First Response Team In Benghazi Finally Interviewed. They Were Told To Hold Back But Went Anyway

What difference at this point does it make.:gives:

That's cute and stuff, but it avoids the discussion.

the CIA Station Chief ordered a delay.

Not Hillary. Not Obama. Not Susan Rice.

And the thing here is that the CIA has lied about it's involvement in Benghazi all along, including whether they were operating a black site on the grounds of the consulate without Ambassador Stevens' knowledge.
 
Your point being? Clinton's state dept. did deny the security they requested.
 
Yup. Notice the deflection. Thats all they do when anyone criticizes the actions of the Obama administration. They compare his actions to everyone elses.

Benghazi didn't have to happen. They should have beefed up security or pulled our folks out
of Libya like the Brits and the Red Cross. State did nothing and four good men died.

I'd like to hear what all the survivors have to say about that day.

And YES it does matter.
Pointing out wingnut hypocrisy is not deflection. Where was the outrage when 53 people died during the 11 attacks on our diplomatic outposts during Gomer`s presidency? You see why people are laughing at you?
 
In fact, during a panel discussing Baier's interview later on the program, conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explained that the delay was probably to ensure the safety of the remaining CIA security personnel and was, in fact, not controversial at all:

LANE: The person I want to hear from is Bob, the CIA guy who told them to wait. Because when we hear from Bob we'll hear why he told them to wait. What we heard from your interview was they assumed he was waiting for more support from the local militia. Which, by the way, might not be a bad reason to wait. In other words, you want to go - you don't want to rush in with just three guys into what was obviously a very, very dangerous situation. You'd want to wait to see if you could round up some more support. In other words, there's a difference between waiting and waiting for no good reason and, even worse, waiting because you were told 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador.' I want to hear from Bob, I want to hear the CIA make him available and tell us exactly what was going on. What I'm not hearing in this is that anybody in Washington said, 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador, write it off, stay away.'
Fox News Rewrites Benghazi Narrative After New Expose Crooks and Liars
 
Yup. Notice the deflection. Thats all they do when anyone criticizes the actions of the Obama administration. They compare his actions to everyone elses.

Benghazi didn't have to happen. They should have beefed up security or pulled our folks out
of Libya like the Brits and the Red Cross. State did nothing and four good men died.

I'd like to hear what all the survivors have to say about that day.

And YES it does matter.
Pointing out wingnut hypocrisy is not deflection. Where was the outrage when 53 people died during the 11 attacks on our diplomatic outposts during Gomer`s presidency? You see why people are laughing at you?
Yup, let's just pull everything back and put up a wall around our country. Let the world go to hell.
Good plan.
 
In fact, during a panel discussing Baier's interview later on the program, conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explained that the delay was probably to ensure the safety of the remaining CIA security personnel and was, in fact, not controversial at all:

LANE: The person I want to hear from is Bob, the CIA guy who told them to wait. Because when we hear from Bob we'll hear why he told them to wait. What we heard from your interview was they assumed he was waiting for more support from the local militia. Which, by the way, might not be a bad reason to wait. In other words, you want to go - you don't want to rush in with just three guys into what was obviously a very, very dangerous situation. You'd want to wait to see if you could round up some more support. In other words, there's a difference between waiting and waiting for no good reason and, even worse, waiting because you were told 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador.' I want to hear from Bob, I want to hear the CIA make him available and tell us exactly what was going on. What I'm not hearing in this is that anybody in Washington said, 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador, write it off, stay away.'
Fox News Rewrites Benghazi Narrative After New Expose Crooks and Liars
I hope you didn't post this because you believe this nonsense?
 
What difference at this point does it make.:gives:

That's cute and stuff, but it avoids the discussion.

the CIA Station Chief ordered a delay.

Not Hillary. Not Obama. Not Susan Rice.

And the thing here is that the CIA has lied about it's involvement in Benghazi all along, including whether they were operating a black site on the grounds of the consulate without Ambassador Stevens' knowledge.

The reason why only a few "sources" are reporting on this book is there is littlle to back up the claims, Congress found this false, only WN, and other extreme right sites are buying this latest round of fabrications:

Fox s Newest Benghazi Conspiracy Immediately Debunked By Fox Guest Blog Media Matters for America only sources are old Fox reports, not true:

Top Intel Dem No evidence for Benghazi stand down claim TheHill

Note those involved in the book were from a PRIVATE security agency hired; not quite "in the loop".
 

Forum List

Back
Top