CBS Apologizes for phony Benghazi story

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I suppose if you keep saying it enough someone will finally change their mind and believe it.

If you do not believe that politicians lie, you are not very smart in political matters. Bush lied out his ass. Even if you take away the WMD lies, the linking of Saddam to 9/11 was a whopper.

But maybe you are just blind to things you care not to see, most folks caught up in politics are.

[Whirlaway]

It was Trannytim who used these standards to dismiss the Benghazi claims; IMO, the fact that someone writes a book (or gives speeches) for money has NOTHING to do with the validity of their claims.

The lies around Benghazi start with TeamObama, including Hillary Clinton and Obama....the zombies think because one whistleblower is discredited, the whole Benghazi scandal can be dismissed -wrong !

And if conflicting statements to investigators is a discredit; then apply the same to TeamObama who have been lying and deflecting on Benghazi and a dozen other Obama scandals.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

The difference in the two sides here is, our side listens to parts of the story, and disregards the parts of the story that don't fit our view.

Your side listens to part of the story, and uses it to craft a lie which fits your view. A view which, in most case, is imaginary.

So, Doofus, you just admitted you're a Kool Aid guzzling Odumbo minion that can regurgitate on command. No matter how you try to spin it, Doofus, Odumbo, Hildabeast, etc., lied about the "why" and the "what" in Benghazi, and that is in no way an "imaginary scenario". That's documented fact, Doofus!

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Well, I am still glad that our State Department did not let 4 Americans get brutally murdered by radical Muslims because we did not want to offer proper security out of the fear of offending those very Muslims.

It would be a shame if we ever let something like that happen.

This is a criticism that deserves consideration....at least the part about the lack of security. I've heard the Dems blame the Repubs because it was a lack of funding, I've heard the Repubs blame the Dems saying it is entirely the responsibility of the State Department to furnish security for US embassies. I've heard the Ambassador specifically indicated on more than one occasion that additional security wasn't required and he didn't want it. I've also heard the opposite.

I don't know which is true or who should get the blame. I do know that in that area of the world, we should have had sufficient personnel with sufficient firepower to at least have made it more difficult for the attackers to gain access to the embassy, and in a perfect world, to have been in a position to be able to repel the attack until reinforcements could arrive. But, sorry....none of that shit is scandal material. It's just inefficiency, bad decision-making, stupidity or all three.....or maybe just Monday morning quarterbacking by a bunch of people sitting in the cheap seats.

I don't agree with the part of the post about us not having adequate security at the embassy because we're afraid to offend Muslims. That's just a stupid shot at the President making the ridiculous allegation that he's a Muslim, not an American, blah blah blah. Absurd. Regarding offending Muslims, we've been doing a lot more than offending them in the last ten years. We've been killing them and breaking their shit wholesale.....by the tens of thousands. And, we continue to do it to this day. I don't think we're too concerned about offending them....especially the ones we've already greased.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Why the need for a duplicate thread on this subject? WTF started up a thread several days ago on this exact same subject. You even commented on that thread a few times.

And who gives a shit what that discredited POS Mary Mapes thinks anyway? BTW, that is one butt ugly broad!

Wow. I missed your complaints about the 2 or 3 dozen or more duplicate threads on Benghazi that state the same nonsense over and over that were put up by Whirlytard and the Professor.

I put it up because I wanted to. When you start crying about the duplicate threads that your conservabot lookalikes post up, I'll reconsider.

[Yssup Rider]

Week five begins just like week four ended, with insults profanity and vitriol. You cannot win Corpy. Get help. Or manners.

[timpage]

Who is Corpy? I can't keep up.

[Yssup Rider]

Corpy = IBidiot, our resident Corprophiliac

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, Doofus, you just admitted you're a Kool Aid guzzling Odumbo minion that can regurgitate on command.

And i admitted that you're a liar.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

And i admitted that you're a liar.

You have to lie to defend Odumbo's lies, ergo you are the liar, Doofus.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by timpage

This is a criticism that deserves consideration....at least the part about the lack of security. I've heard the Dems blame the Repubs because it was a lack of funding, I've heard the Repubs blame the Dems saying it is entirely the responsibility of the State Department to furnish security for US embassies. I've heard the Ambassador specifically indicated on more than one occasion that additional security wasn't required and he didn't want it. I've also heard the opposite.

I don't know which is true or who should get the blame. I do know that in that area of the world, we should have had sufficient personnel with sufficient firepower to at least have made it more difficult for the attackers to gain access to the embassy, and in a perfect world, to have been in a position to be able to repel the attack until reinforcements could arrive. But, sorry....none of that shit is scandal material. It's just inefficiency, bad decision-making, stupidity or all three.....or maybe just Monday morning quarterbacking by a bunch of people sitting in the cheap seats.

I don't agree with the part of the post about us not having adequate security at the embassy because we're afraid to offend Muslims. That's just a stupid shot at the President making the ridiculous allegation that he's a Muslim, not an American, blah blah blah. Absurd. Regarding offending Muslims, we've been doing a lot more than offending them in the last ten years. We've been killing them and breaking their shit wholesale.....by the tens of thousands. And, we continue to do it to this day. I don't think we're too concerned about offending them....especially the ones we've already greased.

speaking of security, I'm not sure how many times I need to post this link before it soaks in..

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-security.html

questions?

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

speaking of security, I'm not sure how many times I need to post this link before it soaks in..

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-security.html

questions?

And I have posted this before, as to why Stevens turned down additional security from Gen Ham.


We do not know exactly why Ambassador Stevens declined offers of additional security twice from Gen Ham, who was the senior military official in the area. But we do know that Amb Stevens requested additional security thru the State Dept 4 times before the attack and was turned down by the State Dept every time. There were also discussions between the military and State Dept about security in the area. And we know that the State Dept said No to the 18 person security force headed by LTC Wood.

"One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy."

So I suspect that even though Stevens wanted additional security and was frustrated by not getting it, he knew that he could not accept an offer of additional security directly from the military unless it was authorized by the State Dept. And we know for a fact that the State Dept did not want additional security in Benghazi. In fact, they pulled LTC Wood's 18 person security force out of Libya in May, several months before the attack.

We also know for a fact that Amb Stevens wanted LTC Wood's security team to stay in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August.

The bottom line here is that it was still the responsibility of the State Dept to provide adequate security for the diplomatic facilities in Libya.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...#storylink=cpy

[CJ7]

on August 16th Ham offered security and Stevens declined ... a timeline of security requests from Stevens to the State Dept is in order ... they MUST be after Aug 16, and BEFORE the attack ... ALL 4 of them.

you have the floor

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

on August 16th Ham offered security and Stevens declined ... a timeline of security requests from Stevens to the State Dept is in order ... they MUST be after Aug 16, and BEFORE the attack ... ALL 4 of them.

you have the floor

I have the floor. LMAO! This is a fucking hooker board not some formal debating society.

What fucking difference does it make whether Stevens requested additional security after Aug 16 when he turned down Gen Ham's offer of additional security. He was told by the State Dept not to accept additional security from the military. And he had already formally requested from the State Dept that additional security be provided 4 times. Did you even read my post and link?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

I have the floor. LMAO! This is a fucking hooker board not some formal debating society.

What fucking difference does it make whether Stevens requested additional security after Aug 16 when he turned down Gen Ham's offer of additional security. He was told by the State Dept not to accept additional security from the military. And he had already formally requested from the State Dept that additional security be provided 4 times. Did you even read my post and link?

Ham was the Commander of Military forces in Africa, who do you think the State Dept contacted to communicate with Stevens?