xqwakzmlo

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
The title of this thread makes more sense than all of the stuff the Administration put out about the attack in Benghazi. The latest document dump examines the military's role in what happened:

The Benghazi Transcripts: US military woefully unprepared for attack, documents show
By Jennifer Griffin
Published January 13, 2014

The Benghazi Transcripts: US military woefully unprepared for attack, documents show | Fox News
Yesterday evening was the first discussions of what the documents mean. There wasn’t much. There should be a lot more today.

I guarantee this. Nobody ever asked a general or anybody in the Administration else this question:

How could the decision to NOT send help be made when nobody knew how long the men under attack could hold out?
Until military leaders answer that — NEVER ASKED —— question the title of this thread is as clear as a bell.
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
Talking heads really have to get past the reason for the Benghazi coverup. Everybody knows the lies were told for two reasons:

1. The truth would have hurt the president’s reelection chances.

2. Hillary Clinton had to be protected.

Incidentally, the president is home free even if he tells the truth now, but Clinton still needs protection; so the lies and the coverup must continue.

The question in the OP is the crux of the matter. Move the cursor to 6:30 and you’ll hear Steve Hayes at least touch upon why no help was sent:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lJ6rHeRi-g]Benghazi Bombshell, Benghazi Documents Revealed - Obama Lied Period - Special Report All Star Panel - YouTube[/ame]​
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
The other day the US House Permanent Committee on Intelligence dropped the first sock. Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee dropped the other sock. Both landed without making a sound. The Senate’s sock was so light it floated to the floor:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTNR2hW3tBg]Senate report ties Benghazi attack to Al Qaeda - YouTube[/ame]​

Basically, the House dealt with the coverup. If the two reports were movies the Senate report would be a prequel. Both committees scrupulously avoided asking the most important question of all:

How could the decision to NOT send help be made when nobody knew how long the men under attack could hold out?
That question is a quagmire for Democrats. Logically, the order to stand down had to come from the commander in chief; so that eliminates blaming an underling. Here’s why:

If an underling did give the order the next question is why did the military obey?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwU8Zf5SVA&feature=player_detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwU8Zf5SVA&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]​

If the order was spoken by a high-ranking military officer you’re back to this: Did he do it on his own? or did it originate with the commander in chief?

Next

Let’s get Hillary Clinton out of the way. Bernie Goldberg hits it out of the park in the second part of this video:


There’s not a chance Clinton is going to lose one vote among Democrats in the 2016 primaries. I’m not sure her handling of Benghazi will cost her anything in the general election. I think the next presidential election is going to be a replay of the midterms —— Republican control versus Democrat control. Except for HillaryCare II the other issues won’t matter.

THE REPORT

Senator Feinstein’s strange comment is the only thing of interest to come out of the Senate report:


“I hope this report will put to rest many of the conspiracy theories and political accusations about what happened in Benghazi.”

Report: Benghazi attack preventable
By GINGER GIBSON | 1/15/14 10:24 AM EST Updated: 1/15/14 7:43 PM EST

Report: Benghazi attack preventable - Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com
As usual, anybody that disagrees with Democrats is a conspiracy theory nut.

Frankly, I do not know what Feinstein means because I don’t recall hearing any conspiracy theories. I heard a lot of questions based on the attack, and the things the people in government have been saying since 9-11-2012, but no conspiracy theories. If anybody in the media is really looking for the truth they would shove Di Fi’s remark right up her fat ass simply by asking her to identify just one conspiracy theory that got any kind of media coverage.

Now, let’s put conspiracy theories aside and look at Leon Panetta and General Dempsey who are up to their eyeballs in everything that happened in Libya before and after the attack in Benghazi:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUhYX6Crsa4&feature=player_embedded]Def Secretary Panetta tells Senator Sessions U.S. military gets authority from UN or NATO.flv - YouTube[/ame]​

Nobody can prove that the United Nations is in the Benghazi equation; especially since nobody’s asking. Based on their own words it’s fair to say that non-existent International law influenced every decision made by Panetta and Dempsey, and, by extension, the commander in chief. Indeed, the entire Administration, along with every Democrat in Congress, hold the United Nations higher than they hold the United States.

Finally, I noticed that congressional Republicans are selling the two reports via talk shows. So how come Di Fi isn’t making the rounds?


ADDENDUM: 9:13 AM

I came across a more detailed video by Megyn Kelley that made me laugh. Move the cursor to 3:08 and you’ll hear Kelly say the other shoe dropped:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu6xjZy6YTw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu6xjZy6YTw[/ame]​
 
Last edited:
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
This is difficult to understand:

The extensive Senate report on the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack dropped a major, unreported bombshell: The commander of U.S. forces in Africa was not aware of the existence of the besieged CIA
annex.

XXXXX

Page 28 of the 85-page report states:

“With respect to the role of DoD and AFRICOM in emergency evacuations and rescue operations in Benghazi, the Committee received conflicting information on the extent of the awareness within DoD of the Benghazi Annex. According to U.S. AFRICOM, neither the command nor its Commander were aware of an annex in Benghazi, Libya.

XXXXX

Page 77 of the report further divulges that Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of U.S. Africa Command, “was not even aware there was a CIA annex in Benghazi at the time of the attacks.”
The Senate should be more than puzzled! It is possible that the order to stand down was given because somebody at the top was afraid of sending the military to the wrong address:

Continued the Senate report: “We are puzzled as to how the military leadership expected to effectively respond and rescue Americans in the event of an emergency when it did not even know of the existence of one of the U.S. facilities.”

Bombshell: Pentagon 'didn't know' Benghazi annex existed
Raises major questions about what U.S. was doing in secretive facility
Published: 8 hours ago
AARON KLEIN

Bombshell: Pentagon ?didn?t know? Benghazi annex existed
Were it not for the four American who were killed in the Benghazi attack the whole thing would make a great Mack Sennett comedy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8jphxpi1ro]The Keystone Kops meet Pickles and Peppers - YouTube[/ame]​
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top