• 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!

Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

Would you send 3 guys to die for no reason?

3 guys Mak? What.....Oh I see you forgot.....Right? Again.....huh? :roll:



On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September." ......snip~

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News



So much for your 3 more man lil false narrative. What happened.....major difference between 3 more guys and 16 huh? Whats up Mak.....why doesn't your deflection work anymore?
 
I believe this thread was about sending 3 CIA guys. 16 to 20 well armed is far different, I see why you are trying to change the subject. Oh yea, and that was July.
3 guys Mak? What.....Oh I see you forgot.....Right? Again.....huh? :roll:



On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September." ......snip~

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News



So much for your 3 more man lil false narrative. What happened.....major difference between 3 more guys and 16 huh? Whats up Mak.....why doesn't your deflection work anymore?
 
I believe this thread was about sending 3 CIA guys. 16 to 20 well armed is far different, I see why you are trying to change the subject. Oh yea, and that was July.

Keep running with that "they would have died for nothing" narrative, it doesn't at all make you seem oblivious to what they accomplished. :roll:
 
dang brain fart

It didn't hurt did it? All will still be well.....Don't worry.
therethere.gif
 
j-mac, I dont know what rank you were, but I hope you would not send 3 soldiers lightly armed with 9mm handguns to face off with 50-70 trained AQ for no good reason except to die too cause it sounds good in John Wayne movies.

See, now you change the parameters...No one said anything about sending anyone in armed only with 9mm's to face off with the threat...That is your strawman, and I won't participate in it...13 hours mak, 13 hours. That's what I want you to think about....Since when do we just let Americans fend for themselves in those situations? And if you think that it was the right thing to do then I question your own leadership as well.
 
I believe this thread was about sending 3 CIA guys. 16 to 20 well armed is far different, I see why you are trying to change the subject. Oh yea, and that was July.

Really, what confused you about that team being on Duty with all Personnel around the Consulate? Did the part about them being there thru the entire summer cause that brain fart?
 
Man, those three heroic CIA security officials who risked their own lives to walk towards the sound of gunfire and succeeded to rescuing all but two of the consulate staff before they were ordered to are going to get sooooooo audited by the IRS.
 
See, now you change the parameters...No one said anything about sending anyone in armed only with 9mm's to face off with the threat...That is your strawman, and I won't participate in it...13 hours mak, 13 hours. That's what I want you to think about....Since when do we just let Americans fend for themselves in those situations? And if you think that it was the right thing to do then I question your own leadership as well.
[emphasis added by bubba]

then what equipment would those three men have had to have possessed for you to have sent them to confront so many
your dithering on the aspect of their equipment causes me to believe you are re-thinking your willingness to send three under-armed men against so many well armed opponents
 
See, now you change the parameters...No one said anything about sending anyone in armed only with 9mm's to face off with the threat...That is your strawman, and I won't participate in it...13 hours mak, 13 hours. That's what I want you to think about....Since when do we just let Americans fend for themselves in those situations? And if you think that it was the right thing to do then I question your own leadership as well.

Yeah, and now he is wants to deflect that people weren't talking about Security. He also fails to mention that the CIA Ops had been storing Gadhafi's weapons from his warehouses. Which Clinton stated her Dept was tasked with accumulating the ManPads. So its a false argument that they would have just went with Pistols.
 
Only if they could critize Obama for it. Shameless.
[emphasis added by bubba]

then what equipment would those three men have had to have possessed for you to have sent them to confront so many
your dithering on the aspect of their equipment causes me to believe you are re-thinking your willingness to send three under-armed men against so many well armed opponents
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

then what equipment would those three men have had to have possessed for you to have sent them to confront so many
your dithering on the aspect of their equipment causes me to believe you are re-thinking your willingness to send three under-armed men against so many well armed opponents


Heya JB. :2wave: That would be any equipment they were acquiring from Gadhafi. Or did you want to say that's not what one of things that they were doing?
 
Only if they could critize Obama for it. Shameless.

Does BO Peeps team represent BO peep? Yeah that's what I thought! Does that help clue you in?
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

then what equipment would those three men have had to have possessed for you to have sent them to confront so many
your dithering on the aspect of their equipment causes me to believe you are re-thinking your willingness to send three under-armed men against so many well armed opponents

It wasn't up to me to decide what to send, or how many to send, or what to do....That responsibility laid with Obama, and Hillary...So, should I mark you down as well on the side of doing nothing?
 
