- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If a Republican was in the White House four Americans would still be alive.
If a Republican was in the White House you would be singing a different tune.
If a Republican was in the White House four Americans would still be alive.
Looks like you were mistaken.
The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings
Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil -- which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington. Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- and second, that no new information emerged from the whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. The former claim is outright insulting. The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful thinking. House Oversight Committee Republicans' focused questioning extracted quite a few nuggets of relevant information. For their part, many committee Democrats were focused on unseemly efforts to attack, distract and smear -- all employed as they cynically groused about Republicans "politicizing" the investigation. Cutting through the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:
1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress (higher quality video is available here):
(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing."
(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.
(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.....snip~
The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson
“… because exact conditions on the ground in Benghazi were unknown……the CIF began to fulfill its tasking by pre-positioning at an intermediate staging location, Naval Air Station Sigonella (in Sicily, Italy). From the moment the CIF was ordered to move, it did not stand down until after all personnel (including the fallen) had been evacuated from Benghazi in a little over 12 hours after the initiation of the attack… the time needed from alerting the CIF to landing at the Benghazi airport is greater than the approximately 7.5 hours between the initiation of the first attack and the second one. As such, the time requirements for notification, load and transit alone prevented the CIF from being at the annex in enough time to change events.”
You guys get pretty dumb with this red vs blue crap. They are just different sides of the same coin. Someone wanted that ambassador dead and that's the only thing that makes sense.
Asst. SecDef.
Yeah. A bunch of ****ing terrorists.
Yeah a SOD and Joint Chief of Staff Saying They Never talked to Hillary and the State Dept Never Called for Assets.....wonder who was the ****ing Moron that screwed that pooch.
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested "support" in Benghazi:
"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.
Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"
McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"
"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"
"So it's the State Department's fault?"
"I'm not blaming the State Department," Dempsey responded.....snip~
Panetta, Dempsey: No communication with Clinton
At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and General Dempsey if they had been in contact with Hillary Clinton
CRUZ: In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?
PANETTA: We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton
CRUZ: And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?
Dempsey confirmed.....snip~
2012 Benghazi Attack | Newslines
I wonder if the denied requests had anything to do with the nearly $300 million the Republicans insist be cut from embassy security and construction budgets.
Actually if you look thru the threads you will see I have posted up 3 times Factcheckers....all debunking the Security issue. So you will need to look for a different reason on that one......Just sayin.
Was funding actually cut?
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
I meant to ask if Libyan embassy security funding was actually cut and if it was, would that even have affected whatever security was at the consulate?
If not then it's a
View attachment 67147253
Don't misunderstand ... I wasn't suggesting your answer was a straw man but rather whoever suggested security funding cuts were to blame was making a straw man argument unless they could show cuts actually resulted in security reductions at the consulate.Yes, answering the question you asked is a straw man!! :roll:
Don't misunderstand ... I wasn't suggesting your answer was a straw man but rather whoever suggested security funding cuts were to blame was making a straw man argument unless they could show cuts actually resulted in changes at the consulate.
You must not understand what a straw man is.
Moot never claimed that someone said the budget had been cut. Moot was the one who raised the issue
Raising an issue is *not* a straw man.
I attended an air show once in Stockton, CA. The pilot of an F15 flew off to the East and in about 12 minutes he returned and told us Lake Tahoe was quite beautiful. I'm not a geography expert in the Med but I'm guessing the air craft we have stationed in Italy could have been over Benghazi within the first hour, now they might have caused a civilian casaulty or two, but at least we would have responded. And just where is the justice this loser in charge promised us for those who were murdered by the rioting looters oh I mean terrorist? And why is there no outrage that a US Ambassador didn't even have a single body guard on site to help him?
Flight time from Aviano/Lignano to Tripoli 2hrs. 20min. That's commercial speed... 600mph.
F-16's can fly at Mach 1.2
So, we're talking about 90min with military jets at Mach 1.2 once they scramble.
They could have flown in their with jets to take care of some business and give our guys a chance... and with slower planes bringing in troops in 2-3 hours.
Aviano to Tripoli Flight Time and Duration
Oh yes it is ... whoever makes the argument that budget cuts, even if there were cuts, caused weakened consulate security have made a straw man argument unless they can show more of a connection.
I suppose you can say they were a lying pile of **** so if you prefer that, here you go ...
Just as I suspected
You don't know what a straw man is. :lol:
Actually, if history is an indicator, a Republican WAS in the White House, and thousands of soldiers were killed or maimed because they were sent into harms way in the wrong country after 911. It also helped tank our economy.
Aphganistan ???
There were more than a few other countries we also militarily intervened in after 9-11-01. But your not privileged to know about them and G.W. Bush never politicalized the war against Al Qaeda or other Islamist radicals for his own political gain., Obama can't make such a claim.
Um, no. Iraq. Remember all those WMD's that the Bush administration said were there? Remember the so-called rocket launcher that was found out to actually be a firetruck BEFORE the invasion? I guess you don't. Those who supported Bush have very short memories where it comes to things like that.
I bet he was tortured (oh sorry I mean interrogated with enhancement) too and any statements he made under interrogation are pretty much null and void.If you ever read the FBI's interrogation of Saddam Hussein, even Saddam was starting to believe he still had WMD's. But it wasn't Bush but the British intelligence services who convinced Bush that there were still WMD's in Iraq.
My memory is fine, I actualy know who was saying what and I never drank the libs kool-aid. Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
I bet he was tortured (oh sorry I mean interrogated with enhancement) too and any statements he made under interrogation are pretty much null and void.
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?