Watch Conservative Media's Favorite Benghazi Myth Fall Apart [W:47,61]

[Kobie]

No..it's the fact that a U.S. embassy..sovereign territory...was attacked, overran and americans killed, including the ambassador while the u.s. govt sat and watched it happen in real time via a drone circling and decided not to do anything to help.

See, that's what pisses people off...that and hyperpartisan hacks making excuses for them.

Fox News and Benghazi video: For real? - Erik Wemple - The Washington Post

What pisses me off is that people like you continue to spout off proven falsehoods as if they were incontrovertible fact. And when the fact that you're lying (or repeating lies) is pointed out, you stick your fingers in your ears and cry "partisan."

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No..it's the fact that a U.S. embassy..sovereign territory...was attacked, overran and americans killed, including the ambassador while the u.s. govt sat and watched it happen in real time via a drone circling and decided not to do anything to help.

See, that's what pisses people off...that and hyperpartisan hacks making excuses for them.

It wasn't an embassy, embassies are not US soil. The attack on the compound where Stevens was lasted for such a short amount of time that not even the CIA annex less than a mile away had enough time to react to save Stevens.

I think the hyper-partisanship comment is extremely ironic.

 

[Comunitee]

There was a major CIA operation going on in Benghazi, I really don't know what, but maybe that's why it was attacked. And very possible why we know little about wht happened there. i feel pretty certain that presidential politcs play NO role here.

You mean like the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania because they thought it was shipping arms, Britain denied it -- except the Germans were right?

 

[Grant]

There was a major CIA operation going on in Benghazi, I really don't know what, but maybe that's why it was attacked. And very possible why we know little about wht happened there. i feel pretty certain that presidential politcs play NO role here.

So we should debate what's going on based on your feelings. This is an admission that more leftists should make because it is always so very obvious.

 

[head of joaquin]

Benghazi is not going to go away until we are given the truth about what happened, IMO. If an Ambassador's death isn't considered important, where does that leave the rest of us?

We know what happened: some jihadist terrorists attacked a US diplomatic mission because Obama had so skillfully assisted the secular Libyan rebels in taking down the Gadafi dictatorship without fostering jihadist power (like Bush foolishly did in Iraq). It probably had to do with CIA activity in the mission assisting local militias against jihadists. In any case, in the confusion it was unclear who attacked. But now we know.

Why, what do you think happened?

 

[Grant]

It wasn't an embassy, embassies are not US soil. The attack on the compound where Stevens was lasted for such a short amount of time that not even the CIA annex less than a mile away had enough time to react to save Stevens.

I think the hyper-partisanship comment is extremely ironic.

Yes, the S of S called it "a safe house".

Do you actually have a time link?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, the S of S called it "a safe house".

The compound where Stevens was located had a "safe house", but the compound was NOT an embassy.

Do you actually have a time link?

You can find it, the attack on the compound began @ 9:40pm and the CIA annex did not get personnel to the compound until @ 10pm. By then Stevens had been pulled out of the safe house and transported to hospital by locals.

 

[polgara]

We know what happened: some jihadist terrorists attacked a US diplomatic mission because Obama had so skillfully assisted the secular Libyan rebels in taking down the Gadafi dictatorship without fostering jihadist power (like Bush foolishly did in Iraq). It probably had to do with CIA activity in the mission assisting local militias against jihadists. In any case, in the confusion it was unclear who attacked. But now we know.

Why, what do you think happened?

Greetings, HOJ! :2wave:

I don't know, but someone does It appears to me that we were caught unawares in Benghazi, and people who were counting on help arriving never got it, and paid with their lives. As you know, it was originally blamed on a video that supposedly caused a retaliatory spontaneous uprising, then later it was admitted by the administration that it wasn't, after people questioned the use of heavy mortar and grenades that were used, which made it look planned. If only the stories hadn't kept changing, :sigh:, but maybe the truth is too disturbing to hear. :thumbdown:

 

[humbolt]

Greetings, HOJ! :2wave:

I don't know, but someone does It appears to me that we were caught unawares in Benghazi, and people who were counting on help arriving never got it, and paid with their lives. As you know, it was originally blamed on a video that supposedly caused a retaliatory spontaneous uprising, then later it was admitted by the administration that it wasn't, after people questioned the use of heavy mortar and grenades that were used, which made it look planned. If only the stories hadn't kept changing, :sigh:, but maybe the truth is too disturbing to hear. :thumbdown:

We don't like to hear the very same bedtime story night after night. First, the mean old guy besmirched Islam with a movie. That was a good story. Then, pissed off terrorists decided to blow up the place and kill a few Americans. That was a good story too. Now, Benghazi is just a dream we had a long, long time ago that Hillary is really very sorry about, but was really just powerless to prevent. Another good story. A new one is being written in which it was really G. W. Bush who actually caused the whole thing. That'll be a barn burner, there.

 

[Grant]

The compound where Stevens was located had a "safe house", but the compound was NOT an embassy.

