Separating Horse Manure

[Flanders]

Our constitutional scholar usurped Congress’ powers with EOs and regulations, now he wants to protect the separation of powers:

The House Select Committee on Benghazi and the White House are at a standstill over whether President Obama should answer questions about the 2012 attack, according to Politico.

XXXXX​

Neil Eggleston, counsel to the president, has advised Obama not to answer any questions "because of the implications of his response on the constitutional separation of powers," he said in a letter to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).​

The lying sack of shit is being buried alive by known-facts about Libya. Who refused to send help to Americans fighting for their lives is a lie he has separated from the truth.

In response, Eggleston detailed Obama's actions the night of the attack in a May 11 letter. He said Obama was briefed by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. and “immediately ordered the military to deploy all available assets.”

XXXXX​

“Any claim that the president was not fully engaged and informed the night of the attacks and any doubt about his direction that any and all action be taken to assist our people under attack are unfounded and belied by the facts,” the May letter read.​

The lie is exposed by one question: Who disobeyed the commander in chief’s order?

I do not know if the name of the person who issued the order to stand-down will be in the Committee’s final report. I do know that if the truth comes out it will completely bury two liars in one grave —— Taqiyya the Liar and Hillary Clinton —— three if you count the election in November:

Committee members have been trying to answer several unresolved questions before releasing their final report in the coming weeks.​

White House refuses Benghazi questions for Obama
The latest back-and-forth comes as the panel is wrapping up work on its long-running investigation.
By Rachael Bade
06/26/16 02:44 PM EDT Updated 06/26/16 07:17 PM EDT

White House refuses Benghazi questions for Obama​

Finally, every Democrat up for reelection is involved in the Benghazi lie because every one of them supports those Democrats on the Committee trying to prevent the truth from being known. Proof: Not one Democrat ever asked for the name of the person who gave the order to stand-down.

 

[Freewill]

Ok, I can understand not sending in more troops if the outcome will be more lives lost then saved. Which is probably what might have happened.

I don't understand them being there in the first place.

I completely understand the lie about the video. What else were the liars going to do? Admitting their failure to protect right before an election might be damning. It would not have been but I don't see any other reason for the lie.

Except the lie was used to cover for what really was going on. I believe Stevens was gun running to the Syrian rebels. I don't believe that is why the compound was raided but that is why he was in Libya. Why else would he be in a country that the US just bombed the crap out of overthrowing their government?

Will the committee report on the gun running? Doubtful.

Will the committee set any kind of indictable evidence? Doubtful.

Will they point out the incompetence and sheer political nature of what happened? Hopefully.

Will it hurt Mrs. Tuzla Clinton, not with the left who could care less. The right already dislikes the liar.

 

[Flanders]

Ok, I can understand not sending in more troops if the outcome will be more lives lost then saved. Which is probably what might have happened.

To Freewill: There was not a possibility that would happen. Just look at how long the men who were there doing the fighting held out. Rather than losing more lives, special forces arriving in time would have been enough for the enemy to fade away real quick.

American military forces were available for a rescue operation not long after the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack by terrorists Sept. 11, 2012, according to an email to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.​

New Clinton Email Shows Pentagon Had Forces Ready To Respond To Benghazi Attack
Mark Tapscott
4:21 PM 12/08/2015

New Clinton Email Shows Pentagon Had Forces Ready To Respond To Benghazi Attack​

Indeed, common sense should have told the White House that enemy forces had plans to retreat the minute a military rescue mission showed up.

I completely understand the lie about the video.

To Freewill: The White House had two choices based on the information they had:

1. Was it an attack by Islam’s combatants?

2. Was it a demonstration by a mob that got out of hand?

Immediately sending in special forces is the only correct answer to both scenarios.

The White House chose to lie in order to coverup the deaths they were responsible for. The lie Suzy Five Shows told is a specter hanging over the stand-down order.

Bottom line: If the Muslims that attacked the compound in Benghazi were nothing more than a rag-tag mob upset over a homemade video proves all the more reason a military rescue mission should have been dispatched immediately. There is no doubt that a military response sent against a mob would have saved lives.

The rest of your response is a smokescreen confusing the most important question: Who issued the order to stand-down?