Benghazi Lies and The 2012 Presidential Election Cycle[W:185]

Muddy Creek said:

It's not about a military response. It's about the FOX news expert telling the FOX lies must stop.

Click to expand...

How is that? Fox news didn't say anything against the military.

j-mac said:

In a House hearing Charlene Lamb a person that knows far more than you about the financial considerations of security at embassies around the world said to a direct question about whether or not money or budget was a consideration as to why this ambassador was denied the security he requested, and she responded "No, budget was not a concern"....

So your little meme about budget cutting, is frankly sir, a lie.

Click to expand...

So now you trust the state department?

Which is it? Do you trust them or not? You got to get your memes straight so I know which one to rebut and make fun of

j-mac said:

Nothing feigned about it Adam. I am dismayed that not only you, but other liberal, and progressive posters here seem to care so little for the death of those 4 that they use the callous argument that you forward here. Can you imagine being in that fight, thinking that help was surely on the way, only to have those here in DC turn their backs on you? But no problem with that eh?

Gotta go to work, this is sad, real sad.

Click to expand...

Honestly nobody believes you and the rightwing noise machine give a hoot about embassy officials; Bush's misrule resulted in the death of 10,000 US troops without a peep from the machine. So your hypocrisy is noted and laughed at.

Meantime which party cut the embassy security budget -- come on, you can say it, I know you can!

head of joaquin said:

So now you trust the state department?

Which is it? Do you trust them or not? You got to get your memes straight so I know which one to rebut and make fun of

Click to expand...

The intel services provide the info.

You obviously cannot trust the Frau Clinton as facts have recently proven.
Was she running State in 1998?
No.
She was relegated to baking cookies after farking up the midterms in 1994.

You really should sharpen up your skills or my next avatar will be of your pathetic tiger with a dunce cap.

MaggieD said:

The point, the only point, is that we were told the reason for the attacks was a YouTube video. That was not true.

Click to expand...

That's just flat out incorrect. The logic you use for determining what the "point" is and what derivative conclusion should be drawn from the "only point" that matters, is more than just flawed. How can the "point" possibly be the Effect of Cause?

If the Causation is irreversible and unknown in real-time by definition, then Effect is the only thing that can be used to retrace Causality. It seems to me that an emotional response to that which should be resolved using reason, logic, investigation and deduction, is favored by those who wish to promote theory instead of fact.

Cause always precedes Effect. There can be no Effect, without a First Cause. And, there will never be any Causation with a resultant Net Effect. This is how you can always detect the level and degree of B.S. that some people attempt to send your way, when they try to pass-off poor reasoning as a method for determining fact.

Here are the actual facts that matter:

A) The Arab Spring in Libya pre-dated the attack on our Embassy in Benghazi.

B) A video was posted on YouTube which was deemed highly inappropriate by many Arab Muslims around the world.



C) An already heated Arab Spring throughout parts of North and East Africa, received additional fuel as a direct result of the YouTube video posting.

D) Mob Rule became the rule in Libya, creating a confluence of protesting interests which created fertile ground open demonstrations of anti-west protests inclusively.

E) A new, loosely formed Libyan militant group known as Ansar al-Sharia, allegedly used the already highly charged environment of the Arab Spring, as a platform for launching an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

F) The Embassy attacked used a range of light to medium armament including RPGs and various kinds of assault and incendiary weapons.

G) Four (4) human beings lost their lives in the attacks.

H) Karim Ahmed Essam El-Azizi, allegedly involved in the assault on the U.S. Embassy, was allegedly killed in Cairo, Egypt, during an Egyptian Security Forces raid, by the detonation of his own bomb.

I) Ali Harzi, another alleged suspect involved in the U.S. Embassy attacks, was arrested in Tunisia by authorities.

J) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, expressly stated what the Administration knew and when they knew it - including the fact that "at that time" they did not have information that the attacks had been a part of a long-ranging plan. Based on what they knew at the time, the assessment was as clear as it could get: Arab Spring multiplied by Anti-Islamic Video equals hyper-tense situation on the ground, was the algorithm that made the most sense at that time. This is clearly what Susan, was trying to get the American People to understand at that time.





A 13+ minute trailer of the the Anti-Islamic video was cut and dropped onto YouTube back in July, 2012: YouTube Channel for Sam Bacile. Back then, nobody seemed to care about the video. There were no uprisings having been attributed to the video itself.

What your extremely oversimplified explanation of what "matters," fails to understand that it was in fact a concerted effort on the part of the Egyptian Media initially, that brought about wide ranging attention to the movie trailer that was produced in the United States, by an Isreali-American who holds some genuinely Anti-Islamic views and who took $5 million dollars from several other "Jewish donors" for the production of the film that was intended to strike a blow at Muslims and the Islamic faith. That's called Causation.

Your simplistic, unrealistic and highly inaccurate statements about what the Administration actually said about the attacks themselves, also misses the fact that it was an Egyptian, by the name of Morris Sadek, who runs an Arabic language blog that continually takes literary shots at the Islamic faith in prose and who has ties to the Anti-Islamic extremist Pastor Terry Jones of Florida, who engaged in the public burning of the Koran, which eventually lead to the attack on a United Nations compound the Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, which in turn resulted in the outright killing of 12 people. That is called Causation.

