People, this is what a stand down order looks like.

[Gaugingcatenate]

The annex responded immediately. That disproves the first two stand down lies (courtesy of Fox). And a security team from sent from the embassy. Those two things alone disprove your false "nothing was done" narrative and the even more ridiculous assertion that somehow that decision rested with the C-I-C. Other things were done as well. Feel free to read the inspectors general report. Please don’t make the false claim that it was disputed. Not one thing in the report was disputed.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/18/202446.pdf

First of all, give me a break, not one thing in the report was disputed? Of course its been disputed, why would you even try that?

There was no order authorizing, that has been documented, the people from the annex to immediately go and assist…in fact the opposite seems more likely, from all the reporting, to be the truth…they did it in spite of orders. So, disproves nothing and more confirms my side. And no order, nothing, means nothing was done, no orders to assist our fellow Americans were given, by omission, by Obama through weakness and to be able to cover himself.

Oh, I don’t watch any TV, much less Fox.

Martin Dempsey, Top Military Leader, Disputes Benghazi Claim By Former Diplomat

Gregory Hicks Benghazi Hearing | WATCH VIDEO | Full Testimony | Mediaite

These next two quotes, italicized below, are from the ARB you linked which was completed by Dec 2012…. And these folks didn’t even bother interviewing Sec. Clinton, the one that chose them [ wonder why that would be?] nor did they interview the guy who inherited chief-of-mission status after our ambassador was killed, Gregory Hicks [also discouraged him from talking freely with congressional delegates sent to investigate and get to the bottom of this tragedy ]. None of that seems suspicious to you I am guessing…and as a “con” I have no real right to inquire like you would have with GWB, right?

The “Four Board members were selected by the Secretary of State [ that would be, again. Hillary herself ]and one member from the intelligence community (IC) was selected by the Director for National Intelligence. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as Chairman, with Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman. Additional members were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the IC.”

“The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”

The CNN source below shows that there was almost 8 hours, more than enough time to get assets there, especially the ones that were waiting and ready to go already, from the time the trouble erupted until they killed our guys at the end of the fighting." So again, saying it was not disputed is just plain malarkey.

Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com

CNN below…..This has the testimony of Hicks in which he said the C130 offered by the Libyan govt was turned down, "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," Hicks said. "I still remember Col. Gibson, he said, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.' A nice compliment."

Benghazi hearing: U.S. military assets were told to stand down - CNN.com

 

[Vern]

First of all, give me a break, not one thing in the report was disputed? Of course its been disputed, why would you even try that?

sorry gauging, you just don't get to pretend that's true. What has been disputed? back that up. be clear and specific. I'll wait.

There was no order authorizing, that has been documented, the people from the annex to immediately go and assist…in fact the opposite seems more likely, from all the reporting, to be the truth…they did it in spite of orders.

that's the original stand down lies. There were no orders not to respond. But That was proven to be a lie by the Inspector's general report. the annex responded immediately. And that qualifies because you said:

First of all we just do not know yet what really happened regarding Benghazi, except for the fact that nothing was done, not a finger lifted to move assets in place to assist fellow Americans.

So, disproves nothing and more confirms my side. And no order, nothing, means nothing was done, no orders to assist our fellow Americans were given, by omission, by Obama through weakness and to be able to cover himself.

The embassy sent a team (again disproving your "not a finger was lifted" narrative). I couldn't help but notice you didnt address that aspect. The third "stand down" lie was they didn't send a 2nd team. The second team would have depleted the embassy security staff. And the 2nd team wasn't even at the airport. If they could have gotten to the airport, they would have left at 6. Benghazi personnel were on the way to the Benghazi airport with local militia support at 6. (seems something else was done) So the 2nd team was not needed in Benghazi. it was needed in Tripoli.

and gauging, this tread is not about regurgitating the republican lies about Benghazi. Its about the actual stand down orders from Bush. I guess you realize that Bush let OBL escape and lied about it because you don't seem to addressing the thread topic.

Since their first two 'excuses' letting OBL escape were lies, why would they do it? I know why they let OBL escape. It would have hurt their Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. Letting the "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" also escape was just a necessary evil for their agenda.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

There are three things wrong with your “we didn’t know if he was there” narrative. First that excuse was used after the fact. Remember, the lying excuse used at the time was concern “that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency.” We’ve invaded a country, replaced its govt and are bombing the sh1t out of tora bora and the best excuse they could come up with was concern about upsetting people. You just cant accept that.

That is just from this report Kerry issued after the fact, partisan Kerry who had voted for the war before he...blah blah blah, the guy who had been beaten by GWB in the presidential contest... fact of the matter is if you read more about Fury he says he thinks he was within like 2000 yards of OBL, so that is what I am talking about... of course we knew he was probably in the Tora Bora area, why the heck do you think we were bombing it to Hades? And just because Bernstein says 800 Rangers doesn't mean it was the right or winning strategy. There are other concerns in war, we were, indeed working with the Afghans and we quickly toppled the Taliban regime with their help and drove AQ and OBL into retreat into the mountains and yes, we lost him. Ever hear of a little thing called the "Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", how long the Soviets were there, how many men they lost and did they succeed in achieveing anything close to what we, under Bush, achieved in Afghanistan within two months? NO.

So, get off the high horse.

Second, the intel was that OBL was at Tora Bora with “"the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war". They were tracking him all the way to Tora Bora. We knew where he would go there and we were tracking him there. Its why we were waiting for him. So everybody knew he was there. Read the report every day Rumsfeld ask the second in command if we got him yet.

“Every day during the bombing, Rumsfeld asked me, ‘Did we get him? Did we get him?’ I would have to answer that we didn’t know.’’

See we thought he was there that’s why they couldn’t use the excuse “we didn’t know if he was there” at the time. That was the ‘after the fact” rationalization. And here’s the key. During the Tora Bora campaign we had radio intercepts of him. Intel just doesn't It was the American commanders on the ground saying he was there.

Knowing about where he is and exactly where he is are two different things. And, we did indeed, hope the bombing would get him...what is hard to get about that?

And here’s the third reason, it wasn’t just OBL. It was also "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war". We invaded Afghanistan to get OBL and al qaeda. So the excuse “we didn’t know if OBL was there” doesn’t explain letting “"the largest concentration of al qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. Even if you weren’t sure OBL was there (but we were) you cant deny that a large force of al qaeda was allowed to escape. There simply is no excuse for letting him and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape.

We killed a heck of a lot of them bombing those mountain strongholds...and what were our losses? Minimal. How many escaped Vern? How many did we kill?

As far as your narrative goes about available troops and their locations, OBL and al qaeda were the mission. No reasonable or intelligent person can make the excuse the troops weren’t available. But guess where the focus of resources were being directed to? Yea, Iraq.

It is not like we went full force into Afghanistan with tanks and a huge ground force. We went in with a small footprint, let the Afghans do a lot of the heavy lifting and toppled the Taliban and drove AQ from its guarded sanctuary. We killed a lot of them. Did we get OBL at that juncture, no... but we got him under BHO, and has that stopped AQ from operating around the world? NO. So, what is your underlying major point then?

 

[Vern]

That is just from this report Kerry issued after the fact, partisan Kerry who had voted for the war before he...blah blah blah, the guy who had been beaten by GWB in the presidential contest... fact of the matter is if you read more about Fury he says he thinks he was within like 2000 yards of OBL, so that is what I am talking about... of course we knew he was probably in the Tora Bora area, why the heck do you think we were bombing it to Hades? And just because Bernstein says 800 Rangers doesn't mean it was the right or winning strategy.

The report was 2009. Saying "partisan" doesn't dispute it to reasonable and intelligent people. The report just put all the knowledge of it in one place. Please feel free to post a solid factual link that disputes it. Repeating "partisan" proves nothing.

The intel said he was in Tora Bora along with "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" . And the intel was CONFIRMED with the radio intercepts. Stop. Intel just doesn't get better than that.

800 rangers was about not a "winning strategy". It was about cutting off their escape route. Now read this slowly, getting OBL and al Qaeda was the reason we were there. Stop. its the reason we were there. The reasons given were lies. Stop. They were lies. How can a reasonable and intelligent person believe we were concerned about their "feelings". Bernstein wanted rangers. Fury wanted marines who were already in country. And get this their lying " concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency" narrative didn't apply to Iraq.

so you cant spin away the facts but Bush had the military stand down when the objective was with in reach. You could 'theorize' he might have gotten away anyway but "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" wouldn't have all escaped unscathed to continue fight against us. It was a political decision that countermanded our objective. Nothing can change those facts.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

sorry gauging, you just don't get to pretend that's true. What has been disputed? back that up. be clear and specific. I'll wait.

Listen Vern, it is probably good advice to read the whole post before you start replying...that way you don't have to ask me to be specific only to find out, later in the post, that is exactly what I do. Comprende'?

that's the original stand down lies. There were no orders not to respond. But That was proven to be a lie by the Inspector's general report. the annex responded immediately. And that qualifies because you said:

I do not think quoting me saying, " First of all we just do not know yet what really happened regarding Benghazi, except for the fact that nothing was done, not a finger lifted to move assets in place to assist fellow Americans." is proof that the order was not given. While I am pretty darn accurate and logical, you cannot from that claim proof of what you are claiming. Just cannot get there from that.

From the first it was detailed in the reporting that Doherty and Woods just went, with/without/or against orders. We still do not really know, but the reporting has been from the beginning that they went against orders, knew people were in trouble and did what real Americans do, try to help their fellow Americans. Something the current administration has not an ounce of and could have learned from Woods and Doherty.

The embassy sent a team (again disproving your "not a finger was lifted" narrative). I couldn't help but notice you didnt address that aspect. The third "stand down" lie was they didn't send a 2nd team. The second team would have depleted the embassy security staff. And the 2nd team wasn't even at the airport. If they could have gotten to the airport, they would have left at 6. Benghazi personnel were on the way to the Benghazi airport with local militia support at 6. (seems something else was done) So the 2nd team was not needed in Benghazi. it was needed in Tripoli.

Did you even watch Hick's testimony? Hick's and the local staff did all they could. What do you say about the stand down orders he relates [ probably a good reason not to interveiw him for the ARB which you keep calling the Inspector General's report]. The meat of the matter, what we are talking about here are orders from on high, not at the embassy level...they knew what should be done and did it....and you know very well that is what we are talking about. And the second team was not needed in Benghazi?

It was at 5 am plus in the morning when Woods and Doherty were killed, what are you even talking about, didnt need the second team in Benghazi?

Did you even read any of the links I sent? Did you watch the testimony of the chief of station, Hicks, testifying before congress? The quotes given in the CNN report?

and gauging, this tread is not about regurgitating the republican lies about Benghazi. Its about the actual stand down orders from Bush. I guess you realize that Bush let OBL escape and lied about it because you don't seem to addressing the thread topic.

Not the republicans telling the lies. You simply do not want to hear the truth, you want to bring up your invalid version and then not have it even debated? Just all and everybody that cannot think critically get on this thread and agree with these attempted assists at covering the tracks for the cover up?

That is not what democracy is about, certainly is not what debate is about...and if you cannot handle it, maybe you should not start a ludicrous thread? That would be my advice.

Since their first two 'excuses' letting OBL escape were lies, why would they do it? I know why they let OBL escape. It would have hurt their Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. Letting the "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" also escape was just a necessary evil for their agenda.

Dude, besides being way off on that answer, you are way off on where to find my answers to that part of your post.... I am sure they have a map of the thread ... just go to the next page or so and see that set of answers...

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The report was 2009. Saying "partisan" doesn't dispute it to reasonable and intelligent people. The report just put all the knowledge of it in one place. Please feel free to post a solid factual link that disputes it. Repeating "partisan" proves nothing.

The intel said he was in Tora Bora along with "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" . And the intel was CONFIRMED with the radio intercepts. Stop. Intel just doesn't get better than that.

800 rangers was about not a "winning strategy". It was about cutting off their escape route. Now read this slowly, getting OBL and al Qaeda was the reason we were there. Stop. its the reason we were there. The reasons given were lies. Stop. They were lies. How can a reasonable and intelligent person believe we were concerned about their "feelings". Bernstein wanted rangers. Fury wanted marines who were already in country. And get this their lying " concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency" narrative didn't apply to Iraq.

so you cant spin away the facts but Bush had the military stand down when the objective was with in reach. You could 'theorize' he might have gotten away anyway but "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" wouldn't have all escaped unscathed to continue fight against us. It was a political decision that countermanded our objective. Nothing can change those facts.

Tell you what, find me where there is any evidence that OBL's last will and testament from 2001 was found and authenticated... from a reliable source, then we can talk and see if this report may or may not have been partisan. Show me independent verification that all was confirmed. That we knew exactly where OBL was, within a few meters.

And it was not accurate intel as we came to find out that a maximum of 200 AQ fighters may have been there. "When Tora Bora was eventually captured by the U.S. and Afghan troops, no traces of the supposed "fortress" were found despite painstaking searches in the surrounding areas. Tora Bora turned out to be a system of small natural caves housing at most, 200 fighters. While arms and ammunition stores were found, there were no traces of the advanced facilities claimed to exist" Matthew Forney (December 11, 2001). "The Tora Bora Caves". Time.

We never knew exactly where OBL was, you can say we knew the approximate area, but that is all.

Stop with the stop stuff, this is not a radio transmission. Your thoughts on this are confused enough as it is, don't need to add all these stops to your thinking process. We were not concerned about the Taliban and AQ, what we were concerned about was offending our allies, the Afghans on our side that helped us accomplish as much as we did as fast as we did... how do you not know that? Didn't you understand that from the last post as a reason we did not get mired down in a long war like the Soviets did, that we toppled the regime in two months and chased out AQ?

It is variously reported that we killed about 200 of their fighters. We thought they had a lot more, Fury thought there was like 1000 encamped in a complex cave fortress network.

We knew exactly where the Japanese were in WW2 on those islands, lost a lot of men taking those caves from the Japanese. We were not for doing that again...Americans do not like the kind of losses we sustained in WW2 or even Vietnam... so blame it on the libs not allowing us to fight all out and just win...better for all concerned, even our enemies.

Oh, and..

Hint: Iraq and Afghanistan are vastly different countries with major differences in terrain and culture. Surely you must know that as well.

Your knowledge of facts and the history on this is rather sparse from what you have put up here... study up a bit, then maybe we can discuss it more. If you are just going to keep accusing Bush of this and that, Monday morning quarterbacking the whole way yet without any reason or logic... count me out.

Sorry, this is debate, not just throwing a bunch of wet claims at a wall and hoping some just might stick.

 

[Vern]

gauging, you're doing that thing all cons do when facts encroach on your delusions: babble. Don't try to create logic to justify you not backing up one thing you said. make a clear and straight forward point and back it up.

You claim a stand down order was issued to the annex. don't babble on and on and come up with twisted logic that exempts you from backing up your point.back it up. back up that a stand down order was issued to the annex and ignored. That's right, your silly narrative has to explain away the fact that annex reacted immediately. Your lying narrative also needs to account for the fact that the republicans running the dozen or so investigations aren't 'investigating' the stand down orders to annex. We both know you cant back it up. that's why you have to repeat it.

And you clinging to some narrative about OBL's will is as transparent as it is hysterical. Its irrelevant to the point that Bush's stand down order to let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. You mumbled something about not being able to verify it as proof it wasn't true. no silly, you need to find a solid factual source that shows why its not true. You don't get to invent a narrative that you cant back up an irrelevant point to dispute Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan as proof of something.

We never knew exactly where OBL was, you can say we knew the approximate area, but that is all.

see how you just cant accept that Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. You have to create some delusion that we didn't know the address he was staying at. read this slowly, we knew he was in Tora Bora. We let him escape. You cant babble away Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan.

Stop with the stop stuff, this is not a radio transmission. Your thoughts on this are confused enough as it is, don't need to add all these stops to your thinking process. We were not concerned about the Taliban and AQ, what we were concerned about was offending our allies, the Afghans on our side that helped us accomplish as much as we did as fast as we did... how do you not know that? Didn't you understand that from the last post as a reason we did not get mired down in a long war like the Soviets did, that we toppled the regime in two months and chased out AQ?

sorry gauging, say goodbye to reality. When you believe that after we've invaded a country, replaced its gov't and are bombing the sh1t out a place that if we bring in an additional 800 rangers or move 1000 marines already in country might now offend people so we let the mastermind behind 9-11 get away after we we've already invaded a country, replaced its gov't and are bombing the sh1t out a place, then you are too far gone. The problem is that you lack the necessary integrity to deal with the fact of Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan so you've accepted the lie about offending people.

don't babble another thing you cant back up.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

gauging, you're doing that thing all cons do when facts encroach on your delusions: babble. Don't try to create logic to justify you not backing up one thing you said. make a clear and straight forward point and back it up.

You claim a stand down order was issued to the annex. don't babble on and on and come up with twisted logic that exempts you from backing up your point.back it up. back up that a stand down order was issued to the annex and ignored. That's right, your silly narrative has to explain away the fact that annex reacted immediately. Your lying narrative also needs to account for the fact that the republicans running the dozen or so investigations aren't 'investigating' the stand down orders to annex. We both know you cant back it up. that's why you have to repeat it.

And you clinging to some narrative about OBL's will is as transparent as it is hysterical. Its irrelevant to the point that Bush's stand down order to let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. You mumbled something about not being able to verify it as proof it wasn't true. no silly, you need to find a solid factual source that shows why its not true. You don't get to invent a narrative that you cant back up an irrelevant point to dispute Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan as proof of something.



see how you just cant accept that Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan. You have to create some delusion that we didn't know the address he was staying at. read this slowly, we knew he was in Tora Bora. We let him escape. You cant babble away Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan.



sorry gauging, say goodbye to reality. When you believe that after we've invaded a country, replaced its gov't and are bombing the sh1t out a place that if we bring in an additional 800 rangers or move 1000 marines already in country might now offend people so we let the mastermind behind 9-11 get away after we we've already invaded a country, replaced its gov't and are bombing the sh1t out a place, then you are too far gone. The problem is that you lack the necessary integrity to deal with the fact of Bush's stand down order let OBL and "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan so you've accepted the lie about offending people.

don't babble another thing you cant back up.

Don't accuse me of something all cons do, that is just not an argument. Then call me delusional? My understanding is that is a no no around here, so better be careful. I think I have pretty much backed up everything I said, in spades. Perhaps you should go back and re read, sometimes processing can come a little slow.

I claimed nothing of the sort, I have said the reporting from early on seemed to indicate that and then went so far as to state :"From the first it was detailed in the reporting that Doherty and Woods just went, with/without/or against orders. We still do not really know, but the reporting has been from the beginning that they went against orders, knew people were in trouble and did what real Americans do, try to help their fellow Americans. Something the current administration has not an ounce of and could have learned from Woods and Doherty"

So, we can see you do not follow very closely what is being said. I also detailed that it is not the people local we are worried about, its the screw ups at the top. Cannot seem to get that past the temporal membrane, huh?

All of Kerry's report was irrelevant, thank you!! You cannot prove a point out of it, but then you try to take this same irrelevant report and use it to verify your story, and then try to call me on not substantiating my facts, classic....nice job there, Vern. You cannot verify the numbers on these oh so many AQ fighters that were supposedly there, how many were killed, how many of these oh so many got away, where exactly OBL was, blah blah blah...this is comical... but even if not verified, it was so important because so many AQ fighters there escaped...so sources [ besides the irrelevant Kerry report]?

Okay, again...you have brought it up once too often... find sources on "the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war" escape to Pakistan".... reliable, solid and convincing sources please. If you cannot, be quiet about it... its Monday morning QBing buddy, do you know the significance of that?

Dude... need to learn to watch your mouth questioning someone's integrity...please take your pursuit of happiness, and poor arguments, elsewhere from here on out.

Ciao

 

[Vern]

Don't accuse me of something all cons do, that is just not an argument. Then call me delusional? My understanding is that is a no no around here, so better be careful. I think I have pretty much backed up everything I said, in spades. Perhaps you should go back and re read, sometimes processing can come a little slow.

blah blah blah

back up what is disputed in the official report. All of your false points require you to pretend you don't have to believe the official Benghazi report. You have not backed that up. You just keep repeating it.

You have to pretend its been discredited so you can cling to the "stand down" lies. The report says they responded immediately and specifically said "The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors" . Read this slowly, even the discredited republican report doesn't mention anything about stand down orders. Because they don't exist. Pubs just repeated the phrase 'stand down' over and over in the hearings to fool the weak minded. It worked.

Lets review

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 4
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3

and whats really funny is in your mind I have to back up what I've backed up and you only repeat your narratives.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

blah blah blah

back up what is disputed in the official report. All of your false points require you to pretend you don't have to believe the official Benghazi report. You have not backed that up. You just keep repeating it.

You have to pretend its been discredited so you can cling to the "stand down" lies. The report says they responded immediately and specifically said "The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors" . Read this slowly, even the discredited republican report doesn't mention anything about stand down orders. Because they don't exist. Pubs just repeated the phrase 'stand down' over and over in the hearings to fool the weak minded. It worked.

Lets review

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 4
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3

and whats really funny is in your mind I have to back up what I've backed up and you only repeat your narratives.

Talk about your blah blah blah, you take the hand picked team of "investigators" being hand picked by Hillary herself that somehow, for some strange reason, just never gets around to interviewing Hillary herself.... hmmm, makes thinking people wonder, but not you, huh... nor did they interview Gregory Hicks, one of the main characters who was in a position, one of the very best positions, to know...and who "disputes" what you have the audacity to claim is "undisputed by anyone".

You do not want to debate, to present actual proof and evidence, you want people who will blindly follow the leader, or the intended next leader. As stated earlier, you got nothing, you are offensive in myriad ways and you made the complete wrong move to question my integrity...so get thee behind me with your less than supported "arguments" and shoo, go way...take your lesser form of a pursuit of happiness elsewhere...

 

[nota bene]

gauging, you're doing that thing all cons do when facts encroach on your delusions: babble.

I stopped reading right here. Difficult to take an opinion seriously when you overgeneralize to "all."

 

[humbolt]

well at least you are no longer trying to "misunderstand" it as a "Bush did it too" tactic



I contrasting the differences not comparing the similarities. I don't know if the wording is correct (seems correct) but the point is pretty clear. And I'm not interested in "semantic games" the way you seem to be. I'm just interested in the facts.

Vern, it is impossible to contrast anything with anything else unless you compare them. That's not a semantic game. One cannot note differences without finding correspondence. That's reality and a fact you should consider since you're interested in facts. If you want to argue that Bush is a scoundrel, you certainly can, but that in no way makes Obama any less one regarding Benghazi.

 

[Vern]

Talk about your blah blah blah, you take the hand picked team of "investigators" being hand picked by Hillary herself that somehow, for some strange reason, just never gets around to interviewing Hillary herself.... hmmm, makes thinking people wonder, but not you, huh... nor did they interview Gregory Hicks, one of the main characters who was in a position, one of the very best positions, to know...and who "disputes" what you have the audacity to claim is "undisputed by anyone"....

er uh gauging. nothing in the report has been disputed. STOP. nothing. Even the totally discredited republican report doesn't talk about the "stand down orders". How could that be? oh yea, they don't exist. STOP. they don't exist. that's why you have to repeat over and over "hillary picked the team" That argument only works in con fantasy land. Here's a crazy idea. Instead of repeating what you want to believe. Back it up. I have this incredible feeling of deja vu. that's right, I've asked you repeatedly to back up your point. STOP repeatedly. And not only do not back up your point you make silly comments as if that proves the solid factual link I posted isn't true. AMAZEBALLS!

You do not want to debate, to present actual proof and evidence, you want people who will blindly follow the leader, or the intended next leader. As stated earlier, you got nothing, you are offensive in myriad ways and you made the complete wrong move to question my integrity...so get thee behind me with your less than supported "arguments" and shoo, go way...take your lesser form of a pursuit of happiness elsewhere...

sorry gauging, this is where you cross the integrity line. I've posted solid factual link after solid factual link to back up almost every point I made. The one point I cant back up is "nothing in the report has been disputed". But you made the claim that the Benghazi report cant be trusted. You needed that falsehood to continue believing the lies republicans told you. You made that claim now back up your point. I've asked you repeatedly to do so. STOP. repeatedly

 

[Vern]

I stopped reading right here. Difficult to take an opinion seriously when you overgeneralize to "all."

nota, the problem I have is that I make clear straightforward statements and back them up with solid factual links. I think I've had one conversation with a con who actually said I was right on one point. His overall opinion didn't change. But every other time the con clings to a narrative that's been completely disproven. they do this by "misunderstanding" the clear point I've made, pretend not to see the point, claim they don't have to believe the solid factual link, cling to a false or irrelevant point or they simply repeat what they want to believe over and over.

So in reality I don't think I've "overgeneralized". But in the future I will say "almost every con". Continuous improvement is a personal passion of mine. But while your here, you seem knowledgeable, please critique the points I've made in this thread. Is there some point or fact you have any questions about?

 

[Vern]

Well, if I am doing it with spin and falsehood, in debate you set out with facts to prove the other side's spin and falsehood wrong, correct? Let's see what you got.

I would say it rather sounds like you are doing the spinning. Prove me wrong, don't just do the indolent you-are-spinning and falsifying thing. That is not debate.

Hey gauging, did you ever figure out that you are supposed to back up your own points yet? You've clearly stated that you think I have to disprove your statements. And here's the kicker, when I do disprove it, you pretend I haven't.

And gauging, when I post a solid factual link, I don't have to reprove it. You have to post something that disputes it. You simply not wanting to believe a solid factual link tells us more about you than the link. The way you waved your hands andto pretend the senate report about Tora Bora was not true was priceless. But as I said, that report was just putting all the known information in one place. for example, you just magically pretended the part about OBLs will was a lie and I had to reprove it. No, you have to find something that disputes it, I don't have to reprove it.

 

[Vern]

Now where was I? oh yea, actual stand down orders. It seems we had intel on some al qaeda leaders and were prepared to go into Pakistan and get them but Bush told them to stand down

"Lessons Obama learnt from Rumsfeld’s aborted 2005 raid on Pakistan
Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning."

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2011/05/02/obama-rumsfeld-pakista/

so lets update the scoreboard

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 5
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3

 

[CRUE CAB]

The OP is nothing but conjecture.
My bet is also never served in a war zone where all things are fluid.

 

[Vern]

The OP is nothing but conjecture.
My bet is also never served in a war zone where all things are fluid.

ah the classic "vague falsehood" with a standard deflection about me. About my conjecture, how have I not backed up exactly what I 'conjected'? seriously, I'm not posting editorials. I'm not posting things because I really really really wish it was true. And have you ever felt the need to reply in a similar fashion to all the lying posts about Benghazi? you cant even call that conjecture. Its just lies. So I'm helping people see what a stand down order actually looks like. what are doing? try to be specific.

Actual stand down orders from Bush: 5
Actual stand down orders from President Obama : 0
Imaginary stand down orders from President Obama : 3