weren't sent in because they didn't exist).

How is an active-duty, forward-serving special forces team, not prepared for combat? Hard to believe that could be the case. Their body armor and light weapons are never far away, their very mission ststement is to go off on little notice. They couldn't be ready within an hour? I don't think so...was all of Delta Force and all of the Seals having a costume party at the time? All of them?

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

Not to mention the common sense aspects. Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

"You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people."

And from where does your keen insight into the feelings of the Libyan people come from?

"I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further "

Who would agree with that? Not me. Again, you're inventing stuff to suit your agenda. You're saying that a heavy presence of US troops will only fuel the fire, not put out the flame? If that's true ( and it's not), please explain why the Iraq Surge was such an overwhelming success? One of us was there, one was not.

Spence, if a spot becomes volatile, the very best thing you can do to preserve the peace, is to have Marines everywhere. Despite what you believe, our presence keeps out the rif-raf,it does not embolden them.

t is obvious that "the Libyan people" are ideologically divided. Which perspective should we take, or should we take any or either perspective? How about the perspective of the American people? Do we, as a people, as a nation, have a perspective re the perspectives of the Libyan people? Do we The People have a say about our perspective? Are we even told all of the facts which would allow us to have a perspective? Or is our government acting with impunity, deciding what our perspective is or should be?
Have you been reading Fox in Sox?

Let us not mention the common sense aspect of providing security for our people in a dangerous place, or at least a backup plan for emergency support/evacuation. I doubt that if our ambassador had known that he would become a martyr for the cause of being a partner with an unformed nation which wants our help, or doesn't, depending on which perspective we should take, and that his staff would also be martyrs, I doubt that he would take such an assignment. And if he was so deluded, such a mind should not be in charge of a mission where others could suffer the same fate. Nor should a government who would accede to the delusion that all was safe and no support was needed, be in charge of taking in mind the perceptions of Libyans or Americans, especially when it acts with the impunity of disregarding all perspectives but its own .?
We have diplomats all over the world in dangerous situations, it's part of their job. The ARB has already determined mistakes were made and issued a pretty scathing report, anything more is just Monday morning quarterbacking or worse...


From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.
So?

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?
That assumes the partnership in place hasn't already been rationalized which I believe it has.

-spence

Have you been reading Fox in Sox?

Wrong.

We have diplomats all over the world in dangerous situations, it's part of their job. The ARB has already determined mistakes were made and issued a pretty scathing report, anything more is just Monday morning quarterbacking or worse...

Oooooo . . . a scathing report. That takes care of that. Let's move on. Nothing further to report, or consider, or look into. Matter resolved by a scathing report.

So?

So . . . why did you bring up that radicalization in Libya post Qadaffi was a concern? If radicalization is merely a matter of "perspective" why bother or care about it? Unless you choose to take sides, and then on what basis, by what perspective, do you choose?

That assumes the partnership in place hasn't already been rationalized which I believe it has.

-spence

Wrong again. The "partnership" is not rational. It has no solid, meaningful basis, nor predictable outcome. It's a roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up Muslim Brotherhood or Al qaeda.

Been awhile I've since been here and now I know why.261 responses later and I'm dumbfounded into what this thread has become.

My initial post:
This is direct quote from her after her '96 Balkans visit:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

We now know that the above statement was a complete and total LIE.

And we're supposed to except what she said during the Benghazi hearings as truth?That would be like handing a crack-head a 20 spot and he/she promises to spend the money on food.How can anything this woman says be trusted?

Next post by Spence:
I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way. It would be more disconcerting if it was important...

We didn't really learn that much new in the Clinton testimony. It's been investigated to death...

The woman is a complete and total liar,of course it matters.And yes we've actually learned much.How do you "sensationalize" a combat experience?

"Its been investigated to death".Really,has it?So why is it still under investigation to this day?Don't answer its a rhetorical question...SHE LIED!!!!!

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/28/60-minutes-yes-america-the-obama-administration-lied-to-you-about-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/28/60-minutes-yes-america-the-obama-administration-lied-to-you-about-benghazi/

Good article with good video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

I'll speak for Spence because he's busy making the rich. richer in the market right now.

