Hillary

[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.

[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

[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

[Nebe]

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

Love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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]

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.

[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

[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

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 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

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]

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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-

[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/...dbc_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/147...thewaspos09-20

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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/...dbc_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/147...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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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/...dbc_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/147...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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAH...

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cbs-...es-1200809273/

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAH...

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cbs-...es-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...

this is still entirely accurate

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

this is still entirely accurate

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

[spence]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...hazi-book?lite

[spence]

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

As for the clown crap, grow up.

-spence