Hillary declares victory over Benghazi panel, pivots to bash P P ‘witch hunt'

Over night?

He was there defending US soil for days...

The guy didn't live there - he job was as an ambassador....

You think he had some lazy ass Hillary job??? you think that clown would defend the embassy?

Don't even attempt to minimize Stevens in an attempt to defend that coward Hillary... It's clear that punk couldn't even pick up a phone and clearly enjoyed watching Stevens die with those Seals...

 

Sure.

Originally Posted by MrNick
This has nothing to do with the CIA...

And not General Petraeus? Head of the CIA. How ...interesting.

 

He was supposed to meet with a delegation from the US .. they were kicking off some joint venture to provide or improve emergency services in Benghazi.

The rented villa had no security, no diplomatic mission, no consular officers .... Nobody is taking any thing away from Stevens.

 

You obviously don't know what a Secretary of State is.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing was happening - the guy was ignored and left out to dry by his boss - Hillary...

 

The State Department website lists no consulate in Benghazi....

 

Is this your way of defending the tyrant known as Hillary?

Of course there isn't one - a) Ambassador Stevens was murdered and b) the consulate was destroyed - thanks to Hillary Clinton.

 

Like 3000 died on 9/11/01 thanks to George Bush, right?

And 241 US servicemen died in 1983 thanks to Ronald Reagan right?

Using the deaths of Americans to scapegoat for partisan political reasons it pretty lame.

 

The compound in Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate....

 

Ah okay, you have nothing with which to retort to the factual pieces of that story that were never actually challenged as inaccurate, concession duly noted.

 

Yet it's done all the time, that doesn't make the story behind it any less important.

 

I notice you don't mention the credibility of the third witness. That's amusing.

 

I just can't see how a Democrat would want to stand behind her. Even if there wasn't a big conspiracy they lost an Ambassador on their watch. Heck most of Arkansas was democrat till the Clinton's got done with it. But I guess you never took the time to look up Mena Arkansas and how the Clinton's bailed out Berry Seal who was busted for flying Cocaine in and out of Mena's tiny airport.

 

Especially comedic because I'm not lying, I was completely aware that one of the witness' testimony was basically a lie. That's not the portion I find useful as evidence and I never argued specifically that it was. I used this source with the one flawed witness because that doesn't immediately and inherently discredit the second two. And even if you were to somehow discredit Hicks, what do you have to say about the third witness? That's what I'm really curious about. The third witness provides a timeline before he left that Benghazi was in dire need of amped up security and the State Department was aware of the issue before the attack and did nothing to resolve it. Also, you're right, there was never a "stand down" order, there was a "stay where you are, don't even try, four American lives aren't worth the resources you might expend by "taking too long" to get there (even though the assault lasted for hours)" and that's basically the same damn thing. That's what the Pentagon is using as their story for what happened? How droll.

 

Hooray for Hillary! She showed them up. Hillary was victorious.

 

Dude.


Give it up.


You've been busted 10 ways till Sunday -- by your own words.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
For the record, here are quotes from Locke9-05 in this thread, repeatedly relying on and vouching for the credibility and reliability of the factual information in the CBS video video he cited, which he now admits he knew had been discredited, based on verified, flagrant lies, withdraw, and resulted in the CBS reporter being fired.

+++

So the statements included in the findings of the reports you're referencing are inaccurate. Watch the video.

This is all discussed by the people in the video ...

While all those are admirable characteristics, they don't inherently make one source superior to another. The sources I've presented contradict the sources you presented, not the other way around.

Iriemon: "They absolutely make my sources far superior in terms of credibility and reliability." Locke: "No, they don't. They state otherwise."

My sources are from independent journalists seeking the truth and organizations which actively fact-check government reports, etc. and have done so since their initial conception as ideas. And you really honestly think your sources are more reliable? How droll.

Would you like to get back on track and discuss your allegations regarding the reliability of my sources? What about the reporting is unreliable?

The only issue you took with my sources was that they contradict the reports you're supporting, you weren't able to name a single characteristic of the sources I posted which would discredit them as "unreliable."

Have you not seen that the report was broadcast by CBS? The most left-leaning media conglomerate next to MSNBC? I trust investigative journalism far more than I trust politicians who could benefit from keeping government secrets. Don't you?

I'm supporting investigate journalism. You presented those findings, I presented evidence which massively counters and tears many many holes in the findings you're supporting. ...

I realize you're happy standing by the findings you've presented here, but now that I've presented evidence which shatters those findings, you are refusing to continue? Why? Because of my "kook blog sources" which you have failed to discredit or the 60 minutes interviews that you did not adequately counter?

Some independent-minded journalist with CBS (one of the most left leaning media conglomerates) decided to do some reporting on the Benghazi issue to see just how credible allegations were regarding a mishandling of the situation and decisions or inaction which cost American lives as well as the lies told to the American public after the attack. I've torn your arguments to shreds now each time.

Your argument implied that there were no available US forces to respond. The source I provided destroys that notion.

Both what we've presented is evidence. You presented yours, I presented mine. You have failed to discredit or disprove any of the facts I have posted here. You refuse to accept the countering evidence I've offered, despite being unable to actually identify a discrediting characteristic of either of the sources I've presented in this topic.

CBS? The left-leaning conglomerate? Right-wing propaganda? How whimsically jocose. I will certainly take independent reporting on the issue much more seriously than the "investigations" of politicians invested in keeping government secrets.

But I already posted evidence that contradicts the findings of the House Committee.

No problem. It's a report by CBS' own 60 Minutes, so that makes it much more difficult for people on the left to scream "bias" and attempt to use that to discredit the report. It's very factual and they speak with government officials about the circumstances and time leading up to the attack as well as the attack itself. It's definitely eye-opening and yes, it will leave most rational people feeling a little sick in terms of how little support the Americans at the embassy received save for the small CIA tactical unit who did not wait for orders to go defend American lives and ended up giving theirs as a result.

Their [House and Senate bi-partisan reports] findings are really neat and all, but that CBS video just destroys their findings. One investigative journalist was able to tear many many holes in their investigation just by talking to some people who would talk about it. Where's your counter evidence? You're just bowing out, then? We're done arguing "facts" now that my facts trump yours? How hilariously predictable.

That's some fairly basic military knowledge, and it's also all in the CBS (left-leaning media conglomerate) 60 Minutes report I already linked:

 

Nothing in that quote implies I wasn't fully aware of the news story. Whenever I find a source I use in a debate like this, I google it and I often google it with the keyword "bias" as well to see what in general people have to say about the bias of certain media organizations. You can believe it or you can refuse to. But my character isn't on trial, this is an internet forum. Let's keep to the topic, yeah? And the topic is not whether or not I knew something I say I knew. It's Benghazi. So I'm going to attempt to get this topic back on track. You can keep going on with this huge deflection and distraction, or you can answer my question, the one I've asked at least twice now: "what do you have to say about the third witness in that video--the Green Beret Commander?"

 

They also guard diplomatic premises of which this was one but had to guards.

It was Hillary who approved this arms stuff and got the ball rolling. More of her brilliant ideas.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/02/judge-nap-hillary-clinton-approved-arms-terrorists-syria-libya

Just another reason to cover it up with a video

 

Dr Burke was not the Turk Envoy who he was sent to meet. You have figured out that part correct?

 

Hillary didn't show anybody up.....its all a figment of your imagination. The only thing Hillary showed.....and doubled down on. Was her lying and her dishonesty.

That's why the majority of the country thinks she is a worthless piece of (*)(*)(*)(*). That just leaves the Demos and their Cult followers believing in the worthless (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It was a worthless deflection they used anyways.....as not one Committee or ARB board came back saying the Security was adequate for our people in Benghazi. Or even the rest of Libya. It's why they evacuated the Embassy in Tripoli.

Not one stuck up for Hillary and her Team. Not said they did the Right thing. Did they?

You have to remember.....the Cult members like to expound on (*)(*)(*)(*) that is trivial. Then try and make a big deal out of it. Its a typical leftist mentality at play.

 

You're not fooling anybody.

Now we're down to the last pin standing in your epic this CBS 60 Minutes video is so important mang!! meltdown failure.

A dude who was last in Benghazi June of 2012, saying Stevens (who had twice turned down security requests) should change his profile and warned him how dangerous Benghazi was --yet Stevens went there on his own anyway?

Whoop-de do. Andy Wood testified before Congress a year earlier - and I provided the link to his testimony. Nothing new.
What you think is stunning, isn't.

 

Please tell the readers the dates of the evacuation of the Embassy in Tripoli.

 

What has Bush or Reagan to do with this? Ive been told its against the rules you are not allowed to bring up hypocrisy by the other side by a moderator.

 

Hicks gave a detailed account of why Stevens turned down security from Ham, but let's keep pretending that he is a disgruntled employee.