" We have been through this over and over... Obama told the truth about everything. "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Its been investigated to death".Really,has it?So why is it still under investigation to this day?Don't answer its a rhetorical question...SHE LIED!!!!!
Politics.

-spence

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/28/60-minutes-yes-america-the-obama-administration-lied-to-you-about-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?

I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.

Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?

You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

-spence

Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?

I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.

Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?

You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

-spence

I find it absolutely amazing that you discredit somebody because you believe they might have lied .
LMFAO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?

She WAS good looking. I rechecked the video. Yup, the blue dress showed nice cleavage. Thanks for the retake. The first time I was more interested in the story. The parade of hot babes (info babes as Rush calls them) used to sell TV news loses a bit of its appeal after years of the same. But still works. Perhaps YOU were hypnotized by the breasts and missed the story.

I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.

What was "new" is that a network other than FOX is questioning the administrations veracity. Among other "noteworthy" bits in the story is that the administration obviously lied about the attack. That they knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. That, as it later admitted, proper security measures were not taken. That there was a credible threat warning and nothing was done about it.

Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?

Well . . . all the lies have not yet been determined. Hick's "lie" may merely be a semantic discrepancy. He was, at the time, a 22 year veteran in State with an impeccable reputation. The words "stand down" may never have been given, instead, the orders were "don't go." Or to wait. Or to do something else. Or, in some cases, no orders either way. I don't know which is the most damning, or the most beneficial for those in the embassy. To "stand down," or all those given orders, or lack of orders, would have led to the same result.

And the "other guy . . .who" was a highly trained and skilled professional in his trade who had helped keep American soldiers and security officials safe for 10 years. And who was hired by the State Dept. to train and supervise an UNARMED security team to protect the compound in Benghazi. He was an important contractor to the State Dept. and as such more than "Some random British mercenary type." And he warned State that the real (armed Lybian type) "mercenaries" which it hired to protect the annex should be gotten rid of, that they were useless and dangerous as they would run in the event of an attack. Which they did.

You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

Ah . . . so FOX has journalistic standards now? So, do you shop around your services or give them away for free? Oh . . . the dishonesty in selling your story for filthy lucre!

-spence

By the way, apparently, according to this story, Benghazi WAS a hotbed of terrorism--among other things, the Al Qaeda flags flying around the city and atop government buildings . . .

And yes, as Buckman pointed out, it's amazing you try to discredit Hicks because you accept his semantic misstatement as a lie, when the ones you defend lied from the beginning of the Benghazi episode, and about so many other things including the ACA.

As your usual Debutch, summarized in detail, and backed by facts.

57381

What was "new" is that a network other than FOX is questioning the administrations veracity. Among other "noteworthy" bits in the story is that the administration obviously lied about the attack. That they knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. That, as it later admitted, proper security measures were not taken. That there was a credible threat warning and nothing was done about it.
The piece presents NOTHING that proves the Administration lied about the attack. What it does is juxtapose known information with narrow opinions to come to conclusions it couldn't defend if called to.

Well . . . all the lies have not yet been determined. Hick's "lie" may merely be a semantic discrepancy. He was, at the time, a 22 year veteran in State with an impeccable reputation. The words "stand down" may never have been given, instead, the orders were "don't go." Or to wait. Or to do something else. Or, in some cases, no orders either way. I don't know which is the most damning, or the most beneficial for those in the embassy. To "stand down," or all those given orders, or lack of orders, would have led to the same result.
Ultimately it comes down to the idea were our people left ti die...again, the piece provides NOTHING to contradict the notion the response was withheld.

And the "other guy . . .who" was a highly trained and skilled professional in his trade who had helped keep American soldiers and security officials safe for 10 years. And who was hired by the State Dept. to train and supervise an UNARMED security team to protect the compound in Benghazi. He was an important contractor to the State Dept. and as such more than "Some random British mercenary type." And he warned State that the real (armed Lybian type) "mercenaries" which it hired to protect the annex should be gotten rid of, that they were useless and dangerous as they would run in the event of an attack. Which they did.
Weak security has already been assessed and deemed a systemic failure within the State department...it's old news.