Heya JB. :2wave: That would be any equipment they were acquiring from Gadhafi. Or did you want to say that's not what one of things that they were doing?

that's not an issue
at least not within my post
if 9mm handguns were inadequate armament with which to send three against many, i wanted to know what armament complement would have been found acceptable to then send the three into combat against the islamic fighters
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

I believe that Stevens was there to meet the Turk ambassador to finalize a deal to send arms through Turkish ports into Syria....So in the end Obama was making a deal with the ISIS devil and got burned, and now is afraid to engage them....He's a huge *****.

Oh, I thought you meant why were we there in the first place. Militarily.
 
I believe this thread was about sending 3 CIA guys. 16 to 20 well armed is far different, I see why you are trying to change the subject. Oh yea, and that was July.

The topic is a criticism of the govts attempts to mislead us on what happened. Someone in govt needs to be held accountable for their handling of the situtation.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

As I noted in my post that you responded to (quoted above), I did not dispute the veracity of Steven's diary entry about security concerns, which -- in case you misunderstood -- means that I did not dispute that there could be a lack of security.

So I'm puzzled why you chose to repeat that lack-of-security point instead of addressing the counterpoint that I also noted in my post about Steven's refusing additional security. What do you think about that refusal? Since the blame game seems to be in play here by the right, wouldn't it seem that he put his own life at risk?
That's Right you didn't.....you just went with whatever was written by Stevens and thinking that explains it all and the Right is just making it seem like Team BO was totally incompetent. That they caused BO peep and his people to screw up, relax security, and then helped to cover it all up. They told Hillary to not check back on her people to see if they got alive too.....huh? They caused her to lose control of her own behavior and actions.....Right? Because of the RSO and his request that went back to 2011. Which was before Stevens Diary pointed out the when he said he didn't need any extra security. Also note Stevens Diary didn't say anything about Security when the Embassy was in the Hotel. Why is that? What happened......Stevens can always say how much Security he needs and that's what they go with, Right? Did you want to try and fall back on that Counter? Why is Stevens saying nothing about Security even though they weren't in an Official Facility and were working out of Public Hotel? What happened.....where is the counter? Why is the left can't figure that **** out about the Normal Precautions. Why is it they are still looking for excuses even when it is clear their people ****ed up.

Oh and you thought Stevens didn't request Security. Which was false.

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape..... In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya. Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September." On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.....snip~ Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News

What happened? Whats going on?.....why is Stevens requesting Security that he thought he didn't need? Just why is Stevens doing so 3 times Right before the Attack? Why isn't the Left able to debunk what Stevens did that is documented? What.....the left just can't make **** up on the fly as they go? Like they usually do.
Why didn't you answer the question?

I find your post mostly incoherent (not to mention totally off topic in relation to my question), but this one part did stand out:

Oh and you thought Stevens didn't request Security. Which was false
First, I didn't think that; second, how do you know what I think, and third, why would you post something that wasn't true? :screwy

But I think we all know that since you've dodged the original question twice now, that no answer will be forthcoming on this one either. In any case, since you are having some success in deflecting away from that original question I'll repost it for all to review:

[...]
CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC
 
It wasn't up to me to decide what to send, or how many to send, or what to do....That responsibility laid with Obama, and Hillary...So, should I mark you down as well on the side of doing nothing?

so, you are now unable to say that it was appropriate to send those three into combat against the islamic fighters
that you can no longer find basis to criticize that failure to send them into combat
good on you for being willing to publically change your opinion
 
that's not an issue
at least not within my post
if 9mm handguns were inadequate armament with which to send three against many, i wanted to know what armament complement would have been found acceptable to then send the three into combat against the islamic fighters


Do you think any AK's they acquired would do the trick? What about anything with a grenade launcher?
 
so, you are now unable to say that it was appropriate to send those three into combat against the islamic fighters
that you can no longer find basis to criticize that failure to send them into combat
good on you for being willing to publically change your opinion

Dishonest arguments are all you have?
 
John Wayne wouldda'.
that's not an issue
at least not within my post
if 9mm handguns were inadequate armament with which to send three against many, i wanted to know what armament complement would have been found acceptable to then send the three into combat against the islamic fighters
 
Dishonest arguments are all you have?

you insisted the three should have been sent into combat against the islamist fighters
until you didn't, but delegated that decision to the president and his appointees
make up your mind
 
you insisted the three should have been sent into combat against the islamist fighters
until you didn't, but delegated that decision to the president and his appointees
make up your mind

Nope, you're wrong yet again....3 people was mak's assertion...Maybe you should go back and read again.
 
"the three were security operators at the secret CIA annex"

What have you changed it to now?

Nope, you're wrong yet again....3 people was mak's assertion...Maybe you should go back and read again.
 
"the three were security operators at the secret CIA annex"

What have you changed it to now?

Just keep projecting that you would let fellow American's die...It highlights what a brave soul libs have....
 
Back
Top Bottom