No Benghazi Stand Down Order

[Clementine]

Logic tells us they were told to stand down. They were ready to go. They didn't go. If the Obama administration hadn't ordered them to stand down, these guys would have been in huge trouble for disobeying orders. Obama and Hillary would have raked them over the coals. No, they didn't go because they were told not to go. Period. Several that were killed defending the ambassador and his staff acted on their own. They either ignored orders to stand down or acted despite no one telling them they should.

People should have been ordered to help. They weren't. It's 100% on the Obama administration.

 

[sakinago]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

How do you know the administration is destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya? Links please. Thanks

It’s what ******* Hillary said herself.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE OUTSIDE OF APPEALS TO IGNORANCE? I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU A FULL DEFINITON AND EXAMPLES OF WHAT APPEALS TO IGNORANCE ARE AND HOW STUPID A PERSON YOU ARE IF YOURE RELYING ON THEM.

Guess what, you can’t proove big foot doesn’t exist,therefore he does exist. You also can’t prove Obama isn’t gay or Michelle isn’t a transvestite, therefore they are a gay and trans couple.

THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM THAN THERE IS THAT HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT BENGHAZI. YOU ARE A CRAZY BEATEN WOMAN WITH TWO BLACK EYES WHOSE STILL IN DENIAL.

 

[sakinago]

I'll wager you $5,000,000, or a lower amount, if you don't have that much, that you can't prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the CIA Chief of Base in Benghazi ordered the CIA rescue team not to go assist the diplomatic mission that was under attack.View attachment 215349

Brennan was caught twice Perjuring himself before Congress, caught illegally spying on US citizens, caught illegally spying on the media, caught illegally spying on the US Senate, and spying on USSC Justices.

Brennan was caught illegally running good to terrorists...

Brennan collaborated with the FBI to hide Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's efforts to acquire Uranium One until after the sale went through...

Brennan's and the CIA knew about Russian hacking and interference but the Obama administration did nothing about it...

Brennan was caught briefing a fake Russian-authored report to Congress as legitimate Intel in order to deceive Congress to appoint a Special Counsel as part of a conspiracy to overthrow the newly elected President.

And you claim the heroes of Benghazi - who fought the very terrorists Barry helped take over Libya, who were trying to kill the US Ambassador and other Americans - liars?!

Obama, himself, and Hillary both lied about the attack, calling it a 'Protest over a Video' ... much like he once called the Fort Hood Terrorist attack a 'Case of Workplace Violence'.

Obama, Hillary, Brennan...they all have been proven to have lied about the Benghazi attack ... but snowflakes call the heroes of Benghazi the liars.

Obama disappeared when the attack began. No one knows where he was.... Everyone knows where Paronto was - he was fighting to save Americans that never should have been in harm's way on 9/11/12.

They did not lie about the video. You’re the one who is lying.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi Report.pdf​

Sorry, not good enough, they need to hear Obama and Hillary come out and say it. Even then, it’s a toss up on whether or not they’ll believe that.

 

[sakinago]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

 

[Slice The Great]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

I know what the CIA was doing in the Annex. But it's classified. Just regular spook stuff. Trying to round up weapons we didn't want jihadist to have.

Also, it was a CIA Operation, not a State Department project. State couldn't pass the buck to CIA. CIA had it all along.

 

[sakinago]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

I know what the CIA was doing in the Annex. But it's classified. Just regular spook stuff. Trying to round up weapons we didn't want jihadist to have.

Also, it was a CIA Operation, not a State Department project. State couldn't pass the buck to CIA. CIA had it all along.

Clinton’s Benghazi Response Set by White House Officials

And right...all the people who were there and fought for their lives for 7 hours, were lying about it...but a couple of other people from the CIA who weren’t there, are the ones telling the truth. Because first hand sources blow.

And right the CIA was clueless about the arms dealer in their back yard, and the guns going to our NATO ally turkey. And yea destroying old weapons is typical CIA spook stuff, not gun running. The Obama administration only ever did that with Mexican cartels.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[Slice The Great]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

I know what the CIA was doing in the Annex. But it's classified. Just regular spook stuff. Trying to round up weapons we didn't want jihadist to have.

Also, it was a CIA Operation, not a State Department project. State couldn't pass the buck to CIA. CIA had it all along.

Clinton’s Benghazi Response Set by White House Officials

And right...all the people who were there and fought for their lives for 7 hours, were lying about it...but a couple of other people from the CIA who weren’t there, are the ones telling the truth. Because first hand sources blow.

And right the CIA was clueless about the arms dealer in their back yard, and the guns going to our NATO ally turkey. And yea destroying old weapons is typical CIA spook stuff, not gun running. The Obama administration only ever did that with Mexican cartels.

Name all the men (by name or title) at the CIA Annex who claim they heard the CIA Chief of Base issue a stand down order and provide links to evidence supporting your claim. Thanks.

 

[sakinago]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

I know what the CIA was doing in the Annex. But it's classified. Just regular spook stuff. Trying to round up weapons we didn't want jihadist to have.

Also, it was a CIA Operation, not a State Department project. State couldn't pass the buck to CIA. CIA had it all along.

Clinton’s Benghazi Response Set by White House Officials

And right...all the people who were there and fought for their lives for 7 hours, were lying about it...but a couple of other people from the CIA who weren’t there, are the ones telling the truth. Because first hand sources blow.

And right the CIA was clueless about the arms dealer in their back yard, and the guns going to our NATO ally turkey. And yea destroying old weapons is typical CIA spook stuff, not gun running. The Obama administration only ever did that with Mexican cartels.

Name all the men (by name or title) at the CIA Annex who claim they heard the CIA Chief of Base issue a stand down order and provide links to evidence supporting your claim. Thanks.

Again no, not entertaining your appeals to ignorance anymore.

Do you 100% believe this was sparked by a YouTube video, and do you 100% believe in the fog of war story?

 

[jc456]

All I know that Tiegen's claim that the CIA Chief of Base issued a stand down order is hog wash.

Correction: You BELIEVE that the claim a stand-down order was given is hogwash because you have chosen to believe those who claim there was not.

As I pointed out, CIA Director Brennan sat in front of Congress and declared with great conviction that neither he nor his CIA had illegally and Un-Constitutionally spied on the US Senate...and approx. a week later he was called before Congress and shown the evidence that he had intentionally committed Perjury earlier during his testimony. I KNOW Brennan was forced to go before Congress after that to ADMIT that he HAD indeed illegally and Un-Constitutionally spied on the Senate in order to avoid indictment and crime.

The CIA is an agency infested with professional liars and criminals who spend most of their existence violating the Constitution and laws. The CIA was in Benghazi, for example, illegally running weapons to terrorists. So these 'very good men' - these such 'trustworthy, honest men' - are telling the truth about not giving a stand-down order while they were in Benghazi illegally arming terrorists?! And you are SURE of that....

REALLY?!

dude, not only that, he disses the guy that was there. Acts like he knows more then Tiegen on what happened, cause someone said. That's dangerous. I trust first hand knowledge over bullshit everyday. If Tiegen says there was a stand down order, there was a stand down order, he got it. What does he gain by saying so?

The obvious next question is if there was no stand down order, why didn't they go?

It's not logical.

 

[jc456]

it's ok, say fk you to more of our good men. they have more loyalty in their fking little fingers than anyone in DC. Again, if they say they received the order, they fking received the order. Not you or anyone else will ever change that fact. until your dumb ass is in the position their asses were, you don't have the right to discuss them.

 

[easyt65]

Again, the administration told a bold face lie (a shitty lie that made no sense) about what sparked an attack that was clearly planned to the American people for months. The MM pushed that until it was proven otherwise (like it ever needed to be)...but you’re going to go along with the rest of the administrations story on what happened...and then take it further and call the survivors liars, who were fighting for their lives, waiting for air cover that their buddies died laser designating targets for in vain.

And your not going to take a second and ask some simple questions like:

Why did the administration lie both about the cause of the attack, and lie about it being a coordinated attack at all?

What were we doing in Libiya still when almost all of our allies pulled out long before that?

Why wasn’t the extra security given to Stevens that he requested for over and over for months, and even sent out an urgent message a week before attack saying he needed extra security ASAP?

Why did the contractors on the ground expect air cover that clearly never came, to the point where they were laser designating targets instead of shooting back up until they died?

Why is the administration busying itself with destroying weapons they deemed too old for Libya?

Why did the administration pass the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA?

If the CIA wasn’t involved with gun running, how did they not know about massive shipments of weapons happening within walking distance from them, from a well known arms dealer in their backyard, headed for our NATO ally turkey, and then distributed to “rebels” in Syria?

If the CIA was running guns, and the administration said they didn’t know about that or not...how the hell did the administration not know what their own CIA was doing?

But you totally believe no stand down order was given while a 7 hour battle raged that the whitehouse got prime seats too via 24/7 drone surveillance. They totally sent help from Tripoli, which was totally better than help from a carrier group, because a carrier group couldn’t handle that kind of heat, it was way too dangerous for them. But hey, here’s a better idea, Tripoli is only a little bit over 600 miles from Benghazi, let’s send a couple of SUVs over with some agents to help, that’ll do the trick. It’s a 12 hour drive, but it’s not like helicopters go 300 mph, or jets are supersonic or anything like that...what is this, back to the future part II, come on.

So the administration decided it was too dangerous for the carrier group to intervene, but before that they ignored all requests from Stevens begging for more security. So an ambassador could handle the heat, not a carrier group? Instead, we sent guys all the way from Tripoli, and that was somehow a better option? That’s the story you’re going with. Occams Razor?

What makes you think the administration passed the buck on questions of gun running to the CIA? Links to evidence? Thanks.

Already been given, again THIS IS COMING FROM HILLARYS OWN FREAKING MOUTH. I’ll paraphrase and you can find your own goddamn info if you still don’t believe. It’s not like you don’t have access to almost all of human information at your fingertips. Paraphrasing.

Sen Paul: were y’all running guns to Syrian rebels from Libya

Hillary: No, we were helping them destroy old weapons

Sen Paul: Are you sure, because we know about these weapon runs happening all around that one CIA compound.

Hillary: well state department wasn’t doing that, you’d have to ask the CIA about that.

If you’re going to make dumbass appeals
To ingorance, at least read the ******* evidence given to you, at your own request.

I know what the CIA was doing in the Annex. But it's classified. Just regular spook stuff. Trying to round up weapons we didn't want jihadist to have.

Also, it was a CIA Operation, not a State Department project. State couldn't pass the buck to CIA. CIA had it all along.

Clinton’s Benghazi Response Set by White House Officials

And right...all the people who were there and fought for their lives for 7 hours, were lying about it...but a couple of other people from the CIA who weren’t there, are the ones telling the truth. Because first hand sources blow.

And right the CIA was clueless about the arms dealer in their back yard, and the guns going to our NATO ally turkey. And yea destroying old weapons is typical CIA spook stuff, not gun running. The Obama administration only ever did that with Mexican cartels.

Name all the men (by name or title) at the CIA Annex who claim they heard the CIA Chief of Base issue a stand down order and provide links to evidence supporting your claim. Thanks.

Right after you name every mane - and his rank - who was in the room with Carter Ham when he said he was going to send a team anyway...right before he was relieved of command.

 

[easyt65]

You are an intentionally deceptive F*ing moron! how many times do people have to make it clear to you that there were no indictments during the Benghazi hearings because THEY WERE NOT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, dumbass?!

And.....

So hiring an Al Qaeda-associated militia and a security company who had never provided protecting in a hostile area like Benghazi or even done a job where they had to carry weapons was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?!

So leaving Americans in Benghazi when every other nation pulled their people out due to Al Qaeda's growing presence and the increasing number of terrorist attacks was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?

So leaving Americans in Benghazi after 2 terrorist attacks, after the Ambassador warned they could not survive a 3rd, and after they pulled some of the existing security people after that 2nd attack was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?

STFU!

If you had loved ones in Benghazi there is no way in hell you would have left them there under those conditions, given all the chances you had to save them!

When every other nation pulled their people out you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.
After the 1st attack n the compound you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.
After the 2nd attack n the compound you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.

If you say you would not have, you're just as big of a f*ing liar as Hillary...or don't have any 'loved ones'.

 

[jc456]

Brennan declared stripping people of their Security Clearances is a violation of their Constitutional Rights; yet, Brennan stripped the heroes of Benghazi of their security clearances after they came forward with a different version of what happened. Now why would Brennan be so vindictive against someone for having a difference in opinion / in the account of what happened, especially when he made it a point to express how serious of a 'crime' / 'foul' it is to strip someone of their security clearance?

Brennan claimed Trump was attempting to silence him by taking away his security clearance (after Brennan was caught perjuring himself under oath before Congress twice, being caught illegally spying on Americans / US Senators / USSC Justices, etc..) .... but isn't that exactly what Brennan was trying to do to Tonto by taking away his? Couldn't Brennan just prove Tonto was WRNG by producing the necessary evidence to support his version while disproving Tonto's? Why go the extra vindictive mile to punish him by such a harsh 'Constitutional Rights-violating' punishment of stripping him of his security clearance?

I mean, it's not like Tonto was caught committing Felony Perjuries of lying under oath to Congress, illegally spying on Americans and the media, illegally spying on US Senators, or illegally spying on USSC Justices. He just perceived accounts in Benghazi differently.....

All I know that Tiegen's claim that the CIA Chief of Base issued a stand down order is hog wash.

Hey, I got an idea, why don't you show the command to go save the embassy staff

 

[jc456]

apples and horseshoes. dude, make me fking laugh, you're comparing a Prosecutionary investigation to a congressional hearing!!!! Tell me how the congress can indict anyone?

Tick, tock

 

[depotoo]

“The report says none of the relevant military forces met their deployment timelines to respond to the attack and that a "Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times."


"...............

However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:

The “basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

“As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation,” Panetta said.

 

[jc456]

“The report says none of the relevant military forces met their deployment timelines to respond to the attack and that a "Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times."


"...............

However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:

The “basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

“As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation,” Panetta said.

sounds like stand down to me

 

[dudmuck]

Congressional committee would recommend appointment of special counsel if the evidence warrants as such.

You are an intentionally deceptive F*ing moron! how many times do people have to make it clear to you that there were no indictments during the Benghazi hearings because THEY WERE NOT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, dumbass?!

And.....

So hiring an Al Qaeda-associated militia and a security company who had never provided protecting in a hostile area like Benghazi or even done a job where they had to carry weapons was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?!

So leaving Americans in Benghazi when every other nation pulled their people out due to Al Qaeda's growing presence and the increasing number of terrorist attacks was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?

So leaving Americans in Benghazi after 2 terrorist attacks, after the Ambassador warned they could not survive a 3rd, and after they pulled some of the existing security people after that 2nd attack was ok? 'Nothing to see here'?

STFU!

If you had loved ones in Benghazi there is no way in hell you would have left them there under those conditions, given all the chances you had to save them!

When every other nation pulled their people out you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.
After the 1st attack n the compound you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.
After the 2nd attack n the compound you would have told your loved ones to GTFO.

If you say you would not have, you're just as big of a f*ing liar as Hillary...or don't have any 'loved ones'.

of course, all that bad stuff happened due to GOP budget cuts. Yet these same failures occur today yet you dont bat an eye.

 

[easyt65]

However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:

THIS is EXACTLY how you know that ***** was LYING!

She stated that General Ham - a fighting military commander whose troops' mission is QUICK REACTION TO DANGER - jumping into harm's way / 'the shit' to save lives - deemed it 'too dangerous' to go.

WTF?!

1. The flight would have taken time to get there. SOP - standard operating procedure - is to take off and be briefed in the air on the way. Satellite Imagery, drone imagery, contact with guys on the ground - all that would have been collected en-route and passed to the team.

NO ONE SITS THERE ON THRE GROUND DURING A FLUID, EVOLVING FIGHT WAITING FOR THE SITUATION TO 'STABILIZE' ENOUGH FOR IT TO BE DEEMED 'SAFE ENOUGH TO GO'.

This LIE is not only a HUGE F*ing LIE but it is insulting to the US military, whose JOB it is to react quickly, enter the fight, save lives, and secure the area!

2. General Ham was relived of command for stating that he was not going to follow the order to NOT send his people. His Deputy Commander took over. I was working with 2 of his troops in another Op when we got the word what was going on, when they reached back to the unit to get the info of what they were doing. They got the news wile I was standing next to them...and they were understandably PISSED!

One of the arguments for them NOT going that was made (obviously by a NON-member of the military) was that we would never have gotten to them in time to save them.

1. THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THAT! You can not GUESS how long a fight will last and can not leave someone fighting for their lives while you decide not to send someone...which is what happened.

Barry declared once that he never leaves a man behind...he did that damn night!

2. EVEN if you know you are PROBABLY not going to make it in time to save the lives of the Americans there, YOU SEND THER DAMN TEAM! Once there, the team would secure the compound and secure 'the bodies'.

THIS SHIT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN:

 

[easyt65]

of course, all that bad stuff happened due to GOP budget cuts.

Again, STFU!

You are saying it was ok for Hillary to hire an Al Qaeda-associated militia to protect Americans in Benghazi from Al Qaeda because the GOP voted to cut the budget.

You are saying it was ok for Hillary to hire a security firm who had never worked in a hostile area and had never carried guns before because the GOP voted to cut the budget.

You are saying it was ok for Hillary to leave Americans in Benghazi while every other nation was pulling their people out due to the increasing Al Qaeda presence and escalating violence because the GOP voted to cut the budget.

You are saying it was ok for Hillary to leave Americans in Benghazi after 2 terrorist attacks - the last one leaving a 4-foot hole in the compound wall and after the Ambassador said they could not survive a 3rd attack - because the GOP voted to cut the budget.

You are saying that after that 2nd attack and Hillary took away some of the existing security team members protecting Stephens and Americans in Benghazi that Hillary and the State Department had enough to buy the plane tickets to bring those security team members home but NOT enough money to pull the Americans out of Benghazi - to buy THEM airline tickets and bring them home - because the GOP voted to cut the budget.

YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT! WHAT A WEAK-ASS UNBELIEVABLE EXCUSE!