Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

BENGHAZI about to HIT THE FAN? CBS NEWS PUMMELS ADMINISTRATION WITH DEVASTATING REPORT

+4
2seaoat
Sal
TEOTWAWKI
Markle
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 5]

Guest


Guest

What we do know:

There had been two previous attacks on that consulate.

After repeated attacks and an assassination attempt the red cross and brits pulled out.

Numerous requests were made for additional security.

Security was cut immediately prior to 9/11.

Upon attack requests were made for aid.

Orders were given to stand down.

Talking points were altered.

The administration tried to blame the event on a spontaneous demonstration over a youtube video.

The maker of that video is still in jail.

Access was and still is being withheld regarding communications, timelines, actions, and decisionmakers.

Who cut security? Who ordered the stand down? Who altered talking points? Who has obstructed information?

I think the reasons these questions are being articulated is that an objective person can see a pattern... underwear bomber, ft. hood, fast n furious... etc. Have I made any false statements above? Are my questions invalid? Why don't y'all care?

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:What we do know:

There had been two previous attacks on that consulate.

After repeated attacks and an assassination attempt the red cross and brits pulled out.

Numerous requests were made for additional security.

Security was cut immediately prior to 9/11.

Upon attack requests were made for aid.

Orders were given to stand down.

Talking points were altered.

The administration tried to blame the event on a spontaneous demonstration over a youtube video.

The maker of that video is still in jail.

Access was and still is being withheld regarding communications, timelines, actions, and decisionmakers.

Who cut security? Who ordered the stand down? Who altered talking points? Who has obstructed information?

I think the reasons these questions are being articulated is that an objective person can see a pattern... underwear bomber, ft. hood, fast n furious... etc. Have I made any false statements above? Are my questions invalid? Why don't y'all care?

The uninformed Obama posers don't care because their Hero II said:

BENGHAZI about to HIT THE FAN?   CBS NEWS PUMMELS ADMINISTRATION WITH DEVASTATING REPORT - Page 4 Wddim

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:What we do know:

There had been two previous attacks on that consulate.

After repeated attacks and an assassination attempt the red cross and brits pulled out.

Numerous requests were made for additional security.

Security was cut immediately prior to 9/11.

The State Department conducted an investigation and issued a report condemning the systematic security failures surrounding the incident.

There is less money for security because Congress allocated less money for security.


Upon attack requests were made for aid.

Orders were given to stand down.

A six man team was sent in to aid. Two of them died in the mortar attack.
The four man team that was prevented from boarding the plane would have been too late to assist, were armed only with 9mm hand guns, and were needed to secure the airport where the evacuees would arrive.


Talking points were altered.

The administration tried to blame the event on a spontaneous demonstration over a youtube video.

The CIA and State Department quibbled over the wording. Both the first draft and the final draft said the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." The CIA tried to insert language covering its ass, but the State Department objected.

The maker of that video is still in jail.

So?

He's a criminal who violated his probation.


Access was and still is being withheld regarding communications, timelines, actions, and decisionmakers.

Yeah, classified information that could jeopardize security.


Who cut security?

Congress

Who ordered the stand down?

No one


Who altered talking points?

The CIA and State Department

Who has obstructed information?

No one


Are my questions invalid?

Not really. They're just easy to answer.

It's the fantasy you've constructed around them that is invalid.

Guest


Guest

Sally has the party line down perfectly.

I mean, who could possibly have seen this attack coming?

Security Incidents Prior to the Benghazi Attack
December 2011: Terror plot thwarted, but Benghazi emergency plan warns of many Islamic terrorists still operating in area.

March 2012: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli lead security officer, RSO Eric Nordstrom, requests additional security but later testified he received no response.

April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.

August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross.

June 6, 2012: An IED explodes outside the Benghazi consulate compound.

June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.

July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).

July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape
Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard positions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/timeline-how-benghazi-attack-probe-unfolded/

Sal

Sal

See, the thing about what y'all are saying is that it seems to point in a strange direction.

