Issa caught BS'ing on FOX

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a crook in his own right, was STILL beating the Benghazi dead horse this past weekend....and was nailed so badly that he not only moved the goalpost, but tried to speak for the American people at this new imaginary position. Check it out:


What Will It Take For Fox To Let The Benghazi Stand Down Order Myth Die?
Blog ››› March 2, 2014 2:05 PM EST ››› ELLIE SANDMEYER

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/02/what-will-it-take-for-fox-to-let-the-benghazi-s/198303
 
ISSA: Well, the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser -- that was in response to a question -- the term "stand down" is not used in some sort of an explicit way. But rather the failure to react, the fact that only State Department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used, that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. Those kinds of things through State Department resources represent a stand down. Not maybe on the technical terms of "stand down, soldier," but on the American people believe is a failure to respond what they could have.

Sounds reasonable.....you guys have no problem in spinning the Iraq War Resolution into not being a "go" vote to invade Iraq just because the
phrase "invasion" wasn't in the document, doesn't this amount to the same thing ?....
So the phrase "stand down" wasn't used but the result the same as if it was.....
 
NOVA said:
ISSA: Well, the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser -- that was in response to a question -- the term "stand down" is not used in some sort of an explicit way. But rather the failure to react, the fact that only State Department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used, that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. Those kinds of things through State Department resources represent a stand down. Not maybe on the technical terms of "stand down, soldier," but on the American people believe is a failure to respond what they could have.

Sounds reasonable.....you guys have no problem in spinning the Iraq War Resolution into not being a "go" vote to invade Iraq just because the
phrase "invasion" wasn't in the document, doesn't this amount to the same thing ?....
So the phrase "stand down" wasn't used but the result the same as if it was.....
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for lying Rightie apologists like NOVA, Issa wasn't giving any "nuanced" definition of what "stand down" meant when he spent MONTHS trying so desperately to smear Hillary and the President with his bullshit lies.
 
NOVA said:
ISSA: Well, the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser -- that was in response to a question -- the term "stand down" is not used in some sort of an explicit way. But rather the failure to react, the fact that only State Department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used, that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. Those kinds of things through State Department resources represent a stand down. Not maybe on the technical terms of "stand down, soldier," but on the American people believe is a failure to respond what they could have.

Sounds reasonable.....you guys have no problem in spinning the Iraq War Resolution into not being a "go" vote to invade Iraq just because the
phrase "invasion" wasn't in the document, doesn't this amount to the same thing ?....
So the phrase "stand down" wasn't used but the result the same as if it was.....
Click to expand...


LOL...

"Stand down" doesn't LITERALLY mean "stand down"...

At least not this time.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
LOL...

"Stand down" doesn't LITERALLY mean "stand down"...

At least not this time.
Click to expand...

Thats what we're trying to tell you....in the context of this issue, 'stand down' would also mean, "Don't counter attack"....."don't send help"...."sit tight" or dozens of other expressions......are you really that stupid like TD claims ?

By the way, can you literally "stand down".....???....lol
 
NOVA said:
Thats what we're trying to tell you....in the context of this issue, 'stand down' would also mean, "Don't counter attack"....."don't send help"...."sit tight" or dozens of other expressions......are you really that stupid like TD claims ?

By the way, can you literally "stand down".....???....lol
Click to expand...


And now come the plaintive claims people were taking Issa "out of context"...let the desperation spinning begin.

BULLSHIT.

Stand down means EXACTLY what people think.

Issa's bullshit claim was quite specific, that troops were on alert and ready to go in if there was trouble and the White House and Hillary Clinton told them to STAND DOWN.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And now come the plaintive claims people were taking Issa "out of context"...let the desperation spinning begin.

BULLSHIT.

Stand down means EXACTLY what people think.

Issa's bullshit claim was quite specific, that troops were on alert and ready to go in if there was trouble and the White House and Hillary Clinton told them to STAND DOWN.
Click to expand...


In this context, 'stand down' does mean exactly what people think.... "Don't counter attack"....."don't send help"...."sit tight" or dozens of other expressions also could be
used in place of that particular phrase....Is English you're second language..?

Issa never anything like you claim above that I saw in that statement....troops were not on alert and ready to go (BUT they should have on alert and ready)

Issa did say "that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue" and that is a fact....
The investigations did conclude that had they been sent, they would not have arrived in time, that doesn't mean they should not have been sent at all, even IF they
would arrive late it would have shown the State Dept. at least cared a little....

The attack lasted about 6 to 8 hours ? Having some experience with military aircraft, and knowing that bases in Italy are full of warplanes, it is beyond my
comprehension that fighter aircraft flying at 300 miles or more an hour could not have made an appearance....even if only for show....most have a rage of about 1500 miles

http://saganic.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-military-bases-in-italy-there-are.html.....100 US military bases in Italy and nobody could respond ?...Unbelievable.
That spin in for the super gullible....
being on alert means you're ready to go in minutes, they had hours to respond even if they didn't set one boot on the ground.
 
In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren't deployed to Benghazi that night.

"This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert," Dempsey said. "They're there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job."

That is again unbelievable.....20 hours to get a plane airborne?...bullshit, unless we are playing with unairworthy planes all over Italy....just about every plane on every
flight line on any base should be ready to go in a hell of lot less time than 20 hours...and its odd Dempsey singled out a base as far north in Italy as you can get
and still be in Italy........
 
NOVA said:
In this context, 'stand down' does mean exactly what people think.... "Don't counter attack"....."don't send help"...."sit tight" or dozens of other expressions also could be
used in place of that particular phrase....Is English you're second language..?

Issa never anything like you claim above that I saw in that statement....troops were not on alert and ready to go (BUT they should have on alert and ready)

Issa did say "that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue" and that is a fact....
The investigations did conclude that had they been sent, they would not have arrived in time, that doesn't mean they should not have been sent at all, even IF they
would arrive late it would have shown the State Dept. at least cared a little....

The attack lasted about 6 to 8 hours ? Having some experience with military aircraft, and knowing that bases in Italy are full of warplanes, it is beyond my
comprehension that fighter aircraft flying at 300 miles or more an hour could not have made an appearance....even if only for show....most have a rage of about 1500 miles

http://saganic.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-military-bases-in-italy-there-are.html.....100 US military bases in Italy and nobody could respond ?...Unbelievable.
That spin in for the super gullible....
being on alert means you're ready to go in minutes, they had hours to respond even if they didn't set one boot on the ground.
Click to expand...


And let's not forget that this whole issue revolves around Issa's repeated claims that troops were ready to go in and received an order to STAND DOWN...which as the transcripts plainly prove, was a BALD FACED LIE.

Typically however, Righties want to divert from the real story...that Issa, his fellow Congressional Republicans and Faux News all LIED and claimed a stand down order was given.
 
In my days on active duty, "stand down" was a very specific phrase with a very specific meaning. It did not mean anything BUT, stop what you are doing and await further instructions.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And let's not forget that this whole issue revolves around Issa's repeated claims that troops were ready to go in and received an order to STAND DOWN...which as the transcripts plainly prove, was a BALD FACED LIE.

Typically however, Righties want to divert from the real story...that Issa, his fellow Congressional Republicans and Faux News all LIED and claimed a stand down order was given.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

After the attacks ended without planes being scrambled or special forces dispatched, the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told Hicks he was sorry that his men had been held back.
Hicks said that late on the night of Sept. 11 he called the embassy’s defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and asked about the viability of sending jets.
“Is there anything coming?” Hicks said he asked Phillips.
Phillips told Hicks that the nearest planes were at Aviano Air Base in Italy and that it would take two to three hours to get them off the ground, the diplomat told congressional staffers. There also were no aircraft nearby that could have refueled airborne planes.
“The answer was, it’s too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.


“The White House and the Pentagon have allowed us to believe that there were no military options on the table,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a phone interview. “The model of the military is to leave no person behind, and it’s stunning and unacceptable to think we had military willing and ready to go and the Pentagon told them to stand down. That’s just not the American way.”
Chaffetz said the troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack.



A Pentagon spokesman said he would review the Hicks testimony. “We have repeatedly stated that while Department officials started taking action immediately after learning that an attack was underway at the American facility there, our forces were unable to reach it in time to intervene to stop the attacks,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in an e-mail Monday night.

Seems the Pentagon spokesman and Chaffetz agree....
and the statement 'ready to go in' doesn't mean the men were sitting on a plane with loaded weapons.
 
What ISSA said on Fox is fact....

ISSA: Well, the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser -- that was in response to a question -- the term "stand down" is not used in some sort of an explicit way. But rather the failure to react, the fact that only State Department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used, that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. Those kinds of things through State Department resources represent a stand down. Not maybe on the technical terms of "stand down, soldier," but on the American people believe is a failure to respond what they could have.
 
maineman said:
In my days on active duty, "stand down" was a very specific phrase with a very specific meaning. It did not mean anything BUT, stop what you are doing and await further instructions.
Click to expand...


That fits the issue.....in other words, don't do anything......................yet.
No matter what actual words were used by the non-military types to convey that, the outcome was the same....

and I agree with both the Senate and House conclusions for the most part...there just was not enough time to save those lives...
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
In my days on active duty, "stand down" was a very specific phrase with a very specific meaning. It did not mean anything BUT, stop what you are doing and await further instructions.
Click to expand...

Stand Down in my Air Force meant much the same, MM, and that something was up and to be prepared for about anything. And the jerk above obviously doesn't even read his own quote. No one ever said anything about it taking 20 hours to get the F-16's fired up or off the runway. It was testified that the F-16 was the wrong tool for the job and that it would take 20 or so hours to get the aircraft into Libyan airspace. Why do these idiots (repukes) hate this country so much?
 
LilliesWhiteLies said:
Stand Down in my Air Force meant much the same, MM, and that something was up and to be prepared for about anything. And the jerk above obviously doesn't even read his own quote. No one ever said anything about it taking 20 hours to get the F-16's fired up or off the runway. It was testified that the F-16 was the wrong tool for the job and that it would take 20 or so hours to get the aircraft into Libyan airspace. Why do these idiots (repukes) hate this country so much?
Click to expand...
So it was a failure to plan as well as a failure to act...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a crook in his own right, was STILL beating the Benghazi dead horse this past weekend....and was nailed so badly that he not only moved the goalpost, but tried to speak for the American people at this new imaginary position. Check it out:


What Will It Take For Fox To Let The Benghazi Stand Down Order Myth Die?
Blog ››› March 2, 2014 2:05 PM EST ››› ELLIE SANDMEYER

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/02/what-will-it-take-for-fox-to-let-the-benghazi-s/198303
Click to expand...

Hell; it was only four lives...no big deal for Liberals. There's no scandal here even though this administration sent Susan Rice out to lie about the event during an election. :yawn:

Nothing to see here folks; OMG, look, a bridge traffic JAM!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top