|
Post by davo on Oct 31, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5
It's still a scam: link60 Minutes Pretends There Is A "Lingering Question" About Benghazi Reinforcements Contrary to Hicks' claims, military assets were on their way. Shortly after the attack began, a Marine anti-terrorist team in Spain and special operations teams in Croatia and the United States were ordered to deploy. But the Marines arrived in Tripoli, Libya, roughly 11 hours after the last Americans had been successfully evacuated from Benghazi, while the special operations teams reached a staging base in Italy at around that same time. Here are four senior military experts who have answered Logan's "lingering question" by pointing out that help was sent, but due to logistical issues, none arrived until hours after the attack concluded: Admiral (ret.) Mike Mullen, Former Joint Chiefs Chairman. During a September congressional hearing, Mullen, who co-chaired the State Department's independent investigation of Benghazi, said that he had repeatedly reviewed the military's response that night and determined that in spite of the "questions being raised about it,""The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time." He explained: Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During February 7 congressional testimony[accessed via Nexis], Panetta said that the Department of Defense was "prepared for a wide range of contingencies" that night, but since there was no specific intelligence warning of an imminent attack in Benghazi, "there was not enough time, given the speed of the attack, for armed military assets to respond": Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. During a May interview, Gates said that the idea that military assets should have been able to get to Benghazi during the attack was based on a "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities": Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman. In February written congressional testimony, Dempsey said: Our military was appropriately responsive. We acted quickly once notified of the attacks on the Temporary Mission Facility. ... We also repositioned forces based on direction from the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. We deployed a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Tripoli while a second team prepared to deploy. We directed the deployment of a special operations force in the United States and one already in Europe to intermediate staging bases. We also provided C-17 airlift for medical evacuation. We did what our posture and capabilities allowed. This is not the first time Hicks has criticized the military response to the Benghazi attacks, raising the "lingering question" of why CBS News permitted him to do so in this case without noting that such charges have been vigorously rebutted by military experts. It was Hicks who, in congressional testimony that was leaked to and published by CBS in May, claimed that Special Forces based in Tripoli had been told to stand down rather than flying to aid Americans in Benghazi.
That claim, which was vigorously promoted by the right-wing media, was false. Since Hicks offered his claim, the commander of the Special Forces team, his commander, and Dempsey have all said that no such order was given. After the commander of the Special Forces team testified before a closed House Armed Services Committee hearing in June, the committee issued a statement that "contrary to news reports," the commander "was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi. Rather, he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi."
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 12:11:56 GMT -5
Let the professional whiners have their silly scandals. They've been pulling this crap since Clinton. Impeach impeach! It's funny.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Oct 31, 2013 12:12:19 GMT -5
It's still a scam: link60 Minutes Pretends There Is A "Lingering Question" About Benghazi Reinforcements Contrary to Hicks' claims, military assets were on their way. Shortly after the attack began, a Marine anti-terrorist team in Spain and special operations teams in Croatia and the United States were ordered to deploy. But the Marines arrived in Tripoli, Libya, roughly 11 hours after the last Americans had been successfully evacuated from Benghazi, while the special operations teams reached a staging base in Italy at around that same time. Here are four senior military experts who have answered Logan's "lingering question" by pointing out that help was sent, but due to logistical issues, none arrived until hours after the attack concluded: Admiral (ret.) Mike Mullen, Former Joint Chiefs Chairman. During a September congressional hearing, Mullen, who co-chaired the State Department's independent investigation of Benghazi, said that he had repeatedly reviewed the military's response that night and determined that in spite of the "questions being raised about it,""The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time." He explained: Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During February 7 congressional testimony[accessed via Nexis], Panetta said that the Department of Defense was "prepared for a wide range of contingencies" that night, but since there was no specific intelligence warning of an imminent attack in Benghazi, "there was not enough time, given the speed of the attack, for armed military assets to respond": Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. During a May interview, Gates said that the idea that military assets should have been able to get to Benghazi during the attack was based on a "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities": Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman. In February written congressional testimony, Dempsey said: Our military was appropriately responsive. We acted quickly once notified of the attacks on the Temporary Mission Facility. ... We also repositioned forces based on direction from the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. We deployed a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Tripoli while a second team prepared to deploy. We directed the deployment of a special operations force in the United States and one already in Europe to intermediate staging bases. We also provided C-17 airlift for medical evacuation. We did what our posture and capabilities allowed. This is not the first time Hicks has criticized the military response to the Benghazi attacks, raising the "lingering question" of why CBS News permitted him to do so in this case without noting that such charges have been vigorously rebutted by military experts. It was Hicks who, in congressional testimony that was leaked to and published by CBS in May, claimed that Special Forces based in Tripoli had been told to stand down rather than flying to aid Americans in Benghazi.
