• 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

Boo Radley said:
Reminds me of elevating terrorist alerts and saying vote for us or die. But, don't you have to prove your cliam?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to prove anything. Don't you know the rules? Only liberals have to prove things.

Now stop being intolerant.
 
rocket88 said:
He doesn't have to prove anything. Don't you know the rules? Only liberals have to prove things.

Now stop being intolerant.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are comparing self-evident statements to ridiculous claims, one simply demands more evidence than the other.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well, if you are comparing self-evident statements to ridiculous claims, one simply demands more evidence than the other.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've asked for some evidence that hasn't yet been provided.
 
pbrauer said:
Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.

DENT]​
Click to expand...


I dont think youre actually sorry. Im not sure what your point is though? That the exact wording is wrong? Your article said they were ordered to 'remain in place'. Should right wingers change their theory to it being a 'remain in place' order? Or are you trying to make a broader point that the spec ops team could not have helped so the stand down order (sorry, the remain in place order) was the right thing?​
 
jonny5 said:
I dont think youre actually sorry. Im not sure what your point is though? That the exact wording is wrong? Your article said they were ordered to 'remain in place'. Should right wingers change their theory to it being a 'remain in place' order? Or are you trying to make a broader point that the spec ops team could not have helped so the stand down order (sorry, the remain in place order) was the right thing?
Click to expand...
You are correct, I am not sorry. The right wingers need to come to the conclusion that the troops were needed in Tripoli and there was no "stand down order" given thus there was no way the four people could have been saved.
 
pbrauer said:
You are correct, I am not sorry. The right wingers need to come to the conclusion that the troops were needed in Tripoli and there was no "stand down order" given thus there was no way the four people could have been saved.
Click to expand...

But there was a stand down order. Your article confirms it. So lets consider that fact. In which case the real argument is over whether the order was right or wrong.
 
Deuce said:
Conservatives do not get to say **** about politicizing the death of those people.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.....the ones politicizing the issue are the Repubs who are desperate to try to make some political gain off of this. They have tried 2749 times to get some political clout out of this and have come up empty handed each time.
 
pbrauer said:
You are correct, I am not sorry. The right wingers need to come to the conclusion that the troops were needed in Tripoli and there was no "stand down order" given thus there was no way the four people could have been saved.
Click to expand...


Was there a US Embassy under attack in Tripoli ?

And is there a measurable distinction between " stand down " and " remain in place " ?

Its all nonsense anyway because the dereliction came in the form of a
lack of Securtity preparation for a American Embassy that had been attacked prior to the September 11th attack.

Not only did the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton NOT send in more Security before the attack, but there wasn't even backup outside rescources set up in the case of a attack.

Now to all Liberals, THIS is why its important to VET YOUR Candidates.

This is why qualifications matter.
 
Fenton said:
Was there a US Embassy under attack in Tripoli ?

And is there a measurable distinction between " stand down " and " remain in place " ?

Its all nonsense anyway because the dereliction came in the form of a
lack of Securtity preparation for a American Embassy that had been attacked prior to the September 11th attack.

Not only did the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton NOT send in more Security before the attack, but there wasn't even backup outside rescources set up in the case of a attack.

Now to all Liberals, THIS is why its important to VET YOUR Candidates.

This is why qualifications matter.
Click to expand...

LOL....seriously? Keep digging for something that isn't there. Maybe you guys will find it the 3477th time.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....seriously? Keep digging for something that isn't there. Maybe you guys will find it the 3477th time.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha !

Could you possibly post a more inane and empty response ?

You didn't even adress the content of my post.