Ah . . . so FOX has journalistic standards now? So, do you shop around your services or give them away for free? Oh . . . the dishonesty in selling your story for filthy lucre!
Usually it's frowned upon. FOX was initially interested in his story but cut him off when he demanded to be paid. Doesn't sound like someone trying to get the truth out for a noble cause.

By the way, apparently, according to this story, Benghazi WAS a hotbed of terrorism--among other things, the Al Qaeda flags flying around the city and atop government buildings . . .
al Qaeda flags were already to have known to be flying, but that's a far cry from proof that al Qaeda led the attack. The State department documents which would capture any knowledge of advance warning have been part of multiple reviews.

Why hasn't the House led witch hunt produced any witches? It is nearly Halloween after all...

-spence

Nothing has changed.She's still a liar.

She claimed to have been shot at and was not,that's like claiming to be a vet and never have served.This cannot under any circumstances be refuted.....she LIED.

Some mod please close this thread.Its completely ridiculous to keep this thread open knowing with complete certainty that my original post is 100% accurate.

that's like claiming to be a vet and never have served.


I know a POS that does this......real piece of work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She claimed to have been shot at and was not,that's like claiming to be a vet and never have served.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. State department workers often put themselves in harms way and many qualify for Danger Pay for approved posts.

And...just like the military they don't get a lot of monetary compensation for putting their lives at risk for the service of our country.

-spence

I don't think that's a fair comparison. State department workers often put themselves in harms way and many qualify for Danger Pay for approved posts.

And...just like the military they don't get a lot of monetary compensation for putting their lives at risk for the service of our country.

-spence

She didn't !!!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think that's a fair comparison. State department workers often put themselves in harms way and many qualify for Danger Pay for approved posts.

And...just like the military they don't get a lot of monetary compensation for putting their lives at risk for the service of our country.

-spence

Are you out of your mind?

SHE CLAIMED TO HAVE COME UNDER ENEMY FIRE.SHE DID NOT!!!

State department workers are not soldiers,don't make the comparison.And as far as compensation goes you don't join the goddam military for the effing MONEY!!!

You make me sick for saying crap so stupid.

Btw done.This kind of sh!t makes me want to puke.

My point had nothing to do with what Hillary did or didn't do, it was that State Department officials often do enter into dangerous positions with their service. That being said, she did enter into a known dangerous area even if she did stretch the truth as to the situation when she arrived.

The pay comment was more of an observation. I doubt anyone would take a dangerous State post because of money either. The note was that our government seems to take a token attitude towards such things.

I'll file both of your comments under oy vey.

-spence

The piece presents NOTHING that proves the Administration lied about the attack. What it does is juxtapose known information with narrow opinions to come to conclusions it couldn't defend if called to.

No, there is no absolute proof that someone has told a lie. Even an admission by the liar that he lied is not absolute proof. There is very strong evidence that the administration knew that the attack was not because of an anti-Muslim video. Besides the strong evidence, it makes far less sense that the attack was instigated by the video, and far more sense that the terrorist events leading up to it, and Al Qaeda's promise to attack Americans make it more likely that the event was terrorist inspired and executed.

Ultimately it comes down to the idea were our people left ti die...again, the piece provides NOTHING to contradict the notion the response was withheld.

Correct, the piece provides nothing to contradict the "notion" that a response was withheld. It actually provides things that SUPPORT the "notion" that it was withheld. And because of that our people were left to die.

Weak security has already been assessed and deemed a systemic failure within the State department...it's old news.

No, if it appeared on October 27 it is not old news. And by CBS not FOX. And the presentation implies something far worse than systemic failure . . . whatever that is. Systemic failure of security means that such failure in the State Dept. is built in, continuous, and unresolved. That is obviously not the case. But a failure that is either willful or incompetent is another matter, and can be attributed to personnel. And an effort to deflect the blame away from the persons responsible is lying.

Usually it's frowned upon. FOX was initially interested in his story but cut him off when he demanded to be paid. Doesn't sound like someone trying to get the truth out for a noble cause.

And yet FOX, and NBC, and CBS, and ABC, and CNN, and so on, all demand to be paid for trying to get the truth out, or even for obfuscating, distorting, and dismissing the truth. And a lot of them get paid far more than Morgan would have gotten. I'll put my bet on the guy who was there to tell the truth, paid or not, rather than the network "investigators" who ferret out, second or third hand, the "truth" they wish to report.

al Qaeda flags were already to have known to be flying, but that's a far cry from proof that al Qaeda led the attack. The State department documents which would capture any knowledge of advance warning have been part of multiple reviews.

Al Qaeda in Libya boasted that it would attack the Red Cross, the British Embassy, and the Americans. They made good on the first two threats. Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, based in Tripoli, warned State that he believed Al Qaeda was in the final planning stages for that third attack and it also became known that Abu Anas Al-Libi was in Libya to set up a terror network. Wood said the administration wouldn't relocate the consulate after the situation deteriorated before the attack.

Morgan Jones warnings and requests were ignored.

Hicks' request for help during the attack were ignored.

Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security were not responded to.

A series of attacks besides those on the Red Cross and British Embassy had taken place.

Al Qaeda flags were flying.

Nah, no proof that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack. More likely it was an obscure video.

Why hasn't the House led witch hunt produced any witches? It is nearly Halloween after all...

-spence

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

well that was a beat down in fantasy vs. reality :uhuh:

CNN And CBS...these guys are traitors to the cause I guess :)

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack


CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

There is very strong evidence that the administration knew that the attack was not because of an anti-Muslim video. Besides the strong evidence, it makes far less sense that the attack was instigated by the video, and far more sense that the terrorist events leading up to it, and Al Qaeda's promise to attack Americans make it more likely that the event was terrorist inspired and executed.
There was also a lot of evidence at the time that it was inspired by the video. Interviews of those on the ground said it was about the video. There were many threats to embassy locations about the video...oh, and that little incident in Egypt where they did actually storm the embassy.

I've never heard there was any actionable intelligence that the attack was coming, just bigger threats and an escalating security situation.

Correct, the piece provides nothing to contradict the "notion" that a response was withheld. It actually provides things that SUPPORT the "notion" that it was withheld. And because of that our people were left to die.

Like what? This entire argument has been debunked by just about every organization involved. It's kept alive by individual opinions and misinformation.

No, if it appeared on October 27 it is not old news. And by CBS not FOX. And the presentation implies something far worse than systemic failure . . . whatever that is. Systemic failure of security means that such failure in the State Dept. is built in, continuous, and unresolved. That is obviously not the case. But a failure that is either willful or incompetent is another matter, and can be attributed to personnel. And an effort to deflect the blame away from the persons responsible is lying.

Saying something that's already been put to bed doesn't make it new news unless you can bring new evidence to light. They really didn't succeed here. The Mullen report is pretty damning on the State department for what went wrong.

Al Qaeda in Libya boasted that it would attack the Red Cross, the British Embassy, and the Americans. They made good on the first two threats. Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, based in Tripoli, warned State that he believed Al Qaeda was in the final planning stages for that third attack and it also became known that Abu Anas Al-Libi was in Libya to set up a terror network. Wood said the administration wouldn't relocate the consulate after the situation deteriorated before the attack.

Morgan Jones warnings and requests were ignored.

Hicks' request for help during the attack were ignored.

Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security were not responded to.

A series of attacks besides those on the Red Cross and British Embassy had taken place.

Al Qaeda flags were flying.

Nah, no proof that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack. More likely it was an obscure video.
The investigations have already shown that internal alarms got caught up in the system...again, it's old news.

And you don't attribute something to al Qaeda unless you have evidence. The video describes the "al Qaeda terrorists" like they've come to the conclusion this was planned and executed as a major al Qaeda attack. To date I've never seen any evidence of this. It was carried out by a local militia some members of whom had links to al Qaeda...that al Qaeda was gaining strength would make them a suspect but doesn't assign guilt. There were/are a lot of factions in the region who don't like us.

-spence

Since lack of experience and lying about your past are now prerequisites for running for (and becoming) president, she's already won the election!

nothing more need be said.....

There was also a lot of evidence at the time that it was inspired by the video. Interviews of those on the ground said it was about the video. There were many threats to embassy locations about the video...oh, and that little incident in Egypt where they did actually storm the embassy.

I guess those interviews on the ground didn't involve queries of those who were actually responsible for the attack. Or maybe those interviewed were lying. It is well known that Islamic Jihad requires you to lie to the enemy if that is useful in conquering him. So why immediately go to the "it was the video" rather than waiting for confirmation of responsibility, especially if there was strong evidence that it was terrorism?

I've never heard there was any actionable intelligence that the attack was coming, just bigger threats and an escalating security situation.

Did you just answer your own hearing. Threats, bigger threats, escalating security situation . . . and no response.

Like what? This entire argument has been debunked by just about every organization involved. It's kept alive by individual opinions and misinformation.

Apparently it has not been debunked. The question exists because no adequate answer has been given. And more information is not given in the face of requests for it. Relevant interviews and information is denied or made secret. That keeps it alive.

Saying something that's already been put to bed doesn't make it new news unless you can bring new evidence to light. They really didn't succeed here. The Mullen report is pretty damning on the State department for what went wrong.


The investigations have already shown that internal alarms got caught up in the system...again, it's old news.

Mullen said the "security posture" was inadequate for "the threat environment in Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place that night." Which is exactly what those who asked for a better "posture" were saying and their requests were not addressed.

Mullen also said that there was an "inherent weakness of Libyan support element . . .an unarmed local contract guard force with skill deficits to secure the compound"--(which Morgan, the "new" guy in the 60 Minute piece, was hired to train, and which did what they could with that training, but being unarmed against well-armed trained and organized terrorists could only result in failure), and Mullen also said the "absence of a strong central government presence in Benghazi meant the Special Mission had to rely on a militia with uncertain reliability" which Morgan requested several times to be replaced because they would run rather than fight--which they did.

Mullen mentions "security systems and procedures" being "implemented properly by American personnel, but those systems themselves and the Libyan response fell short . . ." as if the system was at fault. But does the "system" absolve personnel and leadership from implanting it in environments where threats are high, local support is inadequate or harmful, and not enough resources are given to address the problems, and no resources are given in response to requests for it? Doubtful.

He said "It is not reasonable, nor feasible to tether US forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world." If it's not feasible, then why place them there? Why deploy personnel to low or no risk embassies instead of high risk ones.? Why cut defense spending instead of "non-essential" discretionary items? Why not deploy and supply high risk posts if you want to maintain them?

He says "there was no immediate tactical warning of the Sept. 11 attacks"--yet there were warnings before the "immediate" event. waiting for "immediate" warnings while disregarding those along the way assures chicken-with- head-cut off response--failure.

He says "increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in Libya." Whether the "relief" was "clear" or muddy it was apparently fraught with danger, and to "partner" with local governance in that "relief" with its "backdrop" of uncertainty and violence, to secure the safety of our people, seems to be an incompetent administrative decision.

He says "we did conclude that certain State Department bureau-level senior officials in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of leadership and management ability appropriate for senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by the Special Mission."--Guess the buck stops with the bureaucrats, not their boss.

Some Republicans called the Pickering/Mullen report a "whitewash."

Democrats found significant fault with the State Department for establishing Benghazi as a 'temporary post' without the full security of an embassy or consulate that could provide at least some ammunition for criticism of Clinton . . ."--Yahoo News.

And you don't attribute something to al Qaeda unless you have evidence. The video describes the "al Qaeda terrorists" like they've come to the conclusion this was planned and executed as a major al Qaeda attack. To date I've never seen any evidence of this. It was carried out by a local militia some members of whom had links to al Qaeda...that al Qaeda was gaining strength would make them a suspect but doesn't assign guilt. There were/are a lot of factions in the region who don't like us.

-spence

And you don't attribute the attack to an obscure video alone before you investigate the large evidence of terrorist culpability, including, and especially, Al Qaeda involvement. Al Qaeda is comprised of a network of regional factions, militias, individuals, who support it. You have seen NO evidence of a major Al Qaeda attack? Interesting.

And you don't attribute the attack to an obscure video alone before you investigate the large evidence of terrorist culpability,.

If you are Hilary, and the 4 killed Americans were your employees, you also don't shriek that "it doesn't matter" how they were killed. How does that make the families feel, that the boss of their fallen fam,ily members doesn't care baout the circumstances in which they died.

I guess those interviews on the ground didn't involve queries of those who were actually responsible for the attack. Or maybe those interviewed were lying. It is well known that Islamic Jihad requires you to lie to the enemy if that is useful in conquering him. So why immediately go to the "it was the video" rather than waiting for confirmation of responsibility, especially if there was strong evidence that it was terrorism?
I think they presented the story as it appeared. It looked as though a protest formed that was rapidly taken over by heavily armed extremists. Even a week later I'm not sure they had any real evidence to contradict that view...other than circumstantial.

Did you just answer your own hearing. Threats, bigger threats, escalating security situation . . . and no response.
Actionable as in specific...time, location etc...

Apparently it has not been debunked. The question exists because no adequate answer has been given. And more information is not given in the face of requests for it. Relevant interviews and information is denied or made secret. That keeps it alive.
Politics keep it alive. When the leadership responsible in the US Military, CIA, State etc... all say there wasn't a better response option should pretty much put the issue to bed. The "stand down" story has been discredited.

To overturn a call on the field you have to have clear evidence it was wrong...not a conspiracy theory.

Mullen said <snip>
All that's known. The report was extremely critical of the working in the State Department. What's important is if the system is corrected. Some Republicans called it a "whitewash" because it didn't hang Clinton out to dry.

And you don't attribute the attack to an obscure video alone before you investigate the large evidence of terrorist culpability, including, and especially, Al Qaeda involvement. Al Qaeda is comprised of a network of regional factions, militias, individuals, who support it. You have seen NO evidence of a major Al Qaeda attack? Interesting.
No direct evidence, no.

The 60 Min piece is also walking on thin ice with their accusation that the attack was well planned...the internal findings were just the opposite, that it was planned yet disorganized. They seem to be hinging that remark on the comment that hitting a rooftop with a mortar is like making a basket over your shoulder.

Perhaps Jim can give us some input on how quickly an experienced mortar crew (assuming as they just came off a civil war) could dial in a building from a close range.

-spence

This is great...so Morgan Jones (pseudonym), the Brit who was the focus of the 60 Minutes piece may just be a liar as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/60-minutes-broadcast-helps-propel-new-round-of-back-and-forth-on-benghazi/2013/10/31/fbfcad66-4258-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html

Summary...in the interview he talks about scaling a wall and beating up terrorists trying to save his friends.

In the incident report to his employer he said he spent most of the night at his beach-side villa and couldn't get to the compound because of road blocks.

If there only was a book deal...wait for it...wait for it...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476751137?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1476751137&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20

-spence

I think they presented the story as it appeared. It looked as though a protest formed that was rapidly taken over by heavily armed extremists. Even a week later I'm not sure they had any real evidence to contradict that view...other than circumstantial.

My first reaction to such reasoning is that to say an American citizen exercising his free speech rights, no matter how offensive it may be to others, cannot be a "spontaneous" cause of what happened at Benghazi. If the reaction to a video is to kill, especially those who did not make the video nor who expressed thoughts that were in the video and who expressly were there to help the people of Libya, then the reaction is ideological in nature. To merely label the killers "extremists" tells nothing about them. Extreme in what? In their view of how Islam is to be followed? And if the vast majority of Libyans don't hold the "extremist" views, then how did the "extremists" arrive at those views? Views, BTW, quite similar, even identical, to "extremist" views throughout Islam in much of the world. Did the Benghazi "extremists" just "spontaneously" come up with those views out of the clear blue on their own?

