Republicans won't let Benghazi go . . .

What lie was that?

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

I take it as a statement of principle for our nation as a whole. One would hope that is the objective.

 

Good for you.

The bipartisan report of the Senate Intel Committee after a year long investigation (not to mention other investigations and reports) versus Fox News. I know which one I think is more credible. That you'd go with Fox doesn't surprise me.

- - - Updated - - -

That is what you've been informed? That everyone "stood down"?

What source of information gave you that belief?

 

Don't dodge the question. Your positions is relies upon the conjecture that Obama and/or Clinton ordered the military to "stand down" and not provide assistance, and that Air Force Major Firman, Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Pickering, Admiral Mullen, Special Forces command, Penetta, the CIA, and Senators Liberman and Snow and the DOD, and the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee are all in a huge conspiracy to lie and cover up this "stand down" order.

Answer the question.

You should be posting in the conspiracy forum.

Again, your information is that no one assisted or moved? What source of information gave you that false belief?

I can understand (a little) why you would hold these wild conspiracy theories given your gross misunderstanding of fact.

 

What about the guys who came from the annex? What about the security team that came from Tripoli?

You're source of information (let me guess, it starts with an "F" and ends with an "x" and has three letters) has left you badly misinformed.

 

What's your point?

Multiple witnesses involved testified there was no stand down order. Even Hicks never said it. The Republicans dropped Fox's "stand down" lie like a hot potato because they knew they'd get eggs on their faces if they tried to prove the lie and accuse DOD Special Ops command of intentionally abadndoning people.

But folks like you lap it up and we'll be hearing about this lie for eternity.

Propaganda works.

- - - Updated - - -

Good point. As look as they can make political points and keep this "stand down" lie rolling in the public mind, why would they let it go?

 

The bi-partisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee after a thorough year long investigation versus your "common sense."

Maybe others find your common sense more impressive.

 

Of course. Because this was a secret attempt by Obama to kill our ambassador in Libya because he's really a Muslim born in Kenya who wants to overthrow the US, and Clinton, Air Force Major Firman, Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Pickering, Admiral Mullen, Special Forces command, Penetta, the CIA, and Senators Liberman and Snow and the DOD, and the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee are all in a huge conspiracy to lie about it and cover up for Obama.

According to Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti, which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert status. We would've had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the only assets we had available to try to support.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

More of the cover up in the bi-partisan report of the Senate Intel Committee after a year long investigation.

 

I'm curious. If Obama and Clinton handed it correctly, why did they or their reps lie about what caused it for weeks?

 

Who is saying they handled it correctly? They have admitted their mistakes(that things could have been done better), the problem is that you think their mistakes were intentional when you have no evidence to prove that!

 

And you have no evidence to prove it wasn't intentional! Consider the players, the lying history of Obama and Clinton!

 

I have no evidence/reason to believe it was intentional.........and neither do you.

Try again!

 

Why did Obama, Clinton, and their reps lie?

 

A LIE is a made-up story. And that's what blaming it on the video was; a made-up story. There was absolutely NO PROOF that the attack had one thing to do with that video....and yet it's what this administration tried to see us for a least a couple of weeks......before they finally realize they were looking VERY stupid pushing that made-up story.

 

Again, there is no evidence it was intentional. I wonder why I told you this and you found nothing to prove me wrong and back up your claim.

TRY AGAIN! LOL

 

No, a lie is telling you something that I know is wrong with the intent to deceive you. The difference between being wrong and lying is.........intent.

Nope I provided the evidence it takes to believe it was the video.
1. Muslims attack people that say bad things about Islam.
2. They were rioting in Egypt due to the video.

Now, prove my evidence is wrong. But we both know you CANT!

..

Its called evidence. See #1 and #2 above! LOL

Since they had every reason to believe it was due to a video............telling you what they believed cannot be a lie.

You see, you are failing to show where he lied.

TRY AGAIN but harder!

 

Now explain the difference between being wrong and lying. I bet you don't KNOW the difference. The only way to prove me wrong is to prove that you do know the difference. Try.......because I know you will fail.

 

You libs remind me of the old advice, "When you get caught with your pants down, deny, deny, deny!"

