Author Topic: The Benghazi Testamonies  (Read 11615 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2013, 08:01:01 PM »
Obama and Hillary belong in prison over this 

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2013, 08:04:55 PM »
Hmm.... yep, politicians still suck, and more good people are dead.

Sounds like just another day at the office.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2013, 08:05:42 PM »
Obama voters who cover for their messiah if he raped a nun on the front lawn of the WH.  

If the testimony today did not make you want to ktfo everyone in the WH and DOS than you are a communist and pos

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2013, 08:06:52 PM »
The White House on Wednesday stood by its story that the Obama administration remained unsure exactly who was responsible for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi nearly five days after it occurred even though new revelations show Ansar al-Sharia’s direct involvement.
 
Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and a self-described whistleblower, testified before a Congressional committee Wednesday that the body of Ambassador J. Christpher Stevens was missing for hours during the attack after being dragged out of the diplomatic post in Benghazi.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEE RELATED: Latest on Benghazi: Whistleblowers give Congress blow-by-blow account of deadly diplomatic attack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said a Libyan official eventually called him that night to inform him Mr. Stevens had died and that his body was at a hospital run by Ansar al-Sharia. Mr. Hicks said it was the saddest phone call of his life.
 
Terrorists set fire to the diplomatic post to try to force Mr. Stevens and his staff out of a “safe house” part of the post. It was a petroleum fire, which produces deadly cyanide gas.
 
White House spokesman Jay Carney cautioned that he could not immediately respond to live testimony from the committee but went on to say that the administration remained unsure of the identity and affiliations of the attackers, noting that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for it on Twitter but then later recanted.
 
“What I can tell you is that it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks were participated in by extremists,” he told reporters at a regular daily briefing. “That’s what I’ve said. That’s what Ambassador Rice said. She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn’t know is what their exact affiliation was.”
 
“As you know, with regard to this group, there was a claim of responsibility, then there was a disowning of responsibility. So anybody who pretends to have known all the facts instantly is just mistaken,” he continued. “And it is always the case that things like this require careful investigation.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/white-house-stands-its-benghazi-story-hearing-unfo/#ixzz2SlFbfJWM
 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2013, 08:12:55 PM »
don't let the facts get in the way of your repub cryfest   :D :D :D


1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi
 
Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.
 
2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi
 
House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.
 
3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
 
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.
 
4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate
 
Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2013, 08:15:24 PM »
Funny how they did not address obamas lies on the youtube video

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2013, 08:19:06 PM »
Funny how they did not address obamas lies on the youtube video


yeah but but but  ::)  give it up it's all done,time to find another breaking story     beck   :D :D :D :D :D :D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2013, 06:10:25 AM »

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2013, 10:11:21 AM »


hahaha so true

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2013, 10:22:39 AM »


hahaha so true

mother......fucking..... ....


BOOM

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2013, 10:25:24 AM »
mother......fucking.........


BOOM

You really are pathetic.  You did not watch five minutes of the testimony and rely upon the distortions of a comedian to assure yourself that the ghetto street pimp you worship and his white hoebag who does $5 tricks for him did nothing wrong here.

The Cult of Obama lives strong

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2013, 10:27:09 AM »
You really are pathetic.  You did not watch five minutes of the testimony and rely upon the distortions of a comedian to assure yourself that the ghetto street pimp you worship and his white hoebag who does $5 tricks for him did nothing wrong here.

The Cult of Obama lives strong

everything this guy said Above is factual....100% factual..

During the bush years there were 50+ embassy attacks with 3 Amerians being killed...and zero outrage from Fox news.. whats the difference.

you see...i know you like to gloss over the facts and disqualify it by saying "its a comedian saying it" so hopefully you dont have to comment on it...but if its 12 oclock....and a comedian says "hey guys its 12 oclock"...is he wrong?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2013, 10:32:48 AM »
everything this guy said Above is factual....100% factual..

During the bush years there were 50+ embassy attacks with 3 Amerians being killed...and zero outrage from Fox news.. whats the difference

Um lets see:

1.  The ambassador begged for for more security - denied by obama admn

2.  They begged for help during the attack - nothing sent

3.  the guys on the ground told them it was a terrorist attack and obama and hillary lied blaming a video they know and were told had nothing to do with it. 

4.  Obama and hitlery went to Crapistan and spent 75,000 on a tv commercial blaming the video

5.  Susan Rice lied 5 times over

6.  Obama and hillary lied about the video to the families

7.  Obama promised to bring these people to justice - he was told who the group did it was and so far - not one arrest, not one person held accountable nothing

8.  The Lybian PM said the tape had nothing to do with anything



You really are pathetic - as is Stewart.  This was a terrorist attack on the Anniversary of 9/11 that obama had to cover up since he was running on "OBL dead GM alive bs" and had to try to convince the public that he decimated al queada and that his lybian policy was a success. 

Like I said - obama could put you back into slavery and you would welcome and applaud it.   

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2013, 10:35:05 AM »
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=right-wing%20troll%20notification%20system%20test%20%20&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fmike-in-raleigh%2Fright-wing-troll-notification&ei=6tCKUc7_Ccav0AHN4YHQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHjZ7eukewu4yXMi97uSel9P315Zw


Um lets see:

1.  The ambassador begged for for more security - denied by obama admn

2.  They begged for help during the attack - nothing sent

3.  the guys on the ground told them it was a terrorist attack and obama and hillary lied blaming a video they know and were told had nothing to do with it. 

4.  Obama and hitlery went to Crapistan and spent 75,000 on a tv commercial blaming the video

5.  Susan Rice lied 5 times over

6.  Obama and hillary lied about the video to the families

7.  Obama promised to bring these people to justice - he was told who the group did it was and so far - not one arrest, not one person held accountable nothing

8.  The Lybian PM said the tape had nothing to do with anything



You really are pathetic - as is Stewart.  This was a terrorist attack on the Anniversary of 9/11 that obama had to cover up since he was running on "OBL dead GM alive bs" and had to try to convince the public that he decimated al queada and that his lybian policy was a success. 

Like I said - obama could put you back into slavery and you would welcome and applaud it.   

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2013, 10:38:27 AM »


Ive never been in slavery to be put back into it..

i was born in 1982

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2013, 11:25:12 AM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2013, 12:10:56 PM »
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Benghazi: "How Much Evidence Does It Take?"








Related Videos | expand



















LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: I believe that President Obama lied to the American people, himself. Secretary [Hillary] Clinton lied to Congress. Susan Rice lied to the UN. Jay Carney lied to the media. And the mainstream establishment media have protected this administration right down the line.
 
###
 
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: Analytically speaking, the proof was there from the start if you want to see it. A court of law would have convicted on this kind of evidence. On Wednesday, it sounds like we're going to get smoking gun testimony. But, Bill, the point really to me is how much a president can get away with if the media [helps].
 
###

 LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: Based on the preliminary word about what we're going to hear Wednesday in the testimony, the State counterterrorism chief and his people were cut out of the loop immediately.
 
BILL O'REILLY: But as soon as that was said today, that was denied by the State Department.
 
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: And you got the number two man in Libya saying he knew and said from the beginning it was a terrorist attack. I mean, Bill, it gets to the point that how much evidence does it take? (The O'Reilly Factor, May 6, 2013)

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2013, 12:36:07 PM »
You really are pathetic.  You did not watch five minutes of the testimony and rely upon the distortions of a comedian to assure yourself that the ghetto street pimp you worship and his white hoebag who does $5 tricks for him did nothing wrong here.

The Cult of Obama lives strong

The drones are quite the jokes.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2013, 01:21:35 PM »
everything this guy said Above is factual....100% factual..

