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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.