Because you seem to be suggesting that not only did the administration fail to anticipate and prevent the attack, but they also actively sought to make the attack as successful and deadly as possible by cutting security and failing to render aid.

Now, y'all are gonna help me out with a motive for that, cause I just can't see one.

For me, your conspiracy theory suffers from a severe lack of logic.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:See, the thing about what y'all are saying is that it seems to point in a strange direction.

Because you seem to be suggesting that not only did the administration fail to anticipate and prevent the attack, but they also actively sought to make the attack as successful and deadly as possible by cutting security and failing to render aid.

Now, y'all are gonna help me out with a motive for that, cause I just can't see one.

For me, your conspiracy theory suffers from a severe lack of logic.

I realize how slow you are to grasp a fact and comprehend it but there is no conspiracy here. Just utter incompetence, ignorance of reality, lies, and obfuscation of actual events. Trademarks of this administration. Even a BHO Drone like you has to see that.

Guest


Guest

I think the administration policies in a country that we had aided in being overthrown a short time ago was naive at best.

The pattern I've noticed given other similar events is to mitigate... such as we see in this case. Why?

Why not be transparent? Why the careful terminologies? Why mislead? Didn't you vote for a change?

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:I think the administration policies in a country that we had aided in being overthrown a short time ago was nieve at best.

The pattern I've noticed given other similar events is to mitigate... such as we see in this case. Why?

Why not be transparent? Why the careful terminologies? Why mislead? Didn't you vote for a change?

As State Department Victoria Nuland stated....This (uncleaned) information could give Congress the opportunity to "beat up the State Department"...and after two 'cleanings'....This wasn't political?...

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:What we do know:

There had been two previous attacks on that consulate.

After repeated attacks and an assassination attempt the red cross and brits pulled out.

Numerous requests were made for additional security.

Security was cut immediately prior to 9/11.

Upon attack requests were made for aid.

Orders were given to stand down.

Talking points were altered.

The administration tried to blame the event on a spontaneous demonstration over a youtube video.

The maker of that video is still in jail.

Access was and still is being withheld regarding communications, timelines, actions, and decisionmakers.

Who cut security? Who ordered the stand down? Who altered talking points? Who has obstructed information?

I think the reasons these questions are being articulated is that an objective person can see a pattern... underwear bomber, ft. hood, fast n furious... etc. Have I made any false statements above? Are my questions invalid? Why don't y'all care?

Who knows whether you've made any false statements? Where are your SOURCES? All you've done is make a whole lot of claims without any substantiation whatever.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

nochain wrote:
Sal wrote:See, the thing about what y'all are saying is that it seems to point in a strange direction.

Because you seem to be suggesting that not only did the administration fail to anticipate and prevent the attack, but they also actively sought to make the attack as successful and deadly as possible by cutting security and failing to render aid.

Now, y'all are gonna help me out with a motive for that, cause I just can't see one.

For me, your conspiracy theory suffers from a severe lack of logic.

I realize how slow you are to grasp a fact and comprehend it but there is no conspiracy here. Just utter incompetence, ignorance of reality, lies, and obfuscation of actual events. Trademarks of this administration. Even a BHO Drone like you has to see that.

Answer this, you raging idiot...what motivation could the President or the Secretary of State have for issuing a stand-down order that allowed an ambassador to be killed...in the midst of a critical national election? Someone perpetrated this event...someone wanted to sway the outcome of the election. What could Obama and Clinton have to gain? This whole story, and the way it's being mass marketed, reeks to high heaven.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote: Why don't y'all care?

Who knows whether you've made any false statements? Where are your SOURCES? All you've done is make a whole lot of claims without any substantiation whatever.

Did you just drop in from some distant planet, like Uranus for instance??? All of that info has been on the news.

knothead

knothead

I'm going to ask a simple straightforward question . . . . . . why in the hell did Ambassador Stevens and his remaining small contingent elect to stay after the security forces were drawn down? I know and understand he was a dedicated well respected member of the State Dept. but why he stayed there in a declared potentially volatile environment has me baffled. His decision to stay unfortunately led to his death and the members who were with him. I mean this should not have been the Alamo for goodness sakes . . . . . red alert means to abort until the circumstances improve with regard to security for Chris Stevens and his contingent.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
nochain wrote:
Sal wrote:See, the thing about what y'all are saying is that it seems to point in a strange direction.