 

WHAHAHAH! You see, when the conservatives realize they CANT prove you wrong..............they run from even trying because if they tried, they would fail, and this would expose their position as untenable! LMAO!

How much does someone/anyone want to bet me that birddog runs away? Let's see if my prediction is correct. Let's see if the science works! LOL

 

How much does someone/anyone want to bet me that birddog runs away? Let's see if my prediction is correct. Let's see if the science works! LOL

Well, I was right. Its hilarious when they can't stick around and learn............they must run away to keep from learning!

 

Lies Under Oath.

Perhaps many in this thread are unaware of what is happening on the Michael Morrell front. Morrell, former CIA Deputy Director, has already been caught in lies about the talking points....and information he gave before the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation regarding Benghazi. Since his part in the Benghazi talking points, he has conveniently retired from the CIA and has been placed in high administration positions....IMHO, to make sure he stays quiet. Here's the FACTS so far regarding Morrell.....and he WILL be called back to testify and given a chance to clear up his misinformation provided to the Committee previously.

---the very FIRST report to come from the CIA Chief on the ground in Tripoli reported the attacks were "NOT an escalation of protests." References were made to al Qaeda. This was the day before Susan Rice's Sunday talk show declaration that it WAS about protests.

--In November 2012, Morell and Clapper testified before the House Intelligence Committee, and when asked of Clapper who was responsible for the talking points, he answered he had no idea; while Morell remained silent.

--emails from the White House, the State Dept, and the CIA revealed later that the White House and State Dept were very much involved in the talking points. In the next questioning, Morell admitted to changing the talking points. (Remember he remained silent at the Nov 2012 hearing and did not speak up and admit he was the one who changed them.) His obligation as a public servant was to speak up then and clear up the record. For some reason, he tried to get away without saying it was him. He finally admitted it was him....only after the following revelation:

--In a meeting with Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte, Morell then blamed the FBI for changing the talking points. They called up the FBI and the FBI went "ballistic." They did NOT change the talking points and were livid at Morell's accusation.

--While "sources" at the time said Morell's changed talking points were an "afterthought" of a Sept 15th meeting at the White House...(where the text was finalized after spending late Sept 14th on them as well)......an e-mail obtained by the Committee from White House adviser Ben Rhodes said otherwise. Rhodes wrote on later Feb 14th in a e-mail to the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, CIA, State Dept, White House and Staff......."There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed....we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression. We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."

SO....clearly the first indication that something needed to be changed came from the White House. They already had from the CIA head on the ground in Tripoli that it was a terrorist attack and Nothing to do with a video....and yet had Morell craft talking points that Susan Rice would use that Sunday morning that were obviously a big fat LIE. Would Morell do that all on his own? No way. But put him under oath and let's see how far he'll go to protect this administration and his friend's, the Clinton's.

--Since retiring from the CIA....Morell has taken on some very high-profile (close to the administration) positions.......including the NSA review panel and the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. He is also now a paid TV commentator for CBS News, has a book deal, and works for BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES, whose founder PHILIPPE REIMES has been described by the NY Times magazine as Clinton's "principal gatekeeper."


--Oh....and this for all of you who STILL believe that there were no lies:
In May 2013, Morell was asked to testify a second time before the House Intelligence Committee. Sources familiar with Morell's second testimony say he admitted to changing the talking points, and he offered shifting explanations for it.....from classification issues, to not compromising the FBI investigation.....and that exposing the failure of Hillary Clinton's State Department to act on repeated security warnings seemed unprofessional.

I think we can now safely say we know WHY he is working for Beacon Global Strategies and probably getting paid BIG BUCKS in exchange for his silence.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ial-accused-misleading-lawmakers-on-benghazi/

 

Why would I run? As usual, you are wrong! I simply don't play by your rules. You wouldn't recognize truth if it smacked you between the eyes!

You are a legend in your own mind, but I'm not impressed!

 

Well, most people that are trying to learn............don't run away from doing so. So why do you?

Did you realize you CANT learn or is it because you dont WANT to learn. If I were you, I would prove its because you don't WANT to.........because the other allows me to question your intelligence!

Then run away so you don't have to learn. Its the best way to continue to live in a bubble! LMAO!

 

Closed ~ Post Capacity