• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

Ah ... following the traditional coverup structure blueprint.
That "Let's just fix the problem rather than assign blame" is always the last bad brick to be tried after all the other bad bricks have failed.
:roll:

Ahh...the traditional "I've been totally defeated in the debate so I'll ignore all relevant points and provide a circular argument" blueprint.
Well, I would remind you of the statements by Team Obama and the left that concern investigations and what they say they have going on too. Which that is all running current. With whatever the Republicans have to say.
Your constant. Sentence fragments. Make no sense.

Even the AP is reporting more whistle-blowers will be coming forward.
Wow, that means we can continue to draw this dog and pony show out longer and still not getting any new relevant information. :roll:

Plus like I said......now we have a way to look at what News Sources can be applied to the Benghazi Story. Or if they don't. :)
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Was making up a fanciful story to get through an election a political ploy?
What fanciful story? The YouTube video was not even close to a fanciful story, it was debunked inside a month.

I cannot answer why the video was blamed, but I'll give you my best guess. My guess is the video was blamed for a number of reasons. The first, and most prominent, was to hide the presence of the CIA at the consulate. I don't know if the information was to be hid to protect identities of Libyans working with us, to protect our own officers or to hide from the Libyan government we had a CIA headquarters there. Blaming the video would give the terrorists a reason to attack, where there otherwise was little reason to attack. We know that in the course of investigation, our Congressman have outed the identities of some of the Libyans who were working with us, putting their lives in danger. So my guess is this was the most prominent reason to try and divert attention to a video.

The first reason also impacted the second reason, which has to do with the preparation failure at the consulate. I have no idea how accurate the reasoning behind the failure is, but I would guess part of the reason the consulate was not better secured was due to the fact it was operating as an intelligence center, and it's not as simple as hiring the local handman to come strengthen the compound. I'll fully admit this is conjecture, but it makes enough sense that it's a reasonable guess.

The third reason is impacted by the first two. Yes, I think it was also political, but it was political because the classified nature of the first two made it difficult to explain otherwise. Romney had already shown he was willing to politicize the attack in order to win the Presidency, we saw that almost immediately with his tweet right after it happened. So I think there was also pressure to try and downplay (not cover up, two entirely separate concepts) what happened, because, if it was because of the first two reasons I mentioned, Obama could not come out and tell Americans 100% what happened.

Another reason the story became what it was is because neither the CIA nor the State department wanted to take the blame for what happened. The release of the e-mails has kind of highlighted that theory.

So those are my theories on why things played out the way they did. As usual, nothing is as simple as either political party wants the voting public to believe.
So a cover up should be ignored?
What cover up? What exactly are you alleging is being covered up? Those who keep droning on and on about a cover-up never even tell us what is supposedly being covered up. What's being covered up?
Allow me to answer. It's a yes and no answer. Yes, it was a regrettable decision, and the people responsible at State have already been fired. No, this does not rise to the level of WH involvement, or even to the cabinet heads of the various departments, who I should add, are all out of office now. Please refer to the tomes I've already posted here to find additional answers, depending on the question. The election is over. What happened then has no relevance to what is happening now. (How am I doing?)
Up to this point, you've made the most sense I've seen from you in this thread.

Ty Woods died on a rooftop waiting for help that never came, and I want to know why.
If you're still wanting answers to questions which have been answered multiple times, then there's no helping you. The answers have been given multiple times, by multiple people.

What I want to know is why people keep asking questions which have already been answered multiple times. Here, maybe George W. Bush's former Secretary of Defense can explain it to the point you'll actually listen to.

I only know what I have read in the media. I haven’t had any briefings or anything. And I think the one place where I might be able to say something useful has to do with some of the talk about the military response. And I listened to the testimony of both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey. And frankly had I been in the job at the time I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East. Despite all the turmoil that’s going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment’s notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way – would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And frankly, I’ve heard, “Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ‘em with the noise or something?” Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Gaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft – over Benghazi under those circumstances.


With respect to sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously. And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous. And personally, I would not have approved that because we just don’t it’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”​


Robert Gates on Benghazi: ‘There just wasn’t time’
 
:roll:

Ahh...the traditional "I've been totally defeated in the debate so I'll ignore all relevant points and provide a circular argument" blueprint.
Your constant. Sentence fragments. Make no sense.

Wow, that means we can continue to draw this dog and pony show out longer and still not getting any new relevant information. :roll:

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


What fanciful story? The YouTube video was not even close to a fanciful story, it was debunked inside a month.

I cannot answer why the video was blamed, but I'll give you my best guess. My guess is the video was blamed for a number of reasons. The first, and most prominent, was to hide the presence of the CIA at the consulate. I don't know if the information was to be hid to protect identities of Libyans working with us, to protect our own officers or to hide from the Libyan government we had a CIA headquarters there. Blaming the video would give the terrorists a reason to attack, where there otherwise was little reason to attack. We know that in the course of investigation, our Congressman have outed the identities of some of the Libyans who were working with us, putting their lives in danger. So my guess is this was the most prominent reason to try and divert attention to a video.

The first reason also impacted the second reason, which has to do with the preparation failure at the consulate. I have no idea how accurate the reasoning behind the failure is, but I would guess part of the reason the consulate was not better secured was due to the fact it was operating as an intelligence center, and it's not as simple as hiring the local handman to come strengthen the compound. I'll fully admit this is conjecture, but it makes enough sense that it's a reasonable guess.

The third reason is impacted by the first two. Yes, I think it was also political, but it was political because the classified nature of the first two made it difficult to explain otherwise. Romney had already shown he was willing to politicize the attack in order to win the Presidency, we saw that almost immediately with his tweet right after it happened. So I think there was also pressure to try and downplay (not cover up, two entirely separate concepts) what happened, because, if it was because of the first two reasons I mentioned, Obama could not come out and tell Americans 100% what happened.

Another reason the story became what it was is because neither the CIA nor the State department wanted to take the blame for what happened. The release of the e-mails has kind of highlighted that theory.

So those are my theories on why things played out the way they did. As usual, nothing is as simple as either political party wants the voting public to believe.
What cover up? What exactly are you alleging is being covered up? Those who keep droning on and on about a cover-up never even tell us what is supposedly being covered up. What's being covered up?
Up to this point, you've made the most sense I've seen from you in this thread.

If you're still wanting answers to questions which have been answered multiple times, then there's no helping you. The answers have been given multiple times, by multiple people.

What I want to know is why people keep asking questions which have already been answered multiple times. Here, maybe George W. Bush's former Secretary of Defense can explain it to the point you'll actually listen to.



[/INDENT] Robert Gates on Benghazi: ‘There just wasn’t time’

we keep asking the same question because the answers we get ain't nothing but BS. for example. they keep claiming that help wouldn't get there in time to help. how in the hell did they know that? how in the hell did they know when the attack was going to end? since you claim to have all the answers maybe you can answer that simple question
 
we keep asking the same question because the answers we get ain't nothing but BS.
It's BS? How is it BS?

they keep claiming that help wouldn't get there in time to help. how in the hell did they know that?
Because they are incredibly experienced in the logistics of military action? Because they know what our forces are capable of and how quickly it's possible to move? Because they understand the preparation necessary to conduct these types of operations and the amount of intelligence needed to properly plan? Because it's their JOB to know these things?

how in the hell did they know when the attack was going to end?
It ended when we evacuated those at the annex. What, did you think those at the annex just stepped into a teleporter? Help got there as soon as it could, and when it did, we evacuated.

You seem to be confusing different things. First of all, within the first half hour or so of the first attack on the consulate, Stevens and Smith were dead. Once the attack started, NOTHING could have saved them. A team from the annex arrived to the consulate (about an hour later I believe) and evacuated those who were still in the consulate after the first attack. Then (and I don't remember the exact time, but I believe it was around 12:30 Benghazi time) a six man team arrived from Tripoli. So reinforcements were sent and one of their primary objectives was to find Stevens (who had been taken to the hospital). Then, around 4:30 (again, I believe this is right, I don't have a timeline in front of me at the moment) the attack on the annex commenced. Woods and Doherty were killed by mortar fire...what could have saved them? I posted earlier in this thread an article from a former marine officer and special operations leader and he went through the various scenarios and showed why it was nearly impossible to do anything which would have saved Woods and Doherty. Just in my last post, I provided a transcript of an interview from Bush's former Sec of Defense in which he explained why there was little which could be done. Panetta (and apparently Dempsey) have explained why nothing could be done.

How many people with experience in this area do you need to explain it to you?

since you claim to have all the answers maybe you can answer that simple question
I've already provided you the answers, from people far more qualified than I am to answer. Once more, you are asking questions which have already been answered.
 
It's BS? How is it BS?

Because they are incredibly experienced in the logistics of military action? Because they know what our forces are capable of and how quickly it's possible to move? Because they understand the preparation necessary to conduct these types of operations and the amount of intelligence needed to properly plan? Because it's their JOB to know these things?

It ended when we evacuated those at the annex. What, did you think those at the annex just stepped into a teleporter? Help got there as soon as it could, and when it did, we evacuated.

You seem to be confusing different things. First of all, within the first half hour or so of the first attack on the consulate, Stevens and Smith were dead. Once the attack started, NOTHING could have saved them. A team from the annex arrived to the consulate (about an hour later I believe) and evacuated those who were still in the consulate after the first attack. Then (and I don't remember the exact time, but I believe it was around 12:30 Benghazi time) a six man team arrived from Tripoli. So reinforcements were sent and one of their primary objectives was to find Stevens (who had been taken to the hospital). Then, around 4:30 (again, I believe this is right, I don't have a timeline in front of me at the moment) the attack on the annex commenced. Woods and Doherty were killed by mortar fire...what could have saved them? I posted earlier in this thread an article from a former marine officer and special operations leader and he went through the various scenarios and showed why it was nearly impossible to do anything which would have saved Woods and Doherty. Just in my last post, I provided a transcript of an interview from Bush's former Sec of Defense in which he explained why there was little which could be done. Panetta (and apparently Dempsey) have explained why nothing could be done.

How many people with experience in this area do you need to explain it to you?


I've already provided you the answers, from people far more qualified than I am to answer. Once more, you are asking questions which have already been answered.
Every embassy needs Mass Acceleration 1 Man Balloon harnesses. The opposite of parachutes. you pop a cord and it shoots you many many hundred feet into the air. Then a plane with a "skyhook" comes and rescues them just like batman.

Although I could see this being VERY dangerous in the hands of secret troops for quick escape if the troops served a nefarious person.

Someone may chide me that real life isnt fantasy but I believe this could actually work.

It would have to be bulletproof (or resistant) and infused with a gas so light it really shot them into the air fast.

Floating away into the sky like dorthy in wizard of oz is much better than getting swarmed by zombies.

Maybe even have 50 fake dummies on ball0ons also shoot out of the roofs with the real people having homing devices for pickup. Train the real people to stay still like dummies :p
 
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67147398-obama-stupid-1.jpg

It was an outdoor meeting and for nostalgia sake, he used his Vorvarts! placard.
It was a big hit as he rubbed the bellies of his propagandists afterwards and gave them all a Doggie Bag.

Love it. Truly love it.
 
It's BS? How is it BS?

Because they are incredibly experienced in the logistics of military action? Because they know what our forces are capable of and how quickly it's possible to move? Because they understand the preparation necessary to conduct these types of operations and the amount of intelligence needed to properly plan? Because it's their JOB to know these things?

It ended when we evacuated those at the annex. What, did you think those at the annex just stepped into a teleporter? Help got there as soon as it could, and when it did, we evacuated.

You seem to be confusing different things. First of all, within the first half hour or so of the first attack on the consulate, Stevens and Smith were dead. Once the attack started, NOTHING could have saved them. A team from the annex arrived to the consulate (about an hour later I believe) and evacuated those who were still in the consulate after the first attack. Then (and I don't remember the exact time, but I believe it was around 12:30 Benghazi time) a six man team arrived from Tripoli. So reinforcements were sent and one of their primary objectives was to find Stevens (who had been taken to the hospital). Then, around 4:30 (again, I believe this is right, I don't have a timeline in front of me at the moment) the attack on the annex commenced. Woods and Doherty were killed by mortar fire...what could have saved them? I posted earlier in this thread an article from a former marine officer and special operations leader and he went through the various scenarios and showed why it was nearly impossible to do anything which would have saved Woods and Doherty. Just in my last post, I provided a transcript of an interview from Bush's former Sec of Defense in which he explained why there was little which could be done. Panetta (and apparently Dempsey) have explained why nothing could be done.

How many people with experience in this area do you need to explain it to you?


I've already provided you the answers, from people far more qualified than I am to answer. Once more, you are asking questions which have already been answered.
The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa. The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday. According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it." No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.


I will say it again incase you missed it "Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound " and " 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... "
 
Last edited:
Every embassy needs Mass Acceleration 1 Man Balloon harnesses. The opposite of parachutes. you pop a cord and it shoots you many many hundred feet into the air. Then a plane with a "skyhook" comes and rescues them just like batman.

Although I could see this being VERY dangerous in the hands of secret troops for quick escape if the troops served a nefarious person.

Someone may chide me that real life isnt fantasy but I believe this could actually work.

It would have to be bulletproof (or resistant) and infused with a gas so light it really shot them into the air fast.

Floating away into the sky like dorthy in wizard of oz is much better than getting swarmed by zombies.

Maybe even have 50 fake dummies on ball0ons also shoot out of the roofs with the real people having homing devices for pickup. Train the real people to stay still like dummies :p

It's how James Bond would do it.

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa. The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday. According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it." No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.


I will say it again incase you missed it "Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound " and " 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... "
And I will post this article again, because you obviously did miss it:

Benghazi (II): A military analysis of the Fox mystery man's fantasy rescue plan | The Best Defense

You're giving me the what, but you keep asking for the why. I'm giving you the why and you keep repeating the what and asking why. You keep asking questions which have already been answered. Throw in the other link I've provided to the Robert Gates interview, and your persistence on this matter shows you don't really want to know why, you just want to continue political attacks.
 
Your constant. Sentence fragments. Make no sense.

Only to those that feign ignorance with the English Language. But I did notice on all that talk you do. How you never followed the link you were given. :roll:
 
Only to those that feign ignorance with the English Language. But I did notice on all that talk you do. How you never followed the link you were given. :roll:
No, they make no sense to anyone who does understand the English language. You're careless with your nouns, you bring up irrelevant and previously unmentioned information and expect people to know what you're talking about. You weren't making sense, not because you were posting sentence fragments, but because you simply were not making sense. That's not an attack, it's just the way you post. You need to be more specific with your nouns and you need to introduce information in the proper manner. It will make things so much easier.

I read almost every link which is provided as a direct response to me. Once more, you are unclear and are unclear in a sentence fragment. Which link are you referring to?
 
No, they make no sense to anyone who does understand the English language. You're careless with your nouns, you bring up irrelevant and previously unmentioned information and expect people to know what you're talking about. You weren't making sense, not because you were posting sentence fragments, but because you simply were not making sense. That's not an attack, it's just the way you post. You need to be more specific with your nouns and you need to introduce information in the proper manner. It will make things so much easier.

I read almost every link which is provided as a direct response to me. Once more, you are unclear and are unclear in a sentence fragment. Which link are you referring to?

Go back and re-read the Thread.....since you have such a difficulty.
 
Go back and re-read the Thread.....since you have such a difficulty.
I don't need to re-read the thread. If you post a link in direct response to me, I most likely read it (and replied to it). Please let me know which link you are referring to, and I'll be happy to address it, or address the fact I've already addressed it. It's your call, but I'm not going to try and read your mind. You need to be specific.
 
I don't need to re-read the thread. If you post a link in direct response to me, I most likely read it (and replied to it). Please let me know which link you are referring to, and I'll be happy to address it, or address the fact I've already addressed it. It's your call, but I'm not going to try and read your mind. You need to be specific.

You have shown a habit of ignoring anything that will remotely discredit any of your statements and continue to spew liberal arguments even after they have been proven time and time again to be false

I will give you an example
even after i posted evidence like this
"Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound " and " 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... "

you still want to claim help wasn't available and couldn't get there in time
 
Last edited:
Oh great - another overblown scandal that the Dems/Reps will use to try and get the Dem/Rep POTUS impeached.

Seems to be a bi-yearly occurrence...no matter who is in power.
 
Oh great - another overblown scandal that the Dems/Reps will use to try and get the Dem/Rep POTUS impeached.

Seems to be a bi-yearly occurrence...no matter who is in power.


Sorry the attempts to dismiss this is not going to work even the lapdog media isn't dismissing it anymore
 
Sorry the attempts to dismiss this is not going to work even the lapdog media isn't dismissing it anymore

Where is the 'yawn' emoticon?

This smacks of Rep sour grapes for losing last November to me.

I am neither Dem nor Rep and I could care less about this.

There are FAR more important issues facing America.
 
You have shown a habit of ignoring anything
What have I ignored? Go on, tell me what I ignored. I direct quote each part of a post, sometimes breaking down individual sentences, and respond to them. I'd love to know what I ignored.

continue to spew liberal arguments even after they have been proven time and time again to be false
A) I'm not a liberal and B) Not one of my arguments have been proven false.

I will give you an example
even after i posted evidence like this
"Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound " and " 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... "

you still want to claim help wasn't available and couldn't get there in time
Uhh, I DID respond to that, I did not ignore it. I accurately pointed out that your post here tells me what, not why. Just because they were on their way to board the plane, that doesn't mean they could have gotten there in time. I could board a plane in the next 30 seconds and still not make it to China in 30 minutes. Being on a plane doesn't tell me why I cannot make it to China in 30 minutes.

I'll give you a parallel example. There's a Mexican restaurant down the road. I'm walking out to my car to drive down to the restaurant and my girlfriend/wife/significant other tells me, "Hey, the car is out of gas, it won't make it to the restaurant".

You're telling me that because I was walking to my car, I should have eaten Mexican. I'm telling you that I COULDN'T get to the restaurant, unless I walked, and if I did walk, the restaurant would be closed.


I didn't ignore you at all, I responded directly to you. Again, you told me what and I told you why (including referencing the links I made earlier in the thread). It's important to know the difference between what and why.
 
Last edited:
The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting.

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.


W.H. holds off-the-record Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com


so why off the record? what was the purpose of the meeting ? is it so the media can coordinate the WH talking points with each other? is it so they can all perform the same spin to make this go away

Just more proof we have a state run media

The briefing was a background briefing not an off-the record briefing. The difference is that background are not attributable by name, but are absolutely publishable.

Whenever you read or hear the phrase "senior WH blank..." That is a quote on background. It is neither new nor unusual.

Jebus, it is like the GOP was born yesterday? The right wing media is not this dumb, They know what background is.

But they apparently think you are that dumb.
 
A fair point, some can and some cannot. But it seems to me it would be a better
use of our government's time to make sure those security measures are being acted upon, whether it's done in public or not. Instead, we constantly keep getting this dog and pony show which does nothing to help anyone. It's simply a political ploy, and I'm tired of it, when there are so many more necessary things we should be focusing on.

Here's the problem. It's THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION we're dealing with here. Ok ?

Given their track record on honesty, character and integrity, given that they had NO PROBLEM lying to the faces of the families that lost loved ones in Benghazi, to save their politicial ass's, it's become apparent that ANY thing they say is going to be a lie and should be verified by a objectiv
 
So does that solve all over our problems?
It's a yes or no answer.

If yes, then why are we still talking about Benghazi, if not for political motivation? If no, why are we still not talking about additional security measures?


My point, as it's been all along, is let's quit wasting time on irrelevant nonsense and let's focus on what's important, which is the safety of Americans. Surely, though we've disagreed on other things, we can agree we should focus on keeping Americans safe, correct?


Here's the problem with your speil.

Its the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. After Fast and Furious, after Benghazi, after Holder's illegal wire tapping, after the IRS targeting Conservative groups AND releasing Donors list to radical Gay Activist, they can't be trusted.

They may say " we learned our lesson" , " we're sorry, we won't do it again" but as it goes with people who have no moral compass, we would be fools to believe them.

No, the press and politicians need to keep pushing until he and holder and hillary and their minions who are responsible are held responsible. Hillary and those who obstructed the investigation into Benghazi should be charged.

Obama should step down or be impeached because either he knows All or he's the worst Leader and manager we've ever had in the WH.

Because for all of your mitogation, NO ONE HAS. People just get pushed around.

What's thr saying ? " Lie to me once shame on you, Lie to me twice shame on me."

I quit counting Obama's lies.
 
What have I ignored? Go on, tell me what I ignored. I direct quote each part of a post, sometimes breaking down individual sentences, and respond to them. I'd love to know what I ignored.

A) I'm not a liberal and B) Not one of my arguments have been proven false.


Uhh, I DID respond to that, I did not ignore it. I accurately pointed out that your post here tells me what, not why. Just because they were on their way to board the plane, that doesn't mean they could have gotten there in time. I could board a plane in the next 30 seconds and still not make it to China in 30 minutes. Being on a plane doesn't tell me why I cannot make it to China in 30 minutes.

I'll give you a parallel example. There's a Mexican restaurant down the road. I'm walking out to my car to drive down to the restaurant and my girlfriend/wife/significant other tells me, "Hey, the car is out of gas, it won't make it to the restaurant".

You're telling me that because I was walking to my car, I should have eaten Mexican. I'm telling you that I COULDN'T get to the restaurant, unless I walked, and if I did walk, the restaurant would be closed.


I didn't ignore you at all, I responded directly to you. Again, you told me what and I told you why (including referencing the links I made earlier in the thread). It's important to know the difference between what and why.

the example you gave isn't equivalent you knew when the restraint was going to close they didn't know when the attack was going to end there for they had no idea they would not get there in time. The team in Tripoli was ready to board the c130 before the second attack Tripoli is less then an hour away by flight they would have got there in time if they was allowed to go. I know reading can be hard sometimes
 
Here's the problem with your speil.

Its the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
Circular argument says hello. Do you ever get tired of your extremism and sheer biased posting?
the example you gave isn't equivalent
Yes, it is.

you knew when the restraint was going to close they didn't know when the attack was going to end
But they knew how soon they could evacuate, and they began evacuations at 7:30 in the morning, Benghazi time. So, that would be akin to when the restaurant was going to close.

The team in Tripoli was ready to board the c130 before the second attack Tripoli is less then an hour away by flight they would have got there in time if they was allowed to go.
This has been debunked numerous times, by people with far greater knowledge than you. And that's not even including the fact there were threats in Tripoli as well.

How about you just admit you are wrong?

I know reading can be hard sometimes
Maybe for you, I do it just fine. That's why I know your constant repeating of falsified information is nonsense. There was a 6 man team from Tripoli which arrived a couple hours after the attack at the consulate and before the second attack at the annex. There was an evacuation team which began evacuations at 7:30. It would have been foolish to do what you are suggesting, and you've been told it would be foolish by those who have experience with these situations.

Why do you stubbornly cling to your belief when you are so clearly and so provably wrong?
 
Last edited:
Circular argument says hello. Do you ever get tired of your extremism and sheer biased posting?
Yes, it is.

But they knew how soon they could evacuate, and they began evacuations at 7:30 in the morning, Benghazi time. So, that would be akin to when the restaurant was going to close.

This has been debunked numerous times, by people with far greater knowledge than you. And that's not even including the fact there were threats in Tripoli as well.

How about you just admit you are wrong?

Maybe for you, I do it just fine. That's why I know your constant repeating of falsified information is nonsense. There was a 6 man team from Tripoli which arrived a couple hours after the attack at the consulate and before the second attack at the annex. There was an evacuation team which began evacuations at 7:30. It would have been foolish to do what you are suggesting, and you've been told it would be foolish by those who have experience with these situations.

Why do you stubbornly cling to your belief when you are so clearly and so provably wrong?

Well, if some irreverent poster on the internet says so .....

What's clear is that you'll continue to arm chair quarter back the Benghazi Scandal to suite your argument, to mitigate the obvious cover up and lack of support. Why ? Who knows.

Not one of you Libbzz have been able to explain why they were so vulnerable in this first place. Why after a 12 foot hole was blown in their compound wall in JUNE !!!.....was there no back up, no extra security.
 
Not one of you Libbzz have been able to explain why they were so vulnerable in this first place. Why after a 12 foot hole was blown in their compound wall in JUNE !!!.....was there no back up, no extra security.
And, as usual, in your haste to incessantly attack in your completely biased manner, you've missed what I've said multiple times in this thread. I'd go back and repeat them for you, but let's be honest. You don't care. The only thing it appears to me that you care about is going around spreading hatred of Democrats/liberals.

So if you have any interest in any objectivity, you can go back and read my thoughts on the vulnerabilities. Otherwise, I honestly could not care less what venom you spew in this thread.
 
:roll:

Ahh...the traditional "I've been totally defeated in the debate so I'll ignore all relevant points and provide a circular argument" blueprint.
Your constant. Sentence fragments. Make no sense.

Wow, that means we can continue to draw this dog and pony show out longer and still not getting any new relevant information. :roll:

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


What fanciful story? The YouTube video was not even close to a fanciful story, it was debunked inside a month.

I cannot answer why the video was blamed, but I'll give you my best guess. My guess is the video was blamed for a number of reasons. The first, and most prominent, was to hide the presence of the CIA at the consulate. I don't know if the information was to be hid to protect identities of Libyans working with us, to protect our own officers or to hide from the Libyan government we had a CIA headquarters there. Blaming the video would give the terrorists a reason to attack, where there otherwise was little reason to attack. We know that in the course of investigation, our Congressman have outed the identities of some of the Libyans who were working with us, putting their lives in danger. So my guess is this was the most prominent reason to try and divert attention to a video.

The first reason also impacted the second reason, which has to do with the preparation failure at the consulate. I have no idea how accurate the reasoning behind the failure is, but I would guess part of the reason the consulate was not better secured was due to the fact it was operating as an intelligence center, and it's not as simple as hiring the local handman to come strengthen the compound. I'll fully admit this is conjecture, but it makes enough sense that it's a reasonable guess.

The third reason is impacted by the first two. Yes, I think it was also political, but it was political because the classified nature of the first two made it difficult to explain otherwise. Romney had already shown he was willing to politicize the attack in order to win the Presidency, we saw that almost immediately with his tweet right after it happened. So I think there was also pressure to try and downplay (not cover up, two entirely separate concepts) what happened, because, if it was because of the first two reasons I mentioned, Obama could not come out and tell Americans 100% what happened.

Another reason the story became what it was is because neither the CIA nor the State department wanted to take the blame for what happened. The release of the e-mails has kind of highlighted that theory.

So those are my theories on why things played out the way they did. As usual, nothing is as simple as either political party wants the voting public to believe.
What cover up? What exactly are you alleging is being covered up? Those who keep droning on and on about a cover-up never even tell us what is supposedly being covered up. What's being covered up?
Up to this point, you've made the most sense I've seen from you in this thread.

If you're still wanting answers to questions which have been answered multiple times, then there's no helping you. The answers have been given multiple times, by multiple people.

What I want to know is why people keep asking questions which have already been answered multiple times. Here, maybe George W. Bush's former Secretary of Defense can explain it to the point you'll actually listen to.



[/INDENT] Robert Gates on Benghazi: ‘There just wasn’t time’

I doubt you find anything knew with your head in the sand. Whether there was time or not is another matter. The Administration didn't even try and fail. They didn't do ****, except send a UAV over to watch. Then they lied about everything.
 
I doubt you find anything knew with your head in the sand. Whether there was time or not is another matter. The Administration didn't even try and fail. They didn't do ****, except send a UAV over to watch. Then they lied about everything.
This is a lie, as I have noted multiple times. The team from the annex (as well as a Libyan security force) arrived to remove those at the consulate, the team from Tripoli reinforced the annex at around 1:30 Benghazi time, and the evacuation team left with it's first group at 7:30 Benghazi time. The fact people are still clinging to the myth that no help was given, when clear evidence has shown otherwise, simply reeks of partisanship.

And, as countless people who has experience in the situation have said, trying to implement the large scale response people like you think should have happened is "cartoonish". So not only are you repeating lies, you're also otherwise suggesting something which would have been incredibly dangerous and foolish.

Give up the talking points. Pay attention to the facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom