BENGHAZI part 7 NEW TRUTHS!

Godfather.

fear4freedom said:

BinFrog wrote:

Do you have a coherent thought or message?

Yes the message is that I will stand with any Seal, Ambassador, hero, soldier anyday before I stand for any political ideology or side, even if it hurts my cause or my side.....THATS HONOR!

Amen !
the train(some members) doesn't understand honor only what they believe in a utopian dream
so no matter what evidence is presented there will be opposition and blame in another direction, sorry man that's just the way the train rolls.

Godfather.

rgambs

Godfather. said:

fear4freedom said:

BinFrog wrote:

Do you have a coherent thought or message?

Yes the message is that I will stand with any Seal, Ambassador, hero, soldier anyday before I stand for any political ideology or side, even if it hurts my cause or my side.....THATS HONOR!

Amen !
the train(some members) doesn't understand honor only what they believe in a utopian dream
so no matter what evidence is presented there will be opposition and blame in another direction, sorry man that's just the way the train rolls.

Godfather.



Weak-ass fake patriotism has nothing to do with honor.

Godfather.

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

fear4freedom said:

BinFrog wrote:

Do you have a coherent thought or message?

Yes the message is that I will stand with any Seal, Ambassador, hero, soldier anyday before I stand for any political ideology or side, even if it hurts my cause or my side.....THATS HONOR!

Amen !
the train(some members) doesn't understand honor only what they believe in a utopian dream
so no matter what evidence is presented there will be opposition and blame in another direction, sorry man that's just the way the train rolls.

Godfather.

Weak-ass fake patriotism has nothing to do with honor.

you seem to know a little about weak-ass patriotism....humor us please.

Godfather.

JimmyV

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

mickeyrat

GF, specifiic to Benghazi, unless they had what amounted to a military base with requisite arms of a base , then there really wasnt much more that could be done. The arms the attackers had plus the element of surprise are indefensible without full military presense, which would really be countrary to what diplomacy and diplomatic missions are about. Emabassies aren't necessarily guarded to the degree that would have prevented or mitagated what we saw in benghazi. further this wasnt even a permenant facility.

This doesnt justify or minimize the loss, but they all knew the risk of that work.

its really easy to say they asked for this or that. Until you provide a full accounting of the requests made, when they were made and for what reason they were made and a list of what was granted or denied and for what what reason they were granted or denied , you have no basis to make claims that it fell on deaf ears or were ignored out of hand.

It becomes strictly bias against the adminsitration and sec of state at that time.

THAT isnt standing with anybody but ideological bulshit. Wheres the "patriotism" in that?

Shouldnt these particular deaths highlight what needs corrected so it becomes a better possiblity to prevent or gaurd against in the future? Because with our general foreign policy , it is sure to happen again.

Godfather.

mickeyrat said:

GF, specifiic to Benghazi, unless they had what amounted to a military base with requisite arms of a base , then there really wasnt much more that could be done. The arms the attackers had plus the element of surprise are indefensible without full military presense, which would really be countrary to what diplomacy and diplomatic missions are about. Emabassies aren't necessarily guarded to the degree that would have prevented or mitagated what we saw in benghazi. further this wasnt even a permenant facility.

This doesnt justify or minimize the loss, but they all knew the risk of that work.

its really easy to say they asked for this or that. Until you provide a full accounting of the requests made, when they were made and for what reason they were made and a list of what was granted or denied and for what what reason they were granted or denied , you have no basis to make claims that it fell on deaf ears or were ignored out of hand.

It becomes strictly bias against the adminsitration and sec of state at that time.

THAT isnt standing with anybody but ideological bulshit. Wheres the "patriotism" in that?

Shouldnt these particular deaths highlight what needs corrected so it becomes a better possiblity to prevent or gaurd against in the future? Because with our general foreign policy , it is sure to happen again.

thanks' man, a very understandable and reasonable reply.
this all seems to boil down to "it happened on your watch" and it's great presidential mud for the other guy's to sling during an election period, what a shame that the lives lost are only remembered during this time, if Hell'ary is elected this issue will follow her for the rest of her career and if she is not it may just fade into media history.

Godfather.

mickeyrat

Godfather. said:

mickeyrat said:

GF, specifiic to Benghazi, unless they had what amounted to a military base with requisite arms of a base , then there really wasnt much more that could be done. The arms the attackers had plus the element of surprise are indefensible without full military presense, which would really be countrary to what diplomacy and diplomatic missions are about. Emabassies aren't necessarily guarded to the degree that would have prevented or mitagated what we saw in benghazi. further this wasnt even a permenant facility.

This doesnt justify or minimize the loss, but they all knew the risk of that work.

its really easy to say they asked for this or that. Until you provide a full accounting of the requests made, when they were made and for what reason they were made and a list of what was granted or denied and for what what reason they were granted or denied , you have no basis to make claims that it fell on deaf ears or were ignored out of hand.

It becomes strictly bias against the adminsitration and sec of state at that time.

THAT isnt standing with anybody but ideological bulshit. Wheres the "patriotism" in that?

Shouldnt these particular deaths highlight what needs corrected so it becomes a better possiblity to prevent or gaurd against in the future? Because with our general foreign policy , it is sure to happen again.

thanks' man, a very understandable and reasonable reply.
this all seems to boil down to "it happened on your watch" and it's great presidential mud for the other guy's to sling during an election period, what a shame that the lives lost are only remembered during this time, if Hell'ary is elected this issue will follow her for the rest of her career and if she is not it may just fade into media history.

Godfather.

and yet the multiple hundreds, HUNDREDS, of dead that occured under Reagans watch from attacks like these or bombings are largely ignored. and HE only had ONE congressional investigaiton of ONE incident out of MANY that occured in the 8 years he was in office.

so please, tell me again what all this was about?

my2hands

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

Absolutely

Seems to me that common sense would say when the US embassy in Libya asks for more security, you provide that security. Anything else is incompetence, at the least

that's my problem

mickeyrat

mickeyrat said:

Godfather. said:

mickeyrat said:

GF, specifiic to Benghazi, unless they had what amounted to a military base with requisite arms of a base , then there really wasnt much more that could be done. The arms the attackers had plus the element of surprise are indefensible without full military presense, which would really be countrary to what diplomacy and diplomatic missions are about. Emabassies aren't necessarily guarded to the degree that would have prevented or mitagated what we saw in benghazi. further this wasnt even a permenant facility.

This doesnt justify or minimize the loss, but they all knew the risk of that work.

its really easy to say they asked for this or that. Until you provide a full accounting of the requests made, when they were made and for what reason they were made and a list of what was granted or denied and for what what reason they were granted or denied , you have no basis to make claims that it fell on deaf ears or were ignored out of hand.

It becomes strictly bias against the adminsitration and sec of state at that time.

THAT isnt standing with anybody but ideological bulshit. Wheres the "patriotism" in that?

Shouldnt these particular deaths highlight what needs corrected so it becomes a better possiblity to prevent or gaurd against in the future? Because with our general foreign policy , it is sure to happen again.

thanks' man, a very understandable and reasonable reply.
this all seems to boil down to "it happened on your watch" and it's great presidential mud for the other guy's to sling during an election period, what a shame that the lives lost are only remembered during this time, if Hell'ary is elected this issue will follow her for the rest of her career and if she is not it may just fade into media history.

Godfather.

and yet the multiple hundreds, HUNDREDS, of dead that occured under Reagans watch from attacks like these or bombings are largely ignored. and HE only had ONE congressional investigaiton of ONE incident out of MANY that occured in the 8 years he was in office.

so please, tell me again what all this was about?

GF, heres a list on wiki(whatever it may be worth) that list all attacks worldwide of embassies etc. By country n chronological order. soem have links contained with them to further explore. at least , if you are willing, each of the ones for the US and how many died , and what was investigated etc.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

callen

Republicans came under intense pressure to survive once Obama was elected that they've become blithering idiots in attempt to keep our country in status quo of wars and corporate profits as this is what butters their bread.

The birther crap, Bengazi, Iran peace deal, HEALTHCARE, guns, planned parenthood.

Be interesting to see if we continue shift left or snap back.

callen

my2hands said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

Absolutely

Seems to me that common sense would say when the US embassy in Libya asks for more security, you provide that security. Anything else is incompetence, at the least

that's my problem

There are limited resources in everything. You daily have to determine acceptable level of risk. Do you just stay indoors? Do you spend all you money on a Volvo?

We have thousands of out posts all around the world and don't have the resources to give all a battalion for protection.

Should this one have had more? Probably. Should we look at how we can do better job at managing risk. Sure.

As pointed out earlier we've had this happen before with way more US casualties but this one instance there's this up roar. Why? LIBERAL BLACK DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!! There I said it.

mickeyrat

my2hands said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

Absolutely

Seems to me that common sense would say when the US embassy in Libya asks for more security, you provide that security. Anything else is incompetence, at the least

that's my problem

what exactly were they asking for? what exactly WAS provided when asked for? what exactly was DENIED when asked for? what exactly was the reason for granting or denial in what was asked for? were we even going to continue to have such a facility NOT AN EMBASSY BUT A MISSION BUILDING, in the foreseeable future? Did the requests made make logistical and operational sense for the area?

heres a good one, what was the purpose for the visit and overnight stay at that time? Not to victim blame, but surely ALL relevant facts need looked at yes?
was it absolutely critical to be in a less secure facility than the actual embassy on that particular anniversary?
was any of this prior to the attack out of the norm in operating procedure from any adminstration previously?

lets build some facts rather generalities to weigh before making judgemnet hmm?

finally, are we going to trust the facts presented in order to make an informed judgement? IF not at the outset , then whats the point anyway?

Godfather.

mickeyrat said:

Godfather. said:

mickeyrat said:

GF, specifiic to Benghazi, unless they had what amounted to a military base with requisite arms of a base , then there really wasnt much more that could be done. The arms the attackers had plus the element of surprise are indefensible without full military presense, which would really be countrary to what diplomacy and diplomatic missions are about. Emabassies aren't necessarily guarded to the degree that would have prevented or mitagated what we saw in benghazi. further this wasnt even a permenant facility.

This doesnt justify or minimize the loss, but they all knew the risk of that work.

its really easy to say they asked for this or that. Until you provide a full accounting of the requests made, when they were made and for what reason they were made and a list of what was granted or denied and for what what reason they were granted or denied , you have no basis to make claims that it fell on deaf ears or were ignored out of hand.

It becomes strictly bias against the adminsitration and sec of state at that time.

THAT isnt standing with anybody but ideological bulshit. Wheres the "patriotism" in that?

Shouldnt these particular deaths highlight what needs corrected so it becomes a better possiblity to prevent or gaurd against in the future? Because with our general foreign policy , it is sure to happen again.

thanks' man, a very understandable and reasonable reply.
this all seems to boil down to "it happened on your watch" and it's great presidential mud for the other guy's to sling during an election period, what a shame that the lives lost are only remembered during this time, if Hell'ary is elected this issue will follow her for the rest of her career and if she is not it may just fade into media history.

Godfather.

and yet the multiple hundreds, HUNDREDS, of dead that occured under Reagans watch from attacks like these or bombings are largely ignored. and HE only had ONE congressional investigaiton of ONE incident out of MANY that occured in the 8 years he was in office.

so please, tell me again what all this was about?

badda bing ! nuff said.

Godfather.

Godfather.

callen said:

Republicans came under intense pressure to survive once Obama was elected that they've become blithering idiots in attempt to keep our country in status quo of wars and corporate profits as this is what butters their bread.

The birther crap, Bengazi, Iran peace deal, HEALTHCARE, guns, planned parenthood.

Be interesting to see if we continue shift left or snap back.

I don't know about you all this pulling from left to right & right to left is giving me a headache, the republicans are pissing me off and the dem's are pissing me off, good lord I'm starting to feel like a hippie.

Godfather.

my2hands

callen said:

my2hands said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

Absolutely

Seems to me that common sense would say when the US embassy in Libya asks for more security, you provide that security. Anything else is incompetence, at the least

that's my problem

There are limited resources in everything. You daily have to determine acceptable level of risk. Do you just stay indoors? Do you spend all you money on a Volvo?

We have thousands of out posts all around the world and don't have the resources to give all a battalion for protection.

Should this one have had more? Probably. Should we look at how we can do better job at managing risk. Sure.

As pointed out earlier we've had this happen before with way more US casualties but this one instance there's this up roar. Why? LIBERAL BLACK DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!! There I said it.

my issue has nothing to do with who the president it

not to mention republicans have been after the Clintons way before Obama

resources are not an issue either... we're talking about a woman who has had personal secret service protection for the last 15 years, and a country that spends more on defense than the rest of planet earth... when you're embassy, in Libya, asks for more protection, based on good reasons, you provide it... there is no justifying it or explaining it, they fucked up... they got screwed further by not admitting they fucked up, and tried to cover up that they fucked up, which is a typical Clinton reaction

I deal with the same type of professional beaurocrats, being oblivious to safety concerns for real workers in the real world, and making poor decisions, then acting like they did everything they could

It's transparent, don't get lost in the details

Bentleyspop

Here is an interesting statistic to mull over...

21 congressional hearings into 9/11

22 congressional hearings in Benghazi

mickeyrat

Bentleyspop said:

Here is an interesting statistic to mull over...

21 congressional hearings into 9/11

22 congressional hearings in Benghazi

Bush sat for 1 hour behind closed doors. Sec Clinton has sat for 3 investigations for a total of 18 hours I think? On the open public record too.

mickeyrat

Congressional response to 1983 Beirut Embasssy suicide bombing.

U.S. Congressional response Edit
The House Foreign Affairs Committee April 19 voted to approve $251 million in additional economic and military aid for Lebanon, as requested by the administration. But it attached an amendment to the bill that would force the White House to seek approval for any expanded U.S. military role.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee followed suit April 20, approving the aid request but attaching an amendment that required the president to obtain congressional authorization for "any substantial expansion in the number or role of U.S. armed forces in Lebanon or for the creation of a new, expanded or extended multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon." If Congress did not act jointly on such a request within 60 days, however, the increase would then take effect automatically.

The Senate amendment was sponsored as a compromise by committee Chairman Charles H. Percy (R, Ill.). It prevented a move by the committee's ranking Democrat, Claiborne Pell (R.I.), to extend the 1973 War Powers Resolution to Lebanon. On April 20, Pell said he would have had the votes to apply the resolution to U.S. Marines in Lebanon. The law limited presidential commitment of troops in hostile situations to a maximum of 90 days unless Congress specifically approved their use.

Undersecretary of State Kenneth W. Dam, in a letter to the committee, had argued forcefully against use of the War Powers Resolution. Dam said it would "amount to a public finding that U.S. forces will be exposed to imminent risk of involvement in hostilities", which "could give entirely the wrong public impression" of U.S. expectations for Lebanon's future. Several influential congressmen had been urging an end to the U.S. military role in Lebanon. After the embassy bombing, April 19, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R, Ariz.) said, "I think it's high time we bring the boys home."

callen

my2hands said:

callen said:

my2hands said:

JimmyV said:

my2hands said:

Quick question... simple question... from a person that doesn't give a shit about the politics or the Red v. Blue horseshit that is helping destroy my country

If they asked for more protection due to security threats, why not provide that protection?

It's a good question. I think bureaucracy and red tape got in the way here like it does so often in government. This case is highlighted because of the attack, but I bet these kind of decisions are made all the time. Which is shameful when we are putting people into dangerous situations.

Absolutely

Seems to me that common sense would say when the US embassy in Libya asks for more security, you provide that security. Anything else is incompetence, at the least

that's my problem

There are limited resources in everything. You daily have to determine acceptable level of risk. Do you just stay indoors? Do you spend all you money on a Volvo?

We have thousands of out posts all around the world and don't have the resources to give all a battalion for protection.

Should this one have had more? Probably. Should we look at how we can do better job at managing risk. Sure.

As pointed out earlier we've had this happen before with way more US casualties but this one instance there's this up roar. Why? LIBERAL BLACK DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!! There I said it.

my issue has nothing to do with who the president it

not to mention republicans have been after the Clintons way before Obama

resources are not an issue either... we're talking about a woman who has had personal secret service protection for the last 15 years, and a country that spends more on defense than the rest of planet earth... when you're embassy, in Libya, asks for more protection, based on good reasons, you provide it... there is no justifying it or explaining it, they fucked up... they got screwed further by not admitting they fucked up, and tried to cover up that they fucked up, which is a typical Clinton reaction

I deal with the same type of professional beaurocrats, being oblivious to safety concerns for real workers in the real world, and making poor decisions, then acting like they did everything they could

It's transparent, don't get lost in the details

That comment wasn't directed at you but more motivation of republicans and attempt to get traction for some of their followers.

gimmesometruth27

congratulations republicans. you just handed the keys to the white house to mrs. clinton.

does it feel good?

fox news cut away from the broadcast and went with regular programming in prime time. if the committee had gained anything on hillary, they would have stayed with the broadcast and they would have replayed and replayed and replayed any evidence just to hurt her. to me it is pretty telling that they cut away because they knew they had been pwned for 11 hours. que balloon deflating sound effect.