Hillary

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy

-spence

great source ... two unnamed "government officials"..."said".... hope they got the right draft of the memo

[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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy

-spence

(1) Stevens may have declined military help weeks before the attack. But he asked the State Department for extra security before the attack. Not only was this request denied, his security force was reduced.

(2) During the firefight, the former Seals repeatedly asked that the cavalry be sent in to destroy the mortar positioned that they had lit up with a laser sight.

Therefore, I can't see mich relevence in your post, in which it is alleged that Stevens declined extra military security. Perhaps he assumed he'd get the security he needed from his superiors at the State Department.

no one can know, and I can't see how it matters.

You post something that's off topic, and offer no explanation on how it ties to incompetence and a cover-up at the State Dept and the White House, all you can say is "wow".

Wow.

[Jim in CT]

Were there Marines at the embassy in Tripoli? If so, I wonder what they wanted to do, and what they were told...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(2) During the firefight, the former Seals repeatedly asked that the cavalry be sent in to destroy the mortar positioned that they had lit up with a laser sight.

.

This is what should have destroyed" the movie mob cause" reason for the attack from the getgo.
Like crowds of movie goers are carrying mortars around with them to or after the show. What a farce.

[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

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

This is what should have destroyed" the movie mob cause" reason for the attack from the getgo.
Like crowds of movie goers are carrying mortars around with them to or after the show. What a farce.

The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.

I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.

-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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.

I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.

-spence

It's certainly possible that if this started out as an anti-video protest, that hours later, it morphed into a military asault.

So the use of mortars, hours later, doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have started as a protest. However, from the testimony I have seen, it appears that there was very little reason to assume it started as a protest, and overwhelming reason to assume it was an assault.

In the Rose Garden the next morning, Obaba said terrorist acts would not be tolerated. Stands to reason he was talking about the Benghazi assault. That's why I van't understand why someone very high up, told Rice to go on TV day slater, and play the anti-video protest card.

If Obama called it what it clearly was, there is no way Republicans can allege cover-up. But the feds changed their story, Rice's comments on TV were baffling, as was Hilary's disgraceful performance at the hearings, when she claimed it didn't matter how it started. What she is saying is, don't hold this administration for the validity of what they say.

This was easily avoidable, but Obama/Hilary brought this onm themselves.

[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

[justplugit]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by 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?

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[basswipe]

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!!!!!

[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 basswipe

"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

[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.