During the bush years there were 50+ embassy attacks with 3 Amerians being killed...and zero outrage from Fox news.. whats the difference.

you see...i know you like to gloss over the facts and disqualify it by saying "its a comedian saying it" so hopefully you dont have to comment on it...but if its 12 oclock....and a comedian says "hey guys its 12 oclock"...is he wrong?

like i've been saying for the past 4-5 years.  when bush was in office every liberal democrat took everything the president did and turned it into a Hollywood movie like conspiracy theory.  Now that Obama is in office they have all become consummate pragmatists and have an explanation that favors Obama for everything. 

can we all just agree that Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of liberal democrats?  can we all just agree that they will forgive everything......NO MATTER WHAT?   what could the man do to anger his liberal constituency?  seriously.  i'm asking.  what could he do?  can any left leaning getbigger tell me?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40062
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2013, 01:42:56 PM »
Blow-by-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans to Die

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 9, 2013 @ 12:55 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 95 Comments



Wednesday on Capitol Hill, three impeccable witnesses offered the clearest evidence to date that the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, was a deadly combination of ineptitude, political calculations, and outright lying. Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.
 
Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who offered the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn’t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.
 
Later, when it became clear that Stevens was missing, the first concern was that he had been taken by terrorists. “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.” As this information was coming in, a “response team” from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport, one that Hicks thought might become involved in a “hostage rescue” operation, even as officials worried they were being “baited into a trap.”
 
Hicks then spoke of the mortars that landed on the compound shortly after a group of Americans fleeing the consulate arrived at the annex. The first mortar landed among a group of Libyans who had helped bring the Americans to safety. “The next was short,” he said. “The next three landed on the roof.”
 
Those were the mortars that killed Doherty and Woods.
 
Hicks was visibly choked up when he recounted learning about Stevens’ death from the Libyan prime minister. ”I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said.
 
In one of the most stunning portions of the hearing, Hicks confirmed the chilling refusal of the Obama administration to send in readily available U.S. assets to stop the consulate slaughter. This order to “stand down” was given not once, but at least twice. Hicks also revealed that an explicit order from the chain of command prevented a four-man special forces rescue team in Tripoli from getting to the Americans trapped at the annex. He noted the order came from ”either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA” and that the team was “furious” when they were told to stand down. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” said Hicks, referring to the officer on the receiving end of that command. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’” Hicks’ testimony on this point directly contradicts recent statements from the Obama-run Pentagon. “There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody,” said Maj. Robert Furman, Pentagon spokesman, on Monday.
 
Yet Mark Thompson also testified that he tried to get a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) comprised of special ops and intelligence personnel deployed, and he, too, was told to stand down. According to a source interviewed by Breitbart.com, only President Obama, or someone acting on his authority, could have given the stand down order. As we know from testimony provided by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama met with the two officials on September 11 at 5 p.m. EDT for 30 minutes — less than an hour-and-a-half into the attack — and was supposedly never heard from him again for the rest of the evening. The very next day, Obama headed to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.
 
The Obama administration undoubtedly understood that its decision to leave defenseless Americans, including our ambassador, to needlessly die at the hands of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists would not go over well for a commander-in-chief in the throes of a presidential election and a secretary of state angling for the Oval Office in 2016. Hicks’ testimony affirmed suspicions that administration officials conspired to conceal the nature of the attack by concocting an absolutely fictitious account of events involving a “spontaneous” attack prompted by an anti-Islam YouTube video. Hicks testified that he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack at 2 a.m. that same night. He recounted that ”everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go,” a reality echoed by Libyan President Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.” Magariaf made this assertion the very day before UN ambassador Susan Rice went out to peddle the lie that a “spontaneous demonstration” had gotten out of hand due to an Internet video.
 
When Hicks heard Rice, he was appalled. “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.
 
In reality, Rice was a willing mouthpiece for the two biggest promoters of the Internet video lie: President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, the State Department spent $70,000 to run advertisements in Pakistan featuring the two of them rejecting the contents of the video, and promoting tolerance for all religions. Even more remarkable, despite committee Democrats implying that a thorough investigation was conducted internally by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), Hillary Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB.
 
Hillary’s entire take on the matter can be whittled down to the infamous statement she made during the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013. After being questioned as to why the administration misled the American people, Clinton became indignant. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
 
Eric Nordstrom, who became emotional when he described his friends and other personnel who lost their lives in the attack, provided an answer to that question. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues–to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said, his voice breaking. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11, 2012.”
 
Nordstrom further testified in writing that Hillary Clinton waived security requirements for the Benghazi consulate despite high and critical threat levels in the six categories of security standards established under the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The waiver can only be authorized by the Secretary of State, who cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. ”If the Secretary of State did not waive these requirements, who did so by ordering occupancy of the facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli?” Nordstrom wrote.
 
Nordstrom also offered his take on the ARB. ”I found the ARB process that I was involved in to be professional and the unclassified recommendations reasonable and positive. However, it is not what is contained within the report that I take exception to but what is left unexamined,” Nordstrom wrote. “Specifically, I’m concerned with the ARB’s decision to focus its attention at the Assistant Secretary level and below, where the ARB felt that ‘the decision-making in fact takes place,’” he wrote.
 
Hicks testified that the State Department actively sought to intimidate witnesses in order to prevent facts surrounding the Benghazi attack from being leaked. He revealed that a top State Department official called him to demand a report from his meeting with a congressional delegation and expressed unhappiness that a State Department lawyer was not present for the session. “I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission–me–to be personally interviewed,” he said. Later in the hearing, Hicks noted that State seemed especially concerned with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who has done yeoman’s work tracking down the survivors of the attack, kept under wraps by the administration. ”We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” said Hicks, who added that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff,  ”demanded a report on the visit” that did take place.
 
The State Department was caught in another lie yesterday as well. While the hearings were getting underway, Republicans revealed that Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the ARB, refused to testify. State countered that Republicans refused to let him. Frederick Hill, spokesman for Committee chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA), produced a letter dated February 22 inviting Pickering to testify. “Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill told ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”
 
The State Department isn’t the only entity interested in controlling the flow of information in this tragedy. House Democrats embarrassingly struggled to distract from the proceedings with absurd non sequiturs and personal attacks. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democratic at the Benghazi hearing, told one of the whistleblowers to “protect your fellow employees.” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) suggested it was unpatriotic to challenge the administration’s narrative. “I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” she said. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the State Department; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blamed Republicans and congressional budget cuts for the terror attack, even as he apparently remains oblivious to the reality that it was Democrats who insisted the lion’s share of the budget cuts induced by sequestration come from the military.
 
Media are also shamelessly entrenched in the campaign to suppress the facts surround the Benghazi attack. Politico reports that CBS News execs are getting “increasingly frustrated” with premiere investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s stories on Benghazi, which they consider “dangerously close to advocacy.”
 
Dangerously close to honesty is more like it, which is exactly what CBS is worried about. As Washington Post explains, “While other media, particularly Fox News, have been similarly skeptical about the official narrative about Benghazi, Attkisson and CBS might put the story in a different light,” the paper reports. “As a much-decorated reporter from a news outlet often derided by conservatives as a liberal beacon, Attkisson and her network flip the usual script on this highly politicized story. That is, it’s hard to peg her and her network as Republican sympathizers out to score political points against a Democratic president.” With Attkisson, a self-described “political agnostic,” questioning the administration, Bengahzi can no longer be dismissed by the left as a vast right-wing conspiracy. “People can say what they want about me, I don’t care,” Attkisson says. “I just want to get the information out there.”
 
Attkisson notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether the remainder of the mainstream media will now demand answers from the Obama administration on why it chose to needlessly throw American servicemen to the wolves in Benghazi and why, exactly, it was necessary to contrive a totally false account of events. The Obama administration is fighting hard to distract from the severity of the scandal. White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed that continued scrutiny of Benghazi is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to ”politicize” the issue. ”This is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, while in fact what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” he said, adding that the incident has been ”been looked at exhaustively.” Carney further noted that the ongoing pursuit is ”part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.” The entire substance, according to Carney, is the reality that the consulate was attacked, four Americans were killed, and the president will make sure it doesn’t happen again.
 
Carney saved his most ridiculous assertion for last, claiming the administration’s editing of the talking points, in which wholesale changes and rampant deletions were made, (the details of which can be seen here) were “stylistic and not substantive.” “We’ve been very clear about the specific edits that were made at the suggestion of the White House.”
 
That is an utter lie. Version one of the CIA report included references to an “attack,” “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida,” the involvement of Ansar al Sharia and the fact that “wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks,” which were all completely removed. Furthermore, at no time did any of the versions mention an anti-Islamic Internet video as being the catalyst for the attack.
 
The Obama administration can try spin this debacle any way it likes, but it can’t spin away four dead Americans, two separate “stand down” orders and the State Department’s advanced knowledge of inadequate security. They can’t change the reality that no rescue was even attempted over the course of a seven-hour battle, that brave Americans were left to fend for themselves, or that the administration sat on the details of this story for eight months — two most crucial of which occurred prior to the 2012 election.  Even now the administration continues to stonewall every effort to get to the truth.
 
But with the truth finally coming to the surface, the remaining question observers are left with is why the Obama administration abandoned Americans who were easily within reach. While the lies used to cover up this disaster are easy to explain, the rationale behind the unconscionable stand down orders must still be determined. As the facts stand now, the likely explanations do not bode well for President Obama. The circumstances suggest the decision was made by a callous and desperate president struggling with a re-election campaign, a central plank of which was that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was “on the run” — not something affirmed by news of al-Qaeda operatives’ murder of our ambassador and military personnel. Or perhaps our commander-in-chief was too busy being our campaigner-in-chief and simply didn’t care about the carnage unfolding on his watch, which he declined to prevent. In any case, it is incumbent on the Obama administration to provide a rationale for its disastrous decision. As persistent Americans have shown, the investigation will not cease until that occurs.
 
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/blow-by-blow-how-obama-hillary-left-americans-to-die/


blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2013, 01:56:29 PM »
don't let the facts get in the way of your repub cryfest   :D :D :D


1. F-16s could have been sent to Benghazi
 
Part of the prevailing theory surrounding the events the night of the Benghazi attacks is that the Obama administration did not do enough militarily to respond to the crisis. Gregory Hicks — a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring.

Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.
 
2. Hillary Clinton signed cables denying additional security to Benghazi
 
House Republicans came to the conclusion in their interim report on Benghazi that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to them about what she knew and when during her testimony this January. This includes her statement that at no time was she aware of requests for additional security at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) used her time to take issue with this claim, asking all three witnesses about standard protocol for cables leaving the State Department. All three agreed with Maloney, that the Secretary of State’s name is placed at the bottom of all outgoing cables and telegrams from Foggy Bottom, whether the Secretary has viewed them or not, shooting down the GOP claim.
 
3. A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
 
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.
 
4. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board isn’t legitimate
 
Republicans have been attacking the State Department’s official in-house review of the shortcomings seen before, during, and after the assault in Benghazi. That criticism prompted House Republicans to write their own report. When asked point blank about the recommendations of the Board, however, the witnesses didn’t cooperate with the GOP narrative. “Absolutely,” Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya prior to the assault in Benghazi, answered when asked if he believes implementing the recommendations would improve security. “I had an opportunity to review that along with other two committee reports. I think taken altogether, they’re fairly comprehensive and reasonable.” Hicks, when questioned, said that while he had some issues with the process by which the Board gathered its information, he demurred on criticizing the report itself.




again, the facts aren't your friend  :D :D :D

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #74 on: May 09, 2013, 03:01:50 PM »
everything this guy said Above is factual....100% factual..

During the bush years there were 50+ embassy attacks with 3 Amerians being killed...and zero outrage from Fox news.. whats the difference.

you see...i know you like to gloss over the facts and disqualify it by saying "its a comedian saying it" so hopefully you dont have to comment on it...but if its 12 oclock....and a comedian says "hey guys its 12 oclock"...is he wrong?




The fact that the media is biased is irrelevant.  The fact that Bush fucked up to is irrelevant.  Their were major fuckups from Obama's underlings on this one and the man should be cleaning house instead of cheerleading.