No 'Stand Down' Order In Benghazi, Despite What Darrell Issa Said

[Lakhota]

The fog of war...

Commanders: Benghazi Rescue Hampered By Lack Of Information

 

[Siete]

I've linked to Ham's testimony several times, do your own work.


I watched the testimony .. Ham was never ask if he and Stevens had that conversation, can you prove he did?

apparently Mr Fact check doesn't have a fact that disproves Stevens and Ham had two conversations where Stevens didn't accept extra security.

Imagine that.

next cartoonish RW'er.

maybe one that can out cuss the republican women on the board will show up ???

 

[kaz]

Are you suggesting the State Department was inept? HOW did the State Department slow things down - when the U.S. military was in control?

Inept, no. Agenda yes. Are you actually eight years old? Obviously I'm questioning the messiah and you're not going to agree with that. But the "duh, I don't get it" lines are pointless. You want to discuss it? Ask real questions.

You're full of shit. Everyone acted in good faith - Obama, military, and State Department. There ain't no conspiracy, sparky.

Strawman, I said nothing about a conspiracy. Still with your toddler arguments.

So how is it after 5 hours of the attack, the ... wait for it ... Libyans ... finally took control of the compound? How is it we couldn't get any force there in five hours? Seriously, our military couldn't get any serious help to them in f-i-v-e hours. Even you though your dim fog of stupidity have to be saying, WTF?

That's what we're saying, WTF? We want to know why. You would be demanding resignations already if this were the Republicans instead of your messiah.

 

[TooTall]

All this dancing around by RWs - because they hope we will forget that Issa lied, yet again.

Speaking of lies, I guess we will have to accept that it was a spontaneous demonstration against an internet video that got out of control. That was the story line for a couple of weeks from Obama and his administration.

 

[kaz]

The more that is coming out on this, the more it looks like Republicans have been making shit up just to destroy Hillary and the President. This is not going to sit well with the American public when this all comes out. I am so sick of all the lies from the right.

The lies started from Obama when he kept calling it a spontaneous attack based on the video long after everyone knew what a load of crap it was. And we still can't get clear answers. Ask Richard Nixon if coverups are OK even if you're not involved in an underlying crime.

One thing I agree with you on, it's not clear the administration actually did anything wrong during the attack. And it's very clear politically they should have just opened up their Kimono and moved on. Poor judgement seems to be plausible rather than their having done anything overtly wrong. I don't think the Republicans will prove anything more than poor judgement.

What this demonstrates once again is that Obama's a thin skinned despot who has no tolerance for being questioned. He will cover up, and he genuinely doesn't grasp why he would ever have to answer a question, any question. He's Obama.

Before you jump off to the video and the talking points are you now in agreement that there was never a White House or Military order to anyone to "Stand Down", That that was lie designed to damage the Obama campaign?

I have said I want to know why it took so long to get them help. You're putting timelines in place that they were out in 20-25 minutes when everything else I'm reading says that five hours after the assault started it was the Libyans who finally secured the location. I've never jumped to an answer, I'll leave that to the liberals. Democrat = innocent, Republican = guilty, for you, end of analysis. For me, question, I want real answer.

The coverup is undeniable though. Everyone following the news immediately was seeing generals saying no way an assault that large and coordinated was spontaneous, and Al Qaeda was known for 9/11 anniversary attacks. Yet the White House still for weeks said, video, spontaneous. It was a lie. They obviously had better intelligence than retired military people did, and they persisted in the lie.

As for "stand down," I know liberals like to grab onto phrases and words and repeat them as if that's the discussion. "Stand down" is way too specific. The State department can stall without ordering a stand down while they assess. Reagan screwed up there too in Lebanon allowing the State department to limit soldiers from carrying guns, soldiers would could have potentially stopped the barracks bombers.

I don't see any evidence the White House purposely withheld support, but I do see clear political reasons they would not want to admit that they weren't beloved by the Libyans, and no one wants to tell Obama he has no cloths, he surrounds himself with yes men. And he's arrogant as crap and that arrogance was his downfall here where he turned a screw up into a cover up because he cannot tolerate questions. He is the messiah.

