Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

Your glaring fact is plain wrong. Maybe you've heard of Glen Doherty? He was part of a team of American reinforcements who came from Tripoli. Maybe you didn't know that dozens of the attackers were killed by the team that was there all along.

That was a team that was contacted directly by the deceased embassador. The rest were ordered to stand down. I suggest you get your facts together. I watched these hearings and I know the testimony. There was insufficient security at the embassy and more security requested by the embassador was denied. My facts are correct. Try again.
 
(edited)

Assets ready to go were told to stand down, FACT.
Bullshit.

The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes of its coming under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been acknowledged publicly, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving American personnel to safety, U.S. officials said.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...3460_1_libya-attack-benghazi-terrorist-attack
 
It is a great feat to have your head up your ass. Nothing I said is conjecture. I watched the hearings. No rescue was sent, period. This is an inescapable fact. Requests for more security were denied, FACT. Assets ready to go were told to stand down, FACT.

Obama's taking responsibility are mere words because who was punished or sanctioned due to this? Oh yes the whistleblower who testified that he received a direct order to have assets stand down was reassigned which amounted to a demotion. What happened to the Obama cronies who gave the orders or failed to give requested security? Nothing. Words are meaningless without appropriate actions and repercussions to those who screwed the pooch.

By the way how old are you? Save your immaturity for somebody who wont put you on ignore. You want to discuss and have debate with differing opinion I'm cool with that but start resorting to that childish derp silliness and I will treat you like the infantile person you wish to exhibit and place you ignore.

Wiki as your source and rebuttal? Really? Please. :rolleyes:

My goodness, what an easily excited derpette you are!

You can claim something is a "FACT" all you want, but unless you're willing to back your claim up with verifiable sources (which, I would point out, you have yet to do), we'll just be content to point and laugh at you.

You seem to want to froth at the mouth about vaguely undefined conspiracy theories. You'll fit in well here, many folks here that share your political bias do the same.

I notice you didn't list the name of your "whistleblower"...were you referring to General Carter Ham? You might recall he saw no benefit to scrambling jets to fight some elusive terrorists on the street.

If you have some sources to back up your conjecture, by all means share them with the class. I chose to use wikipedia to demonstrate the fallacies in your raving, because they tend to use short, simple sentences that generally don't confuse folks with limited ability to comprehend issues such as yourself.

I look forward to your spluttering, incoherent response.
 
My goodness, what an easily excited derpette you are!

You can claim something is a "FACT" all you want, but unless you're willing to back your claim up with verifiable sources (which, I would point out, you have yet to do), we'll just be content to point and laugh at you.

You seem to want to froth at the mouth about vaguely undefined conspiracy theories. You'll fit in well here, many folks here that share your political bias do the same.

I notice you didn't list the name of your "whistleblower"...were you referring to General Carter Ham? You might recall he saw no benefit to scrambling jets to fight some elusive terrorists on the street.

If you have some sources to back up your conjecture, by all means share them with the class. I chose to use wikipedia to demonstrate the fallacies in your raving, because they tend to use short, simple sentences that generally don't confuse folks with limited ability to comprehend issues such as yourself.

I look forward to your spluttering, incoherent response.

How many do you want? I assume you have the where with all to look up the rest of the hearings yourself or even locate the stenographers copy of the hearings. It is all there. However, you seem to be blind to the truth. Good lord dude you don't even know who the whistleblower is. Please do me a favor and actually watch the hearings instead of referencing material highly reflective of individual agendas. Make an informed opinion on factual testimony and not the spin either political party chooses to throw out to the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwPITnmHmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxaePqbmPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fielcGbaBY4
 
How many do you want? I assume you have the where with all to look up the rest of the hearings yourself or even locate the stenographers copy of the hearings. It is all there. However, you seem to be blind to the truth. Good lord dude you don't even know who the whistleblower is. Please do me a favor and actually watch the hearings instead of referencing material highly reflective of individual agendas. Make an informed opinion on factual testimony and not the spin either political party chooses to throw out to the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwPITnmHmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxaePqbmPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fielcGbaBY4

I noticed you didn't list then name of the purported whistleblower yourself, despite having two opportunities to do so. This shows us that your knowledge of the attacks is as superficial and glib as your writing.

Posting random highly edited YouTube videos of Darrell Issa posturing before the cameras does nothing to strengthen your case.

The whole Benghazi nontroversy seems to be an exercise in Monday morning quarterbacking, specifically why combat jet fighters weren't scrambled to repel the evildoers. (I think even a partisan hack such as yourself will admit that the token ground defense forces responded in a timely manner).

Since I'd bet a year's salary that you have no clue whatsoever about the capabilities of fighter jets, I'll refer you to the film Forrest Gump for a basic primer on exactly what happens. Since I know you likely have a short attention span, fast forward to the 50 minute mark. You'll see Lieutenant Dan calling in a fighter jet strike on his own position. This is virtual suicide.

Cooler heads, those with combat experience, knew that calling in jet strikes on a residential area would likely accomplish three things: A) kill the evildoers, B) kill the remaining staff and C) kill any bystanders in the surrounding buildings. The decision was made not to send fighter jets, and I think it was a prudent one. People like you, however, seem to see conspiracy at every turn.

As a side note, I pointed out earlier that your claim that President Obama "never accepted responsibility for Benghazi" was not supported by facts, in fact the exact opposite was true.

Until such time that you apologize for your falsehood, you will be "Derp Me Gently" going forth.
 
I noticed you didn't list then name of the purported whistleblower yourself, despite having two opportunities to do so. This shows us that your knowledge of the attacks is as superficial and glib as your writing.

Posting random highly edited YouTube videos of Darrell Issa posturing before the cameras does nothing to strengthen your case.

The whole Benghazi nontroversy seems to be an exercise in Monday morning quarterbacking, specifically why combat jet fighters weren't scrambled to repel the evildoers. (I think even a partisan hack such as yourself will admit that the token ground defense forces responded in a timely manner).

Since I'd bet a year's salary that you have no clue whatsoever about the capabilities of fighter jets, I'll refer you to the film Forrest Gump for a basic primer on exactly what happens. Since I know you likely have a short attention span, fast forward to the 50 minute mark. You'll see Lieutenant Dan calling in a fighter jet strike on his own position. This is virtual suicide.

Cooler heads, those with combat experience, knew that calling in jet strikes on a residential area would likely accomplish three things: A) kill the evildoers, B) kill the remaining staff and C) kill any bystanders in the surrounding buildings. The decision was made not to send fighter jets, and I think it was a prudent one. People like you, however, seem to see conspiracy at every turn.

As a side note, I pointed out earlier that your claim that President Obama "never accepted responsibility for Benghazi" was not supported by facts, in fact the exact opposite was true.

Until such time that you apologize for your falsehood, you will be "Derp Me Gently" going forth.

You sir are an idiot who refuses to acknowledge facts even after they are presented to you upon request so there is no point in having further discussion. I must say you do look cute with your head up your ass.
 
You sir are an idiot who refuses to acknowledge facts even after they are presented to you upon request so there is no point in having further discussion. I must say you do look cute with your head up your ass.
You are an idiot who thinks that hearsay evidence is "facts".
 
You are an idiot who thinks that hearsay evidence is "facts".

The derpette appears to define "facts" as "stuff she really Really REALLY wants to be true".

It's sorta cute how she expects others to do the research to support HER position. I seriously doubt she's ever set foot in a college classroom. An accredited college, in any event.

We haven't had a "True Believer" around here in months, since Garbage Can disappeared.
 
Hearsay?

Direct testimony from a person involved is not hearsay.
Hicks said that he didn't hear any order to stand down, and he didn't know who would have given such an order. He suggests asking Col. Gibson about it, so they did.

Reports of a military stand-down order have circulated almost since the night of the attacks, which unfolded in two stages over several hours at two locations — the U.S. diplomatic post and a nearby CIA building, where survivors of the first assault took shelter.
Such reports increased earlier this year after congressional testimony from Stevens‘ deputy, Greg Hicks, who said that a site security team at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had been ordered to stand down — that is, not to go to Benghazi and battle terrorists or rescue U.S. personnel. Mr. Hicks noted that the site security team leader, Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, expressed frustration over being ordered to stand down.
But Col. Gibson said Wednesday that no stand-down order was given, according to the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. The subcommittee held a classified briefing with Col. Gibson; retired Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, former commander of U.S. Africa Command; and Navy Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.
“Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to ‘stand down’ by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi,” the subcommittee said in a rare statement about a closed-door briefing.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz2bttQ82mE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
So one of these two is telling a fib. Would it be the one who heard about it or the one who was actually involved?

Well, if direct testimony from a person involved isn't hearsay, I'd have to go with Col. Gibson's version as the real deal. Is that OK with you?
 
Hicks said that he didn't hear any order to stand down, and he didn't know who would have given such an order. He suggests asking Col. Gibson about it, so they did.

So one of these two is telling a fib. Would it be the one who heard about it or the one who was actually involved?

Well, if direct testimony from a person involved isn't hearsay, I'd have to go with Col. Gibson's version as the real deal. Is that OK with you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GtjDvhtVmI
 
Good ole Sean Hannity and his selective editing!

Tells you EXACTLY what you want to hear!

Derp!

I don't mind opposing views but I warned you. Plus you allied yourself with a race baiter which further degenerates any credibility you may have so welcome to ignore little boy.

Derp that childish boy.
 
Hey Vette, Since you brought it back up, let's talk about the 13 Embassy attacks under Bush's watch.......

But we all know you won't because your hypocrite ass doesn't have the fucking balls and everyone knows it.

Jan. 22, 2002
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Attack Indian U.S. Consulate
5 killed and 16 injured


June 14, 2002
Suicide Car-Bomb of U.S. Consulate in Karachi
12 Killed


Oct. 12, 2002
Bombing of U.S. Consulate
7 American Killed, 202 total deaths


Feb. 28, 2003
U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked For the Second Time in One Year
2 Killed


May 12, 2003
Terrorists Storm U.S. Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
9 American Killed, 36 total deaths


July 30, 2004
Islamist Attacks U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
2 Killed


Dec. 6, 2004
U.S. consulate attack in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
9 Killed


March 2, 2006
Third Attack on Karachi U.S. Consulate
1 Killed


Sept. 12, 2006
Four Gunmen Stormed the U.S. compound in Damascus, Syria
4 Killed, 13 Injured


Jan. 12, 2007
Terrorists Fired a Rocket-Propelled Grenade at the U.S. Embassy
Building was empty at time of attack, 0 Killed


March 18, 2008
A Mortar is Fired at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
19 Killed, 16 Injured


July 9, 2008
Gunman Fired on the U.S. Consulate Istanbul, Turkey
3 Killed


Sept. 17, 2008
Orchestrated Attack on the U.S. Embassy Sana’a, Yemen
2 American Killed, 16 total deaths





.
 
lilsarah91 embassy attacks can happen under anybodies administration. I do not blame Obama for the Benghazi attack. I suspect that nothing could have prevented it. My issue is why the request for more security was denied.

What I find funny is that those arguing with me deny the accusations yet Obama allegedly takes full responsibility. If the accusations are false exactly what is he taking responsibility for?

I am far from being a conspiracy type but honestly there seems to be many inaccuracies in this story. I'm not siding with the GOP as I think they are a bunch of donkeys but something is amiss.
 
lilsarah91 embassy attacks can happen under anybodies administration. I do not blame Obama for the Benghazi attack. I suspect that nothing could have prevented it. My issue is why the request for more security was denied.

What I find funny is that those arguing with me deny the accusations yet Obama allegedly takes full responsibility. If the accusations are false exactly what is he taking responsibility for?

I am far from being a conspiracy type but honestly there seems to be many inaccuracies in this story. I'm not siding with the GOP as I think they are a bunch of donkeys but something is amiss.

The Ambassador could simply have left. The security was denied because it wasn't in the budget.
 
lilsarah91 embassy attacks can happen under anybodies administration. I do not blame Obama for the Benghazi attack. I suspect that nothing could have prevented it. My issue is why the request for more security was denied.

What I find funny is that those arguing with me deny the accusations yet Obama allegedly takes full responsibility. If the accusations are false exactly what is he taking responsibility for?

I am far from being a conspiracy type but honestly there seems to be many inaccuracies in this story. I'm not siding with the GOP as I think they are a bunch of donkeys but something is amiss.

So close!
 
My issue is why the request for more security was denied.

You might want to ask the Republican Controlled Congress why the request for more security was denied.



If the accusations are false exactly what is he taking responsibility for?
Because he is the President of the United States, whether you like it or not. Just like the Captian of a US Navy ship is responsible for everyone under his command, the President is responsible for everyone under his, even if what happened is out of his control.



Next time, get some facts and know what you're talking about before you make a comment.


K-Thanx Bye
 
Back
Top