Hillary

[spence]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Maybe the Obama administration got to the reporter
Next ..... I feel bad for you Spence. this must be getting exhausting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

Never said such a thing...keep whiffing.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Never said such a thing....

-spence

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

"I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya..."

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

When the Allies stormed Normandy Beach in June 1944, you could call it an i'nvasion', but not in the sense that I gather you mean... i'm confident that you are likening Bush to Gengis Kahn. The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

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.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

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.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

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

in·va·sion: Noun

entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.

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

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

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

The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

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

Directly after the invasion, polling suggested that a slight majority supported the US invasion.[9] The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US presence and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war and that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction.[10] Other polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 showed 31–37% of Iraqi's wanted US and other Coalition forces to withdraw once security was restored and that 26–35% wanted immediate withdrawal instead.[11][12][13] Another poll conducted on September 27, 2006, found that seven out of ten Iraqis want US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq within one year. Overall, 78% of those polled said they believed that the presence of US forces is "provoking more conflict than it's preventing." 53% of those polled believed the Iraqi government would be strengthened if US forces left Iraq (versus 23% who believed it would be weakened), and 71% wanted this to happen in 1 year or less. All of these positions were more prevalent amongst Sunni and Shia respondents than among Kurds. 61% of respondents said that they approve of attacks on US-led forces, although 94% still had an unfavorable opinion of al-Qaeda.[14] Despite a majority having previously been opposed to the US presence, 60% of Iraqis opposed American troops leaving directly prior to withdrawal, with 51% saying withdrawal would have a negative effect.[15][16]
A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces was making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

Keep making things up.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[justplugit]

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

[Fishpart]

[spence]

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.

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

[basswipe]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[scottw]

well that was a beat down in fantasy vs. reality

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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