Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I asked posters commenting on another thread to articulate what exactly is scandalous about the incident at Benghazi.
I got nothing in response but hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked and a guy who claimed he could and called me a ****, yet failed to articulate the scandal.
I'm putting this challenge out there to a wider audience to see if I can find anyone who can explain how the events of that day were somehow scandalous.
The scandal is in the failure of Obama and Company to do ANYTHING AT ALL to defend our ambassador and his staff...and then to COVER UP their blatant failure by insisting that the cause was a video that insulted Islam....for WEEKS after it was confirmed that Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama just could not stand to see an attack on the US happening just before his re-election....so he denied that it happened.
Obama is a lying, low down piece of shit.
It's worse than that. As it turns out, Benghazi was set up to administer some sort of Fast N Furious scheme to funnel weapons to the Syrian rebels in violation of international law.
The scandal is in the failure of Obama and Company to do ANYTHING AT ALL to defend our ambassador and his staff...and then to COVER UP their blatant failure by insisting that the cause was a video that insulted Islam....for WEEKS after it was confirmed that Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama just could not stand to see an attack on the US happening just before his re-election....so he denied that it happened.
Obama is a lying, low down piece of shit.
It's worse than that. As it turns out, Benghazi was set up to administer some sort of Fast N Furious scheme to funnel weapons to the Syrian rebels in violation of international law.
This i did not know. Can you provide a link for further reading?
Did you watch the video? Did you parse Greenwald's response? You should.
Fucks given = 0
Did you watch the video? Did you parse Greenwald's response? You should.
You have my permission to euthanize me the day I need Bill Maher to explain anything to me. I can't imagine that being a life worth living
The explanations I got were hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked.
The explanations I got were hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked.
Although help was already present and more was available only hours away, it was never sent.....We were told it was a "riot" for weeks until they could no longer contradict those who said it was not, before they were silenced. The person they sent out to spread their lies was PROMOTED to national security advisor, and the Sec/State testified she didn't know anything, couldn't remember anything, and that it "didn't matter" what happened.
If you weren't a moonbat apologist for these freaks, you'd see there's plenty of cause to call this not only a scandal, but criminal negligence and perjury.
The explanations I got were hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked.
Although help was already present and more was available only hours away, it was never sent.....We were told it was a "riot" for weeks until they could no longer contradict those who said it was not, before they were silenced. The person they sent out to spread their lies was PROMOTED to national security advisor, and the Sec/State testified she didn't know anything, couldn't remember anything, and that it "didn't matter" what happened.
If you weren't a moonbat apologist for these freaks, you'd see there's plenty of cause to call this not only a scandal, but criminal negligence and perjury.
Help was already present? What help? How much lead, brass and powder can you carry Joe. 200 rounds? 400 rounds? Can you also carry some grenades and bloopers? So you would send or go into a firefight with the only re-inforcement and resupply hours away. How long do you think those munitions would last in a raging firefight against 100 enemy? 200 enemy? How would you get into the battle? Would you send a chopper into a hot zone with the potential of being shot down and all aboard becoming casualtys? Would you run a qauntlet from the Airport to the battle? How would you protect against an ambush? Were
there armored vehicals at the airport or would you have to use SUV's or whatever was available? How would sending this team and it's re-inforcement impact your security profile and readiness to re-act to attack(s) on other facilitys?
We were told it was a riot at first because authoritys were not sure. That plus investigators don'e show their hand. You want the suspect(s) to be overconfident and hope they will make mistakes that will give leads. Ben Ghazi was a CIA operating post. Why should we have laid our hand on the table? Just to satisfy who? How do you even know we had definitive proof that it was a planned attack?
The person they sent out to tell the "lies" as you put it, was the obvious choice for the dispersal off misinformation or unconfirmed information while the investigation and reaction took place. A "stall" was instigated. If you knew about this kind of thing you would know that the U.N Ambassador was the automatic pick. Not the Secretary of Defense or State, not the White House, the highest ranking person who gives the rest of the gov't plausible deniability is the go to person. She was the Ambassador to the U.N., why would she know anything? She does what she is told. If you paid attention to these thing you would know how routine it is to send out an official with misinformation that connects to classified operations.
Although help was already present and more was available only hours away, it was never sent.....We were told it was a "riot" for weeks until they could no longer contradict those who said it was not, before they were silenced. The person they sent out to spread their lies was PROMOTED to national security advisor, and the Sec/State testified she didn't know anything, couldn't remember anything, and that it "didn't matter" what happened.
If you weren't a moonbat apologist for these freaks, you'd see there's plenty of cause to call this not only a scandal, but criminal negligence and perjury.
Help was already present? What help? How much lead, brass and powder can you carry Joe. 200 rounds? 400 rounds? Can you also carry some grenades and bloopers? So you would send or go into a firefight with the only re-inforcement and resupply hours away. How long do you think those munitions would last in a raging firefight against 100 enemy? 200 enemy? How would you get into the battle? Would you send a chopper into a hot zone with the potential of being shot down and all aboard becoming casualtys? Would you run a qauntlet from the Airport to the battle? How would you protect against an ambush? Were
there armored vehicals at the airport or would you have to use SUV's or whatever was available? How would sending this team and it's re-inforcement impact your security profile and readiness to re-act to attack(s) on other facilitys?
We were told it was a riot at first because authoritys were not sure. That plus investigators don'e show their hand. You want the suspect(s) to be overconfident and hope they will make mistakes that will give leads. Ben Ghazi was a CIA operating post. Why should we have laid our hand on the table? Just to satisfy who? How do you even know we had definitive proof that it was a planned attack?
The person they sent out to tell the "lies" as you put it, was the obvious choice for the dispersal off misinformation or unconfirmed information while the investigation and reaction took place. A "stall" was instigated. If you knew about this kind of thing you would know that the U.N Ambassador was the automatic pick. Not the Secretary of Defense or State, not the White House, the highest ranking person who gives the rest of the gov't plausible deniability is the go to person. She was the Ambassador to the U.N., why would she know anything? She does what she is told. If you paid attention to these thing you would know how routine it is to send out an official with misinformation that connects to classified operations.
We normally carried 20-24 20-round magazines for the .556s....I carried our thumper: mostly M576 rounds for it plus a couple timed-rounds and a flare round....that's sufficient for a 6-man recon team in for a target of opportunity/ambush. The help in Benghazi was already on the ground with a SEAL ready to laser-point AQ positions....no air cover other than the bird they came on would have been necessary....the opposing force was less than a 100....shit we faced those odds many times in the RVN...and we're not talking about a recon team here....at least a full platoon could have arrived in time to deal with the situation, especially the second half of it. All AQ's best fighters are under the dirt in Iraq....these assholes wouldn't have stood a chance against an SFG team of snake-eaters.
This all boils down to one thing.....Soetoro said he'd "decimated" AQ and couldn't admit they'd just eaten his lunch in Libya....it was for the election....any other time somebody would have overruled him like they did on the bin-Laden caper (he tried to stop it).
The explanations I got were hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked.
Although help was already present and more was available only hours away, it was never sent.....We were told it was a "riot" for weeks until they could no longer contradict those who said it was not, before they were silenced. The person they sent out to spread their lies was PROMOTED to national security advisor, and the Sec/State testified she didn't know anything, couldn't remember anything, and that it "didn't matter" what happened.
If you weren't a moonbat apologist for these freaks, you'd see there's plenty of cause to call this not only a scandal, but criminal negligence and perjury.
Help was already present? What help? How much lead, brass and powder can you carry Joe. 200 rounds? 400 rounds? Can you also carry some grenades and bloopers? So you would send or go into a firefight with the only re-inforcement and resupply hours away. How long do you think those munitions would last in a raging firefight against 100 enemy? 200 enemy? How would you get into the battle? Would you send a chopper into a hot zone with the potential of being shot down and all aboard becoming casualtys? Would you run a qauntlet from the Airport to the battle? How would you protect against an ambush? Were
there armored vehicals at the airport or would you have to use SUV's or whatever was available? How would sending this team and it's re-inforcement impact your security profile and readiness to re-act to attack(s) on other facilitys?
We were told it was a riot at first because authoritys were not sure. That plus investigators don'e show their hand. You want the suspect(s) to be overconfident and hope they will make mistakes that will give leads. Ben Ghazi was a CIA operating post. Why should we have laid our hand on the table? Just to satisfy who? How do you even know we had definitive proof that it was a planned attack?
The person they sent out to tell the "lies" as you put it, was the obvious choice for the dispersal off misinformation or unconfirmed information while the investigation and reaction took place. A "stall" was instigated. If you knew about this kind of thing you would know that the U.N Ambassador was the automatic pick. Not the Secretary of Defense or State, not the White House, the highest ranking person who gives the rest of the gov't plausible deniability is the go to person. She was the Ambassador to the U.N., why would she know anything? She does what she is told. If you paid attention to these thing you would know how routine it is to send out an official with misinformation that connects to classified operations.
Help was already present? What help? How much lead, brass and powder can you carry Joe. 200 rounds? 400 rounds? Can you also carry some grenades and bloopers? So you would send or go into a firefight with the only re-inforcement and resupply hours away. How long do you think those munitions would last in a raging firefight against 100 enemy? 200 enemy? How would you get into the battle? Would you send a chopper into a hot zone with the potential of being shot down and all aboard becoming casualtys? Would you run a qauntlet from the Airport to the battle? How would you protect against an ambush? Were
there armored vehicals at the airport or would you have to use SUV's or whatever was available? How would sending this team and it's re-inforcement impact your security profile and readiness to re-act to attack(s) on other facilitys?
We were told it was a riot at first because authoritys were not sure. That plus investigators don'e show their hand. You want the suspect(s) to be overconfident and hope they will make mistakes that will give leads. Ben Ghazi was a CIA operating post. Why should we have laid our hand on the table? Just to satisfy who? How do you even know we had definitive proof that it was a planned attack?
The person they sent out to tell the "lies" as you put it, was the obvious choice for the dispersal off misinformation or unconfirmed information while the investigation and reaction took place. A "stall" was instigated. If you knew about this kind of thing you would know that the U.N Ambassador was the automatic pick. Not the Secretary of Defense or State, not the White House, the highest ranking person who gives the rest of the gov't plausible deniability is the go to person. She was the Ambassador to the U.N., why would she know anything? She does what she is told. If you paid attention to these thing you would know how routine it is to send out an official with misinformation that connects to classified operations.
We normally carried 20-24 20-round magazines for the .556s....I carried our thumper: mostly M576 rounds for it plus a couple timed-rounds and a flare round....that's sufficient for a 6-man recon team in for a target of opportunity/ambush. The help in Benghazi was already on the ground with a SEAL ready to laser-point AQ positions....no air cover other than the bird they came on would have been necessary....the opposing force was less than a 100....shit we faced those odds many times in the RVN...and we're not talking about a recon team here....at least a full platoon could have arrived in time to deal with the situation, especially the second half of it. All AQ's best fighters are under the dirt in Iraq....these assholes wouldn't have stood a chance against an SFG team of snake-eaters.
This all boils down to one thing.....Soetoro said he'd "decimated" AQ and couldn't admit they'd just eaten his lunch in Libya....it was for the election....any other time somebody would have overruled him like they did on the bin-Laden caper (he tried to stop it).
OK, and a reaction force would be carrying way more than a recon force. But where does the information come from that says that a SEAL TEAM or other reaction force could have gotten there on time? How did commanders on the ground know the extent of the attacking force? Would the decision to launch a rescue been made by those commanders on the ground, or in D.C.? And once again, if things went bad, how quick could reinforcements gotten to fight to resue the rescuer's?
Did you eve get to play with those dart rounds?
those were more annoying than lethal....Anyway, from what I've heard, there was a SEAL team around on other business. Whether they were allowed to engage I'm not sure, but it's pretty obvious numerous calls for assistance were made both from the annex and various other assets in the area which were ignored. Panetta knows what happened and why he couldn't take over like he did in the Pakistan raid for OBL....he'd already lost one job doing that. Hillary was likely passed out on her kitchen floor for the duration of the raid. Rice had no reason to go on the talk shows that Sunday morning other than to blame "a video" instead of what it really was about....I think AQ swiped SAMs intended for Syrian rebels so they could cut us out of appearing to be behind the aid.
Please list them and show that they have been debunked. Give links to something besides your opinion.
How about trying to articulate why it's a scandal so I can then go point by point and debunk.
^ nice obvious back-peddle.
Lame attempt to shift the burden, too.
YOU made the ASSertion, you dufus.
Try supporting what YOU said.
Scandal - a disgraceful or discreditable action.
What they did -
1. Lied to the American People
2. Blamed it on a video that they knew full well was not.
3. Did not pull them out of there, like the British and Red Cross did.
4. Refused to give them more protection when they asked for it repeatedly.
5. They continually are covering up what really happened.
The above are FACTS!
The explanations I got were hysterical falsehoods that have already been debunked.
Although help was already present and more was available only hours away, it was never sent.....We were told it was a "riot" for weeks until they could no longer contradict those who said it was not, before they were silenced. The person they sent out to spread their lies was PROMOTED to national security advisor, and the Sec/State testified she didn't know anything, couldn't remember anything, and that it "didn't matter" what happened.
If you weren't a moonbat apologist for these freaks, you'd see there's plenty of cause to call this not only a scandal, but criminal negligence and perjury.
Scandal - a disgraceful or discreditable action.
What they did -
1. Lied to the American People
2. Blamed it on a video that they knew full well was not.
3. Did not pull them out of there, like the British and Red Cross did.
4. Refused to give them more protection when they asked for it repeatedly.
5. They continually are covering up what really happened.
The above are FACTS!