You just showed up and decided that you were going to win troll post of the day.
 
pbrauer said:
No, there wasn't, "stand down" is a military term which has a specific meaning and that wasn't given.
Stand-down | Define Stand-down at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Thats a dictionary website, not a military handbook. Please show me the official military source which details those specific words are to be used. And how saying "remain in place" to a unit about to leave is not the exact same thing. I have to see any official documentation, just testimony. The people there say they were told to stand down, and officers say they werent.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats a dictionary website, not a military handbook. Please show me the official military source which details those specific words are to be used. And how saying "remain in place" to a unit about to leave is not the exact same thing. I have to see any official documentation, just testimony. The people there say they were told to stand down, and officers say they werent.
Click to expand...
Look for your own sources Jonny, I am not here to do your research. According to the report in the OP seven military officers said there wasn't a "stand down" order given and that's good enough for me, if it isn't for you, I guess that's tough **** for you.:roll:
 
jonny5 said:
I dont think youre actually sorry. Im not sure what your point is though? That the exact wording is wrong? Your article said they were ordered to 'remain in place'. Should right wingers change their theory to it being a 'remain in place' order? Or are you trying to make a broader point that the spec ops team could not have helped so the stand down order (sorry, the remain in place order) was the right thing?
Click to expand...

According to testimony that was made available months ago, there were many operational reasons why it made no sense to fly that team from Tripoli to Benghazi. The short version was if the team had boarded a plane to fly to help, they'd have passed in flight the first plane carrying the wounded to Tripoli, where they would have just left, and would have arrived after the evacuation was complete, and all that was left was to get the remaining, uninjured personnel to where they needed to go, with staff on hand capable of getting that done, which they did. In other words, they wouldn't have helped much, if any, even with 20-20 hindsight, and were more needed right where they were, in Tripoli, to deal with the returning wounded and provide security to that base.

The whole "stand down order" so-called controversy was BS from the start. The only thing that's confusing today is why this is news. It wouldn't be if people read testimony already made available on that decision. And even if the order turned out to be wrong in real time, why is that a controversy, unless people in charge in the military of making those decisions received orders from the WH to let them die or something, which no one has suggested, alleged, provided any proof of, etc. It's understandable that if people made bad decisions that in inquiry into why, in order to learn and make better decisions later, would be entirely appropriate, but that's not a scandal. That's people looking into a decision as a learning exercise.
 
Fenton said:
Hahahaha !

Could you possibly post a more inane and empty response ?

You didn't even adress the content of my post.

You just showed up and decided that you were going to win troll post of the day.
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything directly in your post worthy of a response...hence the "seriously"....You are continuously digging for something that isn't there. Why do you think you always come up empty handed time after time?
 
jonny5 said:
Thats a dictionary website, not a military handbook. Please show me the official military source which details those specific words are to be used. And how saying "remain in place" to a unit about to leave is not the exact same thing. I have to see any official documentation, just testimony. The people there say they were told to stand down, and officers say they werent.
Click to expand...

The team in Tripoli (I assume they are 'the people' above) requested to fly to Benghazi. Military personnel whose job it is to make those decisions decided they should 'remain in place.' If you want to call that a 'stand down order' that's fine, but there is no actual dispute about what happened. They wanted to go, their superiors said NO. There is much testimony by 'officer' or those investigating the incident based on timelines and testimony from those decision makers about WHY they were told to remain in Tripoli (or 'stand down' if you prefer). So I'm not sure what the dispute is.
 
So, who gave the marching order?
 
apdst said:
So, who gave the marching order?
Click to expand...

Who gave what marching order?

And why do you care? Is there any evidence some unnamed 'marching order' was even in 20-20 hindsight incorrect? If this marching order was the one that had the team in Tripoli not get on a flight to Benghazi, pass a plane with evacuees on its way to Tripoli where they just left, and arrive after the annex had been evacuated, the fighting over etc, then all the testimony is the marching order was given by the normal chain of command, and correctly so.
 
disneydude said:
There wasn't anything directly in your post worthy of a response...hence the "seriously"....You are continuously digging for something that isn't there. Why do you think you always come up empty handed time after time?
Click to expand...

So you think the admistrations actions in terms of security both before and after the attack were justified ?

After a 12 foot hole was blown in the Embassy wall, after numerous and ignored request for more Security by Chris Stevens, after every other Nation AND the Red Cross bailed out because of the worsening Security situation you would have done the same thing ?
 
JasperL said:
Who gave what marching order?

And why do you care? Is there any evidence some unnamed 'marching order' was even in 20-20 hindsight incorrect? If this marching order was the one that had the team in Tripoli not get on a flight to Benghazi, pass a plane with evacuees on its way to Tripoli where they just left, and arrive after the annex had been evacuated, the fighting over etc, then all the testimony is the marching order was given by the normal chain of command, and correctly so.
Click to expand...

Hindsight ?

They blew a 12 foot hole in the Embassy wall 2 weeks BEFORE the attack.

Every other Nation AND the Red Cross bailed out because of the worsening Security situation BEFORE the attack.

Chris Stevens repeatedly asked for more Security BEFORE the attack.

You're not doing Hillary Clinton any favors here.

She didn't even have the intelligence or qualifications to have the assets off-site just in case there was a attack.

She didn't even have a plan in place for a immediate rescue in case the Embassy was attacked.

Her only PLAN centered around the creation of a huge false narrative about a Internet video so she could politicize the deaths of four dead Americans

Thats the dereliction.
 
rcart76 said:
This is also the only thing they can come up with against Hilary.
Click to expand...

actually no hillary is like obama in a way she has nothing to run on and really has done nothing of note.
if democrats decide to run her i will be disappointed. the fact that you can't find someone else to run is even worse.

at least the republican party has several people out there already that have a good chance.
 
Fenton said:
Hindsight ?

They blew a 12 foot hole in the Embassy wall 2 weeks BEFORE the attack.

Every other Nation AND the Red Cross bailed out because of the worsening Security situation BEFORE the attack.

Chris Stevens repeatedly asked for more Security BEFORE the attack.

You're not doing Hillary Clinton any favors here.

She didn't even have the intelligence or qualifications to have the assets off-site just in case there was a attack.

She didn't even have a plan in place for a immediate rescue in case the Embassy was attacked.

Her only PLAN centered around the creation of a huge false narrative about a Internet video so she could politicize the deaths of four dead Americans

Thats the dereliction.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're talking about a different "marching order" I assume that has nothing to do with the so-called 'stand down' order.

It's why I asked, because I can't tell what the person was talking about.

And I'm sorry, but right wingers whinging about democrats "politicizing the deaths of four dead Americans" just disqualifies you. Romney put out a statement condemning the Obama admin while the bodies were still warm, and the GOP has held non-stop hearings on this for two years. Give me a break.
 
Fenton said:
So you think the admistrations actions in terms of security both before and after the attack were justified ?

After a 12 foot hole was blown in the Embassy wall, after numerous and ignored request for more Security by Chris Stevens, after every other Nation AND the Red Cross bailed out because of the worsening Security situation you would have done the same thing ?
Click to expand...

Certainly mistakes were made and the results were tragic.....but there is a big difference between the hyperpartisan feigned outrage conspiracy theories and what in hindsight should have been handled better.
 
ludin said:
at least the republican party has several people out there already that have a good chance.
Click to expand...

LOL.....who? This is shaping up to be the sorriest lot of GOP contenders that I have personally seen in my lifetime. With the exception of Christie...there is no one in the lot that even stands a shot of getting elected. Cruz? (Mr. Green Eggs and Ham....you have to be kidding), Jeb Bush? (GWB blew any shot his brother had of getting elected), Rubio? Perry? Paul?....Even Palin would have a better shot of getting elected.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....who? This is shaping up to be the sorriest lot of GOP contenders that I have personally seen in my lifetime. With the exception of Christie...there is no one in the lot that even stands a shot of getting elected. Cruz? (Mr. Green Eggs and Ham....you have to be kidding), Jeb Bush? (GWB blew any shot his brother had of getting elected), Rubio? Perry? Paul?....Even Palin would have a better shot of getting elected.
Click to expand...

lol all you are running is clinton and you have the gull to say we have no one?
that is rich myopic view is myopic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom