There was no "Stand Down" order in Benghazi given .

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    There was no "Stand Down" order in Benghazi given .

    This is according to the testimony of nine military officers given to a the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    This is according to the testimony of nine military officers given to a the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees



    So, we are left wondering: what caused the assembled troop in Italy and Tripolitania to be told to get off their planes/helicopters and sent back to bed?

    Progressives are so bad at the connect the dots logic.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: There was no

    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to stay put and protect the embassy there weren't they ? As for troops in Italy are you saying that we should have sent in a company of Rangers , a Force Recon team  , a SEALS team or Delta Force team by air under the cover of air support and land in a very hot LZ in day light and btw the fight was over by the time that they got there ? That would have taken hours to coordinate and still more Americans would have died .


     


    ronnie let the fighting be conducted by the men folk and you can play arm chair commando on you Xbox .


     


    Semper Fi !

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to stay put and protect the embassy there weren't they ? As for troops in Italy are you saying that we should have sent in Rangers , Force Recon  , SEALS or Delta Force by air with air support ? That would have taken hours to coordinate and still more Americans would have died .



    Were they? I see no evidence of that, or any logic for the troop in Italy being told to ... Stay put, which is essentially a stand down order.

    Whether they were told to "stay put" or "wait" or any other variant, it amounts to a stand down order.

    That an actual order, I.e. Documented, doesn't exist is immaterial.  Heck, it probably was deleted with the IRS emails.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to stay put and protect the embassy there weren't they ? As for troops in Italy are you saying that we should have sent in Rangers , Force Recon  , SEALS or Delta Force by air with air support ? That would have taken hours to coordinate and still more Americans would have died .



    Were they? I see no evidence of that, or any logic for the troop in Italy being told to ... Stay put, which is essentially a stand down order.

    Whether they were told to "stay put" or "wait" or any other variant, it amounts to a stand down order.

    That an actual order, I.e. Documented, doesn't exist is immaterial.  Heck, it probably was deleted with the IRS emails.




    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to protect our interest there .... that isn't a stand down order that is an order to stay put and be on alert for an attack there .

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: There was no

    ronnie tell me more about the troops in Italy ..... were they pilots in a jet fighter wing ..... were they regular ground ponders  ..... were they Sp Ops ...... etc ?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: There was no

    Ronnie - you realize you're arguing with a man that has been there and done that in regards to military operations. Pretty sure he knows his s h i t when it comes to things military related. Stick to what you know....whatever that may be.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: There was no

    ronnie-raygun-lover has been watching too many Rambo movies....

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



     




    In response to ronreganfan's comment:




    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to stay put and protect the embassy there weren't they ? As for troops in Italy are you saying that we should have sent in Rangers , Force Recon  , SEALS or Delta Force by air with air support ? That would have taken hours to coordinate and still more Americans would have died .




     





    Were they? I see no evidence of that, or any logic for the troop in Italy being told to ... Stay put, which is essentially a stand down order.


     


     


    Whether they were told to "stay put" or "wait" or any other variant, it amounts to a stand down order.


     


    That an actual order, I.e. Documented, doesn't exist is immaterial.  Heck, it probably was deleted with the IRS emails.


     






     


    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to protect our interest there .... that isn't a stand down order that is an order to stay put and be on alert for an attack there .


     




    Sure they were.


     


    "A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday."


     


    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack" rel="nofollow">http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack


    Sure sounds like a stand down order to me.


    You guys have to work overtime to defend the indefensible activity of the most corrupt administration ever.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



     




    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     




    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to stay put and protect the embassy there weren't they ? As for troops in Italy are you saying that we should have sent in Rangers , Force Recon  , SEALS or Delta Force by air with air support ? That would have taken hours to coordinate and still more Americans would have died .




     





    Were they? I see no evidence of that, or any logic for the troop in Italy being told to ... Stay put, which is essentially a stand down order.

     

     

     

     

     

    Whether they were told to "stay put" or "wait" or any other variant, it amounts to a stand down order.

     

     

     

    That an actual order, I.e. Documented, doesn't exist is immaterial.  Heck, it probably was deleted with the IRS emails.

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    ronnie the troops in Tripoli were told to protect our interest there .... that isn't a stand down order that is an order to stay put and be on alert for an attack there .

     

     

     



    Sure they were.

     

     

     

    "A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday."

     

     

     

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack" rel="nofollow">http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack" rel="nofollow">http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack

     

    Sure sounds like a stand down order to me.

     

    You guys have to work overtime to defend the indefensible activity of the most corrupt administration ever.



    The leader of that team disagrees with you ...

    WASHINGTON - The former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

    In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

    "Contrary to news reports, Gibson 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," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.

    Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in two attacks several hours apart on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

    Republicans insist that the Obama administration is guilty of a cover-up of the events despite a scathing independent report that faulted the State Department for inadequate security at the diplomatic mission.

    They have accused the administration of misleading the American people about the cause of the terrorist incident during the heat of a presidential campaign, blaming a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.

    In nearly nine months since the attack, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly asked why the military couldn't get aircraft or forces to Benghazi in time to thwart the second attack after the first incident that killed Stevens.

    The committee summary said Gibson acknowledged that if he had left Tripoli, Americans in the Libyan capital would have been without protection.

    "He also stated that in hindsight, he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a difference, and as it turned out his medic was needed to provide urgent assistance to survivors once they arrived in Tripoli," said the summary from the Armed Services Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee.

    Gregory Hicks, a diplomat in Tripoli at the time of the attack, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in May that the unit was told to stand down.

    Earlier this month, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress there was never a stand-down order.

    "They weren't told to stand down. A 'stand down' means don't do anything," he said.

    "They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport."

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     



    Apparently so.

    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.

    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.

    that's the way it works, jack.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     



    Apparently so.

    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.

    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.

    that's the way it works, jack.



    Actually, Jack, I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert, but if the mission was orchestrated by Greg Hicks, isn't it simply a case of the military telling it's SOCAFRICOM commander that the acting Ambassador's input, while appreciated, is not how we would like you to proceed?

    I'll defer to Sistersledge for expertise, but on its surface that's a long, long ways from a stand-down order.

    BTW, your article (from more than a year ago) says they were "ready to fly" but "not authorized to board the plane".  So you're wrong ... again ... but don't worry -  I won't add it to the list - I'll just chalk it up as one of your signature 'oversights'.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: There was no

    Maybe when we find out what the Secdef and the Chief of the Joinr Chiefs of Staf told Ohole that nit

     

    or maybe when we find out who Ohole was whacking off to that nite, or maybe when 

    we fing out who came up with the video BS will we find out who stood our military down and left people die?

    of course leaving a marine in a Mexican jail is good for Ohole too

     

    so all u whack off Ohole lovers 

    go stick it

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: There was no

    To Mr slomag when dealing with the subject of Benghazi most right wingers but not all of them have a tendency to exhibit a non medical condition called selective hearing .

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: There was no

    seawolfxs the ward for the insane is right off that pier in front of you .

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to slomag's comment:



     




    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 




    1) No stand down order




    2) No real-time video in the situation room




    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets




    4) No WH editing of talking points




    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security




    6) No 9-hour firefight




    7) No Youtube video coverup




    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about




     










     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     



    Apparently so.

    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.

    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.

    that's the way it works, jack.



    Actually, Jack, I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert, but if the mission was orchestrated by Greg Hicks, isn't it simply a case of the military telling it's SOCAFRICOM commander that the acting Ambassador's input, while appreciated, is not how we would like you to proceed?

    I'll defer to Sistersledge for expertise, but on its surface that's a long, long ways from a stand-down order.

    BTW, your article (from more than a year ago) says they were "ready to fly" but "not authorized to board the plane".  So you're wrong ... again ... but don't worry -  I won't add it to the list - I'll just chalk it up as one of your signature 'oversights'.

     



    An article a year old? Dude, that's so like one year ago.

    you can selectively parse whether there is an actual written order to stand down. That's a meaningless distinction.

    the troops were ready to go, someone said don't go, and it wasn't to shore up defensive positions in tripoli or Italy. 

    I wouldn't depend on any progressive for any military expertise. It is, as Obama famously quipped, above their pay grade. These are political decisions. So, unless sister is a former defense secretary or a member of the joint chiefs of staff, who cares what the bobble head thinks?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

    1) No stand down order

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

    4) No WH editing of talking points

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

    6) No 9-hour firefight

    7) No Youtube video coverup

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     



    Apparently so.

    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.

    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.

    that's the way it works, jack.



    Actually, Jack, I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert, but if the mission was orchestrated by Greg Hicks, isn't it simply a case of the military telling it's SOCAFRICOM commander that the acting Ambassador's input, while appreciated, is not how we would like you to proceed?

    I'll defer to Sistersledge for expertise, but on its surface that's a long, long ways from a stand-down order.

    BTW, your article (from more than a year ago) says they were "ready to fly" but "not authorized to board the plane".  So you're wrong ... again ... but don't worry -  I won't add it to the list - I'll just chalk it up as one of your signature 'oversights'.

     



    An article a year old? Dude, that's so like one year ago.

    you can selectively parse whether there is an actual written order to stand down. That's a meaningless distinction.

    the troops were ready to go, someone said don't go, and it wasn't to shore up defensive positions in tripoli or Italy. 

    I wouldn't depend on any progressive for any military expertise. It is, as Obama famously quipped, above their pay grade. These are political decisions. So, unless sister is a former defense secretary or a member of the joint chiefs of staff, who cares what the bobble head thinks?



    Why bother with more investigations, if, regardless of what we find to be true, you will go back years to find the narrative you want?  Keep doing it - every time you post an article from 14 months ago, I'll post an article from 13 months ago proving it to be a lie.  That will make a nice anthology of the long, drawn-out, Republican walk of shame that is Benghazi.

    You're wrong ... again ... on Gibson's teams orders to stay in Tripoli.  Not only did that provide additional security against potential attacks, but, according to Hicks the 'whistleblower' himself - the medic who otherwise would have been on a plane to Benghazi, wound up saving the leg and possibly the life of one of the evacuees.

    ***

    Instead, the site security team was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend the embassy and its staff in case terrorists also struck in the capital while the Benghazi post was under attack, and to assist the wounded who were being evacuated to Tripoli after the first phase of the fighting had ended, the statement said.

    Col. Gibson “acknowledged that, had he deployed to Benghazi, he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended. He also stated that, in hindsight, he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a difference, and as it turned out, his medic was needed to provide urgent assistance to survivors once they arrived in Tripoli,” the statement said.

    The medic “saved the leg and probably the life” of one of the evacuated personnel, according to Mr. Hicks‘ congressional testimony.


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    Maybe when we find out what the Secdef and the Chief of the Joinr Chiefs of Staf told Ohole that nit or maybe when we find out who Ohole was whacking off to that nite, or maybe when we fing out who came up with the video BS will we find out who stood our military down and left people die? of course leaving a marine in a Mexican jail is good for Ohole too so all u whack off Ohole lovers  go stick it


    You am Englashing at us are bad.

     



    Halpmejoncaryimstxuckinirak.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to slomag's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to slomag's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to slomag's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to slomag's comment:


    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 


    1) No stand down order


    2) No real-time video in the situation room


    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets


    4) No WH editing of talking points


    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security


    6) No 9-hour firefight


    7) No Youtube video coverup


    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about


     




    You will believe absolutely anything.


    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.




    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.


     




    Apparently so.


    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.


    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.


    that's the way it works, jack.




    Actually, Jack, I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert, but if the mission was orchestrated by Greg Hicks, isn't it simply a case of the military telling it's SOCAFRICOM commander that the acting Ambassador's input, while appreciated, is not how we would like you to proceed?


    I'll defer to Sistersledge for expertise, but on its surface that's a long, long ways from a stand-down order.


    BTW, your article (from more than a year ago) says they were "ready to fly" but "not authorized to board the plane".  So you're wrong ... again ... but don't worry -  I won't add it to the list - I'll just chalk it up as one of your signature 'oversights'.


     




    An article a year old? Dude, that's so like one year ago.


    you can selectively parse whether there is an actual written order to stand down. That's a meaningless distinction.


    the troops were ready to go, someone said don't go, and it wasn't to shore up defensive positions in tripoli or Italy. 


    I wouldn't depend on any progressive for any military expertise. It is, as Obama famously quipped, above their pay grade. These are political decisions. So, unless sister is a former defense secretary or a member of the joint chiefs of staff, who cares what the bobble head thinks?




    Why bother with more investigations, if, regardless of what we find to be true, you will go back years to find the narrative you want?  Keep doing it - every time you post an article from 14 months ago, I'll post an article from 13 months ago proving it to be a lie.  That will make a nice anthology of the long, drawn-out, Republican walk of shame that is Benghazi.


    You're wrong ... again ... on Gibson's teams orders to stay in Tripoli.  Not only did that provide additional security against potential attacks, but, according to Hicks the 'whistleblower' himself - the medic who otherwise would have been on a plane to Benghazi, wound up saving the leg and possibly the life of one of the evacuees.


    ***


    Instead, the site security team was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend the embassy and its staff in case terrorists also struck in the capital while the Benghazi post was under attack, and to assist the wounded who were being evacuated to Tripoli after the first phase of the fighting had ended, the statement said.


    Col. Gibson “acknowledged that, had he deployed to Benghazi, he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended. He also stated that, in hindsight, he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a difference, and as it turned out, his medic was needed to provide urgent assistance to survivors once they arrived in Tripoli,” the statement said.


    The medic “saved the leg and probably the life” of one of the evacuated personnel, according to Mr. Hicks‘ congressional testimony.



    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




    Right.


    i guess the only conclusion we are left with is Benghazi went according to plan. After all, no one did anything wrong.  Not the generals, not Obama, not Ms. Clinton.  No one.


    if nothing went wrong, then it all went according to plan, right?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: There was no

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Just add it to the list of Conservative BS about Benghazi. 

     

    1) No stand down order

     

    2) No real-time video in the situation room

     

    3) No dragging of Amb Stevens through the streets

     

    4) No WH editing of talking points

     

    5) No Clinton personally denying requests for more security

     

    6) No 9-hour firefight

     

    7) No Youtube video coverup

     

    8) Nothing they have been within a country mile of correct about

     

     

     

     



    You will believe absolutely anything.

     

     

    i am amazed at how progressives lose their powers of discernment as soon as some statement burps out of the Obama administration.  What fools.

     



    The man you think was told to stand down denies it, so he must be part of the coverup too.

     

     

     



    Apparently so.

     

    if you knew anything, you would understand that a stand down order is paperwork, I.e documented.  I doubt there is any documentation, but as I proved in an early post, the military in Tripoli was told not to go, already on the plane, and not for the makey-uppie reason you (or someone else) stated earlier.  In a sense, they were given a "don't go", a verbal order, which, technically is not a stand down order, but effectively the same.

     

    strangely enough, if they were told to go back and guard the embassy instead of going to benghazi, they would need a stand down order.

     

    that's the way it works, jack.

     



    Actually, Jack, I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert, but if the mission was orchestrated by Greg Hicks, isn't it simply a case of the military telling it's SOCAFRICOM commander that the acting Ambassador's input, while appreciated, is not how we would like you to proceed?

     

    I'll defer to Sistersledge for expertise, but on its surface that's a long, long ways from a stand-down order.

     

    BTW, your article (from more than a year ago) says they were "ready to fly" but "not authorized to board the plane".  So you're wrong ... again ... but don't worry -  I won't add it to the list - I'll just chalk it up as one of your signature 'oversights'.

     

     

     



    An article a year old? Dude, that's so like one year ago.

     

    you can selectively parse whether there is an actual written order to stand down. That's a meaningless distinction.

     

    the troops were ready to go, someone said don't go, and it wasn't to shore up defensive positions in tripoli or Italy. 

     

    I wouldn't depend on any progressive for any military expertise. It is, as Obama famously quipped, above their pay grade. These are political decisions. So, unless sister is a former defense secretary or a member of the joint chiefs of staff, who cares what the bobble head thinks?

     



    Why bother with more investigations, if, regardless of what we find to be true, you will go back years to find the narrative you want?  Keep doing it - every time you post an article from 14 months ago, I'll post an article from 13 months ago proving it to be a lie.  That will make a nice anthology of the long, drawn-out, Republican walk of shame that is Benghazi.

     

    You're wrong ... again ... on Gibson's teams orders to stay in Tripoli.  Not only did that provide additional security against potential attacks, but, according to Hicks the 'whistleblower' himself - the medic who otherwise would have been on a plane to Benghazi, wound up saving the leg and possibly the life of one of the evacuees.

     

    ***

     

    Instead, the site security team was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend the embassy and its staff in case terrorists also struck in the capital while the Benghazi post was under attack, and to assist the wounded who were being evacuated to Tripoli after the first phase of the fighting had ended, the statement said.

     

    Col. Gibson “acknowledged that, had he deployed to Benghazi, he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended. He also stated that, in hindsight, he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a difference, and as it turned out, his medic was needed to provide urgent assistance to survivors once they arrived in Tripoli,” the statement said.

     

    The medic “saved the leg and probably the life” of one of the evacuated personnel, according to Mr. Hicks‘ congressional testimony.

     


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/#ixzz37N9JdluX
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

     



    Right.

     

    i guess the only conclusion we are left with is Benghazi went according to plan. After all, no one did anything wrong.  Not the generals, not Obama, not Ms. Clinton.  No one.

     

    if nothing went wrong, then it all went according to plan, right?



     

    I'll take this screaming about-face as a concession that there was never any stand-down order.  Start another thread if you want a similar beating on a different topic.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: There was no

    Herr Obama and his flunkies were telling us for two weeks the whole thing was a spontaneous eruption from a protest for two weeks after the event occurred. Obama makes a generic reference to a terrorist act the Sunday after the event and moonbats claim that was proof he called it a terrorist act. 

    Then he spent the next two weeks, including a speech at the UN, talking about the video. Never ever once declared the Benghazi event a terrorist attack. 

    It was in the middle of a Presidential election campaign where Obama was claiming victory over Al-Qaeda with chest thumping over getting bin Laden - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

    Really. We all know what was going on. Hillary admits it. Yet here we are talking about stand down orders.

    What would it mean if Obama admitted the "cover up"?  Cover up of what?? Incompetence? We all know that he is incompetent. Is there anything there?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share