Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'd pay to watch Spence watch the movie...

Just offer to take him to Marahalls for a 15 minute Italian leather men's dress shoes shopping spree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think you would find it an honest movie , you might like it . No talking animals, magic or rainbows so it might be a refreshing change .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

There is a scene of men mobilizing and waiting for the go order . Not sure if that happened for real or not . Still waiting for the results of the investigation
It's a pretty good movie. You really should go see it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

The movie showed the stand-down order. The book mentioned the stand-down order. Everyone that participated in the conversation, minus one, claims that there was a stand-down order. The one person who denies it, is the man accused of giving it, who therefore has a fairly significant reason to deny it.

Only those 6 guys know whether or not the stand-down order was given. I'm curious to know why the committees ignored the group and believed the one guy.

[Nebe]

Very good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...recent-round-/


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this


From the Washington post:
Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Feb. 21, 2014: During a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New Hampshire, Issa said he had “suspicions” that Clinton told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “stand down.” He also asked why “there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset.” But both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders. One could argue that the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But we determined that Issa crossed a line when he claimed there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. Issa earned Four Pinocchios.

And from Factcheck.org

House Speaker John Boehner says there are “unanswered questions” about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. He specifically asks “why didn’t we attempt to rescue” Americans under siege and why were some U.S. personnel “told not to get involved” in rescue attempts?

But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report.

I'm sure we'll continue to hear how people where told to stand down until after the election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

.

I'm just curious, how did the committees (some of which were controlled by the GOP, so it' snot pure partisan crap) determine that the special forces guys in Benghazi, were lying when they said they were ordered to stand down?

Does anyone know how congress determined these guys are lying? Because these guys are still claiming they were ordered to stand down, so if the contradictory evidence was as clear as an audiotape, common sense suggests they'd change their tune.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...recent-round-/


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this


From the Washington post:
Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Feb. 21, 2014: During a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New Hampshire, Issa said he had “suspicions” that Clinton told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “stand down.” He also asked why “there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset.” But both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders. One could argue that the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But we determined that Issa crossed a line when he claimed there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. Issa earned Four Pinocchios.

And from Factcheck.org

House Speaker John Boehner says there are “unanswered questions” about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. He specifically asks “why didn’t we attempt to rescue” Americans under siege and why were some U.S. personnel “told not to get involved” in rescue attempts?

But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report.

I'm sure we'll continue to hear how people where told to stand down until after the election.

If this is true , what I would like to see answered is why there were no assets available . I have never heard a truthful,intellectual response to that question . "Mistakes were made" isn't a good enough answer . Well it isn't good enough for me anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

If this is true , what I would like to see answered is why there were no assets available . I have never heard a truthful,intellectual response to that question . "Mistakes were made" isn't a good enough answer . Well it isn't good enough for me anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

true. Libya was a well-known hot spot (other countries had evacuated from benghazi because of threats, so it wasn't a secret). So if we had notign that could have gotten there within 12 hours, that's almost as bad as if we had assets that just sat there.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

true. Libya was a well-known hot spot (other countries had evacuated from benghazi because of threats, so it wasn't a secret). So if we had notign that could have gotten there within 12 hours, that's almost as bad as if we had assets that just sat there.

I couldn't agree more and those that did not do their job should be held accountable. Just like in real life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Not every country left. We are supposed to lead, not follow.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not every country left. We are supposed to lead, not follow.

So leadership, even if it involves leading your people into an ambush, is good? The people who followed England out of Benghazi, are still alive.

Come on, Paul. Multiple countries and the Red Cross got their people the hell out of Benghazi. Not only did we leave Stevens there, but we denied his repeated requests for extra security. Hindsight is always 20-20, I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the furure every time. But are you going to tell me that this wasn't badly bungled? Really?


- Multiple countries leave Benghazi, because they realize they can't keep their people safe.

- We leave our people there.

- Stevens asks for more security, his bosses decline.

