• 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!

APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

JasperL said:
What was confirmed? That the team was ordered through normal chain of command to remain in Tripoli instead of take a round trip plane ride to Benghazi where they would be of no help? Yes, that was confirmed. So why is this still a controversy? If they'd have got what they wanted, they'd have passed the first plane of injured being flown to Tripoli where they just left, then stood around the airport in Benghazi, watching more planes get loaded with evacuees, which was handled just fine without them.

So the military made a correct decision to leave them in Tripoli. What's the issue?
Click to expand...

Confirmed that there was a order by the military for the spec ops team not to leave. Its a controversy because its an election season and both parties are trying to either blame the other, or avoid blame. In this case, to claim there wasnt an order, so the whole issue of whether the order was justified or not could be ignored. Which speaks to the larger issue of whether the President handled the situation correctly, overall. But as long as we argue about the meaning of the word IS, we dont have to talk about the real issues.
 
jonny5 said:
Confirmed that there was a order by the military for the spec ops team not to leave. Its a controversy because its an election season and both parties are trying to either blame the other, or avoid blame. In this case, to claim there wasnt an order, so the whole issue of whether the order was justified or not could be ignored. Which speaks to the larger issue of whether the President handled the situation correctly, overall. But as long as we argue about the meaning of the word IS, we dont have to talk about the real issues.
Click to expand...

My point was it's a BS fake controversy, sustained for nearly 2 years now by right wing blowhards who want to desperately find a scandal. There might be one, but the 'stand down order' isn't it, but it still lives, like a Zombie that won't die, no matter how many times that faux controversy gets rehashed and debunked.

And I'm not sure why the Administration (I suppose) wants to ignore the question of whether the order was justified. It was the correct order. No one can make any argument it wasn't, at least not without ignoring the timeline, and/or misrepresenting the facts as we know them.
 
JasperL said:
My point was it's a BS fake controversy, sustained for nearly 2 years now by right wing blowhards who want to desperately find a scandal. There might be one, but the 'stand down order' isn't it, but it still lives, like a Zombie that won't die, no matter how many times that faux controversy gets rehashed and debunked.

And I'm not sure why the Administration (I suppose) wants to ignore the question of whether the order was justified. It was the correct order. No one can make any argument it wasn't, at least not without ignoring the timeline, and/or misrepresenting the facts as we know them.
Click to expand...

So your question was rhetorical then. You know why its a controversy. Politics.
 
j-mac said:
I'm glad to hear no order to stand down was given. But that does little to exonerate the lack of security that was present in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is a very long watch but fascinating. It contradicts the very brief claim opening this thread about the stand down order. This is testimony by the people who were actually in Libya at the time of the attacks and are courageous 'Whistle-blowers" who were under pressure by government officials not to speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Ju8Zxgp54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH0w2fnh_Z4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6wOjMsqp8I
 
Grant said:
This is a very long watch but fascinating. It contradicts the very brief claim opening this thread about the stand down order. This is testimony by the people who were actually in Libya at the time of the attacks and are courageous 'Whistle-blowers" who were under pressure by government officials not to speak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Ju8Zxgp54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH0w2fnh_Z4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6wOjMsqp8I
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, we have some testifying there was and some testifying there wasn't. We should do what with this information?
 
rcart76 said:
We will see how far that gets the GOP in 2016.
Click to expand...

Oh it won't get them very far at all because the welfare leeches and the illegal immigrants will elect a chimpanzee or a baboon if IT runs for president as a democrat. Hell, we all know that.
 
HogWash said:
Oh it won't get them very far at all because the welfare leeches and the illegal immigrants will elect a chimpanzee or a baboon if IT runs for president as a democrat. Hell, we all know that.
Click to expand...

Boy is that a bunch of crap. Take personal responsibility and select better candidates.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !

No, it wasn't hyper-partisan to perpetuate some BS narrative about a internet video.:roll:
Click to expand...

You mean hyper-partisans like the perps of the attack?

What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
Click to expand...
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video | The Daily Banter
 
Boo Radley said:
So let me get this straight, we have some testifying there was and some testifying there wasn't. We should do what with this information?
Click to expand...

Learn from it.

