Benghazi: A Desperate GOP Attack

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Agent_286, May 14, 2013.

  1. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Upon learning the consulate was under attack, Obama told the SOD and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything they possibly could to spare no effort or resource.

    Use your common sense. Why on earth would Special Forces Command order those guys to stay in Tripoli if they thought they were needed in Bengazi?
     
  2. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, but apparently there were no orders to assist that were ever given either. How do we know? No help ever showed up in Benghazi.

    No and this is typical rhetorical garbage meant to make the appearance of a massive cover up so absurd it could never happen. You've thrown in a lot of extraneous moving parts here and only the key players (Obama, Clinton,
    Panetta, etc.) need to be in on a lie in order to execute it. Did Susan Rice really believe that the attack on Benghazi was due to a little known video?
    If she was told that by the White House and that's what she wanted to believe, perhaps.
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So now you speak for Hicks, who was demoted for telling the truth. You are getting more pathetic by the minute

    Gregory Hicks was deputy chief of mission in Libya the night of the attacks, working from the capital, Tripoli, more than an hourlong flight away.

    He testified before lawmakers May 8, 2013, about a four-person team he had hoped would fly from Tripoli to Benghazi — but didn’t get permission to get on the plane.

    Who called off the mission irie, come on tell us? Why was a lying piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) video told to the American public, when in fact there was never a video in Benghazi. Come on irie, fill in the blanks, see if you can do it without lying
     
  5. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll take your word for it. The question isn't rather idiot Muslims would protest any slight offense to their Mohammad...the question is whether the administration cynically and deviously siezed on the pretense of rage over this video to cover up their own mistakes and
    culpability in this campaign time disaster. The answer is obviously yes. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...ghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
     
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, no, the issue was whether jeopardized the lives of the actors in the video, which I guess is some additional claim in the RW blogosphere. The claim was made that Obama and Clinton referring to the video as a reason for the attack on the compound was what publicized the video. I rebutted that claim by showing that there were riots based on the video before the Bengazi incident and the Obama administration ever referred to it in conjunction with the attack.

    As far as a "cover up", I've already demonstrated how Obama on the day after the attack stated his suspicion was that the attack was no like Cairo but targeted, and that the initial CIA assessment memo referred to the attack as a spontaneous event inspired by the Cairo demonstrations that evolved into an assault.
     
  7. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is contradicted by the behavior of the White House for weeks after the attack and, indeed, Susan Rice was sent out on a media blitz selling the notion that the source of the attack was anger over a silly video...and not Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.
    Obama knew better!

    The top State Department official on the ground in Libya states he knew immediately the attack was well organized and the work of real terrorists...not Muslim street crazies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-05/u-s-official-saw-benghazi-attack-as-not-spontaneous.html
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That appearance by Rice was based on the CIA memo. As far as Obama, the day after the attack, he stated:

    Sept 13, the day after the attack:

    "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584252/benghazi-timeline-how-the-probe-unfolded/

    The day after the attack, the president he saying he suspects that Bengazi was not like Cairo, but an attack looking to target Americans from the start.

    Does that sound like a guy who's engaging in a massive conspiracy to create a lie that it was an event based on a video to you?

    Within two week, the investigation confirmed it was not a spontaneous event but preplanned. And the administration announces that.

    So what is the BFD?

    And the CIA was calling it a spontenous event. So you go with your intellegence agency and say that an investigation is ongoing and when you get clearer information you say that.

    Which is what the administration did. What is the BFD?
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hicks speaks for himself. Feel free to show evidence contradicting what I said. Where is even Hicks himself saying anyone was told to "stand down"? Even Hicks never says that.

    You've been duped by RW propaganda. Again.

    No one called off the mission. The mission went forward. The plane was sent to Tripoli to pick up the survivors who were already secured at the airport or on their way, escorted by about 30 armored vehicles of the Libyan militia.


    "Were these guys told not to do anything? No. They were in Tripoli, supporting the U.S. security in Tripoli, and they were told to stay there," [Air Force Maj. Rob] Firman says. Special Operations Command Africa leadership told them to remain where they were, and "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli."

    "I look at that as not so much a stand-down order, as it is a 'stay where you are,'" says Firman. "Those guys met the planes and continued to support."

