White House Defends New Benghazi Email

[qui_est_ce]

youtube.com/watch?v=7bURYL4N_CQ&feature=youtu.be

Trey Gowdy-

He is awesome.

 

[TaurusRex]

This post comes across as desperation. The terrorist attack was NOT spontaneous. Do you have ANY experience with large groups of people, of coordinating them at an event or other function? Do you have ANY experience with mobs or other gatherings? Do you have ANY experience in military tactics/necessities/organization/planning/etc? Do you have ANY combat experience?

Have you even run something simple like a fundraising dinner, parish picnic, or group excursion??? (Even with something so simple as a wedding, there is mass confusion and chaos. And a wedding is planned months in advance, and has rehearsals additionally. Even with this, there is chaos and confusion. And people go to weddings all the time, so we know what to expect.) When you have actually tried to organize a large group of people, you will only BEGIN to understand the complexity of military actions where life and death are involved.

When you need to have a group of people all working in close coordination, with proper movements and actions done at the right time, you need to have a great plan, plenty of prior communication, experience, and practice. Lots of practice. Did you even READ how it was described?

The streets were cleared, so the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was informed. They ALL had time to clear out or hunker down. The teams assembled in separate staging areas. This takes prior planning and practice. The teams all began movements at the sam time, again, prior planning and coordination. The streets were blocked off, again prior planning. The attacks were controlled and focused. They re-positioned their attack with new intel. They brought extra supplies to burn down the buildings. They used heavy weapons which take experience, knowledge, and specialized personnel to operate so you don’t kill your own people.

There is NOTHING spontaneous about the attack. NOTHING!

Quit trying to protect your “team”, and look for the truth. We as Christians are bound to the truth, because we follow The Truth.

First,
I don’t like your attitude in your post,
Second,
I’ve read about the attack,
Third,
my personal life is my business, but the average wedding in my family has over 300 guests with a similar number coming to our funerals
And we have lots of both.
Fourth,
I played middle guard and strong side tackle in both high school and college.
Fifth,
my buddy and I were known as the “dynamic duo” with more street fight victories than the rest of our “dirty dozen”.
Fifth,
my street fight experience culminated in my rubbing my 220 lb. opponent’s face in the dirt in my driveway while using his right ear for a handle while his 14 year old kid hit me ~12 times across the back with a baseball bat that his father handed to him and told him to use on me if he needed help.
Sixth, we’ve got backyard barbecues with as many as 100 people.

PS:
Your description of the Benghazi attack is full of adlibs on your part which are opinions
added to the wiki description;
Whereas at least two of the sources I provided made mention of a lawyer witness speaking of Ansar al Sharia recruiting young people to express anger over the Muslim video to get things started;

And I don’t agree that the attack had to be rehearsed as you imply because they would have lost the element of surprise for one thing.
Finally, you say my post #63 was “just opinion with little fact or information”, but you seem to miss that
it was the LINK in my post #63 I wanted you to read.

rex

 

[estesbob]

Another thing that imvho Obama has done wrong is arm the rebels in Syria which Republican Senator McCain had advocated btw;
But I suspect that was done mostly to spite Putin which is also mvho.

rex

And this is relevant to the Benghazi email because?

 

[TaurusRex]

And this is relevant to the Benghazi email because?

It’s only been harped by a character in this thread that Obama runs guns to the rebels about a half dozen times.

rex

 

[oldcatholicguy]

First,
I don’t like your attitude in your post,
Second,
I’ve read about the attack,
Third,
my personal life is my business, but the average wedding in my family has over 300 guests with a similar number coming to our funerals
And we have lots of both.
Fourth,
I played middle guard and strong side tackle in both high school and college.
Fifth,
my buddy and I were known as the “dynamic duo” with more street fight victories than the rest of our “dirty dozen”.
Fifth,
my street fight experience culminated in my rubbing my 220 lb. opponent’s face in the dirt in my driveway while using his right ear for a handle while his 14 year old kid hit me ~12 times across the back with a baseball bat that his father handed to him and told him to use on me if he needed help.
Sixth, we’ve got backyard barbecues with as many as 100 people.

PS:
Your description of the Benghazi attack is full of adlibs on your part which are opinions
added to the wiki description;
Whereas at least two of the sources I provided made mention of a lawyer witness speaking of Ansar al Sharia recruiting young people to express anger over the Muslim video to get things started;

And I don’t agree that the attack had to be rehearsed as you imply because they would have lost the element of surprise for one thing.
Finally, you say my post #63 was “just opinion with little fact or information”, but you seem to miss that
it was the LINK in my post #63 I wanted you to read.

rex

I’ll be more than happy to go back over the discussion of the attack being spontaneous or planned. Please feel free to review my several posts discussing why it wasn’t spontaneous and provide your counter points.

 

[ishii]

It seems to me that this topic has already been shifted to “political lies”,
so the goose and the gander come to my mind.

rex

More like re-hashing old debunked controversies to divert attention away from the issue at hand. Obama brought this on himself. They could have released all the documents but chose not to. Instead the scandal remains very much alive as the info trickles in. Very Nixonian.

Ishii

 

[TaurusRex]

youtube.com/watch?v=7bURYL4N_CQ&feature=youtu.be

Trey Gowdy-

He is awesome.

Looks like he finally found a good barber.


rex

 

[estesbob]

The Complete Chronology of the Benghazi Deception

By Peter Kirsanow

May 6, 2014 4:01 PM

March 2011: U.S. secretly approves arms shipments from Qatar to Libyan rebels.

May 2011: Al-Qaeda flags raised over Benghazi.

November 2011: Rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admits a significant number of Libyan rebels were al-Qaeda fighters who fought American troops in Iraq.

April 19, 2012: State Department rejects ambassador to Libya’s request for more security personnel.

June 20, 2012: Assassination attempt on the British Ambassador to Libya.

July 9, 2012: Ambassador Stevens asks the State Department for more security personnel.

August 8, 2012: The number of security personnel at Benghazi reduced by State Department.

August 16, 2012: U.S. Site Security in Benghazi alerts the State Department that conditions are perilous.

September 4, 2012: Gallup presidential tracking poll: Obama 47 percent; Romney 46 percent.

September 4–6, 2012: Democratic National Convention (“al-Qaeda decimated; bin Laden is dead and GM is alive; al-Qaeda is on the run”).

September 11, 2012: Ambassador Stevens alerts the State Department that conditions in Benghazi are deteriorating.

3:40 p.m. (D.C. time): Stevens calls deputy chief of mission Greg Hicks in Tripoli and alerts him that the consulate in Benghazi is under attack.

4:00 p.m.: The White House is advised that the consulate is under attack. 10th Special Forces Group in Croatia is three hours away; Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell, Deputy Director of Intelligence for AFRICOM, later testifies that intelligence knew immediately that it was not a protest but a terrorist attack; no request for aid comes from the State Department.

5:00 p.m.: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discusses attack with President Obama.

6:00 p.m.: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli advises the White House and the State Department that al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia has claimed responsibility for the attack. CIA deputy director Mike Morrell later testifies that “analysts knew from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved with this attack.”

8:00 p.m.: Greg Hicks calls Clinton and tells her that consulate is under terrorist attack.

10:00 p.m.: Clinton and Obama talk.

10:30 p.m.: Clinton issues a statement linking the attack to an inflammatory internet video.

11:00–11:30 p.m.: Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Ty Woods killed.

September 12, 2012: Redacted e-mail from a State Department official says the official advised the Libyan government that the attack was carried out by Ansar al-Sharia. No mention of video.

September 12–15, 2012: CIA drafts several iterations of talking points; contains no known references to video as cause of the attack.

September 13, 2012: State Department memo blames the attack on terrorists.

September 13, 2012: Defense Intelligence Agency assigns blame for the attack on Ansar al-Sharia in Libya. No mention of a video.

September 13, 2012: Clinton condemns violence against U.S. consulate in Libya due to a video.

September 13, 2012: Jay Carney condemns attack due to a video.

September 14, 2012: State Department says the attack was a spontaneous demonstration due to a video.

September 14, 2012: Obama and Clinton receive the families of the fallen as their caskets arrive at Andrews Air Force Base; blame the attack on a video. Clinton tells Ty Woods’s father, Charles, that they will “get” the producer of the video.

September 14, 2012: Jay Carney blames the video.

September 14, 2012, 8:00 p.m.: Deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes sends an e-mail regarding the preparation of Susan Rice for the Sunday talk shows, advising Rice to underscore the video and that the attack is “not a broader failure of policy.”

September 15, 2012: Obama blames the video.

September 16, 2012: Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talk shows and characterizes the attacks as a spontaneous reaction due to a video.

September 16, 2012: Libyan president disputes Rice’s comments, asserting Benghazi was a planned attack.

September 18, 2012: Obama appears on the David Letterman show, blames the video.

September 19, 2012: The head of the National Counterterrorism Center testifies that the attack was not a protest but a terrorist attack.

September 20, 2012: Obama blames the video.

September 20, 2012: Obama and Clinton run an ad on Pakistani TV apologizing for the video.

September 21, 2012: Clinton says it was a terrorist attack.

September 24, 2012: Obama appears on The View, blames the video.

October 4, 2012: Clinton establishes the Accountability Review Board (“ARB”) to examine the circumstances surrounding the loss of personnel in Benghazi. Clinton not interviewed by ARB.

October 11, 2012: At the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden claims the administration was not informed about requests for more security at the consulate in Benghazi.

October 16, 2012: Obama, in a response to a question from a reporter about whether he denied requests for aid to Benghazi on September 11 responds, “The minute I found out this was going on, I gave three directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so that we can bring them to justice.”

October 18, 2012: Judicial Watch makes a Freedom of Information Act request to the administration for talking points and communications regarding the events in Benghazi. The administration ignores the request.

October 20, 2012: Obama claims that he was not aware of any requests for additional security in Benghazi.

Continued next post

 

[estesbob]

(CONT)

January 23, 2013: Clinton asks, “What difference, at this point, does it make whether it was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous demonstration?”

June 21, 2013: Judicial Watch sues the administration for unlawfully withholding documents pertaining to Benghazi.

July 25, 2013: Obama slams the “endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals.”

August 2013: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requests Benghazi e-mails. The Ben Rhodes e-mail is not among those produced.

April 18, 2014: Federal court orders the administration to turn over documents to Judicial Watch. 41 documents are released, including the Ben Rhodes e-mail.

May 1, 2014: Tommy Vietor tells Fox News the president was not in the Situation Room on September 11, 2012.

May 2, 2014: Speaker John Boehner announces a vote to form a select committee on Benghazi.

May 4, 2014: Representative Adam Schiff (D…, Calif.), member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggests Democrats boycott the House select committee as a “colossal waste of time.”

May 5, 2014: Carney will not say whether White House will cooperate with the select committee.

(Clearly, much remains to be filled in by the select committee. Numerous questions and lines of inquiry are prompted by the above. The chronology is based on congressional testimony and reports from, among others, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times, the New York Post and Fox News, and the reporting of Steve Hayes and Jennifer Griffin.)

 

[TaurusRex]

The “opinions” are strictly yours. I just want answers to questions. Your answers have been “IMHO” and “appears.”

I would like answers from the administration. Straightforward. That is all.

There should be no special investigation, especially since Obama promised “greater transparency.” Obama is the Gander because that statement implied lack of transparency under the “previous administration” as he so dearly refers to the Bush administration.

BTW qui est ce,
to put the “good for the goose is good for the gander” in proper perspective,
the goose (Obama) is presently under the microscope, while the gander (Bush) has escaped the viewing so to speak, :egyptian:

rex

 

[qui_est_ce]

(CONT)

January 23, 2013: Clinton asks, “What difference, at this point, does it make whether it was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous demonstration?”

This has been my beef with her statement all along. AT THIS POINT. Of course, the elections are over, so the REASON, they are dead isn’t important anymore. She doesn’t want to defend her reason for calling it a spontaneous attack.

I think most people would agree the “what difference does it make, AT THIS POINT” is what bothers them. Nobody interprets this as, “What difference does it make, 4 men are dead.” Much as the liberal medial would like to impose on people who are questioning the entire event.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks Bob for the timeline.

Am I reading correctly that 2 of the Seals were killed about 7 hours after the State Department was told that the Consulate was under attack?

 

[Havard]

This has been my beef with her statement all along. AT THIS POINT. Of course, the elections are over, so the REASON, they are dead isn’t important anymore. She doesn’t want to defend her reason for calling it a spontaneous attack.

I think most people would agree the “what difference does it make, AT THIS POINT” is what bothers them. Nobody interprets this as, “What difference does it make, 4 men are dead.” Much as the liberal medial would like to impose on people who are questioning the entire event.

To be fair to Sec. Clinton, “at this point” could have meant “the deaths already happened, so that information can’t save them now”.

Now, even if she meant that, it’s still twisted logic, because the complaint about the video is about the narrative is about misleading the public, not saving the lives of those killed. When it comes to speaking to the American public, there’s no statue of limitations on owning up to a false narrative.

 

[estesbob]

This has been my beef with her statement all along. AT THIS POINT. Of course, the elections are over, so the REASON, they are dead isn’t important anymore. She doesn’t want to defend her reason for calling it a spontaneous attack.

I think most people would agree the “what difference does it make, AT THIS POINT” is what bothers them. Nobody interprets this as, “What difference does it make, 4 men are dead.” Much as the liberal medial would like to impose on people who are questioning the entire event.

One of the things I find so disturbing is they had already concocted the Video story and issued it to the press Before the attack was over-the two seals were still alive when they issued this falsehood-obviously more concerned about containing political damage than they were those sill alive in Benghazi

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Thanks Bob for the timeline.

Am I reading correctly that 2 of the Seals were killed about 7 hours after the State Department was told that the Consulate was under attack?

“Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Ty Woods killed.” That’s another way of saying CIA (or some other civilian intelligence agency) security forces.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To be fair to Sec. Clinton, “at this point” could have meant “the deaths already happened, so that information can’t save them now”.

Now, even if she meant that, it’s still twisted logic, because the complaint about the video is about the narrative is about misleading the public, not saving the lives of those killed. When it comes to speaking to the American public, there’s no statue of limitations on owning up to a false narrative.

Agreed.

What I wanted to point out, though, is people who quote Clinton’s words are often characterized as leaving out the rest of her statement, and are thus painted as distorting her words.

The point is, we are not accusing Hillary as saying, who cares, they’re dead.

 

[qui_est_ce]

“Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Ty Woods killed.” That’s another way of saying CIA (or some other civilian intelligence agency) security forces.

I stand corrected.

 

[Havard]

Agreed.

What I wanted to point out, though, is people who quote Clinton’s words are often characterized as leaving out the rest of her statement, and are thus painted as distorting her words.

The point is, we are not accusing Hillary as saying, who cares, they’re dead.

Probably because Sean Hannity keeps repeating just that part, out of context. Much to my dismay, not every conservative pundit is as methodical or nuanced as George Will or Charles Krauthammer.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I stand corrected.

Well not completely corrected. Removing the soldier from the military (i.e. they “quit the military” wink wink) opens up what the soldier can legally do and what the government can legally claim (“why no we don’t have any military forces in your country, those men are just really fit security specialists who just happen to look like/act like they’re in the military”). There is a lot less restrictions on “no seriously I’m not in the military anymore” security personal can do than on what active duty military personal can do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Probably because Sean Hannity keeps repeating just that part, out of context. Much to my dismay, not every conservative pundit is as methodical or nuanced as George Will or Charles Krauthammer.

I don’t watch Hannity for that very reason. He’s a bit dumbed down for my taste.