Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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