I don't think so. I think there is too much evidence that such extreme views have been disseminated and taught by specific elements in Islam, al Qaeda among them. Whether it was al Qaeda, which was openly operating in Libya, or other "extreme" jihadists, it makes much more sense that these violent "protests" are prodded by and planned by larger jihadist organizations rather than by mindless, emotional, "spontaneous" outbursts.

My second reaction is suspicion that a quick explanation of what happened, in the face what is happening worldwide and what was happening in Libya, is that it was just some crazy outburst due to some crazy and obscure video . . . that such an explanation quickly arrived at and broadcast as the reason for the killing, was a whitewash of the event, not only to cover deeper "systemic" blame, but to mollify the feelings of our Islamic "partners." Constantly hiding the truth, no matter how noble the objective, leads to that wider "systemic" culture which has pervaded our political society--explanation and persuasion by spin.

Actionable as in specific...time, location etc...

How about preventive when various specifics in extended time and locations presage violent events.

Politics keep it alive. When the leadership responsible in the US Military, CIA, State etc... all say there wasn't a better response option should pretty much put the issue to bed. The "stand down" story has been discredited.

When the leadership tries to cover up mistakes or incompetence then it is valuable for politics to keep the issue alive until the truth is known, or it will continue on its corrupt path. The "stand down story" has been deliberately discredited by semantic obfuscation. The phrase "stand down" has a specific military meaning to desist, to stop doing, to do nothing. It has a very direct and immediate command to stop the action of the moment. So the phrase "stand down" may not have been used by military commanders. If civilians loosely use the term to describe a denial of requests for aid or better security, it would be a semantic error, but a true description of events.

To overturn a call on the field you have to have clear evidence it was wrong...not a conspiracy theory.

Those asking for help had clear evidence that it was needed AS LATER PROVED CORRECT. If the evidence was clear to them, and they were correct, what does that say about the competence of those who overturned the call. Great battles have been won not merely on evidence but by hunch or leaders who disregarded bureaucratic procedures who assessed situations with greater competence than those safely ensconced in a far away "system."

All that's known. The report was extremely critical of the working in the State Department. What's important is if the system is corrected. Some Republicans called it a "whitewash" because it didn't hang Clinton out to dry.

They called it a whitewash because they saw it as a whitewash. Blaming a "system" as the fault rather than incompetent leadership is the whitewash. Systems only work with competent personnel and leaders. Dumb will always destroy system.

And Democrats in the investigation called the leadership into question which is even more damaging to Clinton.

The 60 Min piece is also walking on thin ice with their accusation that the attack was well planned...the internal findings were just the opposite, that it was planned yet disorganized. They seem to be hinging that remark on the comment that hitting a rooftop with a mortar is like making a basket over your shoulder.

Ah, the big difference was not that it was spontaneous, but that it was planned "yet disorganized" rather than being "well" planned. So who did the "disorganized" planning (didn't seem all that disorganized, even well executed)?

Perhaps Jim can give us some input on how quickly an experienced mortar crew (assuming as they just came off a civil war) could dial in a building from a close range.

-spence

I think Jim has already made pertinent comments on how Stevens and the others could have been saved.

This is great...so Morgan Jones (pseudonym), the Brit who was the focus of the 60 Minutes piece may just be a liar as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/60-minutes-broadcast-helps-propel-new-round-of-back-and-forth-on-benghazi/2013/10/31/fbfcad66-4258-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html

Summary...in the interview he talks about scaling a wall and beating up terrorists trying to save his friends.

In the incident report to his employer he said he spent most of the night at his beach-side villa and couldn't get to the compound because of road blocks.

If there only was a book deal...wait for it...wait for it...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476751137?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1476751137&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20

-spence

Or maybe he just, as you say Hillary did, told a fib while the greater part is true.

I see CBS stands by it story.

I hope he makes tons of money on his book. Probably not. At least get a car or two, maybe a house, some food, health care . . . oh yeah, he probably won't need much money if he qualifies for subsidies, like Congress . . . oh wait, they make too much money to qualify for those subsidies . . . but they deserve them much more than the middle class they're trying to help and protect.

The greater "system" that is responsible for Benghazi "glitches" and health insurance, and surveillance, and crony capitalism, and wealth distribution (which always seem somehow to profit the rich) glitches, is the peculiar progressive ad hoc system of solving all problems by a central authority which constantly expands in order to be able to solve the greater problems it creates by its solvings.

This is great...so Morgan Jones (pseudonym), the Brit who was the focus of the 60 Minutes piece may just be a liar as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/60-minutes-broadcast-helps-propel-new-round-of-back-and-forth-on-benghazi/2013/10/31/fbfcad66-4258-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html

Summary...in the interview he talks about scaling a wall and beating up terrorists trying to save his friends.

In the incident report to his employer he said he spent most of the night at his beach-side villa and couldn't get to the compound because of road blocks.

If there only was a book deal...wait for it...wait for it...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476751137?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1476751137&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20

-spence

and you come to this conclusion based on 1 brief quote from a 2 1/2 page report..

In Davies’s 21 / 2-page incident report to Blue Mountain, the Britain-based contractor hired by the State Department to handle perimeter security at the compound, he wrote that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa. Although he attempted to get to the compound, he wrote in the report, “we could not get anywhere near . . . as roadblocks had been set up.”

wow...your threshold for lying and evidence of lying is quite low with those who's words might might reflect poorly on your hero and his historically corrupt, dishonest and thuggish administration....yet you engage in remarkable contortions to defend and dismiss their most heinous and obvious transgressions....


there is something really wrong with that...:uhuh:

That being said, she did enter into a known dangerous area even if she did stretch the truth as to the situation when she arrived.

-spence

Spence seriously, you say that being that there were no snipers and no gunfire
and her saying she was under sniper fire is stretching the truth?
It's either the truth or false, there is no stretching the truth here.
It was an out right lie, trying to make herself look like a heroines.
"A women noted for courage and daring action." pfft-

and you come to this conclusion based on 1 brief quote from a 2 1/2 page report..

In Davies’s 21 / 2-page incident report to Blue Mountain, the Britain-based contractor hired by the State Department to handle perimeter security at the compound, he wrote that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa. Although he attempted to get to the compound, he wrote in the report, “we could not get anywhere near . . . as roadblocks had been set up.”

wow...your threshold for lying and evidence of lying is quite low with those who's words might might reflect poorly on your hero and his historically corrupt, dishonest and thuggish administration....yet you engage in remarkable contortions to defend and dismiss their most heinous and obvious transgressions....


there is something really wrong with that...:uhuh:

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAH...

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cbs-news-chairman-time-to-own-reporting-error-in-60-minutes-1200809273/

-spence

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/08/21369183-publisher-pulls-cbs-sources-benghazi-book?lite

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAH...

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cbs-news-chairman-time-to-own-reporting-error-in-60-minutes-1200809273/

-spence


wow...your threshold for lying and evidence of lying is quite low with those who's words might might reflect poorly on your hero and his historically corrupt, dishonest and thuggish administration....yet you engage in remarkable contortions to defend and dismiss their most heinous and obvious transgressions....


there is something really wrong with that...:uhuh:

this is still entirely accurate:uhuh:

wow...your threshold for lying and evidence of lying is quite low with those who's words might might reflect poorly on your hero and his historically corrupt, dishonest and thuggish administration....yet you engage in remarkable contortions to defend and dismiss their most heinous and obvious transgressions....


there is something really wrong with that...:uhuh:

this is still entirely accurate:uhuh:
Straws grasping...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straws grasping...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you clearly are..on a regular basis.....clown

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That being said, he did enter into a known dangerous area even if he did stretch the truth as to the situation when he arrived.

-spence

Wow, now you've resorted to fabricating quotes...

As for the clown crap, grow up.

-spence