Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 23)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You're presuming a motive, and using that presumed motive to argue for intent. That's rather odd.

They had a motive. And its the only motive that would explain a rush to report a cause without proof - as opposed to the typical government response. It doesn't hurt that the e-mails establish the motive as well.

If you want to continue to walk around and pretend that people can't make a reasonable judgment based on what we see go ahead.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They had a motive. And its the only motive that would explain...
I would like to suggest that any time you find yourself saying something like "it's the only possible explanation," and that explanation is one that just happens to conform to your pre-existing biases, you should take a step back and review the actual known facts without layering your emotional presuppositions on them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. I've had enough steps forward and backward on this to see that the other explanations have failed to explain it. On the standard your putting forward, Sherlock Holmes would never have solved any cases, because he wouldn't have been able to move on what was left after the other explanations fell away.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've had enough steps forward and backward on this to see that the other explanations have failed to explain it.
When exactly have you considered another point of view on this one?

quote:
On the standard your putting forward, Sherlock Holmes would never have solved any cases...
Hardly. The obvious explanation here -- that some lines got crossed but no one was actively malicious or even manipulative, except possibly the CIA -- is also the correct one. Seems to me that that makes cases easier to solve, not impossible. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Except of course that's a lie Obama and Clinton told, it was never the simplest answer because the NSA told Obama the truth while the attack was happening.

The information from the NSA did not contradict anything Obamaor Clinton said. It didn't move well with what Rice said, but she was operating in what the CIA wanted to be said about it at the timeand perhaps honestly confusing Cairo and the other demonstrations about the video that had been happening around the same time with it.
You're kidding right? Is there any reason to believe Rice did not know what Clinton and Obama knew? Absurd. Even if she didn't then her own boss knew he was sending her out to lie on TV.

The NSA Intel absolutely DID confirm that the attack was not motivated by a video, it was planned before that and by an organized group rather than an outraged group of local citizens.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're kidding right? Is there any reason to believe Rice did not know what Clinton and Obama knew?
Several reasons. I seriously doubt that Rice was at any of the briefings that Clinton or Obama received.

quote:
Even if she didn't then her own boss knew he was sending her out to lie on TV.
From what we know, it's more reasonable to assume he was sending her out to provide one of several available theories.

Frankly, I think conservatives got their panties in a wad about this because the preferred theory suggested that maybe insulting a religion and releasing a horribly racist movie to provoke an entire culture might not be the best way to deal with that culture.

quote:
The NSA Intel absolutely DID confirm that the attack was not motivated by a video...
What, in your opinion, are the chances that the NSA's preliminary reports can be wrong? Because it seems to me that when you're feeding the media beast by sending out a flunky to tell people your best guess about what happened, and you've got a choice between a handful of competing theories, it would be helpful to know that the NSA is always, no matter what, right in every single one of its particulars. Because then you could just tell people what they said, every time, and never have to make a judgment call at all.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The NSA Intel absolutely DID confirm that the attack was not motivated by a video, it was planned before that and by an organized group rather than an outraged group of local citizens.
The NSA did not confirm anything about the _motivation_ for the attack. It only revealed that the people attacking were well coordinated, and had very likely planned how they would make such an attack. None of that says why they launched the attack when they did. All the NSA tells us is that it was not a riot, as seems to have happened in Cairo just before the attack. The fact that there was some degree of planning and coordination does not preclude ander over the video as being part of the motivation to launch when they did, especially as we also have intelligence that shows that they were pretty clearly discussing their anger about it just before the attack, which is what the CIA was basing its initial evaluation of the situation (and the talking points that it correspondingly released) on.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The NSA Intel absolutely DID confirm that the attack was not motivated by a video, it was planned before that and by an organized group rather than an outraged group of local citizens.
The NSA did not confirm anything about the _motivation_ for the attack. It only revealed that the people attacking were well coordinated, and had very likely planned how they would make such an attack. None of that says why they launched the attack when they did. All the NSA tells us is that it was not a riot, as seems to have happened in Cairo just before the attack. The fact that there was some degree of planning and coordination does not preclude ander over the video as being part of the motivation to launch when they did, especially as we also have intelligence that shows that they were pretty clearly discussing their anger about it just before the attack, which is what the CIA was basing its initial evaluation of the situation (and the talking points that it correspondingly released) on.
If only we had captured someone involved in the attacks and then they could shed some light on the motivations behind the attack.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Lol. I've had enough steps forward and backward on this to see that the other explanations have failed to explain it. On the standard your putting forward, Sherlock Holmes would never have solved any cases, because he wouldn't have been able to move on what was left after the other explanations fell away.

The relevant Holmes quote is "Eliminate the impossible, then whatever you have left, no matter however improbable, is the truth"

That does not, however, suggest that you should jump out to improbably solutions when simple and more probable solutions cannot be eliminated as impossible.

The CIA had two pretty clear motivations to get the administration to present the issue as a disorganized act of terrorism instead of a coordinated attack/assassination- both to cover up its arms dealing operation and to keep the media from being used as a tool by the organizers of the attack to clue them into just how much the NSA and CIA might know.

Right there you have enough to explain everything that came after, without adding sophomoric complexity to the issue- requiring people to very cleverly do stupid, self-destructive things such as tricking people into thinking that it was just terrorism rather than being a terrorist attack because they think there's more political advantage in confusing people about the issue than using a directed attack as a rallying cry to get people to line up behind them in support of impressive looking knee-jerk reactions to the situation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that the NSA didn't get stopped by the CIA from telling Obama that it WASN'T a disorganized, spontaneous attack...

So in your best case scenario Obama is complicit in the CIA's lie, worst case scenario it was his or Hillary's idea to begin with.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So in your best case scenario Obama is complicit in the CIA's lie...
Or didn't know how much to trust the NSA's assessment, of course.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which was based on first-hand wiretaps of the terrorists who were COMMITTING the act...

I could see how the NSA's wiretap might not be as believable as some CIA analyst in a basement somewhere pulling theories out of his butt. Sure... [Roll Eyes]

I don't think that Obama is even THAT dumb...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Except that the NSA didn't get stopped by the CIA from telling Obama that it WASN'T a disorganized, spontaneous attack...

Which has nothing to do with whether or not they chose to launch it when they did in reaction to the video, particularly since the riot in Cairo and many similar protests were diverting attention away from them at the time.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What it does mean is that it wasn't a random attack coming from a group of protesters who happened to turn violent. And Obama knew that right away but lied anyway.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
What it does mean is that it wasn't a random attack coming from a group of protesters who happened to turn violent. And Obama knew that right away but lied anyway.

Rice is not Obama. Rice is the one who, based on the CIA talking points advanced the idea that it was a riot similar to what happened in Cairo. By the time Obama spoke on the matter (on both events and the other demonstrations that were happening along with them) that misconception was pretty well cleared up.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Rice is the patsy carefully prepped and put forward because she didn't know she was telling lies. Plausible deniability, the exact reason no one actually in the know was offered up for the circuit.

So still more hemming and hawing and we're still left with an immediate sell of a known (or should have known) lie, a really slow course correction notwithstanding clear knowledge and the only other "plausible" explanation being that they had to make an immediate lie to cover up a CIA operation (explain again how this actually was a necessity - lol). Thanks for playing, but you're still left with a much simpler explanation, with actual evidence it occurred, that the Administration lied to protect its political ambitions.

You know it, we know it, but keep playing the game. Reminds of that Shaggy song, "it wasn't me".

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's worth noting that Susan Rice is the National Security Adviser and was considered as a candidate for the Secretary of State. Unlike, say, Lois Lerner, she was not a low-level bureaucrat.

quote:
a really slow course correction
I don't think two weeks is all that slow. What would you have considered "average?"

-------

quote:
Thanks for playing, but you're still left with a much simpler explanation, with actual evidence it occurred, that the Administration lied to protect its political ambitions.
I suspect that the only way this sentence can be true is if you assume the administration lies so often that the logical cost of that assumption is near zero.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. Thanks for playing, but you're still left with a much simpler explanation, with actual evidence it occurred, that the Administration lied to protect its political ambitions.
Except, of course, for the fact that you have to speculate backwards on completely irrational terms to come up with any political value for doing that. Unless you already assume there was an intent to deceive and go fishing for any possible rationalization for doing so, there is no evidence to support that notion, and is completely counterintuitive on its face, since there is significant historical precedent for the political benefit for doing just the opposite and rallying people to support you against a common enemy.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's worth noting that Susan Rice is the National Security Adviser and was considered as a candidate for the Secretary of State. Unlike, say, Lois Lerner, she was not a low-level bureaucrat.

To quote TomDavidson by way of response to this point of TomDavidson's, lol:
quote:
quote:
You're kidding right? Is there any reason to believe Rice did not know what Clinton and Obama knew?
Several reasons. I seriously doubt that Rice was at any of the briefings that Clinton or Obama received.
So Rice is both and expert and not informed according to you.
quote:
quote:
a really slow course correction
I don't think two weeks is all that slow. What would you have considered "average?"
For a lie that they knew was a lie the same day? How about the next day. What do you think the average retraction should be on a lie you told for political convenience, honestly, I'd still prefer they not friggin chose to lie.
quote:
quote:
Thanks for playing, but you're still left with a much simpler explanation, with actual evidence it occurred, that the Administration lied to protect its political ambitions.
I suspect that the only way this sentence can be true is if you assume the administration lies so often that the logical cost of that assumption is near zero.
No. This sentence is the result of them getting caught in a lie this time.

However, I have no doubt that this is an adminstration that fully believes the ends justtifies the means, do you doubt that? To that effect, they will choose to lie if there analysis at the moment makes them think it will lead to a better result than the truth.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol Pyrtolin, this has been laid out multiple times in this thread, including after you charged down the wrong path and failed to acknowledge a backtrack after the e-mails came out. Go go Good Team is not a great argument.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Lol Pyrtolin, this has been laid out multiple times in this thread, including after you charged down the wrong path and failed to acknowledge a backtrack after the e-mails came out. Go go Good Team is not a great argument.

Emails about the Cairo incident and other protests similar to it, not about Benghazi.

You keep trying to assert an inane conspiracy here, without any positive proof, just speculation for your assumption that they must have been up to no good. Start from an innocent until proven guilty stance, and you have yet to show anything but speculation that they must have been up to something then rationalizations to support that assumption.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm convinced the administration is political and tried to spin their account of Benghazi.

I'm also convinced that the Republicans charging the administration with playing politics have absolutely zero high ground from which to level that charge. Their entire investment in Benghazi is political, and they have never cared about anything other than discrediting Obama, and are faking their outrage.

I'm more scandalized about how hard and long the GOP has tried to make Benghazi into a scandal than I am about the mundane and predictable fact that Obama's administration tried to portray itself in a favorable light - even though that fact reflects poorly on the character of American politics (I'm not going to agree that it's a more of a problem with the left or with Obama than with the whole rotten lot of 'em).

[ June 23, 2014, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm convinced the administration is political and tried to spin their account of Benghazi.
Of course, but that is the nature of government today. If they didn't play the political games they'd get beat up even worse, for example having the GOP claim that they had actually caught the Administration doing something wrong in each of the phony scandals they have used to disable their ability to govern.

Right here on Ornery -- yes, even right here on Ornery! -- we have members who do nothing but throw stones and spitballs in hopes of staining the Administration. Some have never engaged in any discussion that wasn't an attempt to smear or diminish them.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://gawker.com/gop-house-report-on-benghazi-concludes-there-is-no-beng-1615741728

quote:


— Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."

— "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."

— "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."


Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As much as Obama wishes this would go away, it doesn't seem to. Remember how there was supposedly no stand-down order? The administration is now casually admitting that there was one and is trying to explain it away as something else....

quote:
A U.S. security team in Benghazi was held back from immediately responding to the attack on the American diplomatic mission on orders of the top CIA officer there, three of those involved told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

Their account gives a dramatic new turn to what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an “old story” – the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Speaking out publicly for the first time, the three were security operators at the secret CIA annex in Benghazi – in effect, the first-responders to any attack on the diplomatic compound. Their first-hand account will be told in a Fox News special, airing Friday night at 10 p.m. (EDT).

Based on the new book "13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi" by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team, the special sets aside the political spin that has freighted the Benghazi issue for the last two years, presenting a vivid, compelling narrative of events from the perspective of the men who wore the “boots on the ground.”

The security contractors -- Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto, Mark (“Oz”) Geist, and John (“Tig”) Tiegen -- spoke exclusively, and at length, to Fox News about what they saw and did that night. Baier, Fox News’ Chief Political Anchor, asked them about one of the most controversial questions arising from the events in Benghazi: Was help delayed?

Word of the attack on the diplomatic compound reached the CIA annex just after 9:30 p.m. Within five minutes, the security team at the annex was geared up for battle, and ready to move to the compound, a mile away.

“Five minutes, we're ready,” said Paronto, a former Army Ranger. “It was thumbs up, thumbs up, we're ready to go.”

But the team was held back. According to the security operators, they were delayed from responding to the attack by the top CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to only as “Bob.”


“It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta-- we need to get over there, we're losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”

“We're starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we're taking fire, we need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.

After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.

Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.

“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said. Tiegen concurred.

“I strongly believe if we'd left immediately, they'd still be alive today,” he added.

In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official insisted that, “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”


Baier put that assertion directly to the operators.

“You use the words ‘stand down,’” Baier noted. “A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound…so what do you say to that?”

“No, it happened,” said Tiegen.

“It happened on the ground-- all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,” added Paronto. “To us. To myself, twice, and to-- to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand-- and stand down. We were delayed three times.”

In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official did allow that the security team was delayed from responding while the CIA’s top officer in Benghazi tried to rally local support.


In the special, Baier also asks about the infamous YouTube video that was blamed for the violence in Benghazi.

Paronto laughed at the suggestion that the video played any role in the events of that night, saying he did not even know of the video until he was out of Libya and on his way home. “I didn't know about the video ‘till I got to Germany,” he said. “(I had) no idea about any video, no. No, sir.”

The full, first-hand account of what really happened in Benghazi can be seen when Fox News airs 13 hours at Benghazi: The Inside Story Friday night 10 p.m. (EDT), Saturday at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. (EDT), and Sunday at 9 p.m. (EDT)

Oh, we ordered them to stand down while trying to gather local support... sure. Why didn't they say that the first time instead of insisting for so long that no stand-down order was EVER given?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Based on the new book "13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi" by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team, the special sets aside the political spin that has freighted the Benghazi issue for the last two years...
Yes, I am absolutely sure that a Fox News Special promoting a book by Mitchell Zuckoff sets aside the political spin. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A U.S. security team in Benghazi was held back from immediately responding to the attack on the American diplomatic mission on orders of the top CIA officer there, three of those involved told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

Their account gives a dramatic new turn to what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an “old story”...

Unfortunately (for Republicans), it is an old story.

[quote]American officials have previously acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency security team paused to try to enlist support from Libyan militia allies. But the book is the first detailed account of the extent of the delay, its consequences for the rescue attempt, and who made the decisions.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the base chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base...

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”[/url]

So, the story had all ready been told (although not in this much detail). The Administration all ready acknowledged that the CIA commandos waited before entering the fray. And the order did not come from anyone higher up than the base commander himself.

All this was known before the new book was published. It really is an "old story." [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, if you beat a dead horse it still won't hunt, but some people think you just may not be hitting it hard enough.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just in case there was any doubt, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers apparently appeared on Fox News to defend the "old story."

quote:
Rogers, whose committee found that no such “stand down” order was given, defended the station chief’s momentary hesitation and accused lawyers connected with the men and their book of lodging sensationalistic claims in order to sell more books.

“The problem is what happened was the commander on the ground, this guy they’re calling Bob, when these folks came up, they got in the vehicle and said, ‘we made a promise, we’re going,’ he said, ‘wait a minute. I need to figure out a, what’s going on and b, if I can get you any better weapons and maybe even some help to go,” Rogers explained, adding, “it was the commander on the ground making the decision. I think it took 23 minutes before they all, including that commander, by the way, got in a car and went over and rescued those individuals.”

Asked about accusations made by the commandos’ lawyer that intelligence committee sought to intimidate and dismiss the men in order to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rogers bristled.

“The lawyers asked that none of their testimony be released until after their book was out and being sold,” he said. “I think you have lawyers who have a financial interest in this certainly making allegations that are far from true.”

When a high-ranking Republican starts defending the Obama Administration, you know there's something wrong with the story. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ LR, DW, SciFi, Redskull, or VL ...

Is anyone aware of any link with a basic overview of Benghazi that isn't hopelessly cooked one way or the other?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm suprised no one has mentioned the latest "stunning new allegations in the Benghazi investigation."

Gotta stay on top of these things, guys. Fox News is depending on you to spread the word. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice attempt to spin it but lets look at a different source instead of the slimy paraphrasing from your link from known distortion outlet media matters.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/15/damage-control-ex-official-claims-clinton-allies-scrubbed-benghazi-documents-in/
quote:
The account from Raymond Maxwell, former head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), was first published in The Daily Signal. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, confirmed to FoxNews.com on Monday that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year about the attacks and their aftermath.

Chaffetz said that Maxwell claimed Clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff were overseeing the document operation, which allegedly took place on a weekend in a basement office of the State Department.

"What they were looking for is anything that made them look bad. That's the way it was described to us," Chaffetz said.

...

Maxwell walked in on the weekend session on a Sunday afternoon after hearing about it. He reportedly claims he saw stacks of documents when he arrived as well as an office director who worked for him -- but who hadn't told him about the assignment.

Maxwell reportedly claimed she told him they were instructed to go through the stacks and pull out items that could put anybody in the NEA "front office" or seventh floor -- where the secretary's office is -- in a "bad light."

Maxwell said he "didn't feel good about it" and left a short time later.

So why now?

quote:
Chaffetz described Maxwell's account as "consistent" all this time. The congressman said he is speaking publicly about Maxwell's allegations because Maxwell himself has gone public with them.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you trust Chaffetz more than Democratic party hacks?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because Raymond Maxwell's public statement conforms to the Chaffetz account of closed testimony.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Issa has known this for over a year and never said anything about it? I find that hard to believe.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This revelation is being described by FOX as a "bombshell" and "startling", and as philnotfil points out has been known about for over a year. The House can't find the time to work on long-delayed legislative initiatives, but will allocate however much time they want to dredge up Benghazi! Benghazi! for another round of purely political innuendo and character assassination. Nothing works better for that effort than evidence that can't be found, and they have an infinite amount of that available to them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just for completeness, another House panel on Benghazi has issued their report. (This is the 7th official government investigation for those keeping count.) Their conclusions are not suprising.

quote:
A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

And yet there are still those who want Obama impeached over Benghazi. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this yet another report? Aren't they getting tired of exonerating the government's response, yet?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, like others before it the report said the investigation found nothing, but also like those others it didn't say the possibility of finding wrong-doing is

morally, ethically
spiritually, physically
positively, absolutely
undeniably and reliably dead,

so there's *still* a chance. Ding-dong.

[ November 22, 2014, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Just for completeness, another House panel on Benghazi has issued their report. (This is the 7th official government investigation for those keeping count.) Their conclusions are not suprising.

quote:
A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

And yet there are still those who want Obama impeached over Benghazi. [Roll Eyes]
Did the report mention anything else? Is there a reason you left it out?

And what finding did the House Select Committee reach?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1