Benghazi is over nutjobs

[Necrosis]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/report-republicans-were-source-of-bogus-benghazi-quotes/

shouldn't someone be in jail for this?

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah - that is why petraus said not to use the talking points, Hicks said he told hillary that night it was a terrorist attack and not demonstration,  susan rice went out and lied about the video 5 times over, etc.


Whatever, keep grasping at straws to defend this corrupt thug in the WH

[dario73]

HEHEHEHEEH!!!

It's not over by a long shot, nitwit.

It's over when we get all the answers from that scum known as the demotwats.

[dario73]

It's hilarious how the dumbcrats view themselves as scandal-free.

Piglosi supposedly was going to drain the swamp. They claimed transparency and swore to govern by the law.

Now they are plagued by scandals and they, as well as their nuthuggers, want to sweep everything under the rug. Even before any investigation begins, they are proclaiming that there is no validity to the accusations, attacking those that report and witnessed the improprieties, and blame officials that were in positions 82359028502520 years ago.

Demotwats are very eager to investigate, expose and leave no stones unturned when the scandal involves Republicans, but they won't police themselves and will do anything to silence any voice of dissent.

Like I have always said. Demotwats are pathetic and the biggest hypocrites on God's green earth.

[dario73]

[Soul Crusher]

White House Officials Blame State for Not Deploying Rapid-Response Terror Unit to Benghazi
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/17/White-House-Officials-Blame-State-for-Not-Deploying%20Rapid-Response%20Terror%20Unit%20to%20Benghazi



by John Nolte17 May 2013, 11:32


While Friday's Congressional hearings on the IRS were blowing that scandal up, the great Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News was putting another log on the Benghazi fire. In her Friday report, Attkisson was able to get a number of Obama Administration officials to open up about various aspects of the Benghazi scandal with the assurance that they would remain anonymous.

While most of the article -- and this is no fault of Attkisson's -- is butt-covering under the excuse of "us being idiots," as opposed to engaged in a cover up, there is some news. What primarily stands out is that it looks as though the White House is eager to blame the State Department for not deploying a rapid-reaction counterterror force to Libya on the fateful night of Sept. 11, 2012. 
 
The Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) is a team created specifically to deploy quickly to anywhere in the world when a suspected terror attack is underway. Attkisson writes that their mission statement describes FEST as "a seasoned team of counterterrorism professionals who can respond 'quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks... providing the fastest assistance possible' including 'hostage negotiating expertise' and 'time-sensitive information and intelligence.'"
 
Obviously, FEST could have been extremely helpful in securing our consulate and whatever intelligence was there. As it was, the facility laid abandoned for three full weeks before the FBI was able to secure the area. Moreover, there were concerns that night that Ambassador Stevens had been kidnapped.

FEST was not deployed and Attkisson's White House sources blame that on Hillary Clinton's deputy at State, Patrick Kennedy:
 
Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.
 
Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we'd sent it."
 
The official said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy, Patrick Kennedy, quickly dispensed with the idea. A senior State Department official Thursday told CBS News, "Under Secretary Kennedy is not in the decision chain on FEST deployment" but would not directly confirm whether Kennedy or somebody else dismissed the FEST.
 
 Regardless of who is responsible, the officials interviewed said there was no good reason not to deploy FEST.

White House critics would disagree.

One very good reason not to deploy FEST would be because the very act of deploying a counterterror unit to Benghazi would be an admission that a terrorist act had occurred in Benghazi. After the attack, the Obama Administration (which includes State) spent almost two weeks spinning a false narrative that said Libya was not a terror attack.

The fact that FEST was not deployed only helped that narrative.

 
 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC








FRIDAY NEWS DUMP!

[Dos Equis]

Let's assume misleading storyline is true.  Still does nothing to answer the questions about why our people were not properly protected, why we didn't try and save them, who gave the stand-down order, and why the government repeatedly lied. 

[Necrosis]

Let's assume misleading storyline is true.  Still does nothing to answer the questions about why our people were not properly protected, why we didn't try and save them, who gave the stand-down order, and why the government repeatedly lied. 

people were not properly protectedbecause its an embassy, the resources have been cut over and over and it was typical protection, it wasn't underwhelming relatively.

We didn\t have time to save them, quite simple. We know this is the case because under Bush the most embassy attacks in history occurred and the timeline was far more for the most part.

what stand down order? for the airport you mean? Why is that an issue it would have made no difference, would have risked more lives for a failedmission. This isn't braveheart, they aren't going to rush in blindly screaming for America.

They did not lie, the talking points changed, as they do in all investigations. There are arguments of semantics but again no one can point out a lie. It's all general non specific banter. The talking points changed, show me how they changed, I see sematic arguments that are reachs at best.

Then you have doctored emails, if the case was as easy as you affirm this surely isn't needed. Also, if this act is demonstrable as claimed surely he would be impeached.

[Straw Man]

people were not properly protectedbecause its an embassy, the resources have been cut over and over and it was typical protection, it wasn't underwhelming relatively.

We didn\t have time to save them, quite simple. We know this is the case because under Bush the most embassy attacks in history occurred and the timeline was far more for the most part.

what stand down order? for the airport you mean? Why is that an issue it would have made no difference, would have risked more lives for a failedmission. This isn't braveheart, they aren't going to rush in blindly screaming for America.

They did not lie, the talking points changed, as they do in all investigations. There are arguments of semantics but again no one can point out a lie. It's all general non specific banter. The talking points changed, show me how they changed, I see sematic arguments that are reachs at best.

Then you have doctored emails, if the case was as easy as you affirm this surely isn't needed. Also, if this act is demonstrable as claimed surely he would be impeached.

yeah, Bum has repeated this lie about 4 times now

I guess I'll just have to post this again

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/

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.

[Dos Equis]

people were not properly protectedbecause its an embassy, the resources have been cut over and over and it was typical protection, it wasn't underwhelming relatively.

We didn\t have time to save them, quite simple. We know this is the case because under Bush the most embassy attacks in history occurred and the timeline was far more for the most part.

what stand down order? for the airport you mean? Why is that an issue it would have made no difference, would have risked more lives for a failedmission. This isn't braveheart, they aren't going to rush in blindly screaming for America.

They did not lie, the talking points changed, as they do in all investigations. There are arguments of semantics but again no one can point out a lie. It's all general non specific banter. The talking points changed, show me how they changed, I see sematic arguments that are reachs at best.

Then you have doctored emails, if the case was as easy as you affirm this surely isn't needed. Also, if this act is demonstrable as claimed surely he would be impeached.

It has already been admitted by members of the Obama administration that the reduction in the budget for embassy security had nothing to do with the denial of requests for additional security in Benghazi.  

Yes, we likely had time to safe two of them, if immediate action was taken.  

Yes, they lied.  Hicks testified it was an attack.  The CIA said in their initial draft that it was Al Qaeda.  The administration inserted the word "demonstration," removed all references to Al Qaeda, and then tried to sell a demonstration as a result of a video.  That was an outright lie.  

Carney also lied when he said the only change they made was one word.  

Did you actually read the article you posted about the "doctored" emails?  

[Necrosis]

Let's assume misleading storyline is true.  Still does nothing to answer the questions about why our people were not properly protected, why we didn't try and save them, who gave the stand-down order, and why the government repeatedly lied. 

maybe the embassy cuts shouldn't have been made. Maybe they could not increase the security due to lack of funds. How does this not register.

how is this Obama;s fault? didn't the GOP vote down protection/monetary increases and then actually approve decreases in monetary support it might make it obamas fault. But if that was a priority then that wouldn't have occurred. I mean if you are concerned about their safety would you not approve increases in spending, what would motivate you to cut spending, what benefit to security does that provide.

Come back to the real world buddy, the lack of protection was not scandalous,they weren't undermanned when you look at previous attacks and if they would have been it again was the lack of funds.

[Dos Equis]

maybe the embassy cuts shouldn't have been made. Maybe they could not increase the security due to lack of funds. How does this not register.

how is this Obama;s fault? didn't the GOP vote down protection/monetary increases and then actually approve decreases in monetary support it might make it obamas fault. But if that was a priority then that wouldn't have occurred. I mean if you are concerned about their safety would you not approve increases in spending, what would motivate you to cut spending, what benefit to security does that provide.