- during a 13 hour attack, no outside assets were brought to help in the fight, except for 4 guys who drove themselves to the Tripoli airport and arranged for a plane to fly to Benghazi, then arranged for a car to take them to the CIA station.

- after the attack, every statement Hilary made in private, claimed it was a terrorist attack. Every statement she made in public, blamed a spontaneous reation to an offensive video (and therefore, not something she could have foreseen or prevented).

That's effective leadership?

Come on. If you think there's no cause for concern there, that's as bad as my saying that Bush responed well to Hurricane Katrina.

[PaulS]

As I said, were supposed to lead, not follow.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said, were supposed to lead, not follow.

So your idea of leadership was leaving your embassy , on 9/11 , in a virtual war zone , with no security and no plan A,,B or C ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

So your idea of leadership was leaving your embassy , on 9/11 , in a virtual war zone , with no security and no plan A,,B or C ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.And where did she get that info?

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?Based on info. from whom? Was the intel that Pres. Bush shared a lie or was it the biggest intelligence failure in our history?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

So you must be in the camp w/Trump and blame Pres. Bush for 9/11, right? Someone has to be blamed!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They thought they had adequate security. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In which "no air assets within a 13 hour flight radius" = adequate security.

Atta boy, Columbo!

[spence]

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by buckman

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck, the posts by PaulS and Spence should confirm for you the circle jerk of denial that they keep spinning. And the last one by Spence perfectly describes their own effort: "God that's pathetic." At least he occasionally uses the word "God." "Heaven" only knows why.

I mean, really? Paul says "They thought they had adequate security." Is that supposed to be an excuse for being wrong? the so-called "security" plan was a departure from the norm. And it was seriously stupid. (Not to mention Stevens' repeated requests for more protection).

Then he asks "Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security?" As if they could get past Obama's veto. Maybe the Dems should have provided more security with the proper funding? They have no compunction about spending money we don't have whenever they want to do something. Funding adequate security would have been a financial drip in a bathtub compared to all the "investments" in their sacred Great Society programs which have bankrupted the nation. Let us just overlook the fact that they intentionally provided a lack of normal security in order to show the Libyans that we weren't somehow trying to invade their turf, or bullying our way into it. Lack of funding was not the problem. Lack of proper security provided by an intentional and foolish plan was the problem.

Then he says "There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq." I didn't know that time was spent on trying to find out how we ended up there. Didn't think that was even a mystery. And so what? Must there be some equivalence in time spent? What does his sentence have to do with anything other than trying to make something important look ridiculous.

Then he says "Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people." Which makes one ask why we had such inadequate security.

Finally he asks "Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"
Many think we should. But, if we don't, shouldn't we have better protection than was provided at Benghazi?

But the circle jerk of denial insists that we should not be wasting time on such things because lots of "investigations" supposedly didn't find that Clinton did anything wrong . . . wink wink.

Its all "old news" except when they come across some article in the NY Times or Salon that makes their circle jerk look good. Then it's worth talking about. (Unless we keep bringing up time-wasting discussions about the incompetent management of Benghazi.)

[PaulS]

Oops, almost started reading that boring post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

There it is, Buck. They just keep deflecting by piling on the nonsense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

We are all involved in circle jerks. It's just that my circle jerk is better than yours.

A mistake, incompetence, poor judgment, are not examples of "wrong doing." The "investigations" explicitly noted that Benghazi was avoidable and happened because of mistakes, incompetence and poor judgment. The most egregious being the lack of proper security. And that was not just the usual "systemic" failure, or normal human fallibility. It was poor judgment in administrative planning to leave the responsibility for security to a substandard, unarmed, Libyan contingent. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/liby...pound-benghazi Even more so if there was no timely available assistance in close enough air bases for support. There was an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans at the expense of security for Americans.

I realize that there are a number of Americans who approve of that type of appeasement. But I don't think most Americans do. And it is proper to point out that appeasement mindset in a candidate for POTUS. Or for any other government post.