Benghazi: Rescue forces ordered to stand down by White House

Ekim, I will give you credit, you speak up. All the rest of the libtards ,shut the fuck up on this subject, because they know damn good and well odumbo is a gutless , fucking coward. He will take no questions from the press, they are stonewalling, till after he loses the election... what a bunch of lowlife bastards this administration. is Originally Posted by seedman55

Ok fucktard I am not a liberal you are so fucking stupid this has not sunk in yet.Here is the story

the person reporting said and this is a condensed version.He called his group a quick response team.they were housed two miles from the ambassador in a safe house.they responded to the fight,and there was no time frame in it so I can't say if they had requested and were denied.OK? they went rescued and gathered up the bodies and returned to the safe house that was better to defend.They came under mortar fire(where the Seal was Killed) then they loaded all into vehicles drove away slowly not to attract attention got to the aircraft and flew away..

TWO former SEALs were killed at that compound by mortar fire, not one, but two. One was painting the mortar team with a laser. Why would he paint them unless he had reason to think that something was going to happen to them? They were a mile away and it was not a safe house, it was a CIA outpost. When they arrived at the consulate the ambassador was missing and Sean Smith was who they collected before leaving.

Rice also diverged on critique of the events leading up to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens (known for his compassion and hands-on approach in Libya), one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack. She remarked:

“You can’t simply keep your diplomats in a bunker … They have to get out and do their work.”

Condi seemed to agree with many of the President’s defenders when she stated:

“The problem is when there is a fog of war like this, there are a lot of competing stories coming in, there’s a lot a competing information coming in, and it takes a little while to know precisely what has happened.”

Watch Condoleezza Rice discuss the Benghazi attack on Fox below

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/376608/condoleezza-rice-backs-obama-on-libya-response-says-we-dont-have-all-the-pieces/#zDgdQE7KHaDp5kDi.99

Rice also diverged on critique of the events leading up to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens (known for his compassion and hands-on approach in Libya), one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack. She remarked:

“You can’t simply keep your diplomats in a bunker … They have to get out and do their work.”

Condi seemed to agree with many of the President’s defenders when she stated:

“The problem is when there is a fog of war like this, there are a lot of competing stories coming in, there’s a lot a competing information coming in, and it takes a little while to know precisely what has happened.”

Watch Condoleezza Rice discuss the Benghazi attack on Fox below

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/376608/condoleezza-rice-backs-obama-on-libya-response-says-we-dont-have-all-the-pieces/#zDgdQE7KHaDp5kDi.99 Originally Posted by WTF

No sale! Fifty or even five hundred dissidents carrying signs and chanting anti-American slogans does a “protest” make. Fifty armed men maneuvering on and shooting at a consulate with AK-47s and RPGs was a violent attack by men set on doing harm to U.S. citizens. There’s no “fog of war” involved in discriminating between protesters throwing rocks and climbing walls and an armed assault. If no one in the White House could figure that out, well that’s even more reason to dump their asses on November 6th.

Odumbo’s “touchy-feely” approach in Libya left the ambassador unprotected. Odumbo, et al, subsequently lied their collective asses off trying to cover Odumbo’s failed foreign policy.

As C-in-C, Odumbo knew or should have known the compound was bombed twice previously and that there were hundreds of other violent incidents before 9/11, 2012. Apparently Odumbo never asked a simple question in the wake of those attacks: “What are we doing to protect Ambassador Stevens and his staff?” Rather, Odumbo instead allowed the security forces to be withdrawn from Libya leaving Stevens and company even more exposed on the anniversary of 9/11. That’s not leadership: it’s criminal.

As C-in-C, Odumbo knew or should have known the compound was bombed twice previously and that there were hundreds of other violent incidents before 9/11, 2012. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Known or should have known?????????....well then I take back my defense of Bush and WMD's.

Bush should have known...

Let's try him for war crimes like the rabid left wanted...because that is what you guys on the far right are sounding like.

Known or should have known?????????....well then I take back my defense of Bush and WMD's.

Bush should have known...

Let's try him for war crimes like the rabid left wanted...because that is what you guys on the far right are sounding like. Originally Posted by WTF

Comparing the assault in Libya in 2012 to Iraq 2003 is a bullshit argument. The attacks in Libya, in April and in June, were documented and on file, and should have been in Odumbo's daily briefings -- the briefings Odumbo was NOT attending. There was nothing vague or unknown about those hundreds of incidents and those bombings in April and in June; nevertheless, the Odumbo administration CUT security.

TWO former SEALs were killed at that compound by mortar fire, not one, but two. One was painting the mortar team with a laser. Why would he paint them unless he had reason to think that something was going to happen to them? They were a mile away and it was not a safe house, it was a CIA outpost. When they arrived at the consulate the ambassador was missing and Sean Smith was who they collected before leaving. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh didn't know you were there JD sorry..

IB, strawmen are WPF's specialty.

Why would anyone paint a target with a laser if there was no one there to do something about it? I suspect that he thought somebody was there. What would you say if it comes out that he was told that someone was there?

Comparing the assault in Libya in 2012 to Iraq 2003 is a bullshit argument. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

#1: In 2003 we were at a "truce" with Iraq from a prior administration and there were violations of the agreements with Iraq for over 10 years.. including surface to air confrontations with fly overs ... and mulitiple U.N. demands that were being ignored ... there was in effect an ongoing military confrontation ... It was not Bush II's war.

#2: In Libya in 2012 there were ongoing assaults on our property and people ... It IS Obaminable's war..... HE started it.

Bush took action. If you think Bush lied about WMD's, then think it.

Obaminable did not take action. If you think Obaminable lied about the movie, then think it.

Vote accordingly.

What would you say if it comes out that he was told that someone was there? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The same thing that I think daily when I recall having heard repeatedly ....

.. "my administration will be transparent" ... or

"the check is in the mail."

Comparing the assault in Libya in 2012 to Iraq 2003 is a bullshit argument. The attacks in Libya, in April and in June, were documented and on file, and should have been in Odumbo's daily briefings -- the briefings Odumbo was NOT attending. There was nothing vague or unknown about those hundreds of incidents and those bombings in April and in June; nevertheless, the Odumbo administration CUT security. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Should I compare them to the Pat Tillman Lie.


Bush knew or should have known?

Isn't that the new standard?

Bush knew that soldiers would be killed because he did not provide them vehicles with armored bottoms. The list could go on and on with the rights double standard.

IB, strawmen are WPF's specialty. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And dicks are yours.

ask yourself this question

if you were the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, or the head of the CIA, or the head of the state department, or a member of the natonal security council, or anyone else in the obama administration would you pass the request for more security or back-up by the ambassador and the CIA operatives up to the president or would you make the denial decision yourself?

Isn't that the new standard?

Bush knew that soldiers would be killed because he did not provide them vehicles with armored bottoms.
Originally Posted by WTF

If I recall correctly the vehicles deployed for Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's were designed and assembled prior to 2001.* That FACT alone makes the case for improving and maintaining readily available equipment as opposed to reducing preparedness, equipment, and personnel trained to engage on short notice.

*Had they been adequately designed and assembled there just might not have been a "surplus" at the end of 2000. After all, we had been "at war" for at least 7 years and more likely 10 to 11 years by 2000. I think it was "renamed" a "law enforcement" activity. Like Libya.