Because you seem to be suggesting that not only did the administration fail to anticipate and prevent the attack, but they also actively sought to make the attack as successful and deadly as possible by cutting security and failing to render aid.

Now, y'all are gonna help me out with a motive for that, cause I just can't see one.

For me, your conspiracy theory suffers from a severe lack of logic.

I realize how slow you are to grasp a fact and comprehend it but there is no conspiracy here. Just utter incompetence, ignorance of reality, lies, and obfuscation of actual events. Trademarks of this administration. Even a BHO Drone like you has to see that.

Answer this, you raging idiot...what motivation could the President or the Secretary of State have for issuing a stand-down order that allowed an ambassador to be killed...in the midst of a critical national election? Someone perpetrated this event...someone wanted to sway the outcome of the election. What could Obama and Clinton have to gain? This whole story, and the way it's being mass marketed, reeks to high heaven.


AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA issued the stand down order to the group in Tripoli you mental midget. BHO probably slept through the whole thing. As he might say, If ignorance is bliss I'm the happiest dude in the world.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:I'm going to ask a simple straightforward question . . . . . . why in the hell did Ambassador Stevens and his remaining small contingent elect to stay after the security forces were drawn down? I know and understand he was a dedicated well respected member of the State Dept. but why he stayed there in a declared potentially volatile environment has me baffled. His decision to stay unfortunately led to his death and the members who were with him. I mean this should not have been the Alamo for goodness sakes . . . . . red alert means to abort until the circumstances improve with regard to security for Chris Stevens and his contingent.

He should have been ordered out by his BOSS Hillary but apparently she wasn't paying attention.

knothead

knothead

nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:I'm going to ask a simple straightforward question . . . . . . why in the hell did Ambassador Stevens and his remaining small contingent elect to stay after the security forces were drawn down? I know and understand he was a dedicated well respected member of the State Dept. but why he stayed there in a declared potentially volatile environment has me baffled. His decision to stay unfortunately led to his death and the members who were with him. I mean this should not have been the Alamo for goodness sakes . . . . . red alert means to abort until the circumstances improve with regard to security for Chris Stevens and his contingent.

He should have been ordered out by his BOSS Hillary but apparently she wasn't paying attention.

*********************************************************

Sorry chain but that's partisan hyperbole. . . . . if you don't know the real answer let someone else who is informed respond.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:I'm going to ask a simple straightforward question . . . . . . why in the hell did Ambassador Stevens and his remaining small contingent elect to stay after the security forces were drawn down? I know and understand he was a dedicated well respected member of the State Dept. but why he stayed there in a declared potentially volatile environment has me baffled. His decision to stay unfortunately led to his death and the members who were with him. I mean this should not have been the Alamo for goodness sakes . . . . . red alert means to abort until the circumstances improve with regard to security for Chris Stevens and his contingent.

He should have been ordered out by his BOSS Hillary but apparently she wasn't paying attention.

*********************************************************

Sorry chain but that's partisan hyperbole. . . . . if you don't know the real answer let someone else who is informed respond.

You asked a question and got an answer - not partisan drivel like your fellow confederates on this forum. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong. The "not paying attention part" is correct by the way, she said she hadn't seen emails by Stevens asking for more security. Anything else you would like to know?

knothead

knothead

nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:
nochain wrote:
knothead wrote:I'm going to ask a simple straightforward question . . . . . . why in the hell did Ambassador Stevens and his remaining small contingent elect to stay after the security forces were drawn down? I know and understand he was a dedicated well respected member of the State Dept. but why he stayed there in a declared potentially volatile environment has me baffled. His decision to stay unfortunately led to his death and the members who were with him. I mean this should not have been the Alamo for goodness sakes . . . . . red alert means to abort until the circumstances improve with regard to security for Chris Stevens and his contingent.

He should have been ordered out by his BOSS Hillary but apparently she wasn't paying attention.

*********************************************************

Sorry chain but that's partisan hyperbole. . . . . if you don't know the real answer let someone else who is informed respond.

You asked a question and got an answer - not partisan drivel like your fellow confederates on this forum. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong. The "not paying attention part" is correct by the way, she said she hadn't seen emails by Stevens asking for more security. Anything else you would like to know?

*********************************************************

First, I am not seeking a cover for Sec. Clinton but an Amb. has great authority and Chris Stevens had the authority to abandon the post after doing his risk assessment. It's sounding more and more like a CIA operation just like Mr. Oats said days ago and the Agency was trying to cover its butt!

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

nochain wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote: Why don't y'all care?

Who knows whether you've made any false statements? Where are your SOURCES? All you've done is make a whole lot of claims without any substantiation whatever.

Did you just drop in from some distant planet, like Uranus for instance??? All of that info has been on the news.

That's your standard for credibility...that those statements have "been on the news"? Oh, please, what a waste of space you have between your ears.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
nochain wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote: Why don't y'all care?

Who knows whether you've made any false statements? Where are your SOURCES? All you've done is make a whole lot of claims without any substantiation whatever.

Did you just drop in from some distant planet, like Uranus for instance??? All of that info has been on the news.

That's your standard for credibility...that those statements have "been on the news"? Oh, please, what a waste of space you have between your ears.

I realize you only read the whacked out liberal loon weekly and have very limited access to a variety of news sources in your nursing home but do try to keep up. Freak.

Sal

Sal

I don't think there was a coverup by the administration because normal decent people could never have anticipated the way the Republicans would so immediately and shamelessly politicize the issue, and therefore had no reason to create some false narrative about issues that no sane person would think important.

VectorMan

VectorMan

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
Then why obfuscate, lie, cover up? It's not the first time from this administration has used this tactic either.

You know for damn sure you wouldn't put up with it from the right... how do you rationalize that?

Frankly, I completely reject the premise of your first question, so no rationalization is needed.

So that's the progressive liberal objective thinking process? Explains quite a bit actually.

Just reject known facts because that don't fit your agenda. This in no way helps your credibility.

Are you the only person on the planet that doesn't know Obama's a liar?

You and your kind have all but ruined this country. You'll have to pay the piper eventually. And, I hope you really feel it.

VectorMan

VectorMan

Revising the Benghazi memos 12 times is pretty suspicious.

With Obama it was about his upcoming re-election and his (LOL) legacy. With Hillary it was about her 2016 run for president. Both trying to save face and lying through their teeth at the same time.

They both need to crash and burn!

knothead

knothead

VectorMan wrote:Revising the Benghazi memos 12 times is pretty suspicious.

With Obama it was about his upcoming re-election and his (LOL) legacy. With Hillary it was about her 2016 run for president. Both trying to save face and lying through their teeth at the same time.

They both need to crash and burn!

**********************************************************

According to current polls Hillary will be your next President IF she decides to run . . . . . . you're gonna love it!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
VectorMan wrote:Revising the Benghazi memos 12 times is pretty suspicious.

With Obama it was about his upcoming re-election and his (LOL) legacy. With Hillary it was about her 2016 run for president. Both trying to save face and lying through their teeth at the same time.

They both need to crash and burn!

**********************************************************

According to current polls Hillary will be your next President IF she decides to run . . . . . . you're gonna love it!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

You would vote for a person that is willing to knowingly lie to you? Unless you still believe it was over a video.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:
knothead wrote:
VectorMan wrote:Revising the Benghazi memos 12 times is pretty suspicious.

With Obama it was about his upcoming re-election and his (LOL) legacy. With Hillary it was about her 2016 run for president. Both trying to save face and lying through their teeth at the same time.

They both need to crash and burn!

**********************************************************

According to current polls Hillary will be your next President IF she decides to run . . . . . . you're gonna love it!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

You would vote for a person that is willing to knowingly lie to you? Unless you still believe it was over a video.

You can't be serious,PKR,dear? You know the repugs lie all the time but you vote for them anyway. Laughing

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum