- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Information thread regarding wide range of Benghazi issues
Posted on 5/18/15 at 6:18 pm to NHTIGER
Posted on 5/18/15 at 6:18 pm to NHTIGER
The 2 issues that have always stood out to me the most about this issue are one, that the emphasis on the video and the spontaneity of the attack was an effort to shift blame away from the administration and the Secretary of State for not having greater security in the face of known instability...when an acceptance of even some responsibility would have served them much better
secondly and at least as offensive, was their willingness to forsake the the right of free speech and their rationalization of the attack to the western world and their apologies to the Muslim world in regards to the video
secondly and at least as offensive, was their willingness to forsake the the right of free speech and their rationalization of the attack to the western world and their apologies to the Muslim world in regards to the video
0
Posted on 5/18/15 at 6:34 pm to NHTIGER
Through another link Zach posted. I found Nachums List.
Here is a Benghazi timeline
Also some of the CBS reporting I had forgotten about. Including one that they admit Patrick Kennedy gave the stand down order.
Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News
Benghazi timeline: How the probe unfolded - CBS News
Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" - CBS News
Here is a Benghazi timeline
Also some of the CBS reporting I had forgotten about. Including one that they admit Patrick Kennedy gave the stand down order.
Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News
Benghazi timeline: How the probe unfolded - CBS News
Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" - CBS News
Posted on 5/18/15 at 6:52 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
I had forgotten about. Including one that they admit Patrick Kennedy gave the stand down order.
See added text in Item #19, dated today.
This post was edited on 5/18/15 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 5/19/15 at 10:33 am to NHTIGER
Posted on 5/19/15 at 1:23 pm to NHTIGER
NHTIGER
Have you done any research into why the military had no assets in the region that were in a position to respond to the attack?
Why, on the anniversary of 9/11, were our forces not on heightened alert?
Why was the in-extremis force on a training mission in Croatia on 9/11?
Why were there no F-16's armed and fueled in Italy?
Why did the embassy in Tripoli have zero Marine Security Guard presence?
Why was the Marine FAST team in Rota not already in Tripoli reinforcing the embassy?
Have any military commanders been disciplined or relieved of command for these oversights?
Have you done any research into why the military had no assets in the region that were in a position to respond to the attack?
Why, on the anniversary of 9/11, were our forces not on heightened alert?
Why was the in-extremis force on a training mission in Croatia on 9/11?
Why were there no F-16's armed and fueled in Italy?
Why did the embassy in Tripoli have zero Marine Security Guard presence?
Why was the Marine FAST team in Rota not already in Tripoli reinforcing the embassy?
Have any military commanders been disciplined or relieved of command for these oversights?
Posted on 5/21/15 at 1:36 pm to NHTIGER
Bump due to Hillary email news.
Posted on 5/21/15 at 8:21 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Bump due to Hillary email news.
See added text in Item #20, dated today.
Posted on 5/22/15 at 12:38 pm to NHTIGER
Posted on 5/22/15 at 7:47 pm to NHTIGER
Posted on 5/22/15 at 7:48 pm to NHTIGER
Pathetic witch hunt.
Posted on 5/22/15 at 8:55 pm to cajunangelle
CA, please don't take this in a negative way, but I started this thread over a year ago to serve as kind of a "clearinghouse" thread with the sole purpose, as explained in the OP, of clarifying information related to Benghazi that had been misreported or misrepresented, both in the media and on this board. (I do not take the position that all such misreporting/misrepresentations have been intentional.)
I "reserved" enough posting space to accommodate a number of issues, though the space is finite with the character limitations in existence per post.
The thread was meant to be updated as needed, or as deemed appropriate, as the topic of Benghazi resurfaces in the news over a period of time; thus when someone asked recently that it be re-posted, I was glad to do so, after a long period of dormancy. As the format illustrates, instead of answering questions posed here by posting direct responses, I chose the method of answering via updates, with the latest on top, to save the reader from having to search for answers. My purpose in choosing that format was to avoid a repeat of the ridiculous sabotaging of a similar thread I had started the day before that was deleted at my request. I have responded to all questions that have fit the format, including a response to one of your links a couple of days ago. (Note: I have not yet figured out how to respond to "GeauxxxTigers23's very recent 7-question post, because the answer is very, very long and by nature necessitates incorporating a blend that includes a degree of "opinion", as opposed to factual information.)
But now I see you posting a barrage of links to today's release of the Hillary Clinton e-mails, and I'd like to suggest that "weagle99"'s thread (now on the first page) might be a more appropriate thread to post those links in, so that they can be discussed with give-and-take by many posters. Having them here carries the potential of repeating the collapse of the thread into something it was not meant to be.
Obviously, I have no control over what others do, but up until now everyone has respected the purpose of the thread and kept it on point.
Though I don't have the "right" to do so on a public message board, I am requesting, in a spirit of goodwill, that you delete the links you have posted in this thread and re-post them in the "Hillary Clinton e-mail thread" for further discussion, so as not to unintentionally sabotage this thread. Otherwise, there could be a lot of responses to your links that would derail this thread a second time. I am kind of at your mercy on this, so am hoping you will oblige me and not take offense in doing so.
I "reserved" enough posting space to accommodate a number of issues, though the space is finite with the character limitations in existence per post.
The thread was meant to be updated as needed, or as deemed appropriate, as the topic of Benghazi resurfaces in the news over a period of time; thus when someone asked recently that it be re-posted, I was glad to do so, after a long period of dormancy. As the format illustrates, instead of answering questions posed here by posting direct responses, I chose the method of answering via updates, with the latest on top, to save the reader from having to search for answers. My purpose in choosing that format was to avoid a repeat of the ridiculous sabotaging of a similar thread I had started the day before that was deleted at my request. I have responded to all questions that have fit the format, including a response to one of your links a couple of days ago. (Note: I have not yet figured out how to respond to "GeauxxxTigers23's very recent 7-question post, because the answer is very, very long and by nature necessitates incorporating a blend that includes a degree of "opinion", as opposed to factual information.)
But now I see you posting a barrage of links to today's release of the Hillary Clinton e-mails, and I'd like to suggest that "weagle99"'s thread (now on the first page) might be a more appropriate thread to post those links in, so that they can be discussed with give-and-take by many posters. Having them here carries the potential of repeating the collapse of the thread into something it was not meant to be.
Obviously, I have no control over what others do, but up until now everyone has respected the purpose of the thread and kept it on point.
Though I don't have the "right" to do so on a public message board, I am requesting, in a spirit of goodwill, that you delete the links you have posted in this thread and re-post them in the "Hillary Clinton e-mail thread" for further discussion, so as not to unintentionally sabotage this thread. Otherwise, there could be a lot of responses to your links that would derail this thread a second time. I am kind of at your mercy on this, so am hoping you will oblige me and not take offense in doing so.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 5:25 am to NHTIGER
NH, I've not heard any explanation yet as to why exactly Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11. Has any been offered?
Also I seem to recall there was a deliberate reduction in diplomatic security personnel in Libya from about 40 to 10 or so, in the lead up to Benghazi. Ostensibly this was to reduce our "footprint" in the area, keeping our presence low key.
Any documentation you are aware of delineating either of these things?
Also I seem to recall there was a deliberate reduction in diplomatic security personnel in Libya from about 40 to 10 or so, in the lead up to Benghazi. Ostensibly this was to reduce our "footprint" in the area, keeping our presence low key.
Any documentation you are aware of delineating either of these things?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News