Unless you watch the testimony in the entirety, rather just just an excerpt favorable to the original posters POV, how do you know what really happened?
 
Grant said:
That runs contrary to all the evidence by those who were actually there.
Click to expand...

Abu Khattala WAS there and is in fact accused of mounting the attack and he says it was because of the video. How much more do you need?
 
keymanjim said:


So...... being told "not to proceed" or "not to go" (4:14 in video) does NOT, in the leftist thesaurus, equate to being told to "stand down".

Got it.
Click to expand...


Sorry Left wingers but Mr. Hicks sounds very credible and on the other hand Susan Rice and Hilary have public records of lying on a regular basis.
 
iguanaman said:
Abu Khattala WAS there and is in fact accused of mounting the attack and he says it was because of the video. How much more do you need?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say ANYTHING about a video in the indictment which, BTW Is unsealed.
 
Grant said:
Learn from it.

Unless you watch the testimony in the entirety, rather just just an excerpt favorable to the original posters POV, how do you know what really happened?
Click to expand...

My point is, as both things have been said in testimony, isn't it a little telling that each side believes one and not the other? It is also possible for a middle possibility, as in some hitch in the events that wasn't meant.
 
Boo Radley said:
Boy is that a bunch of crap. Take personal responsibility and select better candidates.
Click to expand...

You telling me that the buffoon, Obama, was a better candidate than Mitt Romney...elected by the people of Massachusetts as their governor in 2003 and this, from Romney's googled bio: ????

Massachusetts Governor

Romney parlayed his success with the Olympics into politics when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2003. During Romney's term as governor, he oversaw the reduction of a $3 billion deficit. He also signed into law a health-care reform program to provide nearly universal health care for Massachusetts residents.

I repeat:
Oh it won't get them very far at all because the welfare leeches and the illegal immigrants will elect a chimpanzee or a baboon if IT runs for president as a democrat. Hell, we all know that.
Click to expand...
 
HogWash said:
You telling me that the buffoon, Obama, was a better candidate than Mitt Romney...elected by the people of Massachusetts as their governor in 2003 and this, from Romney's googled bio: ????

Massachusetts Governor

Romney parlayed his success with the Olympics into politics when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2003. During Romney's term as governor, he oversaw the reduction of a $3 billion deficit. He also signed into law a health-care reform program to provide nearly universal health care for Massachusetts residents.

I repeat:
Click to expand...

The two were literally interchangeable... They agreed on virtually everything; gun control, open borders, healthcare, etc.
 
iguanaman said:
Abu Khattala WAS there and is in fact accused of mounting the attack and he says it was because of the video. How much more do you need?
Click to expand...
No matter the history of Liberals, and all their crazy beliefs over the years, it's still something of a surprise when I see they trust terrorists over their own people who were in Libya at the time.
 
Boo Radley said:
My point is, as both things have been said in testimony, isn't it a little telling that each side believes one and not the other? It is also possible for a middle possibility, as in some hitch in the events that wasn't meant.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the entire hearing? or just that snippet?
 
johndylan1 said:
Sorry Left wingers but Mr. Hicks sounds very credible and on the other hand Susan Rice and Hilary have public records of lying on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

The lies of Clinton and Rice are public knowledge.

That is not so with Hicks, Nordstrom and Thompson. Their honorable history is a matter of public record.
 
Boo Radley said:
Boy is that a bunch of crap. Take personal responsibility and select better candidates.
Click to expand...

Polls show voter regret and that Mitt Romney would have made a better President. Leftists should own up to their clueless electoral priorities.
 
Boo Radley said:
Boy is that a bunch of crap. Take personal responsibility and select better candidates.
Click to expand...

Naaa, that's why the democrats want to ILLEGALLY bring as many aliens into the United States as they can get away with. FUTURE VOTERS for the next bunch of buffoons.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
No matter the history of Liberals, and all their crazy beliefs over the years, it's still something of a surprise when I see they trust terrorists over their own people who were in Libya at the time.
Click to expand...

Calling the CIA (who released the story about the video causing the attack) terrorists does not help your side one bit. Who are these people you "trust"? They couldn't be bitter partisans like you..could they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom