Rescue? Note The Ambassador's Pants Are On Backwards And His Belt Is Unbuckled

[bodecea]

[If you're looking for an investment hedge post a possible Obama re election, consider some prayer rug manufacturers, because with an imcompetent like this in charge of America for another four more, Sharia Law and the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate are distinct possibilities. If Obama's lead in the polls reflects reality, most Americans be dumber than Janet Napolitano who blurted out, while the underwear bomber remained sitting on the plane in his still smokin' skivvies 'The system worked!" N-o-o-o, Ms Sh!t For Brains, the system did not work! The bomber's bomb did not work, otherwise all the planes occupants would have been lying in bits and pieces on the ground along the planes approach path amidst the plane's debris.]

"After the latest Libya shoe dropped — the letter of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I felt a need to summarize events for low-information voters, starting with myself. There are so many different pieces floating around, most of which have been written about in detail, but no soup-to-nuts summary that I know of, and we’re losing the forest view among the trees. So, in roughly chronological order:

1. As terrorist/militia activity in Benghazi becomes more bold — with at least 13 security deterioration episodes documented, including several attacks on the US Consulate itself — the local mission, over a span of months, repeatedly begs the Obama Administration for better security. Requests denied.

2. In early September, US intelligence community gets specific warnings that Al Qaida and affiliates are planning attacks on US overseas missions, to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. Nothing is done, and nothing communicated to the US missions in Libya, despite well-known al Qaeda/terrorist presence in Benghazi.

3. Mr. Obama skips his daily national security intelligence briefings during early September, right up through 9/11. There’s a campaign to win, you know. Priorities.

4. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, using heavy military weapons, assaults the US Consulate in Benghazi; the ambassador flees to a safe house; the terrorists know where the safe house is, go there and murder him (and — unreported in the US MSM — “abuse” the Ambassador, in the local media’s quaint phrase, either before or after his death).

5. The Obama administration finds out within hours that it was an al Qaeda attack.

6. Armed with the information that the US has been attacked by an enemy declared to be at war with us, Mr. Obama immediately swings into action. He issues a statement deploring the deaths and jets off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. He also skips the intelligence briefing the following morning. After all, he already knows the US was attacked and the ambassador murdered in a terrorist assault. No point in exploring the obvious.

7. Nevertheless, for two weeks the Obama administration insists the murders were an overly exuberant protest over an obscure Internet clip, and the ambassador died of smoke inhalation after being separated from his group in a fire. They hold this line even as it becomes increasingly obvious this was a preplanned attack, and the ambassador met a much harsher fate.

8. Questioned early on over these obvious lies, the State Department says it will have no further comment because the matter is under criminal investigation, and they don’t want to interfere with a criminal investigation

9. A criminal investigation of what now even the Obama administration admits was a terrorist attack? In Libya? Is there no such thing as an act of war to these people? But I digress.

10. When they’re finally exposed as flat-out lying to such an extent even the MSM can’t ignore it, the Obama administration retreats, insisting its initial lies were mistakes based on bad intelligence briefings and blaming the CIA.

11. The relentless, resourceful G-Men get on the case: The FBI holds a press conference, then flies its people to Tripoli. They do not go to Benghazi, i.e., they don’t go to the “crime” scene or interview any of the witnesses to the “crime.”

12. The third line of retreat position is the State Department claim that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t worried about security. How were they to know that there was a problem if the Ambassador did not?

13. CNN does some actual reporting, finds the ambassador’s diary, and lo and behold, he was very, very concerned about security. Congressman Issa separately finds out about the numerous prior requests to beef up security.

14. The Obama administration goes all in, or rather all out, and pulls all US personnel from Benghazi. So much for even the fig leaf “criminal investigation.” But State still refuses to answer questions.

Note the one thing that ties all these points together? In none of them does the Obama Administration betray a hint of concern for United States security. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Karo adds this footnote: “If you want independent indications of the ‘abuse’ in point 4, I refer you to this Power Line post. Note the Ambassador’s pants are on backwards, and his belt is unbuckled. I can still come up with no valid rescue scenario that would cause this. But if avoiding international outrage were your goal, or you had a minimal concern for the decency of the man’s body as you hauled it away, a hasty re-dress job would be the ticket.”

Libya for dummies | Power Line

Where are the pics?

 

[beretta304]

Oh, the desperation of the idiot fringe...

Why didn't you nominate a better candidate?

Don't blame Obama, you screwed your own pooch.

And stop with the pathetic conspiracy theories. Issa is a tool.

Just out of curiosity, why do YOU think the ambassadors pants were on backwards?

I didn't think HazNoNuts would answer.

He didn't, if you get my drift...

 

[Katzndogz]

So far everything that has come from this royal regime about Benghazi has been a total lie. From the very first. Nothing, not a single word can be trusted, least of all the fate of Ambassador Stevens.

 

[beretta304]

So far everything that has come from this royal regime about Benghazi has been a total lie. From the very first. Nothing, not a single word can be trusted, least of all the fate of Ambassador Stevens.

And still not a peep from the lamestream media.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You can't click the link to see the photo unless you join this wacko right wing site.

I'm sure its out there but if someone has the link, I'd appreciate them posting it.

Edited to add - a link to the photo that is NOT on a site like this where I have to "like" and then have their garbage spam in my email.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

[If you're looking for an investment hedge post a possible Obama re election, consider some prayer rug manufacturers, because with an imcompetent like this in charge of America for another four more, Sharia Law and the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate are distinct possibilities. If Obama's lead in the polls reflects reality, most Americans be dumber than Janet Napolitano who blurted out, while the underwear bomber remained sitting on the plane in his still smokin' skivvies 'The system worked!" N-o-o-o, Ms Sh!t For Brains, the system did not work! The bomber's bomb did not work, otherwise all the planes occupants would have been lying in bits and pieces on the ground along the planes approach path amidst the plane's debris.]

"After the latest Libya shoe dropped — the letter of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I felt a need to summarize events for low-information voters, starting with myself. There are so many different pieces floating around, most of which have been written about in detail, but no soup-to-nuts summary that I know of, and we’re losing the forest view among the trees. So, in roughly chronological order:

1. As terrorist/militia activity in Benghazi becomes more bold — with at least 13 security deterioration episodes documented, including several attacks on the US Consulate itself — the local mission, over a span of months, repeatedly begs the Obama Administration for better security. Requests denied.

2. In early September, US intelligence community gets specific warnings that Al Qaida and affiliates are planning attacks on US overseas missions, to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. Nothing is done, and nothing communicated to the US missions in Libya, despite well-known al Qaeda/terrorist presence in Benghazi.

3. Mr. Obama skips his daily national security intelligence briefings during early September, right up through 9/11. There’s a campaign to win, you know. Priorities.

4. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, using heavy military weapons, assaults the US Consulate in Benghazi; the ambassador flees to a safe house; the terrorists know where the safe house is, go there and murder him (and — unreported in the US MSM — “abuse” the Ambassador, in the local media’s quaint phrase, either before or after his death).

5. The Obama administration finds out within hours that it was an al Qaeda attack.

6. Armed with the information that the US has been attacked by an enemy declared to be at war with us, Mr. Obama immediately swings into action. He issues a statement deploring the deaths and jets off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. He also skips the intelligence briefing the following morning. After all, he already knows the US was attacked and the ambassador murdered in a terrorist assault. No point in exploring the obvious.

7. Nevertheless, for two weeks the Obama administration insists the murders were an overly exuberant protest over an obscure Internet clip, and the ambassador died of smoke inhalation after being separated from his group in a fire. They hold this line even as it becomes increasingly obvious this was a preplanned attack, and the ambassador met a much harsher fate.

8. Questioned early on over these obvious lies, the State Department says it will have no further comment because the matter is under criminal investigation, and they don’t want to interfere with a criminal investigation

9. A criminal investigation of what now even the Obama administration admits was a terrorist attack? In Libya? Is there no such thing as an act of war to these people? But I digress.

10. When they’re finally exposed as flat-out lying to such an extent even the MSM can’t ignore it, the Obama administration retreats, insisting its initial lies were mistakes based on bad intelligence briefings and blaming the CIA.

11. The relentless, resourceful G-Men get on the case: The FBI holds a press conference, then flies its people to Tripoli. They do not go to Benghazi, i.e., they don’t go to the “crime” scene or interview any of the witnesses to the “crime.”

12. The third line of retreat position is the State Department claim that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t worried about security. How were they to know that there was a problem if the Ambassador did not?

13. CNN does some actual reporting, finds the ambassador’s diary, and lo and behold, he was very, very concerned about security. Congressman Issa separately finds out about the numerous prior requests to beef up security.

14. The Obama administration goes all in, or rather all out, and pulls all US personnel from Benghazi. So much for even the fig leaf “criminal investigation.” But State still refuses to answer questions.

Note the one thing that ties all these points together? In none of them does the Obama Administration betray a hint of concern for United States security. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Karo adds this footnote: “If you want independent indications of the ‘abuse’ in point 4, I refer you to this Power Line post. Note the Ambassador’s pants are on backwards, and his belt is unbuckled. I can still come up with no valid rescue scenario that would cause this. But if avoiding international outrage were your goal, or you had a minimal concern for the decency of the man’s body as you hauled it away, a hasty re-dress job would be the ticket.”

Libya for dummies | Power Line

Where are the pics?

Yeah.

Like I said, the only way you can click on a link at that site is to "like" them and then get their garbage in your email.

Then of course, you start getting other rw spam ..............

No thanks.

 

[WillowTree]

based on the thread title, i was prepared for this to be a bullshit thread.

However, looking at the pictures referenced in the linked piece, the thread title is accurate. If the pictures of men with cell phones dragging the ambassadors body were trying to rescue him, as many libtards here have claimed, then WHY were his pants on backwards? WHY does one person have their cell phone in the deceased ambassadors face, snapping a picture (he certainly wasn't offering the ambassador a way to call for help)?

What picture? I didn't see a link to a picture.

 

[bodecea]

Until I see some evidence (pics would be a start)....I cannot help but be reminded of all the rumors SWORN to be true of the rape and murder gangs roaming the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina.....rumors that turned out to be completely false.

 

[CaféAuLait]

[If you're looking for an investment hedge post a possible Obama re election, consider some prayer rug manufacturers, because with an imcompetent like this in charge of America for another four more, Sharia Law and the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate are distinct possibilities. If Obama's lead in the polls reflects reality, most Americans be dumber than Janet Napolitano who blurted out, while the underwear bomber remained sitting on the plane in his still smokin' skivvies 'The system worked!" N-o-o-o, Ms Sh!t For Brains, the system did not work! The bomber's bomb did not work, otherwise all the planes occupants would have been lying in bits and pieces on the ground along the planes approach path amidst the plane's debris.]

"After the latest Libya shoe dropped — the letter of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I felt a need to summarize events for low-information voters, starting with myself. There are so many different pieces floating around, most of which have been written about in detail, but no soup-to-nuts summary that I know of, and we’re losing the forest view among the trees. So, in roughly chronological order:

1. As terrorist/militia activity in Benghazi becomes more bold — with at least 13 security deterioration episodes documented, including several attacks on the US Consulate itself — the local mission, over a span of months, repeatedly begs the Obama Administration for better security. Requests denied.

2. In early September, US intelligence community gets specific warnings that Al Qaida and affiliates are planning attacks on US overseas missions, to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. Nothing is done, and nothing communicated to the US missions in Libya, despite well-known al Qaeda/terrorist presence in Benghazi.

3. Mr. Obama skips his daily national security intelligence briefings during early September, right up through 9/11. There’s a campaign to win, you know. Priorities.

4. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, using heavy military weapons, assaults the US Consulate in Benghazi; the ambassador flees to a safe house; the terrorists know where the safe house is, go there and murder him (and — unreported in the US MSM — “abuse” the Ambassador, in the local media’s quaint phrase, either before or after his death).

5. The Obama administration finds out within hours that it was an al Qaeda attack.

6. Armed with the information that the US has been attacked by an enemy declared to be at war with us, Mr. Obama immediately swings into action. He issues a statement deploring the deaths and jets off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. He also skips the intelligence briefing the following morning. After all, he already knows the US was attacked and the ambassador murdered in a terrorist assault. No point in exploring the obvious.

7. Nevertheless, for two weeks the Obama administration insists the murders were an overly exuberant protest over an obscure Internet clip, and the ambassador died of smoke inhalation after being separated from his group in a fire. They hold this line even as it becomes increasingly obvious this was a preplanned attack, and the ambassador met a much harsher fate.

8. Questioned early on over these obvious lies, the State Department says it will have no further comment because the matter is under criminal investigation, and they don’t want to interfere with a criminal investigation

9. A criminal investigation of what now even the Obama administration admits was a terrorist attack? In Libya? Is there no such thing as an act of war to these people? But I digress.

10. When they’re finally exposed as flat-out lying to such an extent even the MSM can’t ignore it, the Obama administration retreats, insisting its initial lies were mistakes based on bad intelligence briefings and blaming the CIA.

11. The relentless, resourceful G-Men get on the case: The FBI holds a press conference, then flies its people to Tripoli. They do not go to Benghazi, i.e., they don’t go to the “crime” scene or interview any of the witnesses to the “crime.”

12. The third line of retreat position is the State Department claim that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t worried about security. How were they to know that there was a problem if the Ambassador did not?

13. CNN does some actual reporting, finds the ambassador’s diary, and lo and behold, he was very, very concerned about security. Congressman Issa separately finds out about the numerous prior requests to beef up security.

14. The Obama administration goes all in, or rather all out, and pulls all US personnel from Benghazi. So much for even the fig leaf “criminal investigation.” But State still refuses to answer questions.

Note the one thing that ties all these points together? In none of them does the Obama Administration betray a hint of concern for United States security. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Karo adds this footnote: “If you want independent indications of the ‘abuse’ in point 4, I refer you to this Power Line post. Note the Ambassador’s pants are on backwards, and his belt is unbuckled. I can still come up with no valid rescue scenario that would cause this. But if avoiding international outrage were your goal, or you had a minimal concern for the decency of the man’s body as you hauled it away, a hasty re-dress job would be the ticket.”

Libya for dummies | Power Line

Where are the pics?

Right here, the link to the pics is clearly marked within the article:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

Scroll down a few paragraphs.

 

[Caroljo]

HazNoNuts just MIGHT be another TDM......OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CaféAuLait]

[If you're looking for an investment hedge post a possible Obama re election, consider some prayer rug manufacturers, because with an imcompetent like this in charge of America for another four more, Sharia Law and the Worldwide Islamic Caliphate are distinct possibilities. If Obama's lead in the polls reflects reality, most Americans be dumber than Janet Napolitano who blurted out, while the underwear bomber remained sitting on the plane in his still smokin' skivvies 'The system worked!" N-o-o-o, Ms Sh!t For Brains, the system did not work! The bomber's bomb did not work, otherwise all the planes occupants would have been lying in bits and pieces on the ground along the planes approach path amidst the plane's debris.]

"After the latest Libya shoe dropped — the letter of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darryl Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I felt a need to summarize events for low-information voters, starting with myself. There are so many different pieces floating around, most of which have been written about in detail, but no soup-to-nuts summary that I know of, and we’re losing the forest view among the trees. So, in roughly chronological order:

1. As terrorist/militia activity in Benghazi becomes more bold — with at least 13 security deterioration episodes documented, including several attacks on the US Consulate itself — the local mission, over a span of months, repeatedly begs the Obama Administration for better security. Requests denied.

2. In early September, US intelligence community gets specific warnings that Al Qaida and affiliates are planning attacks on US overseas missions, to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. Nothing is done, and nothing communicated to the US missions in Libya, despite well-known al Qaeda/terrorist presence in Benghazi.

3. Mr. Obama skips his daily national security intelligence briefings during early September, right up through 9/11. There’s a campaign to win, you know. Priorities.

4. Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, using heavy military weapons, assaults the US Consulate in Benghazi; the ambassador flees to a safe house; the terrorists know where the safe house is, go there and murder him (and — unreported in the US MSM — “abuse” the Ambassador, in the local media’s quaint phrase, either before or after his death).

5. The Obama administration finds out within hours that it was an al Qaeda attack.

6. Armed with the information that the US has been attacked by an enemy declared to be at war with us, Mr. Obama immediately swings into action. He issues a statement deploring the deaths and jets off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. He also skips the intelligence briefing the following morning. After all, he already knows the US was attacked and the ambassador murdered in a terrorist assault. No point in exploring the obvious.

7. Nevertheless, for two weeks the Obama administration insists the murders were an overly exuberant protest over an obscure Internet clip, and the ambassador died of smoke inhalation after being separated from his group in a fire. They hold this line even as it becomes increasingly obvious this was a preplanned attack, and the ambassador met a much harsher fate.

8. Questioned early on over these obvious lies, the State Department says it will have no further comment because the matter is under criminal investigation, and they don’t want to interfere with a criminal investigation

9. A criminal investigation of what now even the Obama administration admits was a terrorist attack? In Libya? Is there no such thing as an act of war to these people? But I digress.

10. When they’re finally exposed as flat-out lying to such an extent even the MSM can’t ignore it, the Obama administration retreats, insisting its initial lies were mistakes based on bad intelligence briefings and blaming the CIA.

11. The relentless, resourceful G-Men get on the case: The FBI holds a press conference, then flies its people to Tripoli. They do not go to Benghazi, i.e., they don’t go to the “crime” scene or interview any of the witnesses to the “crime.”

12. The third line of retreat position is the State Department claim that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t worried about security. How were they to know that there was a problem if the Ambassador did not?

13. CNN does some actual reporting, finds the ambassador’s diary, and lo and behold, he was very, very concerned about security. Congressman Issa separately finds out about the numerous prior requests to beef up security.

14. The Obama administration goes all in, or rather all out, and pulls all US personnel from Benghazi. So much for even the fig leaf “criminal investigation.” But State still refuses to answer questions.

Note the one thing that ties all these points together? In none of them does the Obama Administration betray a hint of concern for United States security. Draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Karo adds this footnote: “If you want independent indications of the ‘abuse’ in point 4, I refer you to this Power Line post. Note the Ambassador’s pants are on backwards, and his belt is unbuckled. I can still come up with no valid rescue scenario that would cause this. But if avoiding international outrage were your goal, or you had a minimal concern for the decency of the man’s body as you hauled it away, a hasty re-dress job would be the ticket.”

Libya for dummies | Power Line

Where are the pics?

Yeah.

Like I said, the only way you can click on a link at that site is to "like" them and then get their garbage in your email.

Then of course, you start getting other rw spam ..............

No thanks.

Um, I did not have to 'like' anything, here is the link to the article with the pictures, all I did was click the link within the article:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

scroll for the pics

 

[bodecea]

based on the thread title, i was prepared for this to be a bullshit thread.

However, looking at the pictures referenced in the linked piece, the thread title is accurate. If the pictures of men with cell phones dragging the ambassadors body were trying to rescue him, as many libtards here have claimed, then WHY were his pants on backwards? WHY does one person have their cell phone in the deceased ambassadors face, snapping a picture (he certainly wasn't offering the ambassador a way to call for help)?

What picture? I didn't see a link to a picture.

Exactly.....

 

[CaféAuLait]

based on the thread title, i was prepared for this to be a bullshit thread.

However, looking at the pictures referenced in the linked piece, the thread title is accurate. If the pictures of men with cell phones dragging the ambassadors body were trying to rescue him, as many libtards here have claimed, then WHY were his pants on backwards? WHY does one person have their cell phone in the deceased ambassadors face, snapping a picture (he certainly wasn't offering the ambassador a way to call for help)?

What picture? I didn't see a link to a picture.

Exactly.....

Here it is, for the third time:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line


The link is in the final paragraph of the article the OP linked to.

 

[bodecea]

Where are the pics?

Yeah.

Like I said, the only way you can click on a link at that site is to "like" them and then get their garbage in your email.

Then of course, you start getting other rw spam ..............

No thanks.

Um, I did not have to 'like' anything, here is the link to the article with the pictures, all I did was click the link within the article:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

scroll for the pics

Sorry, but what is it that is conclusive about belt and pants again?

 

[WillowTree]

Where are the pics?

Yeah.

Like I said, the only way you can click on a link at that site is to "like" them and then get their garbage in your email.

Then of course, you start getting other rw spam ..............

No thanks.

Um, I did not have to 'like' anything, here is the link to the article with the pictures, all I did was click the link within the article:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

scroll for the pics

Finally, he was dead in every one of those pictures, there was no resuce, just picture taking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, the desperation of the idiot fringe...

Why didn't you nominate a better candidate?

Don't blame Obama, you screwed your own pooch.

And stop with the pathetic conspiracy theories. Issa is a tool.

I agree with you that Romney is the worst possible man to run against Obama.

That said, how does that change the fact that Obama is lying?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Yeah.

Like I said, the only way you can click on a link at that site is to "like" them and then get their garbage in your email.

Then of course, you start getting other rw spam ..............

No thanks.

Um, I did not have to 'like' anything, here is the link to the article with the pictures, all I did was click the link within the article:

Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

scroll for the pics

Sorry, but what is it that is conclusive about belt and pants again?

I just read the article and saw you ask for the pictures. I do however find the fact his pants are on backwards very strange.

 

[MikeK]

So, you're fine with the admin doing absolutely nothing about a terror plot, leaving our citizens undefended which ultimately lead to the death of four Americans, then lying about it for eight days, blaming it on some stupid movie, then having to backhandedly admit that, oops, ok it was a terrorist attack, but it still was because of a movie that we will now run infomercials denouncing the movie?

Wow, just wow.

First, let us generally agree that Obama has not done a good job, nor has he done most of the things he promised to do. But what do you think Romney is capable of other than promoting the interests of capitalism -- which surely will include war-mongering to advance profit margins of the Military Industrial Complex.

Those who are among the upper four percent income brackets will do well under Romney. The rest of us will not. In fact the middle class will suffer from a Romney presidency. It is as simple as that. For the majority of Americans Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Sad but true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't click the link to see the photo unless you join this wacko right wing site.

I'm sure its out there but if someone has the link, I'd appreciate them posting it.

Edited to add - a link to the photo that is NOT on a site like this where I have to "like" and then have their garbage spam in my email.

You couldn't join the site if you wanted to, Power Line does not have a way to sign up for membership because it does not have memberships. I do understand though that you have no idea how the internet works, so here is the picture in question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Until I see some evidence (pics would be a start)....I cannot help but be reminded of all the rumors SWORN to be true of the rape and murder gangs roaming the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina.....rumors that turned out to be completely false.

Is there a tech virus that is going around that prevents Democrats from following embedded links that might embarrass Obama?

Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.