disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
lol all you are running is clinton and you have the gull to say we have no one?
that is rich myopic view is myopic.
GOP ConservaTEAs have been singing "4 dead in Ben--gha--zi" since that terrible day. What short memories these "mission accomplished" folks have of 9/11 and the disastrous CHOICE to destabilize Iraq. Everyday 22 more Iraqi Veterans commit suicide and "silence of the lambs" .
You are one of very few that don't believe that Clinton is a formidable candidate and I doubt seriously that you even actually believe that. Sorry....but the nomination and the Presidency are her's if she wants it.....absent some unknown event or someone in the GOP comes out of the woodwork, because the current sorry lot doesn't cut it. Almost makes the 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates look good.
Conservatives do not get to say **** about politicizing the death of those people.
OK, so you're talking about a different "marching order" I assume that has nothing to do with the so-called 'stand down' order.
It's why I asked, because I can't tell what the person was talking about.
And I'm sorry, but right wingers whinging about democrats "politicizing the deaths of four dead Americans" just disqualifies you. Romney put out a statement condemning the Obama admin while the bodies were still warm, and the GOP has held non-stop hearings on this for two years. Give me a break.
Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.
APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi - ABC News
WASHINGTON — Jul 10, 2014, 5:14 PM ET
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and DONNA CASSATA Associated Press
The testimony of nine military officers undermines contentions by Republican lawmakers that a "stand-down order" held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.
The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team of four — a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast — who were stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, they were instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
The senior military officer who issued the instruction to "remain in place" and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated. And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks.
Transcripts of hours of closed-door interviews with the military leaders by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees were made public for the first time on Wednesday. The Associated Press had reviewed the material ahead of its release.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the Oversight panel, has suggested Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the order, though as secretary of state at the time, she was not in the military chain of command.
snip~
Certainly mistakes were made and the results were tragic.....but there is a big difference between the hyperpartisan feigned outrage conspiracy theories and what in hindsight should have been handled better.
Lol !
No, it wasn't hyper-partisan to perpetuate some BS narrative about a internet video.:roll:
No, I'm talking about Hillary's glaring dereliction of duty and the attempted Democrat cover up for Political purposes.
You seem to have no problem justifying the response by the Obama administration by citing hindsight but the truth is the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton failed to provide adequate Security even after the terrorist blew a 12 foot hole in the Embassy wall.
You guys are trying to make the case that those military assets were told not to leave because they were needed in Tripoli.
The fact there wasn't sufficient assets off site to defend the Embassy or to mount a successful rescue during the attack, after Chris Stevens repeated and ignored request for more security and after every other Nation got the hell out of there or is just more proof of just how incompetent and unqualified this President is AND Hillary Clinton is.
Seriously, the attack started 4 PM Washington time and they knew immediately. 6 Hours later Hillary releases her press statement blaming it o a video.
What disqualifies YOU is your unending defense of a Administration and a State Department that chose to not only lie to the American people but to also lie to the Families of the four dead Americans because a terrorist attack on a US embassy this close to a election threatened Obama politically.
Your'e taking up for a Women who stood in front of 4 coffins and perpetuated the Bull S*** narrative about a video so yea, your'e hardly in a place to pass moral judgment on " Right Wingers"
I'm just curious - why did those guys attack when they did? And how did we know immediately that their motives, that I still don't understand, were not the same as the motives for other attacks on U.S. interests in that general region on the same day?
I suspect the motives were related to the CIA operations out of those locations, which were obviously secret and not something the administration was going to broadcast on day one, or any day really, since those activities were secret. Remember, incompetent Petraeus, who was in charge of the CIA operations that were attacked, and at least bears co-responsibility for the security in place for his operation. And even after his incompetent security arrangements allowed for a deadly attack, he didn't even have the guts to show up at the memorial for his own dead employees. Or he was trying to distance himself from the fact that it was a CIA operation being run out of the locations attacked. One of the two.
But I'm off track - even now I don't know WHY they attacked those CIA outposts. So I was hoping someone could tell me what the reason was, since everyone is sure what it was not and was sure on day 1 what it was not, and the only way to know that is to know the REAL reason. Can anyone fill me in?
Yeah, Clinton was a shoe in in 2008 and look what happened. So much for "it's her's if she wants it"
I'm betting that you're feeling pretty good about investigating the matter now, aren't ya?
I don't understand. If the article is 100% factually correct, it doesn't change what happened and it doesn't change our response. Not receiving a "Stand Down" order does not clean up the accountability on what happened on 9.11.
As we learned during the Reagan administration, presidents often abuse their power conducting operations apart from congresses knowledge. The more serious problem with Benghazi is the CIA smuggling arms to the terrorist groups, no matter how "moderate" they claimed to be, in Syria which has given them the strength to hold on for over three years now, resulting in the deaths of 165,000 civilians. China and Russia both correctly predicted/warned that US interference in Syria would cause the conflict to spread to the entire region, look about!
Don't take this the wrong way, but that doesn't explain anything. My question is why does not receiving a "Stand Down" order clear accountability for what happened in Benghazi?
Instead of celebrating a talking point, someone is accountable for what happened. President, Secretary of State, Defense Department...someone did not protect our people when they begged for help.
So...... being told "not to proceed" or "not to go" (4:14 in video) does NOT, in the leftist thesaurus, equate to being told to "stand down".
Got it.
Oh, you and I have no conflict on that at all. I'm just saying that the underlying activity going on out of the Benghazi annex made it vulnerable to such attack to begin with.
It's amazing how people can fall for this doubleplusgood speak from the Administration and their subservient media outlets.
While the situation was still in flux, while the consulate was in flames, and before anyone could know how far the attack would go, the willing defenders were told not to go in.
Monday morning quarterbacking at its worse.
Why did the Red Cross and every other Nation bail out of Benghazi prior to the attack ?
Were their intelligence agencies running guns too ?
Or did they tie the rising threat of a terrorist to our suppposed CIAs activities ?
Was the prior attack that blew a 12 foot hole in the compounds wall a message to our CIA ?
We were not the only Nation in Benghazi, just the only one with a administration incompetent enough to stay put.
Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.
Obama's disregard for the military men and women is truly a scandal. Outrageous: Combat Troops to Receive Pink Slips While Deployed Overseas - Daniel Doherty
So...... being told "not to proceed" or "not to go" (4:14 in video) does NOT, in the leftist thesaurus, equate to being told to "stand down".
Got it.
I am still waiting to see how Democrats and Liberals spin the "video" that Obama and Hillary BLAMED for three weeks. Probably will hear the ole "Bush did it" routine.
You need to review the timeline, because what you're asserting as fact just isn't. Or maybe you can tell us when the request to leave Tripoli and head to Benghazi was made. When did the transport leave. What time did or would that transport have arrived in Benghazi. When did the first plane of wounded evacuated from Benghazi take off. When did that flight arrive in Tripoli.
And I agree, you're engaged in faulty Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence is clear that the decision to leave that team in Tripoli was made at the appropriate military chain of command level, based on the information those people whose JOB it was to make those decisions had at that time, and they were forced to weigh trade offs. Given the situation at that time, would the team be better utilized some hours later in Benghazi, or more likely useful in Tripoli?
What we KNOW now is that decision was correct. Had they left on the first plane out, they'd have arrived well after the personnel were already evacuated and at the airport. Now you want to Monday morning quarterback and second guess a decision that was in hindsight the CORRECT one. It's bizarre, frankly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?