That claim, which was vigorously promoted by the right-wing media, was false. Since Hicks offered his claim, the commander of the Special Forces team, his commander, and Dempsey have all said that no such order was given. After the commander of the Special Forces team testified before a closed House Armed Services Committee hearing in June, the committee issued a statement that "contrary to news reports," the commander "was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi. Rather, he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi."
Interesting, he was not told to stand down, but to remain in Tripoli. Note the semantics? No I didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 12:15:16 GMT -5
It's still a scam: link60 Minutes Pretends There Is A "Lingering Question" About Benghazi Reinforcements Contrary to Hicks' claims, military assets were on their way. Shortly after the attack began, a Marine anti-terrorist team in Spain and special operations teams in Croatia and the United States were ordered to deploy. But the Marines arrived in Tripoli, Libya, roughly 11 hours after the last Americans had been successfully evacuated from Benghazi, while the special operations teams reached a staging base in Italy at around that same time. Here are four senior military experts who have answered Logan's "lingering question" by pointing out that help was sent, but due to logistical issues, none arrived until hours after the attack concluded: Admiral (ret.) Mike Mullen, Former Joint Chiefs Chairman. During a September congressional hearing, Mullen, who co-chaired the State Department's independent investigation of Benghazi, said that he had repeatedly reviewed the military's response that night and determined that in spite of the "questions being raised about it,""The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time." He explained: Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During February 7 congressional testimony[accessed via Nexis], Panetta said that the Department of Defense was "prepared for a wide range of contingencies" that night, but since there was no specific intelligence warning of an imminent attack in Benghazi, "there was not enough time, given the speed of the attack, for armed military assets to respond": Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. During a May interview, Gates said that the idea that military assets should have been able to get to Benghazi during the attack was based on a "sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities": Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman. In February written congressional testimony, Dempsey said: Our military was appropriately responsive. We acted quickly once notified of the attacks on the Temporary Mission Facility. ... We also repositioned forces based on direction from the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. We deployed a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Tripoli while a second team prepared to deploy. We directed the deployment of a special operations force in the United States and one already in Europe to intermediate staging bases. We also provided C-17 airlift for medical evacuation. We did what our posture and capabilities allowed. This is not the first time Hicks has criticized the military response to the Benghazi attacks, raising the "lingering question" of why CBS News permitted him to do so in this case without noting that such charges have been vigorously rebutted by military experts. It was Hicks who, in congressional testimony that was leaked to and published by CBS in May, claimed that Special Forces based in Tripoli had been told to stand down rather than flying to aid Americans in Benghazi.
That claim, which was vigorously promoted by the right-wing media, was false. Since Hicks offered his claim, the commander of the Special Forces team, his commander, and Dempsey have all said that no such order was given. After the commander of the Special Forces team testified before a closed House Armed Services Committee hearing in June, the committee issued a statement that "contrary to news reports," the commander "was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi. Rather, he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi."
Interesting, he was not told to stand down, but to remain in Tripoli. Note the semantics? No I didn't think so. Surely there's another Ken Starr for y'all somewhere..
|
|
|
Post by davo on Oct 31, 2013 13:25:05 GMT -5
Interesting, he was not told to stand down, but to remain in Tripoli. Note the semantics? No I didn't think so. Surely there's another Ken Starr for y'all somewhere.. I guess they've forgotten how that worked out for them. It's funny how badly Republicans want to be in control when they are such abject failures at actually governing.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Oct 31, 2013 13:29:31 GMT -5
Surely there's another Ken Starr for y'all somewhere.. I guess they've forgotten how that worked out for them. It's funny how badly Republicans want to be in control when they are such abject failures at actually governing. So, davo. What did 60 Minutes get wrong? You're a supporter of the administration lies in this matter? Should four Americans be sacrificed to a political cause?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 13:31:10 GMT -5
I guess they've forgotten how that worked out for them. It's funny how badly Republicans want to be in control when they are such abject failures at actually governing. So, davo. What did 60 Minutes get wrong? You're a supporter of the administration lies in this matter? Should four Americans be sacrificed to a political cause? Great questions! Lol
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 31, 2013 21:06:13 GMT -5
It would be better if the GOP saved any damning revelations about Benghazi for 2015 or so. They could be used to torpedo Hillary, then. Obama has shown us the folly of letting Democrats govern.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 21:25:20 GMT -5
It would be better if the GOP saved any damning revelations about Benghazi for 2015 or so. They could be used to torpedo Hillary, then. Obama has shown us the folly of letting Democrats govern. Oh boy back to Bushes Sarahs And Mitts!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 31, 2013 21:29:59 GMT -5
Oh boy back to Bushes Sarahs And Mitts! It's that way with independents. The party in charge convinces us they don't ever deserve to be in charge again. Then the other party gets elected from our swing vote, and THEY convince us they don't deserve to be in charge. Everything about the Obama presidency convinces rational people that Democrats do not know what they are doing. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Resident.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Oct 31, 2013 21:37:24 GMT -5
Oh boy back to Bushes Sarahs And Mitts! It's that way with independents. The party in charge convinces us they don't ever deserve to be in charge again. Then the other party gets elected from our swing vote, and THEY convince us they don't deserve to be in charge. Everything about the Obama presidency convinces rational people that Democrats do not know what they are doing. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Resident. I feel your pain. I did vote third party. It felt good and feels good to say it
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Oct 31, 2013 22:43:04 GMT -5
It's that way with independents. The party in charge convinces us they don't ever deserve to be in charge again. Then the other party gets elected from our swing vote, and THEY convince us they don't deserve to be in charge. Everything about the Obama presidency convinces rational people that Democrats do not know what they are doing. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Resident. I feel your pain. I did vote third party. It felt good and feels good to say it And we all feel good that you feel good and that your self esteem is secure......can I get a big ol' sunspotliveson group hug?
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 11:33:39 GMT -5
I guess they've forgotten how that worked out for them. It's funny how badly Republicans want to be in control when they are such abject failures at actually governing. So, davo. What did 60 Minutes get wrong? You're a supporter of the administration lies in this matter? Should four Americans be sacrificed to a political cause? You're operating on the assumption that 60 Minutes got it right. linkThe Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack, according to a report from The Washington Post. The revelation comes just days after Fox News reported that they had previously been using the same man as a source, but broke contact after he asked the network for money. Two days after the CBS report aired, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster that "specializes in conservative non-fiction," published the supposed witness' book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There. According to the Post, the book "largely comports with the 60 Minutes account." Together, these details paint a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and that of the CBS report which promoted his story.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 11:37:38 GMT -5
I feel your pain. I did vote third party. It felt good and feels good to say it And we all feel good that you feel good and that your self esteem is secure......can I get a big ol' sunspotliveson group hug? No You folks is weird
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 11:40:04 GMT -5
All these longggg posts.... Cut to the quick.... Another yawnable republican witch hunt. It's become their mode de operatus since Clinton. They can't win any other way.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 1, 2013 11:40:24 GMT -5
And we all feel good that you feel good and that your self esteem is secure......can I get a big ol' sunspotliveson group hug? No You folks is weird Awww...I'm not feelin' the love.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 11:45:51 GMT -5
So, davo. What did 60 Minutes get wrong? You're a supporter of the administration lies in this matter? Should four Americans be sacrificed to a political cause? You're operating on the assumption that 60 Minutes got it right. linkThe Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack, according to a report from The Washington Post. The revelation comes just days after Fox News reported that they had previously been using the same man as a source, but broke contact after he asked the network for money. Two days after the CBS report aired, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster that "specializes in conservative non-fiction," published the supposed witness' book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There. According to the Post, the book "largely comports with the 60 Minutes account." Together, these details paint a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and that of the CBS report which promoted his story.
Thank you, David Axlerod. Tell you what. How about if I post all of my stuff from sources like Newsmax?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 11:53:22 GMT -5
All these longggg posts.... Cut to the quick.... Another yawnable republican witch hunt. It's become their mode de operatus since Clinton. They can't win any other way. Let me rephrase that: they seem to think they can't win by any other method . Maybe they should lose the Limbaugh attitude, stop spend their time worrying about libs and focus on what they stand for. And for gods sake, come up with a decent candidate!
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 11:58:52 GMT -5
You're operating on the assumption that 60 Minutes got it right. linkThe Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack, according to a report from The Washington Post. The revelation comes just days after Fox News reported that they had previously been using the same man as a source, but broke contact after he asked the network for money. Two days after the CBS report aired, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster that "specializes in conservative non-fiction," published the supposed witness' book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There. According to the Post, the book "largely comports with the 60 Minutes account." Together, these details paint a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and that of the CBS report which promoted his story.
Thank you, David Axlerod. Tell you what. How about if I post all of my stuff from sources like Newsmax? You asked. I answered. Do what you like. Use your head. Everybody must be fed. Yes, do what you like, that's what is I said. Get together, break some bread. Doooo whaaaat yoooou liiiike. Don't fight!!
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 1, 2013 12:05:11 GMT -5
All these longggg posts.... Cut to the quick.... Another yawnable republican witch hunt. It's become their mode de operatus since Clinton. They can't win any other way. Let me rephrase that: they seem to think they can't win by any other method . Maybe they should lose the Limbaugh attitude, stop spend their time worrying about libs and focus on what they stand for. And for gods sake, come up with a decent candidate! Ham sandwich
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 12:24:23 GMT -5
Thank you, David Axlerod. Tell you what. How about if I post all of my stuff from sources like Newsmax? You asked. I answered. Do what you like. Use your head. Everybody must be fed. Yes, do what you like, that's what is I said. Get together, break some bread. Doooo whaaaat yoooou liiiike. Don't fight!! Let's see. CBS - who, besides Sharyl Attkinson, has been fairly light on its coverage of Obama administration miscues, or Media Matters, a George Soros funded "non profit." I can't begin to tell you just how hard it is for me to figure out which of the two is more credible.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 12:28:25 GMT -5
You asked. I answered. Do what you like. Use your head. Everybody must be fed. Yes, do what you like, that's what is I said. Get together, break some bread. Doooo whaaaat yoooou liiiike. Don't fight!! Let's see. CBS - who, besides Sharyl Attkinson, has been fairly light on its coverage of Obama administration miscues, or Media Matters, a George Soros funded "non profit." I can't begin to tell you just how hard it is for me to figure out which of the two is more credible.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 12:41:54 GMT -5
Let's see. CBS - who, besides Sharyl Attkinson, has been fairly light on its coverage of Obama administration miscues, or Media Matters, a George Soros funded "non profit." I can't begin to tell you just how hard it is for me to figure out which of the two is more credible. These posts become hard to read. Is there a glitch in the quotes?
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 13:23:19 GMT -5
You asked. I answered. Do what you like. Use your head. Everybody must be fed. Yes, do what you like, that's what is I said. Get together, break some bread. Doooo whaaaat yoooou liiiike. Don't fight!! Let's see. CBS - who, besides Sharyl Attkinson, has been fairly light on its coverage of Obama administration miscues, or Media Matters, a George Soros funded "non profit." I can't begin to tell you just how hard it is for me to figure out which of the two is more credible. How about the Washington Post? linkToday, The Washington Post revealed that the very same witness previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound the night of the attack. This completely contradicts what was reported on air by correspondent Lara Logan, who said that during the attack, the witness “scaled the twelve-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters.” In the interview, the witness told Logan he had personally struck one of those terrorists in the face with his rifle butt and, following the attack, he went to the Benghazi hospital and saw Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body. According to Post, the witness revealed none of those details in the incident report he wrote following the attack. Instead, he said that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa and learned of Stevens' death from a colleague. This paints a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and thus of the CBS report itself. A network spokesman told the Post, ‘We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.” This is not sufficient. When questions were raised about documents involving President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard, CBS appointed an independent panel “to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.” Similar standards must be applied in this case.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 13:33:42 GMT -5
Let's see. CBS - who, besides Sharyl Attkinson, has been fairly light on its coverage of Obama administration miscues, or Media Matters, a George Soros funded "non profit." I can't begin to tell you just how hard it is for me to figure out which of the two is more credible. How about the Washington Post? linkToday, The Washington Post revealed that the very same witness previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound the night of the attack. This completely contradicts what was reported on air by correspondent Lara Logan, who said that during the attack, the witness “scaled the twelve-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters.” In the interview, the witness told Logan he had personally struck one of those terrorists in the face with his rifle butt and, following the attack, he went to the Benghazi hospital and saw Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body. According to Post, the witness revealed none of those details in the incident report he wrote following the attack. Instead, he said that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa and learned of Stevens' death from a colleague. This paints a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and thus of the CBS report itself. A network spokesman told the Post, ‘We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.” This is not sufficient. When questions were raised about documents involving President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard, CBS appointed an independent panel “to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken.” Similar standards must be applied in this case. That's odd. ...and... CBS seems to be standing by their story. Hopefully, they'll do further reporting to iron out the inconsistencies.
|
|