You can find it, the attack on the compound began @ 9:40pm and the CIA annex did not get personnel to the compound until @ 10pm. By then Stevens had been pulled out of the safe house and transported to hospital by locals.

Yes, it was not the Embassy, but that raises the question as to why they weren't in the Embassy. or even why it was called 'a safe house'.

Of course that is not the entire time line but you needn't post it. It's been done many times.

 

[Grant]

We don't like to hear the very same bedtime story night after night. First, the mean old guy besmirched Islam with a movie. That was a good story. Then, pissed off terrorists decided to blow up the place and kill a few Americans. That was a good story too. Now, Benghazi is just a dream we had a long, long time ago that Hillary is really very sorry about, but was really just powerless to prevent. Another good story. A new one is being written in which it was really G. W. Bush who actually caused the whole thing. That'll be a barn burner, there.

And of course Obama's Pressed Secretary said it was 'old news' and Frau Clinton asked, rhetorically, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

Stall, lie, and change stories until it is 'old news'. And a number of sadly stupid people buy into this program. It's a damned shame that politicians can get away with this stuff.

 

[humbolt]

And of course Obama's Pressed Secretary said it was 'old news' and Frau Clinton asked, rhetorically, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

Stall, lie, and change stories until it is 'old news'. And a number of sadly stupid people buy into this program. It's a damned shame that politicians can get away with this stuff.

They haven't yet, but the moaning and carping offered by the left is a symptom of their hope that it will go away if they just keep it up. It won't work. Benghazi is chiseled in stone for Hillary Clinton's future. We're going to make certain that's true.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, it was not the Embassy, but that raises the question as to why they weren't in the Embassy. or even why it was called 'a safe house'.

Um....there IS NO EMBASSY IN BENGHAZI. THE EMBASSY IS IN TRIPOLI.....ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY.

Stevens was in Benghazi for a few days to dedicate this former US complex over to the Libyan govt as a "Welcoming Center"/School.

Of course that is not the entire time line but you needn't post it. It's been done many times.

I never said I needed to and the point I was addressing was the claim that the WH could have done something to save Stevens, which I say is a dumb belief since CIA assets (which were assigned with the security) could not respond quick enough even though they were @ a mile away.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Greetings, HOJ! :2wave:

I don't know, but someone does It appears to me that we were caught unawares in Benghazi, and people who were counting on help arriving never got it, and paid with their lives. As you know, it was originally blamed on a video that supposedly caused a retaliatory spontaneous uprising, then later it was admitted by the administration that it wasn't, after people questioned the use of heavy mortar and grenades that were used, which made it look planned. If only the stories hadn't kept changing, :sigh:, but maybe the truth is too disturbing to hear. :thumbdown:

You know Polg, I have posted the "truth" about the events multiple times....and I know you have read them since you "liked" Jack's arguments concerning them when we debated them.....so if you have not comprehended them, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[polgara]

You know Polg, I have posted the "truth" about the events multiple times....and I know you have read them since you "liked" Jack's arguments concerning them when we debated them.....so if you have not comprehended them, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Greetings, Gimmesometruth! :2wave:

I still have problems comprehending the stance that nothing could have been done, especially since we have drones that could have been used to strike fear in the minds of the thugs! Life is precious to them, too, the same as us! Sorry, but how would you have felt at the last minutes of your life knowing that nothing was going to be done to save you, and wouldn't you have felt anguished and betrayed? I believe I would, but I don't believe that all the facts are known yet regarding this tragedy. Sad. eace:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Greetings, Gimmesometruth! :2wave:

I still have problems comprehending the stance that nothing could have been done, especially since we have drones that could have been used to strike fear in the minds of the thugs!

We had observation drones in place, not attack units.

Life is precious to them, too, the same as us! Sorry, but how would you have felt at the last minutes of your life knowing that nothing was going to be done to save you, and wouldn't you have felt anguished and betrayed? I believe I would, but I don't believe that all the facts are known yet regarding this tragedy. Sad. eace:

I have said it before, Stevens knew the situation and the dangers as did the CIA. When you run a covert op, you know you are not in a spot of easy outs. Stop using the term "betrayal", it implies an intentional abandonment with foreknowledge of doom. Only the most jaded of partisans would believe some evil intent like that.

 

[Grant]

Um....there IS NO EMBASSY IN BENGHAZI. THE EMBASSY IS IN TRIPOLI.....ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY.

What's the matter with Laftits?? I said it was NOT the Embassy. Just read it again.

Stevens was in Benghazi for a few days to dedicate this former US complex over to the Libyan govt as a "Welcoming Center"/School.

Oh yeah? And that makes sense to you? Are you not aware of his diaries?

I never said I needed to and the point I was addressing was the claim that the WH could have done something to save Stevens, which I say is a dumb belief since CIA assets (which were assigned with the security) could not respond quick enough even though they were @ a mile away.

Where do you get your information?

 

[Grant]

I have said it before, Stevens knew the situation and the dangers as did the CIA. When you run a covert op, you know you are not in a spot of easy outs. Stop using the term "betrayal", it implies an intentional abandonment with foreknowledge of doom. Only the most jaded of partisans would believe some evil intent like that.

"An intentional abandonment with foreknowledge of doom" sums up the feelings of Ambassador Stevens, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama quite well..

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What's the matter with Laftits?? I said it was NOT the Embassy. Just read it again.

You asked "but that raises the question as to why they weren't in the Embassy (while in Benghazi)?"

They were not in the embassy....because it is in Tripoli! FFS.....stop making stupid posts.

Oh yeah? And that makes sense to you?

It was a reason why he was at the compound, and yes, that part makes sense....but I never claimed it was his sole reason for being there. I'm sure one other reason was to check on the recovery effort of the CIA.

Are you not aware of his diaries?

I am aware of his diaries.

Where do you get your information?

If you have something to counter it, go for it, but I am not going to get into a source pissing match when you come to the table asking "why they weren't in the Embassy (while in Benghazi)?".

 

[Gimmesometruth]

"An intentional abandonment with foreknowledge of doom" sums up the feelings of Ambassador Stevens, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama quite well..

You just defined yourself as an extremist partisan in my book, Mr. Embassy in Benghazi.

 

[Grant]

You asked "but that raises the question as to why they weren't in the Embassy (while in Benghazi)?"

I don't see why I have to explain this to you more than once. Why were they in Benghazi rather in the Embassy in Tripoli? Do you understand now?

They were not in the embassy....because it is in Tripoli! FFS.....stop making stupid posts.

Yes, they were not in the Embassy because the Embassy is in Tripoli. You got that right. The question then, if you get my point now, is why was the Ambassador in Benghazi while the Embassy is in Tripoli?

It was a reason why he was at the compound, and yes, that part makes sense....but I never claimed it was his sole reason for being there. I'm sure one other reason was to check on the recovery effort of the CIA.

If we were allowed to get statements from the surviviors it would go a long way in explaining just what happened.

I am aware of his diaries.

Then you must also know they were discovered by CNN, who got there first, as well as his fears, misgivings and his messages to Hillary Clinton.

If you have something to counter it, go for it, but I am not going to get into a source pissing match when you come to the table asking "why they weren't in the Embassy (while in Benghazi)?".

My God! Why were they in Benghazi instead of Tripoli?? Do you understand now???

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I don't see why I have to explain this to you more than once. Why were they in Benghazi rather in the Embassy in Tripoli? Do you understand now?

You can try a CYA....but you blew it.

Yes, they were not in the Embassy because the Embassy is in Tripoli. You got that right. The question then, if you get my point now, is why was the Ambassador in Benghazi while the Embassy is in Tripoli?

"I made a huge blunder, and now I need to ask questions like a 6 year old who has no concepts about the role of an Ambassador"

Pleeezeeeeee......!

If we were allowed to get statements from the surviviors it would go a long way in explaining just what happened.

Oh noes.....the gag rule claim....again....sigh.

Then you must also know they were discovered by CNN, who got there first, as well as his fears, misgivings and his messages to Hillary Clinton.

Uh-huh.....and then what happened?

My God! Why were they in Benghazi instead of Tripoli?? Do you understand now???

"My gawd! This is awkward! I really put my foot in it, and I neeeeeeed to keep this up or I'll look worse...oh noes...tooo late....!!"

 

[pbrauer]

So we should debate what's going on based on your feelings. This is an admission that more leftists should make because it is always so very obvious.

I stated an opinion, Because the CIA was involved we may never know what happened.

 

[Grant]

I stated an opinion, Because the CIA was involved we may never know what happened.

What reason do you think the CIA might have for hiding what happened in Benghazi? Rice, Clinton and Obama were quite eager to blame everything on an anti Muslim video. Was it the CIA who said the murders were all the result of that anti Muslim video?

 

[Kobie]

What reason do you think the CIA might have for hiding what happened in Benghazi? Rice, Clinton and Obama were quite eager to blame everything on an anti Muslim video. Was it the CIA who said the murders were all the result of that anti Muslim video?

It was the CIA who scrubbed the original talking points.

Unless you think every American should be privy to what the CIA does all time (which, trust me, you probably don't want to know), then what is the hardon over the video?

We KNOW, now, what happened in Benghazi. We've known it for almost a year. Where is the smoking gun? What the **** do you think is going to turn up?

A group claiming to be tied to Al-Qaeda attacked a vulnerable installation and killed four Americans. It was awful, there were obvious security failures that led to it, and that's it. The idea that they were intentionally left to die; the video (which WAS an issue in the ME and North Africa at the time); the alleged "stand down" order; these mythical legions of American troops we could have sent on a doomed rescue mission ... it's all fiction. When are people going to get that through their heads?

I never saw a single right-winger give a rat's ass about the embassy personnel all over the world that were killed before Obama took office; and to be quite frank, Republican concern over Benghazi is FAR MORE than Republican concern over 9/11, which wiped out our most visible center of commerce, killed more than 3,000 Americans and provided the impetus for two wars (one justified, one not).

You want to know why I utterly despise the Republican party? THIS IS WHY.