Shit! he's trumpeted everything before ... Again and again and again and again.
That record player needs a new needle.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-12-2014, 11:15 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 01-13-2014, 11:26 PM
- I B Hankering
- 01-14-2014, 06:34 AM
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on attack, not video or protest
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"
"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."...
WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir."
WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-not-video-or/
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"
"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."...
WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir."
WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-not-video-or/
- Yssup Rider
- 01-14-2014, 09:23 AM
Fox News -- SNICK!
They're more desperate for credibility than IBIdiot!
They're more desperate for credibility than IBIdiot!
- I B Hankering
- 01-15-2014, 04:08 AM
(Reuters) - A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee to be released on Wednesday was expected to criticize the State Department for inadequate security at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, when it suffered a deadly attack on September 11, 2012.
Sources familiar with the findings said the report, which had bipartisan approval, found that in the previous months U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned about possible attacks in Benghazi, but the [Hildabeast's] State Department paid too little attention....
The sources said that report heavily criticized the State Department for security arrangements at the diplomatic compound, saying they were nowhere near adequate to deal with the threat militants were known to pose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0D1M520140115
General Ham and others did raise the idea that the presence of Defense Department protection of diplomatic personnel in Libya - specifically of a team known as a "Site Security Team" could have made a difference in protecting Stevens on the night of the attack....
Ham also testified about his growing concern that eastern Libya was becoming a hotbed of extremism and that he had advocated for more intelligence assets to gain a better understanding of the extremist groups on the ground.
Ham said then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had approved the use of predator drones in the area, but Ham felt he could have used more military assets.
"I don't know that I would go so far to say that it would have prevented the attacks that occurred on September 11th," Ham said. "But it won't surprise you that as a military commander, you know, I wanted more resources. And the resource that I felt I needed most was additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to gain a better understanding of what was happening."
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...nghazi-attack/
July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military Site Security Team (SST) and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.
August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi...tack-unfolded/
Sources familiar with the findings said the report, which had bipartisan approval, found that in the previous months U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned about possible attacks in Benghazi, but the [Hildabeast's] State Department paid too little attention....
The sources said that report heavily criticized the State Department for security arrangements at the diplomatic compound, saying they were nowhere near adequate to deal with the threat militants were known to pose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0D1M520140115
General Ham and others did raise the idea that the presence of Defense Department protection of diplomatic personnel in Libya - specifically of a team known as a "Site Security Team" could have made a difference in protecting Stevens on the night of the attack....
Ham also testified about his growing concern that eastern Libya was becoming a hotbed of extremism and that he had advocated for more intelligence assets to gain a better understanding of the extremist groups on the ground.
Ham said then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had approved the use of predator drones in the area, but Ham felt he could have used more military assets.
"I don't know that I would go so far to say that it would have prevented the attacks that occurred on September 11th," Ham said. "But it won't surprise you that as a military commander, you know, I wanted more resources. And the resource that I felt I needed most was additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to gain a better understanding of what was happening."
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...nghazi-attack/
July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military Site Security Team (SST) and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.
August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi...tack-unfolded/
- Yssup Rider
- 01-15-2014, 09:21 AM
wow Corpy ... So much new information. they're still dead. You're still a dipshit.
- CuteOldGuy
- 01-15-2014, 04:53 PM
Yes. They are still dead. Now we know why. No one in the White House or State Department cared. And you clowns still support these people. And they remain dead. I know you Statists can't feel shame, but you should.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-15-2014, 05:20 PM
and you're still THE dipshit who dared challenge your own ilk. Nearly pulled it off, dipshit COG!
- i'va biggen
- 01-15-2014, 07:22 PM
Yes. They are still dead. Now we know why. No one in the White House or State Department cared. And you clowns still support these people. And they remain dead. I know you Statists can't feel shame, but you should. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyGot to be one of the dumber statements you have posted here. You are slipping into senility sooner than expected.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-15-2014, 08:13 PM
Get ready, Bitches.... LOL
- I B Hankering
- 01-15-2014, 08:16 PM
.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-15-2014, 09:08 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-15-2014, 09:34 PM
What a bunch of SHIT... The Ozombie general finally speaks .....
.Joint Chiefs Chair: We Aren't Authorized to Kill Benghazi Terrorists
January 15, 2014 - 5:04 AM
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
When can President Barack Obama use military force against Libyans without prior authorization from Congress and when can he not?
In response to a question from Rep. Michael Conaway (R.-Texas), Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a closed session of a House Armed Services subcommittee in October that the military cannot kill the terrorists who attacked the State Department and CIA compounds in Benghazi, Libya, because Congress has not authorized the use of force against those terrorists.
"Therefore, they will have to be captured," Dempsey said in a transcript of the testimony released this week.
In 2011, by contrast, Obama did not defer to Congress which represents the American people and is vested with the constitutional power to authorize the use of military force when he ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war. Instead he invoked the authority of the United Nations Security Council where Russia and the People's Republic of China have veto power.
"[T]he writ of the international community must be enforced," Obama said then.
Ten years before Obama unilaterally ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war, President George W. Bush secured congressional authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the American homeland.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted Sept. 14, 2001 said: "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
As Congress expected, Bush used this authorization to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and drive al-Qaida from that country.
Twelve years later, Obama was still invoking this same authorization to justify using drones to kill terrorists far outside Afghanistan.
"Nearly 400 drone strikes, in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, have been launched by the CIA and U.S. military forces during Obama's presidency," the Washington Post reported last year.
"America's actions are legal," Obama said in a speech in May. "We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban and their associated forces."
"Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al-Qaida and its associated forces," Obama continued. "And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always to detain, interrogate and prosecute. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose; our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty."
Theoretically, then, when Obama targets an enemy with a drone that enemy is among "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
On Sept. 11, 2012, in post-Gadhafi Benghazi, terrorists attacked a temporary State Department facility and a CIA compound. They killed four Americans.
In May 2012, the chairmen of five house committees published an interim report based on their investigation of the attack. "The attackers were members of extremist groups, including the Libya-based Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) and al-Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)," said the report.
Would Obama, with a history of unilaterally ordering military force in Libya, and a history of using the 2001 AUMF to go after al-Qaida outside Afghanistan, order drones to take out the Benghazi terrorists or at least the al-Qaida affiliates among them?
According to Gen. Dempsey, that would not be legal.
"Well, first of all, the individuals related in the Benghazi attack, those that we believe were either participants or leadership of it are not authorized [for] use of military force," Dempsey told the subcommittee.
"In other words, they don't fall under the AUMF authorized by the Congress of the United States," said Dempsey. "So we would not have the capability to simply find them and kill them, either with a remotely-piloted aircraft or with an assault on the ground. Therefore, they will have to be captured, and we would, when asked, provide capture options to do that."
At a press conference on Aug. 9, Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama about his vow to "bring to justice the killers who attacked our people" in Benghazi.
"[W]e have informed, I think, the public that there is a sealed indictment," Obama said. "It's sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. And we are going to stay on it until we get them."
If the al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists in Libya had been allied with Gadhafi, would Obama have ordered the military to go after them?
If Obama asked Congress for an authorization to do so now, would Congress deny it?
Does Obama care that under our Constitution he can only use force without congressional authorization if it is necessary to repel a sudden attack?
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terenc....Fhrkrq5c.dpuf
.Joint Chiefs Chair: We Aren't Authorized to Kill Benghazi Terrorists
January 15, 2014 - 5:04 AM
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
When can President Barack Obama use military force against Libyans without prior authorization from Congress and when can he not?
In response to a question from Rep. Michael Conaway (R.-Texas), Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a closed session of a House Armed Services subcommittee in October that the military cannot kill the terrorists who attacked the State Department and CIA compounds in Benghazi, Libya, because Congress has not authorized the use of force against those terrorists.
"Therefore, they will have to be captured," Dempsey said in a transcript of the testimony released this week.
In 2011, by contrast, Obama did not defer to Congress which represents the American people and is vested with the constitutional power to authorize the use of military force when he ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war. Instead he invoked the authority of the United Nations Security Council where Russia and the People's Republic of China have veto power.
"[T]he writ of the international community must be enforced," Obama said then.
Ten years before Obama unilaterally ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war, President George W. Bush secured congressional authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the American homeland.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted Sept. 14, 2001 said: "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
As Congress expected, Bush used this authorization to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and drive al-Qaida from that country.
Twelve years later, Obama was still invoking this same authorization to justify using drones to kill terrorists far outside Afghanistan.
"Nearly 400 drone strikes, in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, have been launched by the CIA and U.S. military forces during Obama's presidency," the Washington Post reported last year.
"America's actions are legal," Obama said in a speech in May. "We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban and their associated forces."
"Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al-Qaida and its associated forces," Obama continued. "And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always to detain, interrogate and prosecute. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose; our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty."
Theoretically, then, when Obama targets an enemy with a drone that enemy is among "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
On Sept. 11, 2012, in post-Gadhafi Benghazi, terrorists attacked a temporary State Department facility and a CIA compound. They killed four Americans.
In May 2012, the chairmen of five house committees published an interim report based on their investigation of the attack. "The attackers were members of extremist groups, including the Libya-based Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) and al-Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)," said the report.
Would Obama, with a history of unilaterally ordering military force in Libya, and a history of using the 2001 AUMF to go after al-Qaida outside Afghanistan, order drones to take out the Benghazi terrorists or at least the al-Qaida affiliates among them?
According to Gen. Dempsey, that would not be legal.
"Well, first of all, the individuals related in the Benghazi attack, those that we believe were either participants or leadership of it are not authorized [for] use of military force," Dempsey told the subcommittee.
"In other words, they don't fall under the AUMF authorized by the Congress of the United States," said Dempsey. "So we would not have the capability to simply find them and kill them, either with a remotely-piloted aircraft or with an assault on the ground. Therefore, they will have to be captured, and we would, when asked, provide capture options to do that."
At a press conference on Aug. 9, Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama about his vow to "bring to justice the killers who attacked our people" in Benghazi.
"[W]e have informed, I think, the public that there is a sealed indictment," Obama said. "It's sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. And we are going to stay on it until we get them."
If the al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists in Libya had been allied with Gadhafi, would Obama have ordered the military to go after them?
If Obama asked Congress for an authorization to do so now, would Congress deny it?
Does Obama care that under our Constitution he can only use force without congressional authorization if it is necessary to repel a sudden attack?
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terenc....Fhrkrq5c.dpuf
- Yssup Rider
- 01-15-2014, 11:33 PM
SNICK! (Yes, that's ANOTHER snick at ANOTHER broken record Benghazi thread!)
- CJ7
- 01-15-2014, 11:58 PM
Yes. They are still dead. Now we know why. No one in the White House or State Department cared. And you clowns still support these people. And they remain dead. I know you Statists can't feel shame, but you should. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyGates said otherwise
you should be ashamed, showcasing your stupidity day in and day out ... tsk tsk