A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

Althea said:
I've put Big Dog/Money on ignore, so the adults can have this discussion without interruption.

Stevens actually refused extra security at one point. And as I've already shown, he was warned by the head of the Green Berets in Libya that there was a 100% guarantee that AQ was going to attack Benghazi.http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/official-amb-stevens-refused-additional-security.html

It is cute to see Issa wasting millions in taxpayer dollars, on his 'small govt' fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

So why did Hillary's State Department refuse his requests for more security?
 
maineman said:
Issa has been chewing on this bone for a long time.... don't you think that he's looked closely?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think Issa looked closely, but that it worked with jock-sniffing lovers who wanted any excuse to "forgive"...

Don't worry, this is yet another decision that Obama just "didn't know about" and "read about in the newspapers"...
 
Althea said:
I didn't say that. If you don't believe the head of the Green Berets, then just go on talking nonsense. I usually scroll past your shit anyway.

Stevens was warned. He ignored the warning. I'm sure you won't find that at Breitbart.
Click to expand...

So it was Stevens fault; got it.

Dunce.
 
christiefan915 said:
So it's okay with you that first responders were prevented from doing their jobs and a woman died as a result of Christie's spite move. Con thought in a nut shell, I'm not surprised.

Now cue the abortion comparisons to try and deflect from Christie's illegal, immoral and unethical actions.
Click to expand...

So it's okay that Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died in Benghazi as a result of this administrations incompetence? Dunce thought in a nutshell; a traffic jam is a bigger scandal than Benghazi and the efforts to cover it up as a spontaneous protest.

You people are real dunces, dishonest, hypocrites and painfully stupid.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
TMW2013-08-21color.png
Click to expand...

Got strawmen? You repugnant dishonest leftist cant help yourselves can you? Stupidity and dishonesty is in your genes.

Dunce.
 
Althea said:
Budget cuts. You do realize that smaller govt. is good?
Click to expand...

That's a lie as already proven by investigators; budget cuts had NOThING to do with this Administrations gross incompetence that led to the deaths of four Americans and the efforts to cover it up in an election year.

The morons in the State Department could have done what all our allies did; pull the mission out knowing they could not protect them adequately you hyper partisan dunce.
 
maineman said:
For the same reason that Dubya ignored the daily briefings that warned him about AQ getting ready to attack America: HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 20-20!
Click to expand...

Really dunce; there was credible evidence suggesting that airliners were going to be hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center and Pentagon??

Please provide some credible evidence to support your offensively stupid and dishonest attempts to lie about events leading up to 9-11; dunce.
 
maineman said:
exactly. If the State Department granted every request by every Ambassador, they'd blow through their budget in a month.
Click to expand...

Pulling the mission out would have not cost anything. But you're a dishonest despicable hyper partisan dunce of epic proportions; why would we expect honest factual debate from you.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid and repugnant.
 
maineman said:
as I said...Hindsight is 20-20. Don't you wish that Bush had the foresight you bemoan Hillary for not using when he got that PDB a month before 9/11 and went off to play golf?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that the reports identified a specific event at a specific point in time that was actionable you dishonest partisan dunce? Please prove it.

But you can't; you're a partisan dimwit who can't support your repugnant stupidity with facts or honesty.
 
maineman said:
as I said...Hindsight is 20-20. Don't you wish that Bush had the foresight you bemoan Hillary for not using when he got that PDB a month before 9/11 and went off to play golf?
Click to expand...

The repeated requests for additional security have nothing to do with hindsight. Try honesty. It's a lot to do with honesty. Try that.
 
christiefan915 said:
So it's okay with you that first responders were prevented from doing their jobs and a woman died as a result of Christie's spite move. Con thought in a nut shell, I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

on the other hand, I could just be pointing out that saying a woman died as a result is an outright lie that even her daughter denied.....
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
The repeated requests for additional security have nothing to do with hindsight. Try honesty. It's a lot to do with honesty. Try that.
Click to expand...

like I said... if the state department fulfilled every request made by every ambassador, they'd run through their annual budget in a month. that's a fact.

try being honest about that.
 
christiefan915 said:
This is an excerpt from a much longer article. It's guaranteed to annoy the Hillary haters, who probably won't even read it in full before going into attack mode.

"Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...
Click to expand...
I gotta hand it to you, it took a lot of guts to post this here and expose yourself to ridicule, especially when the bridgegate scandal has the Republicans rocked back on their heels and is causing them to see their hopes for 2014 and 2016 dimming rapidly (that's sarcasm by the way). My first concern with this is, is the New York Times now the official organ for investigating acts of terrorism? Am I really supposed to completely disregard what the FBI has said about this? Or even what Obama himself has said about this incident? Did the New York Times get the opportunity to interview the surviving witnesses before the Congress did? That's pretty dang impressive! Maybe the next time there's a bank robbery someplace, they should call the New York Times, instead of the FBI.

The article states that "Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs". The security force at Benghazi was made of at least two former Navy SEALs working for the CIA, and a number of members of the diplomatic security force. These are not guys who six months ago, were deputy sheriffs tooling around Grasshopper Junction Arizona (population nine) in a 15-year-old Ford interceptor police car. Most of those guys are former special forces or veterans of elite law enforcement agencies who undergo even more intensive training before taking their posts. And the New York Times is trying to tell me that this is a group of Americans that had their asses handed to them by a bunch of protesters? Or some little local bullshit militia playing around with their daddy's AK-47s? I just saw that movie "lone survivor" last night. Four Navy SEALs armed with M4 carbine's, M203's and pistols, held off a hundred or more taliban militiamen armed with AK-47s, heavy machine guns and rocket propelled grenades for many hours, despite each man suffering numerous gunshot and shrapnel wounds and literally falling off a mountain twice. This is the caliber of warrior that we are talking about. And for the New York Times to insinuate that those Americans in Benghazi lost their lives to anyone other than a well-trained, disciplined fighting force carrying out a plan (no matter how "meticulously" it was crafted) is dishonoring the memories of those very same Americans.

And finally, Amb. Stevens did write that despite the slight security concerns he had, he was happy to be returning to Benghazi. The Times article makes this out to be no big deal that he was returning to Benghazi. I think it's very notable that he had any security concerns at all. After all he's the ambassador, his job is ambassadorizing (I just made that word up), and he should leave security concerns to the security professionals. I'm much more interested in knowing how the security detail felt about the situation.
 
christiefan915 said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out how fearful Stevens was and how he begged for help.

Security vacuum,” Ambassador Stevens wrote in his personal diary on Sept. 6 in Tripoli, in one of the few pages recovered from the Benghazi compound. “Militias are power on the ground,” he wrote. “Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate,” he continued. “Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a prominent website (no more off compound jogging).” A map of his Tripoli jogging route had appeared on the Internet, seemingly inviting attacks, diplomats said.

But when he arrived from Tripoli for a visit, he was glad to be back in Benghazi. “Much stronger emotional connection to this place,” he wrote in his diary on Sept. 10, “the people but also the smaller town feel and the moist air and green and spacious compound.”

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”
Click to expand...

If you don't know that Stevens requested additional security more than once and was denied. Hillary's State Department admitted that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top