    Firman adds that the C-130 was tasked with picking up the American personnel at the Benghazi airport and leave immediately. These Special Forces troops would not have been on the ground long enough to have contributed significantly to the operation.


    "There was a very limited amount of time that they could have done anything," he says.[/I]

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...agon-told-special-forces-to-stand-down?page=2

    Ambassador Pickering reinforced this account based on his committee's investigation. He explains that a relief plane was sent within an hour of the attack with 2 special forces troops and half a dozen other security personal. They set up the defensive perimeter at the annex. By the time the C-130 was ready to9 take off from Tripoli, which would have carried the 4 other guys Hicks refers to, the people in Bengazi were already secure and on their way or at the Bengazi airport, escorted by about 60 armored vehicles of the Libyan defense forces. Meanwhile the defense forces in Tripoli had been weakened when the troops were sent to Bengazi and the decision was made that the 4 guys were more needed in Tripoli. With an attack having been made in Bengazi, who knew whether there wouldn't be one in Tripoli?

    Use you common sense, billy. Why would Special Forces Command order the 4 guys to stay in Tripoli if they thought they were needed in Bengazi?
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “The President told the Secretary [of Defense] and the Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to do everything they possibly could to spare no effort or resource ....”
    http://factcheck.org/2013/03/bachmann-bungles-benghazi-food-stamps/

    Obama ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with "all available DOD assets" and try to protect U.S. personnel, Panetta said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/panetta-benghazi-hearing

    I disagree. You're claiming there was a "stand down" order from the WH. To believe that, you have to believe that Obama, Clinton, Air Force Major Firman, Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Pickering, Admiral Mullen, Special Forces command, and the CIA are all lying.

    You're claiming that there was a deliberate lie about the cause of the attack. To believe that you'd have to believe that Obama, Clinton, Rice, and the CIA were lying when the wrote the initial assessment memo.

    The video wasn't "little known" at the time. It had just hit the news worldwide and had sparked riots and demonstrations in Cairo and other places in the Muslim world.

    It was completely logical to think that what happened in Bengazi was probably the same thing.
     
  11. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't expect you to take my word for it. This is the first bullet point from the original CIA assessment memo, before any revisions were made:

    We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf
     
  13. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh my God you are desperate! You are citing pure lies and obvious bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Obama told his military to spare no effort? Well no effort was ever made so you know what those self serving lies are worth.
    How do you look at yourself in the mirror?



    They obviously ARE all lying but no stand down need be given if no military assets are ever sent into Benghazi. That was the case. And btw, at least David Petraeus had the courage to go against the White House and tell the truth. He was simply rolled over for his trouble.

    David Petraeus said his original views on Benghazii were scrubbed and rewritten to conform to the White House propaganda.

    Unless you knew better. The White House knew better.
     
  14. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "I look at that as not so much a stand-down order, as it is a 'stay where you are,'" says Firman. "Those guys met the planes and continued to support."

    So in other words they were told to leave and let them die, who told them irie? Your support of a lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*) is admirable, but pathetic, because it is a lie of the worse kind. A political posture that cost the lives of 4 Americans, and then a continue lie for the next three weeks about some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) video. Tell us irie, what does a video in Cairo have to do with Benghazi, when there was never a video reported in Benghazi? Why did they demote Hicks who had a sterling 20 years with the government? Why is that irie, let's hear some more of your BS cover
     
  15. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not what the CIA director said and his view is backed up by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Operations in Libya.

    The views of Petraeus were scrubbed and taken out and then the White House got a fat quisling, James Clapper, to take over and repeat whatever they told him to although he himself is on record having said that there was no doubt from the start that terrorists attacked Benghazi.
    You are simply blowing smoke and really are shameless.
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show me the proof they are lies and I'll re-assess.

    I don't buy there was a giant conspiracy involving Obama, Clinton, Air Force Major Firman, Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Pickering, Admiral Mullen, Special Forces command, and the CIA.

    Reinforcements were sent to Libya. Within an hour 7 CIA special forces security guys were on a plane and on their way.

    I showed you want the original CIA memo said before any revisions were made: We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

    There were revisions that toned down references to terrorist groups then believed to potentially be involved, but the core element of the assessment that is supposedly the big cover up, that this was a spontaneous event driven by the video, was the very first bullet point in the original CIA memo before any revision were made.

    Knew what better? Prove it.
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one was told to let them die. Are you really that gullible, billy? Are you really so partisan that you will suspend logic and common sense and believe our military decided to let people die?

    Why would Special Forces Command order the 4 guys to stay in Tripoli if they thought they were needed in Bengazi?
     
  18. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say he said it.

    I simply posted what the original CIA assessment memo said: We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

    Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the link. Read it yourself.

    Whatever was revised and changed, that was the original assessment before anything was changed, and consistent with what the administration reported.
     
  19. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gee, that is pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*) irie, Hicks told Clinton at 2 am on the 12th that this was an attack by terrorists, not a video as you continue to lie about. The CIA memo was on the 14th and it was "thought" to have inspired, based on what irie? After that it was confirmed that no protest took place, yet Obama/Clinton when on a talk show circuit including mentioning it 5 times at the UN, blaming a video which was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie
     
  20. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assuming Hicks is telling the truth, he's just one voice with one opinion. The CIA, responsible for gathering intelligence, said it was a spontaneous event. As to why the CIA's assessment said this was a spontaneous event, you'd have to ask them, but since there were riots and demonstrations breaking out around the Muslim world because of the video, it seems like a logical deduction to me.

    The day after the attack, Obama said: "We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said. "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584252/benghazi-timeline-how-the-probe-unfolded/

    Does that sound like a statement by someone whose trying to set up a massive conspiracy to fabricate a story it was *not* a preplanned attack to you?
     
  21. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) irie, then why did the CIA delete that prior to 9/11 of the warning of an al qaeda attack?

    References to al-Qaeda and to CIA warnings of terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility there were deleted from the now famous "talking points" delivered to Congress and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, ABC
     
  22. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well at least use the blessing of hindsight and see who has right, and who was lying.
    Use your head, too. No one brings small arms and RPG rocket launchers and stages sophisticated two part assualts as part of a spontaneous street demonstration. Holy Jeebus....

    Are you talking abou tthe contractors from Tripoli? At 4:05 Washington time the State Department emailed the White House they were under attack in Benghazi...and seven guys is the best you can do? And defending Benghazi was their job! They didn't need, nor did they have, Obama to send them there. Where was the rest of the help?
    Your stale lies are starting to bug me.



    People on the ground, after an attack, immediately knew they were being attacked by a terrorist cell.
    It was a well coordinated two part attack. Angry mobs don't behave that way, and don't carry RPGs around.



    David Petraeus already proved it and you certainly don't hear the White House hanging onto their discarded lies anymore. An angry protest is very different from a coordinated attack. Grow up and stop telling blatant lies.
     
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so it comes out that the talking points of the GOP about the Benghazi incident were lies and misquotes

    kinda ironic isn't it, republicans talking points were worse then the talking points they were criticizing




    .
     
  24. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
  25. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if we take you at your word you are really making a distinction here that's pointless. It wasn't a bunch of ragged, angry Muslims that coalesced into a small mob that launched a full scale assault on the American consulate. Ansar Al Sharia are the ones that made a two stage battle plan and brought heavy armaments along with them.

    I mean, I can see why the administration would lie to get their butts out of a sling and I suppose that's good enough for you, as a rabid partisan apologist. But our ambassador was not killed and our mission not burned to the ground by a motely crew of angry street Muslims.

    So why did the Obama regime insist for weeks that angry video protestors were the cause of the destruction and death in Benghazi when it clearly wasn't? Purely to whip up a partisan frenzy in the middle of an election and disassociate themselves from the cluster (*)(*)(*)(*) they created in Benghazi. So thanks for the word games but reality is not altered by a deceitful argument.

    But even then, the original CIA assessment does not rule out a terrorist presence there. They clearly didn't bring their AK-47s and RPGs to protest a little seen video about Islam.
    From the beginning the presence of an Al Qaeda offshoot is the real story and the one the O-bots tried to downplay and ignore. All your sophistry does nothing to change that.
     

Share This Page