The new book just out shows the Obama admin lied about Benghazi

how did i know you'd make another narrow-minded, ill-informed reply?

 

So you disagree with the local CIA commander's judgment(who was there), after the fact, what difference do you believe that 20 minutes would have made?
And what leads you to believe it would have made a difference?

 

And you know that how?
So do you believe the local CIA commander should be charged?

 

20 minutes on scene by trained special forces vets. I'll take that any day over a bunch of amateurs with AKs.

 

in other words, you would have made the same stupid mistake reagan did

and likely gotten a lot more than four people killed

 

I am sorry...I forgot who I was addressing...'hiding' has a meaning

noun
noun: hiding
the action of concealing someone or something.
the state of being hidden.
"the shipowner had gone into hiding"
synonyms: hidden, concealed, lying low, underground, in a safe house
"the fugitive is in hiding"

Since I did not produce any evidence that the good fellow was under his bed wetting himself, 'hiding' was perhaps a tad much. I should have said he was conspicuous in his absence and was not discovered outside where the combat happened...The reasons for his absence from any harmful situation are as mysterious as his reason for ordering relief forces to stand down.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, mindless one liners expressing opinions are so much more convincing...

 

No, I believe he should have been fired, and should be made to expain himself in the hearings and not be hidden by the regime.

 

oh look, another one-liner whining about one-liners

your comments are the epitome of hypocrisy

of course you can't wrap you mind around reasonable explanations

and have to continue making up fairy tales about bed wetting and other such childish nonsense

 

Hard to find a reasonable explanation when the regime hides the fellow from folk asking such awkward questions...

 

again with the fairy tales that have no evidence to support them

you don't even seem to be conscious that you're doing it

 

really...can you provide me with the dates of the hearings that involved the 30 plus folk on the ground in Benghazi. I must have missed it

 

can you get a grip on reality? your fairy tales seem to be carrying you away

 

So, as expected...no dates and no interviews...but you knew that already

 

your problem with lying seems to be congenital

 

Dude, you are getting beaten at every turn. Just give it up.

 

Yes, you did miss it. The report from the Senate Intelligence Committee says:

"This report and our findings and recommendations are based upon the extensive work conducted by Committee M~mbers and staffduring this review, including the following hearings, briefings, and meetings (which included interviews ofU.S. personnel on the ground during the attacks):"

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

The "folk on the ground" were interviewed by members of Congress in meetings / interviews done in private so as to protect the identities of the "folk on the ground", most of whom were CIA personnel.

 

If there was indeed a 'stand down' order ( more likely a "remain in place" order ) why do so many assume that was a bad thing?

Seems to me that allowing Woods and Co. to rush into a situation where they are greatly outnumbered and out-weaponed, with little idea of what is taking place at the scene of the incident, isn't very wise. Maybe someone with a military background can help here but there is a military leadership rule about not sending men into a situation where you have no idea what they are running into.

Having the security team remain in place while you attempt to get them support from the January Brigade was the PRUDENT thing to do. But many act as if it was some travesty. The "remain in place" order came about because they didn't want Woods & Co. to rush in and get themselves killed in a futile effort to save Ambassador Stevens. Guess what happened? Woods & Co. disobeyed an order, rushed in with no idea what the F they were up against and got Woods killed in a futile attempt to save the Ambassador. While it isn't politically correct to characterize this "rescue team" as anything but brave heroes, they were in one sense fools who failed miserably and only added to the U.S. death toll.

The finger-pointers have yet to say what the malevolent motivation behind any "stand down" or "remain in place" order would have been. Are we to believe that the only reason they wanted to Woods & Co. to wait is because they wanted Stevens to die?? Absurd. The only plausible reason for wanting Woods' team to delay was the one I presented above- they were trying to get the 4-man team help before the team rushed in to face over 100 attackers with RPG's, machine-gun trucks, and mortars.

This is one of the particularly ridiculous parts about the Benghazi outrage- people shriek over the death of Woods and shriek that "no attempt was made to help" when Woods WAS part of an attempt to help. They shriek that there was no attempt at help and then shriek over the death of a helper!

 

He's clearly one of those tools who are paid for every post.... no other rational reason possible.

 

your lies are what's getting beaten

oh look, another lie, what a surprise

 

How do you get paid per post?

 

I was joking about the"per post"... just paid to make inane posts.

 

What lie did I tell? Did not Susan Rice go on national TV and repeat what is now known as a bald face lie? Yes, she did.
Did Hillary Clinton further and bolster that lie? Yes, she did.
Did Obama get on TV and further that lie? Yes, he did

 

you're just lying, again

post #715 is a lie

 

Yea, you wish.

 

no, i know