Ask Nixon, who no one ever seriously accursed of even knowing about the Watergate break in until after it happens if covering up after the fact is OK. Obama has a pattern of it now too. I doubt he knew about fast and furious beforehand, which makes his use of executive privilege yet another lie used in a cover up since he had to know about it beforehand to use executive privilege. I have no idea if he knew about the IRS, but it's another cover up by his administration.

The pattern is scary, but not as scary as his minions being repeatedly OK with it. Something the Republicans didn't do for Nixon.

 

[Antares]

I've linked to Ham's testimony several times, do your own work.


I watched the testimony .. Ham was never ask if he and Stevens had that conversation, can you prove he did?

apparently Mr Fact check doesn't have a fact that disproves Stevens and Ham had two conversations where Stevens didn't accept extra security.

Imagine that.

next cartoonish RW'er.

maybe one that can out cuss the republican women on the board will show up ???

LOL. you are the "cartoonish" one kid.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Check the website little boy...."House Armed Services"...it's right out of their archives.

I can go on busting you up all day child, take your ego out of this and you'll fare better down the road.

 

[Sallow]

Inept, no. Agenda yes. Are you actually eight years old? Obviously I'm questioning the messiah and you're not going to agree with that. But the "duh, I don't get it" lines are pointless. You want to discuss it? Ask real questions.

You're full of shit. Everyone acted in good faith - Obama, military, and State Department. There ain't no conspiracy, sparky.

Strawman, I said nothing about a conspiracy. Still with your toddler arguments.

So how is it after 5 hours of the attack, the ... wait for it ... Libyans ... finally took control of the compound? How is it we couldn't get any force there in five hours? Seriously, our military couldn't get any serious help to them in f-i-v-e hours. Even you though your dim fog of stupidity have to be saying, WTF?

That's what we're saying, WTF? We want to know why. You would be demanding resignations already if this were the Republicans instead of your messiah.

Yeah.

Those military folks should have gotten on the Libyan subway and shit.

Been right there..you betcha!

 

[Sallow]

The lies started from Obama when he kept calling it a spontaneous attack based on the video long after everyone knew what a load of crap it was. And we still can't get clear answers. Ask Richard Nixon if coverups are OK even if you're not involved in an underlying crime.

One thing I agree with you on, it's not clear the administration actually did anything wrong during the attack. And it's very clear politically they should have just opened up their Kimono and moved on. Poor judgement seems to be plausible rather than their having done anything overtly wrong. I don't think the Republicans will prove anything more than poor judgement.

What this demonstrates once again is that Obama's a thin skinned despot who has no tolerance for being questioned. He will cover up, and he genuinely doesn't grasp why he would ever have to answer a question, any question. He's Obama.

Before you jump off to the video and the talking points are you now in agreement that there was never a White House or Military order to anyone to "Stand Down", That that was lie designed to damage the Obama campaign?

I have said I want to know why it took so long to get them help. You're putting timelines in place that they were out in 20-25 minutes when everything else I'm reading says that five hours after the assault started it was the Libyans who finally secured the location. I've never jumped to an answer, I'll leave that to the liberals. Democrat = innocent, Republican = guilty, for you, end of analysis. For me, question, I want real answer.

The coverup is undeniable though. Everyone following the news immediately was seeing generals saying no way an assault that large and coordinated was spontaneous, and Al Qaeda was known for 9/11 anniversary attacks. Yet the White House still for weeks said, video, spontaneous. It was a lie. They obviously had better intelligence than retired military people did, and they persisted in the lie.

As for "stand down," I know liberals like to grab onto phrases and words and repeat them as if that's the discussion. "Stand down" is way too specific. The State department can stall without ordering a stand down while they assess. Reagan screwed up there too in Lebanon allowing the State department to limit soldiers from carrying guns, soldiers would could have potentially stopped the barracks bombers.

I don't see any evidence the White House purposely withheld support, but I do see clear political reasons they would not want to admit that they weren't beloved by the Libyans, and no one wants to tell Obama he has no cloths, he surrounds himself with yes men. And he's arrogant as crap and that arrogance was his downfall here where he turned a screw up into a cover up because he cannot tolerate questions. He is the messiah.

Ask Nixon, who no one ever seriously accursed of even knowing about the Watergate break in until after it happens if covering up after the fact is OK. Obama has a pattern of it now too. I doubt he knew about fast and furious beforehand, which makes his use of executive privilege yet another lie used in a cover up since he had to know about it beforehand to use executive privilege. I have no idea if he knew about the IRS, but it's another cover up by his administration.

The pattern is scary, but not as scary as his minions being repeatedly OK with it. Something the Republicans didn't do for Nixon.

What?

 

[Sallow]

All this dancing around by RWs - because they hope we will forget that Issa lied, yet again.

Speaking of lies, I guess we will have to accept that it was a spontaneous demonstration against an internet video that got out of control. That was the story line for a couple of weeks from Obama and his administration.

And it was confirmed by a New Times article AND the guy that coordinated part of the attack.

They were pissed about the video.

The CIA and State department got that right.

 

[kaz]

You're full of shit. Everyone acted in good faith - Obama, military, and State Department. There ain't no conspiracy, sparky.

Strawman, I said nothing about a conspiracy. Still with your toddler arguments.

So how is it after 5 hours of the attack, the ... wait for it ... Libyans ... finally took control of the compound? How is it we couldn't get any force there in five hours? Seriously, our military couldn't get any serious help to them in f-i-v-e hours. Even you though your dim fog of stupidity have to be saying, WTF?

That's what we're saying, WTF? We want to know why. You would be demanding resignations already if this were the Republicans instead of your messiah.

Yeah.

Those military folks should have gotten on the Libyan subway and shit.

Been right there..you betcha!

I'd have flown helicopters, but I'm not a dimwit. So seriously, you think the military couldn't get enough support to retake the compound in under 5 hours if they were trying? Seriously? And obviously if the military's hands weren't tied, they'd have tried.

 

[kaz]

Before you jump off to the video and the talking points are you now in agreement that there was never a White House or Military order to anyone to "Stand Down", That that was lie designed to damage the Obama campaign?

I have said I want to know why it took so long to get them help. You're putting timelines in place that they were out in 20-25 minutes when everything else I'm reading says that five hours after the assault started it was the Libyans who finally secured the location. I've never jumped to an answer, I'll leave that to the liberals. Democrat = innocent, Republican = guilty, for you, end of analysis. For me, question, I want real answer.

The coverup is undeniable though. Everyone following the news immediately was seeing generals saying no way an assault that large and coordinated was spontaneous, and Al Qaeda was known for 9/11 anniversary attacks. Yet the White House still for weeks said, video, spontaneous. It was a lie. They obviously had better intelligence than retired military people did, and they persisted in the lie.

As for "stand down," I know liberals like to grab onto phrases and words and repeat them as if that's the discussion. "Stand down" is way too specific. The State department can stall without ordering a stand down while they assess. Reagan screwed up there too in Lebanon allowing the State department to limit soldiers from carrying guns, soldiers would could have potentially stopped the barracks bombers.

I don't see any evidence the White House purposely withheld support, but I do see clear political reasons they would not want to admit that they weren't beloved by the Libyans, and no one wants to tell Obama he has no cloths, he surrounds himself with yes men. And he's arrogant as crap and that arrogance was his downfall here where he turned a screw up into a cover up because he cannot tolerate questions. He is the messiah.

Ask Nixon, who no one ever seriously accursed of even knowing about the Watergate break in until after it happens if covering up after the fact is OK. Obama has a pattern of it now too. I doubt he knew about fast and furious beforehand, which makes his use of executive privilege yet another lie used in a cover up since he had to know about it beforehand to use executive privilege. I have no idea if he knew about the IRS, but it's another cover up by his administration.

The pattern is scary, but not as scary as his minions being repeatedly OK with it. Something the Republicans didn't do for Nixon.

What?

LOL, MS-NBC didn't cover that one for you? He resigned because he was going to be convicted in the Senate because Republicans weren't going to nullify his crimes like the Democrats in the Senate did for Slick Willy and would undoubtedly do for the messiah.

 

[Siete]

I've linked to Ham's testimony several times, do your own work.


I watched the testimony .. Ham was never ask if he and Stevens had that conversation, can you prove he did?

apparently Mr Fact check doesn't have a fact that disproves Stevens and Ham had two conversations where Stevens didn't accept extra security.

Imagine that.

next cartoonish RW'er.

maybe one that can out cuss the republican women on the board will show up ???

LOL. you are the "cartoonish" one kid.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Check the website little boy...."House Armed Services"...it's right out of their archives.

I can go on busting you up all day child, take your ego out of this and you'll fare better down the road.

"cartoonish" was Robert Gates description of idiots like you .. not mine, but I agree.

its this simple ... provide facts that dispute Ham having conversations with Stevens and Ham offering security to Stevens.

Should be easy enough .. either you can or you can't - which is it?

 

[Antares]

I've linked to Ham's testimony several times, do your own work.


I watched the testimony .. Ham was never ask if he and Stevens had that conversation, can you prove he did?

apparently Mr Fact check doesn't have a fact that disproves Stevens and Ham had two conversations where Stevens didn't accept extra security.

Imagine that.

next cartoonish RW'er.

maybe one that can out cuss the republican women on the board will show up ???

LOL. you are the "cartoonish" one kid.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Check the website little boy...."House Armed Services"...it's right out of their archives.

I can go on busting you up all day child, take your ego out of this and you'll fare better down the road.

"cartoonish" was Robert Gates description of idiots like you .. not mine, but I agree.

its this simple ... provide facts that dispute Ham having conversations with Stevens and Ham offering security to Stevens.

Should be easy enough .. either you can or you can't - which is it?

On the contrary, I can show you that Ham indeed had conversations with Stevens about Security, I can also show you where Ham told the Panel that Stevens did NOT have the authority to ASK formore security, according to Ham it was a "Department to Department" request that had to be made, and it never was.

Ham protected them until August 3rd at which time his authority expired, the request at that point had to renewed by State, not Ambassador
to General, but State Department to Dept of Defense.

Like I said I can go on bitch slapping you all day or you can Butch up and admit you have no idea what you are talking about.


Oh yes, and as to you "listening" to Ham's testimony that I am quoting?

Well that just makes you a lying sack of shit

It was classified when it was given and I am quoting the declassified portions of it.

There is much of that is still redacted.

 

[Antares]

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Ms. Tsongas. And is it customary to make these requests through
the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request
or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority
to move forward?

General Ham. Actually rna I am it is a fairly formalized a very
formalized process that the Department of State formally requests in
this instance of the Department of Defense support in terms of the
Site Security Team. The State Department did that.That) as I think
most members know that Site Security Team was extended twice. The
last extension expired the 3rd of August aand the State Department
decided to not request a further extension but it is a formalized
process that is department to department rather than the combatant
commander and ambassador.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

You are well over your head #7.

 

[Siete]

LOL. you are the "cartoonish" one kid.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Check the website little boy...."House Armed Services"...it's right out of their archives.

I can go on busting you up all day child, take your ego out of this and you'll fare better down the road.

"cartoonish" was Robert Gates description of idiots like you .. not mine, but I agree.

its this simple ... provide facts that dispute Ham having conversations with Stevens and Ham offering security to Stevens.

Should be easy enough .. either you can or you can't - which is it?

On the contrary, I can show you that Ham indeed had conversations with Stevens about Security, I can also show you where Ham told the Panel that Stevens did NOT have the authority to ASK formore security, according to Ham it was a "Department to Department" request that had to be made, and it never was.

Ham protected them until August 3rd at which time his authority expired, the request at that point had to renewed by State, not Ambassador
to General, but State Department to Dept of Defense.

Like I said I can go on bitch slapping you all day or you can Butch up and admit you have no idea what you are talking about.


Oh yes, and as to you "listening" to Ham's testimony that I am quoting?

Well that just makes you a lying sack of shit

It was classified when it was given and I am quoting the declassified portions of it.

There is much of that is still redacted.

you can just go on refusing to provide credible evidence supporting everything BUT the quotes Ham and Stevens had about extra security and Stevens refusing said security.

if you spent as much time proving as you have dodging, this debate would have been over from the git-go


still waiting for you to do what you say you can do ..

 

[Antares]

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Ms. Tsongas. And is it customary to make these requests through
the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request
or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority
to move forward?

General Ham. Actually rna I am it is a fairly formalized a very
formalized process that the Department of State formally requests in
this instance of the Department of Defense support in terms of the
Site Security Team. The State Department did that.That) as I think
most members know that Site Security Team was extended twice. The
last extension expired the 3rd of August aand the State Department
decided to not request a further extension but it is a formalized
process that is department to department rather than the combatant
commander and ambassador.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

You are well over your head #7.

Now you are showing your immaturity, you'll get better though...when you grow up.

 

[Antares]

All this dancing around by RWs - because they hope we will forget that Issa lied, yet again.

Speaking of lies, I guess we will have to accept that it was a spontaneous demonstration against an internet video that got out of control. That was the story line for a couple of weeks from Obama and his administration.

And it was confirmed by a New Times article AND the guy that coordinated part of the attack.

They were pissed about the video.

The CIA and State department got that right.

The Chairman. I appreciate that, both of those times, so I can
get kind of a handle on that.
Okay. The attack started at 9:42. I don It see any mention here
about a demonstration, just simply an attack. Do you know if there
was some kind of demonstration before this attack?

General Ham. I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty
apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly
afterthis attack began, that this was an attack.

 

[Siete]

Speaking of lies, I guess we will have to accept that it was a spontaneous demonstration against an internet video that got out of control. That was the story line for a couple of weeks from Obama and his administration.

And it was confirmed by a New Times article AND the guy that coordinated part of the attack.

They were pissed about the video.

The CIA and State department got that right.

The Chairman. I appreciate that, both of those times, so I can
get kind of a handle on that.
Okay. The attack started at 9:42. I don It see any mention here
about a demonstration, just simply an attack. Do you know if there
was some kind of demonstration before this attack?

General Ham. I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty
apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly
afterthis attack began, that this was an attack.

bla bla bla ... still nothing about Stevens refusing security from Ham ... dispute THAT ... nothing more, nothing less please.

 

[Antares]

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Ms. Tsongas. And is it customary to make these requests through
the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request
or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority
to move forward?

General Ham. Actually rna I am it is a fairly formalized a very
formalized process that the Department of State formally requests in
this instance of the Department of Defense support in terms of the
Site Security Team. The State Department did that.That) as I think
most members know that Site Security Team was extended twice. The
last extension expired the 3rd of August aand the State Department
decided to not request a further extension but it is a formalized
process that is department to department rather than the combatant
commander and ambassador.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

You are well over your head #7.

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Yawn.

Go away kid.

 

[Siete]

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Ms. Tsongas. And is it customary to make these requests through
the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request
or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority
to move forward?

General Ham. Actually rna I am it is a fairly formalized a very
formalized process that the Department of State formally requests in
this instance of the Department of Defense support in terms of the
Site Security Team. The State Department did that.That) as I think
most members know that Site Security Team was extended twice. The
last extension expired the 3rd of August aand the State Department
decided to not request a further extension but it is a formalized
process that is department to department rather than the combatant
commander and ambassador.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

You are well over your head #7.

[MENTION=49106]Siete[/MENTION]

Yawn.

Go away kid.

translation;

I can't dispute that.


go tell your handlers a kid made a fool out of you .