The Latest Benghazi Hoax

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
A shout-out to Howey for this. :)

Conservatives are out in force this morning claiming Lara Logan's segment on CBS' 60 Minutes is evidence their yearlong effort to convert the tragedy in Benghazi into a political scandal was warranted. Far from it -- it is the latest Benghazi Hoax.

From watching the 60 Minutes segment, you would be led to believe there is a "lingering question" involving the U.S. military's response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report did not let viewers know that an anti-terrorism team was deployed from Spain, along with Special Forces based in the United States and Croatia. None of these forces even made it to Libya until 11 hours after our diplomatic and CIA teams had been evacuated.

Furthermore, the belief that the military did not do everything it could to rescue those in Benghazi has been contradicted by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Claims that the military didn't do everything it could to help those in Benghazi go hand-in-hand with the conspiracy that a "stand down" order was issued to a Special Forces team in Tripoli. Even congressional Republicans have debunked this claim:

"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."
​

While those interviewed during the 60 Minutes report decried the lack of funding for embassy security, the program failed to note:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
​

The 60 Minutes piece follows the same pattern as every other element of The Benghazi Hoax we've witnessed for the past 13 months. Supposedly new revelations promoted by different media outlets are simply worn-over versions of the same hoaxes debunked months before; context that would provide critical information to viewers or readers is missing; and the right-wing media exaggerate the new allegations to something unrecognizable from the original report.

Nothing in the 60 Minutes report implicated Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in any wrongdoing leading up to the attack in Benghazi -- in fact their names were never mentioned. But conservatives are already on the attack against the president and former secretary of state. Evidence, context, and truth don't matter as long as tragedy can be converted into political scandal.

Already this morning, cheered on by Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is using the CBS report as the pretext for blocking every Obama appointment before the United States Senate until "the survivors [of Benghazi] are being made available to the Congress" -- never mind that they have already answered questions from numerous investigators and that the Senate has access to those interviews.

Once again, rather than do the country's business, conservatives, led by their media, would rather halt the work of government in an attempt to score political points with their base.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/the-latest-benghazi-hoax/196627
 
christiefan915 said:
A shout-out to Howey for this. :)

Conservatives are out in force this morning claiming Lara Logan's segment on CBS' 60 Minutes is evidence their yearlong effort to convert the tragedy in Benghazi into a political scandal was warranted. Far from it -- it is the latest Benghazi Hoax.

From watching the 60 Minutes segment, you would be led to believe there is a "lingering question" involving the U.S. military's response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report did not let viewers know that an anti-terrorism team was deployed from Spain, along with Special Forces based in the United States and Croatia. None of these forces even made it to Libya until 11 hours after our diplomatic and CIA teams had been evacuated.

Furthermore, the belief that the military did not do everything it could to rescue those in Benghazi has been contradicted by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Claims that the military didn't do everything it could to help those in Benghazi go hand-in-hand with the conspiracy that a "stand down" order was issued to a Special Forces team in Tripoli. Even congressional Republicans have debunked this claim:

"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."
​

While those interviewed during the 60 Minutes report decried the lack of funding for embassy security, the program failed to note:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
​

The 60 Minutes piece follows the same pattern as every other element of The Benghazi Hoax we've witnessed for the past 13 months. Supposedly new revelations promoted by different media outlets are simply worn-over versions of the same hoaxes debunked months before; context that would provide critical information to viewers or readers is missing; and the right-wing media exaggerate the new allegations to something unrecognizable from the original report.

Nothing in the 60 Minutes report implicated Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in any wrongdoing leading up to the attack in Benghazi -- in fact their names were never mentioned. But conservatives are already on the attack against the president and former secretary of state. Evidence, context, and truth don't matter as long as tragedy can be converted into political scandal.

Already this morning, cheered on by Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is using the CBS report as the pretext for blocking every Obama appointment before the United States Senate until "the survivors [of Benghazi] are being made available to the Congress" -- never mind that they have already answered questions from numerous investigators and that the Senate has access to those interviews.

Once again, rather than do the country's business, conservatives, led by their media, would rather halt the work of government in an attempt to score political points with their base.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/the-latest-benghazi-hoax/196627
Click to expand...


I'll just debunk one part of your post of lies....

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate......
so that dog ain't gonna hunt....

According to Hillary Clinton’s long-delayed Benghazigate testimony, the State Department just did not have enough money to provide security for a mission in one of the most dangerous places in the world.

It did however have 16 million dollars to spend on 2,500 kindle book readers at the drastically inflated price of $6,600 per device.
How much security could that 16 million buy?

It had $79,000 to spend on Obama’s books and $20,000 on a portrait of Obama. The US Embassy had $150,000 to spend on a book about the ambassador’s residence.
The US Embassy in Austria had $150,000+ for a Chevy Volt and its charging station.

Hillary’s State Department did have money for…

7.9 billion dollars for Obama’s Global Health Initiative.

1 billion for global climate change.

2.2 billion to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan.

And of course… Mosque renovations.

In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.

And $4.5 million for Art in Embassies

The New York Times reported in 2009 that Art in Embassies spends about $4.5 million a year for permanent art acquisitions; chief curator Virginia Shore said at the time that artists and dealers support the program via favorable pricing; for the embassy in Beijing, an outlay of $800,000 yielded works with an appraised value of $30 million.

How much Benghazi security would 800,000 dollars have bought? If Hillary Clinton had stopped buying paintings, maybe four Americans would still be alive today.

The State Department also has a Chief Diversity Officer, whose job it is to warn that “holding the fort” is a racist phrase.
As far as security goes, 200 million dollars were wasted on Iraqi police training that never went anywhere.

The State Department just had no money in its 50 billion dollar budget to pay for Benghazi security. None at all.

http://tinyurl.com/b5bd7xs

The CBS show and statement by the people interviewed speak for themselves.....if you want to believe they are liars, thats you business....
I prefer to believe them, they certainly have absolutely no reason to lie about anything, but that can't be said about Hillary, the State Dept. or Obama....
they are the ones that screwed up royally...Everyone of the people YOU choose to believe have to cover their asses for fucking up,....the
folks on the CBS show have nothing to hide.....people died and Hillary lied....
The State Dept. investigates themselves and you're gullible to accept their whitewash....

The lied about Benghazi, they lied about the IRS, they lied about Fast and Furious, and they lied about Obamacare.....
 
Last edited:
Big money said:
Did Hillary dispatch the US military to rescue the 4 Americans in time?
Click to expand...

There are rumors or some half-hearted or lame attempts....but this certainly describes the mindset of the people in charge...

Military response to Benghazi
At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#DFTwqcJyHO7K5BxK.99

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday defended the U.S. military response, saying the situation on the ground was too confusing.
"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's on, without having some real time information about what's taking place," Panetta said.
He said senior officers, including Gen. Carter Ham, the U.S. commander for Africa, and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all opposed military intervention.
"General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57540712/military-response-to-benghazi-attack-questioned/
 
christiefan915 said:
A shout-out to Howey for this. :)

Conservatives are out in force this morning claiming Lara Logan's segment on CBS' 60 Minutes is evidence their yearlong effort to convert the tragedy in Benghazi into a political scandal was warranted. Far from it -- it is the latest Benghazi Hoax.

From watching the 60 Minutes segment, you would be led to believe there is a "lingering question" involving the U.S. military's response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report did not let viewers know that an anti-terrorism team was deployed from Spain, along with Special Forces based in the United States and Croatia. None of these forces even made it to Libya until 11 hours after our diplomatic and CIA teams had been evacuated.

Furthermore, the belief that the military did not do everything it could to rescue those in Benghazi has been contradicted by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Claims that the military didn't do everything it could to help those in Benghazi go hand-in-hand with the conspiracy that a "stand down" order was issued to a Special Forces team in Tripoli. Even congressional Republicans have debunked this claim:

"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."
​

While those interviewed during the 60 Minutes report decried the lack of funding for embassy security, the program failed to note:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
​

The 60 Minutes piece follows the same pattern as every other element of The Benghazi Hoax we've witnessed for the past 13 months. Supposedly new revelations promoted by different media outlets are simply worn-over versions of the same hoaxes debunked months before; context that would provide critical information to viewers or readers is missing; and the right-wing media exaggerate the new allegations to something unrecognizable from the original report.

Nothing in the 60 Minutes report implicated Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in any wrongdoing leading up to the attack in Benghazi -- in fact their names were never mentioned. But conservatives are already on the attack against the president and former secretary of state. Evidence, context, and truth don't matter as long as tragedy can be converted into political scandal.

Already this morning, cheered on by Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is using the CBS report as the pretext for blocking every Obama appointment before the United States Senate until "the survivors [of Benghazi] are being made available to the Congress" -- never mind that they have already answered questions from numerous investigators and that the Senate has access to those interviews.

Once again, rather than do the country's business, conservatives, led by their media, would rather halt the work of government in an attempt to score political points with their base.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/the-latest-benghazi-hoax/196627
Click to expand...




What's that you're saying?

That spiteful, partisan Righties are going to try once again to use the deaths of four Americans to play politics and create another phony "scandal" they can milk for some more donations?
 
Big money said:
Did Hillary dispatch the US military to rescue the 4 Americans in time?
Click to expand...

No, did she have that capability?

Would deploying the US military have made any difference?

Would deploying the US military have put more lives in danger without any reasonable likelihood of success?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
What's that you're saying?

That spiteful, partisan Righties are going to try once again to use the deaths of four Americans to play politics and create another phony "scandal" they can milk for some more donations?
Click to expand...

Was there ever any question? They made this up because her term as S of S was coming to an end and they had not gotten anything on her yet and they knew they needed something.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
What's that you're saying?

That spiteful, partisan Righties are going to try once again to use the deaths of four Americans to play politics and create another phony "scandal" they can milk for some more donations?
Click to expand...

The guy who uses near every notable shooting in America to promote gun restriction is calling the kettle black?
 
Denver’s WUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark asked President Obama a two-part question: “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation until after the election?”


Expressing his regret about the casualties and sympathy for their families, plus a determination to bring the perpetrators to justice, the president didn’t answer either question.


After dodging, Clark asked the first and most important part again: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”


And once again Obama offered a non-answer, saying: “I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”


He continued, “I guarantee you that everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe. These are our folks. And we’re going to find out exactly what happened.”


So are we to take it from this that President Obama expressly said that in the very beginning he issued a clear directive instructing that all possible means be employed by his National Security Council to secure our personnel?


Such a directive would constitute an “Execute Order”, an official mandate that would carry the inviolate authority of our nation’s commander-in-chief.


Where is that document?


The New York Times reported that defense department officials said they did not receive a request for help from the State Department as the attack unfolded.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was with President Obama in the Oval Office for a regular meeting when the first attack reports came in, then later said: “There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here”, adding that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”


Yet the administration had already put our people in harm’s way…and did so without providing adequate protection.


So if the president had issued a formal order to “employ all possible means to secure our personnel”, then wouldn’t the correct decision be to deploy aid to save them?


And in not doing so, didn’t the defense secretary countermand the alleged direct order?


On the other hand, it wouldn’t seem very likely for that to occur when his military superior, the president, was right there in the Oval Office with him.


Former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty (who were later killed), were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack.


The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired, informed higher-ups at the CIA annex, and requested permission to go to the consulate to help out.


However, they ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate, which by that time was on fire.


The rescue team then returned to the CIA annex about midnight after evacuating those who remained at the consulate and retrieving the body of Sean Smith.


They had not succeeded in locating Ambassador Stevens.


Woods and Doherty called again for military support as they began to take on gunfire at the annex.


Again, the request was denied.


According to those present at the compound, there were no communications problems at the annex, and the team was in constant radio contact with headquarters.


Ty Woods was manning a machine gun on the annex roof at the time.


He painted a targeting laser on the enemy mortar that later killed him after calling for support from a Spectre gunship that never arrived.


The fighting at the CIA annex lasted for more than four hours.


That provided plenty of time for American aircraft and commandos based at our Sigonella Air base in Italy 480 miles away to intervene.


Two separate Special Operations forces were instructed to stand down.


Senior military and intelligence sources informed Fox News that a force specializing in counterterrorism rescues which was already in place at Sigonella could have reached Benghazi within less than two hours.


The other team had previously operated in Central Europe, and was being moved to Sigonella.


CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied claims that any requests for support were turned down. She said: “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need: claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”


So if not the CIA…then who did issue the stand down orders?


Two surveillance drones had been redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack began, and were already hovering over the compound.


One was sent to relieve the first, perhaps due to fuel issues, and both were capable of sending real-time visuals back to Washington.


Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others could continuously call up that video on their computers.


As for real-time emails, there were lots of them also.


According to reports, between 300 and 400 national security figures received these real-time updates throughout the attack.


The first one came in about 20 minutes after the fighting began.


Another, received just two hours into the raid, advised White House and State Department officials that an Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit.


Yet if President Obama is offended that people suspect he hasn’t been forthcoming, there’s a very simple solution. Just provide real evidence to back up his administration’s claims…perhaps starting with that three point order he purportedly issued immediately upon learning of the attack.


Until he does so, this clearly is, and should be, an important political issue. Senator John McCain articulated reasons for this very clearly: “This tragedy, turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or massive incompetence in Libya, is having an impact on the voters because of their view of the commander-in-chief. It is the worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life.


Somebody the other day said to me, ‘This is as bad as Watergate…nobody died in Watergate.”



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/01/benghazi-stand-down-denials-dont-stand-up-to-reason/
 
Pretending this is some scandal is evil.

they have no commitment to this country.

they only care about spewing lies
 
NOVA said:

I'll just debunk one part of your post of lies....

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate......
so that dog ain't gonna hunt....

According to Hillary Clinton’s long-delayed Benghazigate testimony, the State Department just did not have enough money to provide security for a mission in one of the most dangerous places in the world.

It did however have 16 million dollars to spend on 2,500 kindle book readers at the drastically inflated price of $6,600 per device.
How much security could that 16 million buy?

It had $79,000 to spend on Obama’s books and $20,000 on a portrait of Obama. The US Embassy had $150,000 to spend on a book about the ambassador’s residence.
The US Embassy in Austria had $150,000+ for a Chevy Volt and its charging station.

Hillary’s State Department did have money for…

7.9 billion dollars for Obama’s Global Health Initiative.

1 billion for global climate change.

2.2 billion to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan.

And of course… Mosque renovations.

In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.

And $4.5 million for Art in Embassies

The New York Times reported in 2009 that Art in Embassies spends about $4.5 million a year for permanent art acquisitions; chief curator Virginia Shore said at the time that artists and dealers support the program via favorable pricing; for the embassy in Beijing, an outlay of $800,000 yielded works with an appraised value of $30 million.

How much Benghazi security would 800,000 dollars have bought? If Hillary Clinton had stopped buying paintings, maybe four Americans would still be alive today.

The State Department also has a Chief Diversity Officer, whose job it is to warn that “holding the fort” is a racist phrase.
As far as security goes, 200 million dollars were wasted on Iraqi police training that never went anywhere.

The State Department just had no money in its 50 billion dollar budget to pay for Benghazi security. None at all.

http://tinyurl.com/b5bd7xs

The CBS show and statement by the people interviewed speak for themselves.....if you want to believe they are liars, thats you business....
I prefer to believe them, they certainly have absolutely no reason to lie about anything, but that can't be said about Hillary, the State Dept. or Obama....
they are the ones that screwed up royally...Everyone of the people YOU choose to believe have to cover their asses for fucking up,....the
folks on the CBS show have nothing to hide.....people died and Hillary lied....
The State Dept. investigates themselves and you're gullible to accept their whitewash....

The lied about Benghazi, they lied about the IRS, they lied about Fast and Furious, and they lied about Obamacare.....
Click to expand...

I just lost a long reply I researched and posted and am not going to try and recreate it. So, short and sweet, every claim here made by FrontpageMag can be debunked. Here's just one:

Update: After some discussions with Amazon and the State Department, we've learned the price tag on the Kindle contract is not as cut and dry as we first reported. The contract authorizes the State Department to pay Amazon up to $16.5 million over five years for an English-language teaching program and the 2,500 Kindles cited in the procurement documents has been described to us as merely the initial order. We do not know the maximum amount of Kindles the State Department can purchase in their deal with Amazon. Still, it's clear that our $6,600-per-Kindle calculation is not accurate. Previously: we reached out to the State Department's Philippe Reines, who emailed to say that the department was getting the actual Kindle devices for 10 percent off retail price. The rest of the cost goes to cover the service and content-providing agreements in the department's four-year contract with Amazon.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...ing-english-teaching-kindles-6600-each/53407/

Fortunately for you I'm too annoyed to do all that work again so count your blessings that you missed a big can of whoopass opened up on you. :mad:
 
So much righteous indignation here. Cons must have been saving it up from all the previous embassy attacks they never mention.

Seven U.S. Embassies And Consulates Were Attacked Under George W. Bush

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria.

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens.

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia.

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890
 
Did Secretary Clinton and Barack Obama bear no responsibility for the lack of a rescue for the Americans that died in Benghazi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top