• 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!

Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

The question I want an answer to is why on earth would you give a stand down order when American citizens are being attacked? pb, do you know the answer to that?

DOD Cooperates With Congress on Benghazi Probes

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2013 – The Defense Department has cooperated fully with Congress and the State Department on the investigation into the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of four U.S. citizens, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

A number of panels on Capitol Hill are examining the incident, which occurred September 11, 2012.

DOD officials provided a full accounting of military actions, “before, during and after” the attack. “The fact remains -- as we have repeatedly indicated -- that United States forces could not have arrived in time to mount a rescue of those Americans killed or injured that night,” Little said.

The attacks killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The U.S. military responded quickly to notifications of the attack on the Benghazi consulate, the spokesman said.

Little specifically addressed what military personnel in the Libyan capital of Tripoli were doing during the attack. Special operations personnel, he said, were in Libya in general support of embassy security and to aid the movement of embassy personnel.

Little reiterated that two service members did go from Tripoli to Benghazi that evening. These personnel were members of a quick reaction force quickly put together.

“We also had four personnel who continued a mission in Tripoli to support the relocation of American embassy personnel to that location,” Little said. “This is against a backdrop of uncertainty and concerns of threats to diplomatic installations throughout the region.”

The four personnel stayed in the area to relocate American embassy personnel from various embassy facilities to a U.S. embassy annex in Tripoli, Little said.

These four personnel attempted to travel to Benghazi. “The team leader of this four-man unit, called Special Operations Command—Africa to tell them that the movement of personnel to the annex was complete,” Little said. “He then reported his intention to move his team to Benghazi aboard a Libyan C-130.”

But by this time, the mission in Benghazi had shifted to evacuation. The higher command directed the team leader “to continue providing support to the embassy in Tripoli,” Little said.

“We continue to believe there was nothing this team could have done to assist during the second attack in Benghazi,” he added.

The four-man team remained in Tripoli and played a key role in receiving, treating and moving the wounded from Benghazi.
 
It was in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Nuff said.:eek:

I still don't buy it Jack. If I was one of those into wild conspiracies, the way I hear it told it was State who made almost all the changes. I would say somewhere there is a memo or a e-mail or something such as a State message where Hillary turned down the extra security. Hence State made most of the changes to protect her run for the presidency in 2016.

Now I am not conspiratist, but this would make better sense to me. I just don't know.
 
The problem with the "they couldn't have helped anyway" excuse is that no one knew that at the time the stand down order was issued. Unless, of course, you're claiming the US government has psychic abilities which is a whole other topic (in Off Topic Discussions). :)
 
I still don't buy it Jack. If I was one of those into wild conspiracies, the way I hear it told it was State who made almost all the changes. I would say somewhere there is a memo or a e-mail or something such as a State message where Hillary turned down the extra security. Hence State made most of the changes to protect her run for the presidency in 2016.

Now I am not conspiratist, but this would make better sense to me. I just don't know.

Hillary would not have made that decision. No SecState would have. Diplomatic Security does that. Nonetheless, I think that State's spokesperson feared that Hillary would be blamed, and that's what drove the process.:cool:
 
The question I want an answer to is why on earth would you give a stand down order when American citizens are being attacked? pb, do you know the answer to that?

There are a multitude of reasons to stand down. Number one is that sending more soldiers into a fight when the enemy is an unknown as far as strength could leave more dead Americans. In short, helicopters get shot down easily. In this case though it is likely that the Ambassador was already dead.
 
Hillary would not have made that decision. No SecState would have. Diplomatic Security does that. Nonetheless, I think that State's spokesperson feared that Hillary would be blamed, and that's what drove the process.:cool:

Possible.
 
I think you're missing the point. The investigation we're discussing is the investigation into how the attack was portrayed in Washington. That will not affect the investigation of who did what in Libya.:cool:
Really? Because you just said the crime is:
The murder of four Americans.:cool:
So it sounds as if you are talking about the same thing I am, not giving those who committed the crime in Libya notification that they are under suspicion......which was what the SoS office used as a reason for not wanting the WH to say it was "terrorism" by any particular group.
 
Hillary would not have made that decision. No SecState would have. Diplomatic Security does that. Nonetheless, I think that State's spokesperson feared that Hillary would be blamed, and that's what drove the process.:cool:
See, you ARE talking about what I am talking about.
 
Really? Because you just said the crime is:

So it sounds as if you are talking about the same thing I am, not giving those who committed the crime in Libya notification that they are under suspicion......which was what the SoS office used as a reason for not wanting the WH to say it was "terrorism" by any particular group.

They already knew they were under suspicion. They knew there was no demonstration. The DoS spokesperson was using "national security" to pursue a political objective. Neither the CIA nor the FBI complained that the TP's undermined the investigation.:cool:
 
They already knew they were under suspicion. They knew there was no demonstration. The DoS spokesperson was using "national security" to pursue a political objective. Neither the CIA nor the FBI complained that the TP's undermined the investigation.:cool:
Um...

November 16, 2012

After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency deleted it.


Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

Petraeus: U.S. didn't reveal role of terrorists in Benghazi to avoid tipping them off - San Jose Mercury News
 
So it sounds as if you are talking about the same thing I am, not giving those who committed the crime in Libya notification that they are under suspicion......which was what the SoS office used as a reason for not wanting the WH to say it was "terrorism" by any particular group.



So instead they decided to through those terrorist off by blaming it on a video. Maybe the news shouldn't say "bank robbers" where the ones who robbed the bank because we don't want to make "bank robbers" think we are on to them
 
Um...

November 16, 2012

After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency deleted it.


Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

Petraeus: U.S. didn't reveal role of terrorists in Benghazi to avoid tipping them off - San Jose Mercury News

"CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday,

September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

The Benghazi Scandal Grows | The Weekly Standard

would also like to add anything that Petraeus testified to during that hearing is compromised, He has lost creditability caused by his affair being held over his head
 
Last edited:
Now the Republicans are using the tragic death of four Americans to raise money.

Republicans raising money off Benghazi effort

On a new fundraising page, the committee asks for donations to keep up the fight, declaring it a “coverup” and using pictures of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
The page implores supporters to “demand answers.”

What's wrong with that? President Obama sent me at least a dozen emails about gun control urging me to send money to support the fight. And what is wrong with demanding answers? We've already found somebody (somebodies) lied through their teeth.
 
I guess that means those who play party politics have to decide...do we care more about justice for 4 American adults or 20 American children?

The person responsible for the 20 children deaths is now dead. Once we know for certain who failed to help those 4 Americans who died, I would go along with the same punishment.
 
What's wrong with that? President Obama sent me at least a dozen emails about gun control urging me to send money to support the fight. And what is wrong with demanding answers? We've already found somebody (somebodies) lied through their teeth.

Who was it that lied through their teeth?
 
Who was it that lied through their teeth?

The people who said a YouTube video was responsible; the people who doctored the talking points down from 90 Proof to lemonade; the people who said the only change made to the talking points was to change the word consulate to diplomatic facility; the people who denied that Al Qaeda was involved. So far.
 
Jay Carney is at the top of the list.:cool:
I can't disagree with that assessment, but hes no different than anybody else who has held that job. Which is to protect the president.
 
The people who said a YouTube video was responsible; the people who doctored the talking points down from 90 Proof to lemonade; the people who said the only change made to the talking points was to change the word consulate to diplomatic facility; the people who denied that Al Qaeda was involved. So far.
I don't believe you are correct here
 
I can't disagree with that assessment, but hes no different than anybody else who has held that job. Which is to protect the president.


Well, no. They've been caught in a lie, and worse, a stupid, needless lie. :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom