RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (6/17/2014 11:53:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion
No knowledge? We had unarmed drones (another dumb decision with the known danger from prior attacks and 9/11 comming up) They were watching the attack in real time. What more advantage than having a drone transmitting in real time, can you expect in a wartime situation?


Its one thing to look at the terrain from 36,000 feet. Its quite another thing to be the boots on the ground. You might know the location of buildings and landmarks in either case. Unfortunately looking at a battlefield from an image, and charging up/across said battlefield, while under all sorts of fire, are two very different things.

The SEALs knew ahead of time the 'lay of the land' from the individual level, not some drone's recon shots. Those going into Benghazi would not have that advantage; more so their enemies...DID...have the lay of the land. Maybe the military and/or administration did not want another 'Somalia Blackhawk Down'. They got blamed for that one; so it would make sense they 'pass the buck' to the administration to make the final decision.

Tough decision....but that's the sort of decisions the President of the United States of America was hired to do. Its one thing to play 'Armchair General' when you have the luxury of facts, details, and all the knowledge from a historical point of time. Its very different when you have to make a decision, and you don't have the luxury of time and details. The SEAL mission to take down Osama bin Laden could have gone 'south' in any number of ways...including....war with Pakistan! The SEALs were raiding a house less then a few thousand feet from a Pakistan army base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion
And when I quoted the Lt Colonel saying "even if you think you don't have a chance in hell, you try!" every present ad prior serviceman here knows what that means. Not the vidio player kids!


Yeah, because there are plenty of examples of officers and enlisted disobeying orders is US Military History, rushing head long into the fray, only to realize a bit to late, what a dumb idea that was. And the number of causalities that result afterward are often....staggering. When officers start viewing their troops as mere numbers rather than professional soldiers, it becomes easier to throw their lives away. Isn't that the ugly truth learned from Vietnam? Where do you think the phrase "Choose Your Battles" originates?



The phrase chose you battles carefully was around long before Vietnam.




TheHeretic -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (6/17/2014 6:23:36 PM)

I see in the news feeds that a film critic has been arrested and is being brought here for trial.

I wonder if his lawyers will call Susan Rice to testify on his behalf?




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (6/18/2014 6:26:47 AM)

And nutsackers are looking like moronic dildos. Not at all unusual. I just cannot wait to see the campaign jingos coming out of the nutsacker hallucinations this fall......lets go back to birth certificates, that hasn't been finalized yet, has it?

How about Obamacare repeal, or voter id? LOLOLOL.




Phydeaux1 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/8/2015 6:14:36 PM)

So news flash just in, just as I said here more than 18 months ago. (check around page 6 of this thread).

Judicial watch finally got DOD emails via subpoena confirming there were troops on station, and they spun up waiting to go. And they would have arrived in time to prevent Dougherty and Woods death.
And there is strong suspicion - although confirmation is forthcoming, that Hams was relieved of command for refusing the stand down order.

I don't seem to be able to post a copy here. But you can google it fairly readily. And you leftist apologists were once again, just flat out wrong.





mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 12:31:20 PM)

Uh, it was asswipe then and its asswipe now. I saw the redacted email stamped 9/11/2015 7:10P which would be 9/12/2015 02:10A Benghazi time and one of the redactions is the equipment list. and the Ops plan.

Yet, in at least 2 or 3 of the Benghazi inquisitions, the Joint Chiefs have said there was no way to get useful force there in time.

So, #EpicFail




bounty44 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 1:52:52 PM)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/




Aylee -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:00:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/


Don't forget that the families of the dead are saying Hillary lied to them.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:07:06 PM)

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.




bounty44 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:09:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/


Don't forget that the families of the dead are saying Hillary lied to them.


given that, whats shocking to me is that Hillary Clinton is even willing to show her face in public...




Lucylastic -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:10:03 PM)

Media matters responds with.......


Fox News is claiming that a Defense Department email highlighting "forces that could move to Benghazi" that were "spinning up" on the night of the September 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities contradicts then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's testimony that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response." But during the same testimony, Panetta explained that forces had been deployed that night.

Fox Claims Defense Email On "Forces That Could Move To Benghazi" Contradicts Panetta Testimony

FoxNews.com: "Email Shows Pentagon Was Ready To Roll As Benghazi Attack Occurred." In a December 8 article, FoxNews.com claimed that a new email obtained by Judicial Watch allegedly showed "that the Pentagon was ready to send military assets" to Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but the approval for deploying those assets never came from the State Department, which Fox claims contradicts testimony from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's in 2013:

As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

[...]

The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.

Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty. [FoxNews.com, 12/8/15]

Fox Is Parroting The Conclusions Of Right-Wing Organization Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch released the email earlier on December 8 and likewise claimed that it contradicted Panetta's testimony:

Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering "forces that could move to Benghazi" during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, "we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak." The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of "deliberative process" information.

Bash's email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration's lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response." [Judicial Watch, 12/8/15]

But During Same Testimony, Panetta Pointed To Forces That Had Been Deployed That Night

Panetta: Several Units Ordered To Prepare To Deploy To Libya In Response To Attack But Did Not Arrive In Time. During the same February 2013 hearing in which he stated that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response" to the Benghazi attacks, Panetta said that he had immediately ordered DOD assets to respond:

In the months since the tragedy at the temporary mission facility and the nearby annex in Benghazi, we've learned that there were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart. And again, there was no specific intelligence that indicated that a second attack would occur at the annex, which was located some two miles away.

The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received, we did, we accomplished. But again, four Americans' lives were lost, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen again.

[...]

Soon after the initial reports about the attack in Benghazi were received, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama, and he ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It's important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana'a and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.

In consultation with General Dempsey and AFRICOM commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions. First, we ordered a Marine fleet anti-terrorism secure team, a FAST team, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi. A second FAST platoon was ordered to prepare to deploy to the embassy in Tripoli. A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, was ordered to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe, Sigonella, and a special operations force based in the United States was ordered to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe as well at Sigonella. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]

During Testimony, Panetta Also Described How A "Tripoli-Based Security Team" Was Deployed And Arrived Before End Of Attacks. Later in the same testimony, Panetta explained:

The quickest response option available was a Tripoli-based security team that was located at the embassy in Tripoli. And to their credit, within hours, this six-man team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane, deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket-propelled grenades.

Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi. [Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/7/13, via Nexis, emphasis added]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353




lovmuffin -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:24:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 2:31:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
Given that, whats shocking to me is that Hillary Clinton is even willing to show her face in public...



Oh, look at all the nutsuckers who do though, after W and Iraq, after being proven to be politically assassinating by their own party in the house, the nutsuckers who voted against veterans bills and then go get their picture taken with them. Reagan after he twice got his ass kicked in Beirut, and turned tail and ran like a coward.

All those nutsuckers prance about like their shit dont stink but their farts give them away constantly.

Hell, look at the idiot nutsuckers out here saying stupid shit day in and day out and pretending that they are more than fucking clowns and cretins.




bounty44 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/9/2015 3:46:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.


haven't read this yet, but oh the title seems soooooooo Hillary:

"Hillary now denies blaming video to Benghazi victims' families"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/hillary_now_denies_blaming_video_to_benghazi_victims_families.html

just took a peek---I think when you look in the dictionary under "despicable" there is a photo of Hillary Clinton.




MrRodgers -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 3:30:42 AM)

Look, as I've been saying, say what you want about Clinton and all of the rest but after 8 years of that blowhard, arrogant, asshole otherwise known as W, who has so lowered the bar for what passes as competence, (several impeachable offenses for which not a peep out of the right) any pres. (or cabinet officer) can do anything without breaking a sweat and thus render this whole ridiculous post...meaningless on its face.




bounty44 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 5:41:20 AM)

differing opinions aside for a moment on George w. bush, bad behavior on one side doesn't excuse bad behavior on another.

the irony there is, you appear to be doing the same thing with hillary you are trying to accuse conservatives of concerning bush, that is, letting him off the hook just because he's on our side. that's ludicrous to begin with, and cynically insulting to all the conservatives who are quite capable of rising above partisanship when matters of law and morality are at stake.

that said, Hillary's lying, at least in this instance, is an observable phenomena, not an opinion of her personality, such as you attributed to bush (blowhard, arrogant, etc). what you call blowhard, and arrogant, other people will call confident and tough.

differing opinions back on the table in terms of impeachment. sorry, being that the democrats held control of congress for at least a portion of w's presidency, im going to guess their judgment of an "impeachable offense", not to mention "several" of them, is better than yours, or the rest of the bush haters. and that is especially so given all the very strident anti bush sentiment that was around.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 6:48:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.


haven't read this yet, but oh the title seems soooooooo Hillary:

"Hillary now denies blaming video to Benghazi victims' families"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/hillary_now_denies_blaming_video_to_benghazi_victims_families.html

just took a peek---I think when you look in the dictionary under "despicable" there is a photo of Hillary Clinton.



But she didn't. You have no credible citation that she did. The record is clear.

Although you can see Russia from your house, and the Palin whore can just say no, and republicans said, fuck those veterans, let them die in the gutter, and that record is clear.




lovmuffin -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 7:38:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.


haven't read this yet, but oh the title seems soooooooo Hillary:

"Hillary now denies blaming video to Benghazi victims' families"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/hillary_now_denies_blaming_video_to_benghazi_victims_families.html

just took a peek---I think when you look in the dictionary under "despicable" there is a photo of Hillary Clinton.



But she didn't. You have no credible citation that she did. The record is clear.

Although you can see Russia from your house, and the Palin whore can just say no, and republicans said, fuck those veterans, let them die in the gutter, and that record is clear.


Yeah I guess the grieving family members of those killed in Benghazi aren't credible. All Hillary needs to do is use all the lefty talking points. Trump-Nazi Palin-whore....."what difference at this point does it make" should be a great campaign add for some one.




lovmuffin -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 7:46:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.


haven't read this yet, but oh the title seems soooooooo Hillary:

"Hillary now denies blaming video to Benghazi victims' families"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/hillary_now_denies_blaming_video_to_benghazi_victims_families.html

just took a peek---I think when you look in the dictionary under "despicable" there is a photo of Hillary Clinton.



Oh no bounty, it couldn't be. It doesn't make Hillary look good so these people can't possibly have any credibility [8D]




bounty44 -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 9:15:20 AM)

yes, but despite comrade vulgar critter parts ineffectual protestations to the contrary, I believe the families...and to that point:

and so while im here, speaking to him---despite your calling the families liars (they must all be republicans right?? or they all conspired to tell the same story too right?) lets assume for a moment its not about their credibility. lets leave what they say she said out of the picture:

Hillary herself said as much, on national television, in the ceremony with the flag drapped coffins behind her.

(and relatives were present at the ceremony)

how is it possible that practically every one else in the country either saw that, or knows about it, except you? what more credible source exists? or do you suppose some sort of incredibly lame position like, "she told the whole country it was the video, but in private, she actually didn't tell the families that?"

that said---sorry, the average person cannot follow the whacked gyrations in your mind and understand your other ramblings, or where the references to sarah palin came from. not to mention "seeing Russia from my house" is not even rightly attributable to her.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (12/10/2015 9:42:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have seen no credible citations that the families said she lied, other than they felt she did when she said she was going to get the people responsible for it.


She lied when she told the families that the attack was instigated by a video.


haven't read this yet, but oh the title seems soooooooo Hillary:

"Hillary now denies blaming video to Benghazi victims' families"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/hillary_now_denies_blaming_video_to_benghazi_victims_families.html

just took a peek---I think when you look in the dictionary under "despicable" there is a photo of Hillary Clinton.



But she didn't. You have no credible citation that she did. The record is clear.

Although you can see Russia from your house, and the Palin whore can just say no, and republicans said, fuck those veterans, let them die in the gutter, and that record is clear.


Yeah I guess the grieving family members of those killed in Benghazi aren't credible. All Hillary needs to do is use all the lefty talking points. Trump-Nazi Palin-whore....."what difference at this point does it make" should be a great campaign add for some one.



Or maybe I am a stupid nutsucker and pray to god to return us to the christian nation we were founded on.....LOL.

So, where is the credible citation of the grieving family members that have the inside scoop on Benghazi and point the wicked and malevolent finger at her?

We await such nutsuckerism.





Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125