A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

Mark Thompson, a former marine who heads the foreign emergency support team, also alleged that the White House blocked his efforts to dispatch a specialist group from the US that is designed to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attack.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing
 
maineman said:
and the American people STILL deserve to know how that marxist kenyan was able to plant fake news stories in the honolulu newspapers that made it seem like he was born in America!
Click to expand...

Another dishonest attempt to deflect; you just can't help yourself can you? Dishonesty appears to be your forte'.
 
Hicks said he was told that US air force jets based in Italy could have reached the consulate in "two to three hours" but were blocked, out of fear of offending the Libyan government, and because a refueling tanker could not be found.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing
 
Jarod said:
My point is that the main aint too bright.
Click to expand...

How ironic to see someone so painfully dumb claiming others are not too bright while spamming this thread with off topic stupidity.

Tell me something dunce, is there a purpose for your off topic spam?
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
Obama said it was a terrorist attack and reaction to a movie.
Click to expand...

He didn't go that far; the initial claims were that it was a "spontaneous" protest that got out of hand over an offensive video.

The terrorists planned the events in Egypt and in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9-11 and are laughing at the buffoonish attempts of this inept Administration to blame it on their fellow Americans. That's how stupid these dimwitted Democrats really are.
 
Truth Detector said:
It was not an "ignorance" of history dunce. I won't appologize because your efforts to deflect from the topic are dishonest and based on false comparisons. I could care less what a dishonest partisan dunce like you would think about me. You never had any respect for anyone who disagrees with your petty partisan bulsshit, please don't mistakenly believe that you would deserve that which you never give.
Click to expand...

it certainly was. You were ignorant of the fact that the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed by arab terrorists in April 1983. That's a fact proven by your own post.




No they were not the same as I pointed out earlier.
Click to expand...

I said they were similar.

Do you have any evidence that supports the claim that Reagan refused additional security at the embassy or that those requests were even made?
Click to expand...

none other than the fact my bridge partner, the Naval Attache, discussed his concerns and his request with me the day he submitted it.


Are you certain of that Commander?
Click to expand...

quite.
 
Hicks also rejected the defense given by Hillary Clinton when pressed on the initial delay in attributing the attack to terrorists, arguing the US undermined its Libyan allies who were rightly pointing to Ansar al-Sharia.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing
 
maineman said:
I said they were similar.
Click to expand...

No they are not remotely similar no matter how many times you stupidly try to claim they are.

maineman1413722 said:
none other than the fact my bridge partner, the Naval Attache, discussed his concerns and his request with me the day he submitted it.
Click to expand...

So nothing more than because you say so. Just as I thought. Therefore, your claim that requests were made cannot be supported by any facts and we should just accept your rhetoric as a substitute.

Dunce.

maineman1413722 said:
quite.
Click to expand...

Citation? Or is this another of those "we have to take your word on it"?
 
Hicks also testified that part of the reason that Stevens was in Benghazi was to make preparations to convert the mission to a permanent post, and to lay the groundwork for a visit by Clinton.


"At least one of the reasons the ambassador was in Benghazi was to further the secretary's wish that that post become a permanent constituent post" and because Clinton "intended to visit later that year" to announce the conversion.


Democrats on the committee attempted to play down the significance of the evidence.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing
 
Truth Detector said:
No they are not remotely similar no matter how many times you stupidly try to claim they are.



So nothing more than because you say so. Just as I thought. Therefore, your claim that requests were made cannot be supported by any facts and we should just accept your rhetoric as a substitute.

Dunce.



Citation? Or is this another of those "we have to take your word on it"?
Click to expand...

they are dissimilar because YOU claim they are?

you asked how I knew. I was there. I was stationed in that town. I watched a fellow UN member from Belgium get his leg blown apart while driving away from the US Embassy ten months before the bombing. The attache knew of the ramped up risks. He knew that Israel was about to invade. He knew that the US embassy, as the main supporter of Israel, would be an even bigger target for arab terrorist attacks. He was right.... but the secretary of state, like Hillary, had a lot of competing demands from embassies around the world and the attache was told to make do with the marine contingent he had and to increase physical barrier security, which he did.

And you are asking me for a citation that somehow would show the ABSENCE of democrat's complaints about the embassy attack? Do you realize how fucking stupid that is? DUNCE?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top