Come back to the real world buddy, the lack of protection was not scandalous,they weren't undermanned when you look at previous attacks and if they would have been it again was the lack of funds.

I'm dealing with the facts.  Like these:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-blame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

[Necrosis]

It has already been admitted by members of the Obama administration that the reduction in the budget for embassy security had nothing to do with the denial of requests for additional security in Benghazi.  

Yes, we likely had time to safe two of them, if immediate action was taken.  

Yes, they lied.  Hicks testified it was an attack.  The CIA said in their initial draft that it was Al Qaeda.  The administration inserted the word "demonstration," removed all references to Al Qaeda, and then tried to sell a demonstration as a result of a video.  That was an outright lie.  

Carney also lied when he said the only change they made was one word.  

Did you actually read the article you posted about the "doctored" emails?  

What requests? when? post this request and the timeline please, I am not sure what you are talking about specifically.

No they didn't the documents were altered by the right, the original did not mention AQ to my knowledge, nor did they mention the state department. It was a LIE. Stop repeating it, do you accept that the documents were doctored?

Oh my god, the humanity, one change, was he referring to one word, one topic. Why is changing the documents to reflect reality bad? that's what sane people do, I know you believe in absolutes but this isn't the bible.

[Necrosis]

I'm dealing with the facts.  Like these:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-blame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

Ok, this is better, yet I fail to see the issue. What request? When? was increasing the force doable etc.. all these factors need to be weighed, these are subjective calls based on situation parameters. I wouldn't send in a team without proper intel, risking many lives for a few and going in blind, seems stupid, reckless and risks more lives.

[Dos Equis]

Ok, this is better, yet I fail to see the issue. What request? When? was increasing the force doable etc.. all these factors need to be weighed, these are subjective calls based on situation parameters. I wouldn't send in a team without proper intel, risking many lives for a few and going in blind, seems stupid, reckless and risks more lives.

This completely contradicts your contention that the lack of security was the result of budget cuts.  It was not, as Lamb plainly says. 

[blacken700]

im sure beach bum from getbig knows more  


Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."

[Straw Man]

im sure beach bum from getbig knows more  


Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."

you're forget that Bum believes in miracles

[Coach is Back!]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/report-republicans-were-source-of-bogus-benghazi-quotes/

shouldn't someone be in jail for this?

You think the families of the dead Americans who's who don't have answers are Burkina as well?

[tonymctones]

So the head of the CIA adamently expressed that he was not comfortable with the white house talking points in emails with the white house...

and, its the reps fault?

Im suprised you morons havent blamed bush for this yet...

[Necrosis]

This completely contradicts your contention that the lack of security was the result of budget cuts.  It was not, as Lamb plainly says. 

My contention was that if more security was wanted maybe cuts weren't the best approach. I didn't say there was a lack of security, there wasn't relative to previous embassy attacks. I am not asserting anything, you keep stating lack of security yet I fail to see where or how there was.

[Necrosis]

You think the families of the dead Americans who's who don't have answers are Burkina as well?

what the fuck are you trying to say?

[Necrosis]

So the head of the CIA adamently expressed that he was not comfortable with the white house talking points in emails with the white house...

and, its the reps fault?

Im suprised you morons havent blamed bush for this yet...

You mean the emails that were doctored by the right in an act of treason?

Why does no one care that the only offense committed here is the lies coming from the right? There is no scandal, nothing at all, it's becoming hilarious actually.

[tonymctones]

You mean the emails that were doctored by the right in an act of treason?

Why does no one care that the only offense committed here is the lies coming from the right? There is no scandal, nothing at all, it's becoming hilarious actually.

no I mean the ones from Patrius to the white house that werent "doctored"

[Necrosis]

no I mean the ones from Patrius to the white house that werent "doctored"

could you post these exact alterations please, before and after, there is so much shit floating around I am unsure what points you are referring too specifically.

[OzmO]

It would be nice if someone could come up with a point by point summary of what the "charge" is, instead for cut/paste followed by ridicule.