Clearly, the mixture of both the Arab Spring and these continual outbursts that come from extremists on the Right in America, who seem to have nothing better to do with their time, other than produce perpetual Anti-Islamic faith material, that then gets picked-up by Middle Eastern and/or North African Media, who use it to further inflame an already heated condition on the ground throughout the Arab/Muslim world, are the pretextual causations that end up leading to more burning in effigy and unfortunately, more attacks on U.S. soil in foreign countries.

So, to sit here and claim that somehow the "video had nothing to do with it," is a clear demonstration of the lack of understanding about what motivates some sects in the Middle East, towards rocketing violence and Anti-West demonstrations of both fear and hate. What this Administration has told you, is based on what they knew at the time. If you had taken the time to study matter beyond what Focks Newz tells you, and if you had done just a little homework outside of the Fauks Nuewz Spin Zone, then you too would be up to speed on why it was so difficult to know exactly what happened in Benghazi, in real-time and why even the CIA reports coming into the White House, were bordering on the incoherent during the initial stages and immediately after the attacks.

When you have that kind of conflicting information coming in at one time and from multiple sources, you can only report to the American People what you believe to be the truth at the time you know the truth. When/if that information changes, then your report to the American Public will change with it. That is truly matters.

Source: New York Times: History of the Anti-Islamic Video
Source: New York Times: Underlying factors for Anti-West demonstrations in Middle East and North Africa.


Just a little homework would have saved your bacon on this one, MaggieD.

MaggieD said:

Edit: Since then, it looks even worse for the Administration since it is quite clear that the consulate asked for more security on at least two occasions and was denied same. Result: dead people.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a "source" for your claim?

More simplistic Monday morning quarterbacking on an Internet forum. Why am I not surprised. Republicans are doing nothing more than politicizing an event that would have happened regardless of who was in the White House, just before the most important Presidential election in the United States, over the next 12 years at least.

I might behoove you to take some time to study the United States Diplomatic Security Service mandate and responsibility as an Agent of the Executive Branch of government. You might find that area study rather interesting. Apparently, the so-called "journalists" over at Fooks Nuze, and their supporting Producers, don't seem to have ever heard of U.S. DSS. DSS, is responsible for managing MSD (Mobile Security Deployment), which has role of training DSS Special Agents for assignments that include but are not limited to, the security of U.S. facilities such Embassies and Consulates around the world.

If you had taken the time to actually obtain and read the unclassified action memos from Jeffrey Feltman, regarding the future operations in Benghazi, relative to the embassy, then you would already know that it was Mr. Feltman, who requested that Department of State maintain the Benghazi Embassy footprint, of 35 people - including those attached to security of the compound. You would also know by now that Mr. Feltman's request was approved, and not denied. However, with the changes in the Libyan government, the Benghazi site had been shrunk on a personnel basis back in late 2011. So, it did not have a footprint of 35 people at the time of the attacks.

In one of the declassified documents, Mr. Feltman, reports that given the current conditions in Benghazi, there were two DSS SAs at the compound with three (3) additional security slots remaining unfilled.

The really dishonest piece in all of this, is not just what Republicans in Congress, who held a Kangaroo Court session disguised as a real hearing of the security facts related to Benghazi, are pretending to do - but the outright lies being told by Fox News and blindly regurgitated by Internet Trolls supporting the Romney campaign for President. What is this fact you say? The fact is that the 35 person footprint that Mr. Feltman, requested back in late 2011, had never been established. That 35 person footprint at that Embassy in Benghazi, which established the requirement for a total of FIVE (5) DSS Special Agents to handle compound security, was no longer required.

Congressman Darrell Issa, who has been out to slam the Obama Administration ever since Obama became the 44th President of the United States, has decided to cherry pick information coming out of the Kangaroo Investigation that he heads-up in Congress, to the exclusion of the facts related to the timing of both the shrinking of the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, and the requests to increase the MSD provided DSS to five (5) Special Agents. Which by definition, proves Darrell Issa, has no business conducting such investigations, because he is completely biased and ideologically compromised to the point of basically withholding information that counters his claim that the Administration somehow weakened the Benghazi security and thus caused four (4) people to get killed as a result. Darrell Issa, should recuse himself from this investigation.

Because, the Benghazi Embassy, had been SHRUNK DOWN to ONLY FIVE (5) people, the corresponding security footprint had ALSO shrunk proportionately. This is WHY there were only two (2) DSS SAs handling security at the time of the attacks.

Source: U.S. Department of State Unclassified Action Memo from NEA Jeffrey Feltman: "Future Operations in Benghazi, Libya."

Just a little homework would have helped to save your bacon on this one too, MaggieD.

MaggieD said:

The only reports the Administration had were that the attacks were planned and organized.

Click to expand...

That's clearly false as explained here: What the White House Knew and What It Reported Immediately After the Attacks in Benghazi.

The reports the Administration had were many and varied, to include the possibility that attacks were possibly planned and/or organized. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts and then calling them facts without strain.

MaggieD said:

the fact that the consulate had requested more protection at least twice in the preceding year and was denied. Requests denied. People died. That is not irrelevant.

Click to expand...

That's false as this post clearly explains: Why DSS SA in Benghazi was two (2) and not five (5) personnel.

Once again, you don't seem to be in command of the facts regarding security at Benghazi. You do seem (however) very well versed in what Faux Newz tells you. Why not read the official documents that are out there on the subject of WHY security was the way it was at the time of the attacks, and turn off the television?

head of joaquin said:

Honestly nobody believes you and the rightwing noise machine give a hoot about embassy officials; Bush's misrule resulted in the death of 10,000 US troops without a peep from the machine. So your hypocrisy is noted and laughed at.

Meantime which party cut the embassy security budget -- come on, you can say it, I know you can!

Click to expand...

The left wingers have made a lot of effort trying to hack this thread. I'll make an effort to get it back on track.

Let's stick to recent events, shall we? We can consider the facts while there is still time for them to do some good; that is to say, remove our sorry, sorry President from office.

• The State Department left the embassy with inadequate security. There is evidence that they were running intelligence operations out of that station that made them targets.
• The State Department denied three requests for more security from the Benghazi station. They spent funds instead on Chevy Volts for other stations.
• When the attack started the State Department refused to send anyone in to help; they just let those people die. They had gun ships standing by that could have gone in.
• They then made up the fiction of the YouTube video to hide the fact that this was an Al Qaeda attack and they dearly wanted to be able to sell the idea that Al Qaeda was finished for election purposes.
• They stuck to that fiction for 2 weeks, well after they knew that the truth was otherwise.

Correction: It seems the order to the military to stand down and do nothing to help the Benghazi station came directly from the President who was watching the whole thing develop in real time.

Benghazi: CIA operators made three separate requests for help, were turned down | The Daily Caller

j-mac said:

This whole thing is such a shame really....For the first time in this country's history, and American President left other Americans to die in a foreign land without even attempting to help them....He turned his back on fellow Americans, and has the gaul to go out on the trail and speak of trust?

Click to expand...

I could claim that I saw Santa Claus last night and I could even be very emphatic about it. I could tell you of how I witnessed him flying through the air with eight (8) tiny reindeer pulling his sleigh effortlessly through the brightly moonlit night sky. But, would my merely stating such as thing make it true? Would I not need to provide at least one some picture, or a iPhone video of the event as it unfolded. Would I not be required to provide the forum with some kind of authenticated evidence to support my claim? How much "trust" would I garner in my claim, if I merely told you about my visual encounter with Santa and his reindeer?

j-mac said:

This is about the liar Obama....Stick to the subject...How many Ambassadors died in the past 30 years, and who was President?

Click to expand...

American said:

Did they blame the attacks on a video?

Click to expand...

That's called nonsequitur reply. Can you actually stick to the OP and provide some rational and thoughtful rebuttal in reply?

You've claimed that the President lied. Can you quote the lie he told and provide a link to the source? Asking how many Ambassadors died in the past 30 years and who was President, is a bit like asking how many Yankee Fans got hit in the head with a baseball during the 1967 season.

j-mac said:

That you constantly come in here and bait, with laughable sourcing such as Media Matters, and call those that are having rational discussions "racist".... Yeah, I won't take your bait any longer, go troll somewhere else.

Click to expand...

How about the sources that I posted? Do you have have a problem with actual State Department Unclassified documentation, New York Times copy and copies of the YouTube video showing the Anti-Islamic video trailer? Those are either source documents, or the closest thing you are going to get to source information.

I don't see you actually rebutting any of that.

PW4000 said:

Just a little homework would have saved your bacon on this one, MaggieD.

Click to expand...

PW4000 said:

Just a little homework would have helped to save your bacon on this one too, MaggieD.

Click to expand...

PW4000 said:

You do seem (however) very well versed in what Faux Newz tells you. Why not read the official documents that are out there on the subject of WHY security was the way it was at the time of the attacks, and turn off the television?

Click to expand...

The story from the Administration was that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube video. By your own posts, it is clear this isn't the case. But the only reason this matters to me at ALL is because of Debate #2, where the present said, in effect, "He always SAID it was a terrorist attack." That is simply not true; and I've posted a timeline of statements FROM the White House several times on DP already, so I'm not inclined to go back and do it all again.

As to there being two requests for additional security at the consulate, I think the only one disputing that is YOU, since it very clearly appears in Congressional testimony:

Washington (CNN) -- The State Department's former point man on security in Libya told a congressional hearing Wednesday that his superiors worked against him as he tried to get more help for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack.

Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility. "I said, 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships. It's not the gunfire. It's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me," Nordstrom said.

He also told the State Department officer, "'For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

Click to expand...

U.S. official says superiors worked against effort to boost Benghazi security - CNN.com

I do not watch Fox News.

The bacon that needs saving is yours.

LowDown said:

• The State Department left the embassy with inadequate security. There is evidence that they were running intelligence operations out of that station that made them targets.

Click to expand...

There was a KNOWN CIA Annex that had already been there by definition of already being known. So, right off the bat, your attempt to make some issue out of the CIA being in Libya (Oh, my!), and "running intelligence operations" that "made them targets," is proof positive that you don't take this matter seriously. Your comments are nothing but a propaganda spewing session, but I'm going to go ahead and correct ever single misrepresented statement you make, hereinafter.

Where is your evidence and source documentation for this assertion? Because, if you don't provide it, as I have provided direct links to .pdf copies of Department of State unclassified documentation that clearly tells you otherwise, then you will have done nothing here but Troll this thread with nonsequitur hemp.

LowDown said:

• The State Department denied three requests for more security from the Benghazi station. They spent funds instead on Chevy Volts for other stations.

Click to expand...

You misrepresent the facts by not posting ALL of the facts related to NEA Jeffrey Feltman. You have completely ignored the posts I have made on this subject, or you were not able to keep up with what was written before you made this post. Which is up for you to decide.

LowDown said:

• When the attack started the State Department refused to send anyone in to help; they just let those people die. They had gun ships standing by that could have gone in.

Click to expand...

Repeating inaccurate reports about our military presence and capability in the region at the time of the attacks, while not recognizing the role of the United States Military on foreign soil, is a staggering acknowledgement that you have a lot to learn.

The United Military, is not a SWAT team. Our military is not designed for instantaneous rapid deployment to hyper-tactical (small party) engagements. One of the key essentials to deploying our military can be described in one word: Planning. You PLAN a military engagement, you don't spit them out off the cuff, or as wild shot in the dark hoping for success.

SecDef Panetta, already explained this to you when he said:

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's on, without having some real time information about what's taking place," Panetta said.

Click to expand...

Knee jerk reactions involving the spontaneous deployment of tactical military force as you suggest in your post, is the EXACT kind of wild cowboy scenario that could easily escalate a Thuggish Gang-like Assault, into a major Regional War, where tens or hundreds of thousands of lives are lost.

It is easy to sit back sipping on lemonade and pretending to be the President, during the Arab Spring. But, the fact of the matter is that this thing was OVER before it happened. Whatever you attempted to deploy there would have encountered a compounded that had already been breached, attacked and where those involved had already been killed. The additional time AFTER the attacks, involved the looting and pillaging - not the physical assault.

LowDown said:

• They then made up the fiction of the YouTube video to hide the fact that this was an Al Qaeda attack and they dearly wanted to be able to sell the idea that Al Qaeda was finished for election purposes.

Click to expand...

You have to be living in an alternate Universe to even remotely believe 1% of what you just wrote. Clearly, you have not read my previous post on this subject, and clearly you are only here to troll the Internet and post a riptide of nonsense and gibberish.

You are the only one on planet earth that is unaware of the existence of the video. You are the only one on earth who did not know that the near 14 minute trailer of the video had been republished and refocused by the Egyptian media, which lead to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, and you are the only one on earth who is unaware that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, came shortly after the attack in Egypt, where the video was obviously used as at least one of the precursors to the attacks.

LowDown said:

• They stuck to that fiction for 2 weeks, well after they knew that the truth was otherwise.

Click to expand...

The attack was under investigation during the time that you pretend the President, was sticking to some story that you just plucked from thin air without a shred of evidence to support your claim.

At least get your sources straight, so that you at least have a fighting chance of having your facts straight.

LowDown said:

Correction: It seems the order to the military to stand down and do nothing to help the Benghazi station came directly from the President who was watching the whole thing develop in real time.

Click to expand...

Reported by the Fake Newz Network, which should be enough to tell you that you are being spun like a washing machine. What does Faux Nuwz, fail to tell you:

1) What sources did Fake Newz have for issuing one of its patented, Pavlov Dogs "Breaking Newz Alertz," that always seem to get Fooks Nuwz viewers so amazingly pumped with adrenaline rushing through their system and bucket loads of endorphins released to their brains? Who are these "sources?"

2) I know from personal experience that the Woman in that Fauks Newz video is giving a fake report. How do I know this? She slipped-up and said that the CIA called in "Air Support."

Stop right there. That is NOT how we conduct CAS operations. We do NOT - I repeat - we do NOT make calls in the blind for "Air Support." Period. This Woman is lying through her teeth on national television and ALL former and current Tactical Combat Pilots are shaking their heads in total bewilderment at what this Women just admitted.

Everything else she says after "the called for air support," should be thrown directly into the garbage can where it belongs. WE DO NOT FUNCTION THAT WAY. Period. The CIA would KNOW better than to ask for CAS in the blind in a civilian zone at night and IN THE DARK. They would NEVER do such a thing.

Fox Newz, should be sued for Libel, by the Administration. That have a very good case against Fox News, and maybe that would put an end to their perpetual range of Right Wing propaganda and lies.

CIA calling for CAS at NIGHT in a civilian zone in the blind with no plan for Integration! Are you nutz!

PW4000 said:

There was a KNOWN CIA Annex that had already been there by definition of already being known. So, right off the bat, your attempt to make some issue out of the CIA being in Libya (Oh, my!), and "running intelligence operations" that "made them targets," is proof positive that you don't take this matter seriously. Your comments are nothing but a propaganda spewing session, but I'm going to go ahead and correct ever single misrepresented statement you make, hereinafter.

Where is your evidence and source documentation for this assertion? Because, if you don't provide it, as I have provided direct links to .pdf copies of Department of State unclassified documentation that clearly tells you otherwise, then you will have done nothing here but Troll this thread with nonsequitur hemp.



You misrepresent the facts by not posting ALL of the facts related to NEA Jeffrey Feltman. You have completely ignored the posts I have made on this subject, or you were not able to keep up with what was written before you made this post. Which is up for you to decide.




Repeating inaccurate reports about our military presence and capability in the region at the time of the attacks, while not recognizing the role of the United States Military on foreign soil, is a staggering acknowledgement that you have a lot to learn.

The United Military, is not a SWAT team. Our military is not designed for instantaneous rapid deployment to hyper-tactical (small party) engagements. One of the key essentials to deploying our military can be described in one word: Planning. You PLAN a military engagement, you don't spit them out off the cuff, or as wild shot in the dark hoping for success.

SecDef Panetta, already explained this to you when he said:



Knee jerk reactions involving the spontaneous deployment of tactical military force as you suggest in your post, is the EXACT kind of wild cowboy scenario that could easily escalate a Thuggish Gang-like Assault, into a major Regional War, where tens or hundreds of thousands of lives are lost.

It is easy to sit back sipping on lemonade and pretending to be the President, during the Arab Spring. But, the fact of the matter is that this thing was OVER before it happened. Whatever you attempted to deploy there would have encountered a compounded that had already been breached, attacked and where those involved had already been killed. The additional time AFTER the attacks, involved the looting and pillaging - not the physical assault.




You have to be living in an alternate Universe to even remotely believe 1% of what you just wrote. Clearly, you have not read my previous post on this subject, and clearly you are only here to troll the Internet and post a riptide of nonsense and gibberish.

You are the only one on planet earth that is unaware of the existence of the video. You are the only one on earth who did not know that the near 14 minute trailer of the video had been republished and refocused by the Egyptian media, which lead to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, and you are the only one on earth who is unaware that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, came shortly after the attack in Egypt, where the video was obviously used as at least one of the precursors to the attacks.




The attack was under investigation during the time that you pretend the President, was sticking to some story that you just plucked from thin air without a shred of evidence to support your claim.

At least get your sources straight, so that you at least have a fighting chance of having your facts straight.





Reported by the Fake Newz Network, which should be enough to tell you that you are being spun like a washing machine. What does Faux Nuwz, fail to tell you:

1) What sources did Fake Newz have for issuing one of its patented, Pavlov Dogs "Breaking Newz Alertz," that always seem to get Fooks Nuwz viewers so amazingly pumped with adrenaline rushing through their system and bucket loads of endorphins released to their brains? Who are these "sources?"

2) I know from personal experience that the Woman in that Fauks Newz video is giving a fake report. How do I know this? She slipped-up and said that the CIA called in "Air Support."

Stop right there. That is NOT how we conduct CAS operations. We do NOT - I repeat - we do NOT make calls in the blind for "Air Support." Period. This Woman is lying through her teeth on national television and ALL former and current Tactical Combat Pilots are shaking their heads in total bewilderment at what this Women just admitted.

Everything else she says after "the called for air support," should be thrown directly into the garbage can where it belongs. WE DO NOT FUNCTION THAT WAY. Period. The CIA would KNOW better than to ask for CAS in the blind in a civilian zone at night and IN THE DARK. They would NEVER do such a thing.

Fox Newz, should be sued for Libel, by the Administration. That have a very good case against Fox News, and maybe that would put an end to their perpetual range of Right Wing propaganda and lies.

CIA calling for CAS at NIGHT in a civilian zone in the blind with no plan for Integration! Are you nutz!

Click to expand...

So how is it done then?

PW4000 said:

There was a KNOWN CIA Annex that had already been there by definition of already being known. So, right off the bat, your attempt to make some issue out of the CIA being in Libya (Oh, my!), and "running intelligence operations" that "made them targets," is proof positive that you don't take this matter seriously. Your comments are nothing but a propaganda spewing session, but I'm going to go ahead and correct ever single misrepresented statement you make, hereinafter.

Where is your evidence and source documentation for this assertion? Because, if you don't provide it, as I have provided direct links to .pdf copies of Department of State unclassified documentation that clearly tells you otherwise, then you will have done nothing here but Troll this thread with nonsequitur hemp.



You misrepresent the facts by not posting ALL of the facts related to NEA Jeffrey Feltman. You have completely ignored the posts I have made on this subject, or you were not able to keep up with what was written before you made this post. Which is up for you to decide.




Repeating inaccurate reports about our military presence and capability in the region at the time of the attacks, while not recognizing the role of the United States Military on foreign soil, is a staggering acknowledgement that you have a lot to learn.

The United Military, is not a SWAT team. Our military is not designed for instantaneous rapid deployment to hyper-tactical (small party) engagements. One of the key essentials to deploying our military can be described in one word: Planning. You PLAN a military engagement, you don't spit them out off the cuff, or as wild shot in the dark hoping for success.

SecDef Panetta, already explained this to you when he said:



Knee jerk reactions involving the spontaneous deployment of tactical military force as you suggest in your post, is the EXACT kind of wild cowboy scenario that could easily escalate a Thuggish Gang-like Assault, into a major Regional War, where tens or hundreds of thousands of lives are lost.

It is easy to sit back sipping on lemonade and pretending to be the President, during the Arab Spring. But, the fact of the matter is that this thing was OVER before it happened. Whatever you attempted to deploy there would have encountered a compounded that had already been breached, attacked and where those involved had already been killed. The additional time AFTER the attacks, involved the looting and pillaging - not the physical assault.




You have to be living in an alternate Universe to even remotely believe 1% of what you just wrote. Clearly, you have not read my previous post on this subject, and clearly you are only here to troll the Internet and post a riptide of nonsense and gibberish.

You are the only one on planet earth that is unaware of the existence of the video. You are the only one on earth who did not know that the near 14 minute trailer of the video had been republished and refocused by the Egyptian media, which lead to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, and you are the only one on earth who is unaware that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, came shortly after the attack in Egypt, where the video was obviously used as at least one of the precursors to the attacks.




The attack was under investigation during the time that you pretend the President, was sticking to some story that you just plucked from thin air without a shred of evidence to support your claim.

At least get your sources straight, so that you at least have a fighting chance of having your facts straight.





Reported by the Fake Newz Network, which should be enough to tell you that you are being spun like a washing machine. What does Faux Nuwz, fail to tell you:

1) What sources did Fake Newz have for issuing one of its patented, Pavlov Dogs "Breaking Newz Alertz," that always seem to get Fooks Nuwz viewers so amazingly pumped with adrenaline rushing through their system and bucket loads of endorphins released to their brains? Who are these "sources?"

2) I know from personal experience that the Woman in that Fauks Newz video is giving a fake report. How do I know this? She slipped-up and said that the CIA called in "Air Support."

Stop right there. That is NOT how we conduct CAS operations. We do NOT - I repeat - we do NOT make calls in the blind for "Air Support." Period. This Woman is lying through her teeth on national television and ALL former and current Tactical Combat Pilots are shaking their heads in total bewilderment at what this Women just admitted.

Everything else she says after "the called for air support," should be thrown directly into the garbage can where it belongs. WE DO NOT FUNCTION THAT WAY. Period. The CIA would KNOW better than to ask for CAS in the blind in a civilian zone at night and IN THE DARK. They would NEVER do such a thing.

Fox Newz, should be sued for Libel, by the Administration. That have a very good case against Fox News, and maybe that would put an end to their perpetual range of Right Wing propaganda and lies.

CIA calling for CAS at NIGHT in a civilian zone in the blind with no plan for Integration! Are you nutz!

Click to expand...

Facts? Weee doan neeeed no steeeenking facts!! Pow pow!! Pew! Bang Bang!!

Are you sure you want to push this thousand pound cart uphill, MaggieD?

MaggieD said:

The story from the Administration was that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube video.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you just lied. I cannot believe that you can watch the same video that everybody else watched, read the same news article that everyone else read, and still concluded the following:

...a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube video.

Click to expand...

Susan Rice, said nothing even remotely resembling what you just posted and vouched for as fact. I already posted the exact video containing Susan Rice's first array of comments. Here it is again:



She just told you the following:

@00:10

Well, Bob - let me tell you what we understand our assessment to be at present.

Click to expand...

@00:35

...we'll want to see the results of that investigation, to draw any definitive conclusions.

Click to expand...

@00:38

But, based on the best information we have to date; what our assessment is as of the present, is in fact it began spontaneously in Benghazi, as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where of course as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our Embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

Click to expand...

So, why on earth would you say:

...a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube video.

Click to expand...

...when you knew full well that Susan Rice, had given the American People more information than what you claimed? She clearly says:

1) She was giving information based on what they knew at the time.
2) The American People should wait until the full investigation had been concluded, so that all the facts can be known.
3) The attack in Benghazi, was stimulated by an Anti-Islamic video having sparked similar attack in Egypt.
4) That the attack in Egypt happened HOURS ago.

That is the distilled contents of here statements which are sitting directly above your mouse pointer.

Now, would you like some eggs to go with that hot bacon? I also have some fresh-grind Garuda Coffee from Pete's and I don't mind cooking.

MaggieD said:

By your own posts, it is clear this isn't the case.

Click to expand...

I posted the same video with the same words by Susan Rice. How can my post be clear about anything other than these three (3) essential facts? You can hear her speak and I know that you understand what she said. You can read the quote that I extracted from her video, and you can clearly see that I quoted her verbatim without edit.

Her statement does not match your statement.

Whose bacon are we eating and who's doing the cooking?

MaggieD said:

But the only reason this matters to me at ALL is because of Debate #2, where the present said, in effect, "He always SAID it was a terrorist attack." That is simply not true; and I've posted a timeline of statements FROM the White House several times on DP already, so I'm not inclined to go back and do it all again.

Click to expand...

Either you are intentionally not telling the truth, MaggieD, or you are highly confused about where the truth resides on this issue. Above, I corrected your comment where you insisted that Susan Rice, said something that she never said. I posted an exact excerpt of her own words AND the video used as the source of her own words and left no doubt that you were wrong.

A Time-Line? You are doing it again - you are not telling the truth, despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that Mitt Romney, has already tried that trick during the debates and it did not work. When it comes to what the President said and when he said it, you don't need a time-line. All you need to do is read the transcript and note the date-time stamp, or simply review the video that many people have already seen.

Here is the FIRST time the President spoke on the attacks in Benghazi:



Now, let's start putting on the bacon, shall we.

@4:19

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Click to expand...

So, again - why would you say that the President never addressed the matter as a terrorist attack, when clearly he said otherwise? I've once again taken a direct quote from a video that has been available to the entire country for quite some time now. Romney, failed to do his homework before his debate, and unbelievably, you just walked yourself right down that same exact path.

You are attempting to PARSE words for political purposes. Period. If you understood the English language then you fully understood that the President was referring to Benghazi, as a possible terrorist attack, based on what they knew at the time. There was still conflicting information coming into the White House, when the President was standing on the Rose Garden lawn, making this statement. So, even then - the matter had not been fully investigated.

When the evidence is so resoundingly clear, why continue to pretend, MaggieD?

MaggieD said:

As to there being two requests for additional security at the consulate, I think the only one disputing that is YOU, since it very clearly appears in Congressional testimony

Click to expand...

I've read the actual Action Memo from the one who MADE the requests for more security. I also find it very interesting and very telling, that you NEVER once argued the differential between the 35 person footprint that was requested by the NEA Jeffrey Feltman in late 2011, as opposed to the actual 5 person footprint that was in effect at the time of the attacks. Nor, do I see you arguing against the need to maintain five (5) DSS Special Agents, when only five (5) to seven (7) persons were stationed at the Benghazi compound during the attacks.

You are suffering from a classic case of misinformation. Who told you that the security requirement was higher and WHY was the request to increase security made? In the Derrell Issa, released copy of the 2011 requests made by NEA Jeffrey Feltman, is was clear that given the changes made in Tripoli, that there had been a shift in the staffing requirements and the maintenance requirements at the compound in Benghazi.

If you had actually read the Action Memo, then you would have known that the Benghazi Embassy compound had actually been SHRUNK, and the personnel requirements right along with it - thus, no new additional DSS security was slated and/or approved - which was entire appropriate based on what anybody knew at that time.

Here's what you simply do not understand. We secure our officials in places like Embassies and Consulates overseas, based on the number of personnel to be protected and the physical requirements demanded by the logistics of the site itself. This is what Romney, did not understand before he made a fool of himself at the debates on this issue.

So, now you know, MaggieD. The security angle was a non-sequitur red herring from day one and the Republicans in Congress knew it, before they started manipulating you with misinformation. You DO NOT secure five (5) to seven (7) people, with five (5) DSS Special Agents. THAT is why the number of DSS Special Agents was left at two (2).

Do you understand how this works now?

U.S. DSS & MSD Consulate Security Class dismissed.

CedarBear said:

So how is it done then?

Click to expand...

It is not done. Period. I've never trained on providing civilian CAS. Ever. She lied. Period. Because, if I've never trained on it - it does not exist. I know CAS. I know it very well. Fox News is busted (again). Period.

There's only one exception to that would be a special kind of 'operation' involving certain things that I'm not getting into and where certain other things took place that were not supposed to happen, and where somebody did something else to ended up requiring a certain kind of support, possibly from the air - but even then, it would not be regular air force and/or regular navy and/or regular marines. There would be nothing "regular" about the op.

And, yes - I am being vague. And, no - I will not be responding again to the question.

AdamT said:

Facts? Weee doan neeeed no steeeenking facts!! Pow pow!! Pew! Bang Bang!!

Click to expand...

Obama Lied about why the SEALS Died

next

Muddy Creek said:

Were there videos released in the Middle East at the time? Are you more concerned with that, or the deaths Bush caused?

Click to expand...

Why are you covering for Obama, does he pay you to run interference? Clearly he ****ed up. They didn't have sufficient security in a zone KNOWN to be highly dangerous. This wasn't Paris, France or the Virgin Islands. It was freaking Libya, and they had no guards to speak of.

I bet Romney financed the attack. Oh, and I have exactly as much "proof" as Faux news.

PW4000 said:

It is not done. Period. I've never trained on providing civilian CAS. Ever. She lied. Period. Because, if I've never trained on it - it does not exist. I know CAS. I know it very well. Fox News is busted (again). Period.

There's only one exception to that would be a special kind of 'operation' involving certain things that I'm not getting into and where certain other things took place that were not supposed to happen, and where somebody did something else to ended up requiring a certain kind of support, possibly from the air - but even then, it would not be regular air force and/or regular navy and/or regular marines. There would be nothing "regular" about the op.

And, yes - I am being vague. And, no - I will not be responding again to the question.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

And while you're at it, could you edit a bit and avoid a supercilious tone? Thanks. I'm having difficulty tracking what you're saying because I'm so distracted by the snottiness. Someone's disagreeing with your opinion doesn't necessarily make that person wrong, and either/or's don't work either.

Here's what CIA Director Patraeus says: Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus | The Weekly Standard

Changed seek time in last video to: 4:19 to mark the start of the President's statement regarding "acts of terror." I had originally marked the time at 00:19, which was an error on my part.

mak2 said:

I bet Romney financed the attack. Oh, and I have exactly as much "proof" as Faux news.

Click to expand...

I'll bet you believe it too.

PW4000 said:

Are you sure you want to push this thousand pound cart uphill, MaggieD?

I'm sorry, but you just lied. I cannot believe that you can watch the same video that everybody else watched, read the same news article that everyone else read, and still concluded the following:

Susan Rice, said nothing even remotely resembling what you just posted and vouched for as fact. I already posted the exact video containing Susan Rice's first array of comments. Here it is again:



She just told you the following:

@00:10


@00:35


@00:38



So, why on earth would you say:



...when you knew full well that Susan Rice, had given the American People more information than what you claimed? She clearly says:

1) She was giving information based on what they knew at the time.
2) The American People should wait until the full investigation had been concluded, so that all the facts can be known.
3) The attack in Benghazi, was stimulated by an Anti-Islamic video having sparked similar attack in Egypt.

That is the distilled contents of here statements which are sitting directly above your mouse pointer.

Now, would you like some eggs to go with that hot bacon? I also have some fresh-grind Garuda Coffee from Pete's and I don't mind cooking.




I posted the same video with the same words by Susan Rice. How can my post be clear about anything other than these three (3) essential facts? You can hear her speak and I know that you understand what she said. You can read the quote that I extracted from her video, and you can clearly see that I quoted her verbatim without edit.

Her statement does not match your statement.

Whose bacon are we eating and who's doing the cooking?




Either you are intentionally not telling the truth, MaggieD, or you are highly confused about where the truth resides on this issue. Above, I corrected your comment where you insisted that Susan Rice, said something that she never said. I posted an exact excerpt of her own words AND the video used as the source of her own words and left no doubt that you were wrong.

A Time-Line? You are doing it again - you are not telling the truth, despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that Mitt Romney, has already tried that trick during the debates and it did not work. When it comes to what the President said and when he said it, you don't need a time-line. All you need to do is read the transcript and note the date-time stamp, or simply review the video that many people have already seen.

Here is the FIRST time the President spoke on the attacks in Benghazi:



Now, let's start putting on the bacon, shall we.

@00:19


So, again - why would you say that the President never addressed the matter as a terrorist attack, when clearly he said otherwise? I've once again taken a direct quote from a video that has been available to the entire country for quite some time now. Romney, failed to do his homework before his debate, and unbelievably, you just walked yourself right down that same exact path.

You are attempting to PARSE words for political purposes. Period. If you understood the English language then you fully understood that the President was referring to Benghazi, as a possible terrorist attack, based on what they knew at the time. There was still conflicting information coming into the White House, when the President was standing on the Rose Garden lawn, making this statement. So, even then - the matter had not been fully investigated.

When the evidence is so resoundingly clear, why continue to pretend, MaggieD?




I've read the actual Action Memo from the one who MADE the requests for more security. I also find it very interesting and very telling, that you NEVER once argued the differential between the 35 person footprint that was requested by the NEA Jeffrey Feltman in late 2011, as opposed to the actual 5 person footprint that was in effect at the time of the attacks. Nor, do I see you arguing against the need to maintain five (5) DSS Special Agents, when only five (5) to seven (7) persons were stationed at the Benghazi compound during the attacks.

You are suffering from a classic case of misinformation. Who told you that the security requirement was higher and WHY was the request to increase security made? In the Derrell Issa, released copy of the 2011 requests made by NEA Jeffrey Feltman, is was clear that given the changes made in Tripoli, that there had been a shift in the staffing requirements and the maintenance requirements at the compound in Benghazi.

If you had actually read the Action Memo, then you would have known that the Benghazi Embassy compound had actually been SHRUNK, and the personnel requirements right along with it - thus, no new additional DSS security was slated and/or approved - which was entire appropriate based on what anybody knew at that time.

Here's what you simply do not understand. We secure our officials in places like Embassies and Consulates overseas, based on the number of personnel to be protected and the physical requirements demanded by the logistics of the site itself. This is what Romney, did not understand before he made a fool of himself at the debates on this issue.

So, now you know, MaggieD. The security angle was a non-sequitur red herring from day one and the Republicans in Congress knew it, before they started manipulating you with misinformation. You DO NOT secure five (5) to seven (7) people, with five (5) DSS Special Agents. THAT is why the number of DSS Special Agents was left at two (2).

Do you understand how this works now?

U.S. DSS & MSD Consulate Security Class dismissed.

Click to expand...

The FACT remains that security was denied. Your argument? "The Libyan Ambassador will be in the building, but there were only four other people with him, so we don't need more security." That.Is.Ridiculous. Patently so.

Now, I don't feel like countering your "facts," just not up to it tonight. But make no mistake: The American people were led to believe, for a considerable period of time, that this incident was the result of an unpopular video. That information turned out to be wrong. This consulate had asked for more security. That security was denied. People died.

The man who made the video is in jail right now, Hillary keeping her promise to the father of one of the slain SEALS that he would be arrested. His bail hearing is set for three days after the election. What a co-inkydink.

Who gave the command NOT to rescue these men?

And, please, no more so-long posts. People don't want to read them.

TurtleDude said:

Obama Lied about why the SEALS Died

next

Click to expand...

It rhymes. That's about the extent of it. Is that what the entire Romney, campaign for the Presidency has come to? Rhythmic follow-ups? Hey, I'm OK with that. I've got one too:




At least you can get up and shake a leg to that one.

mak2 said:

I bet Romney financed the attack. Oh, and I have exactly as much "proof" as Faux news.

Click to expand...

If Romney could and would do that why are people like Chris Matthews and the clown who illegally taped Romney in that donor meeting still alive? seems to me if he is going to pay for a hit, he might as well wipe at those who really are on his $)%* list