re: .

It's not a rumor. It was on an AP story. But I'll edit.

I am not so sure that additional security (are we talking 5 guys or 20?) would have made a difference during the attack. Stevens and the other guy died of smoke inhalation and a random mortar attack killed the soldiers on the roof of the annex. Wouldn't everyone have been exactly where they were even with extra security?

Also I believe that the entire operation was a CIA cover and Stevens was probably aware of that. Of course that means we will never know all of the facts for decades if ever.

quote:

---

The senate report disagrees with you.

---

On which point? Do they claim that an attack would never have occurred if there were a few extra guys at the consulate on security?

quote:

---

The senate report disagrees with you.

---

The Senate report says the safe room wouldn't have taken in smoke? Or that It would have taken in smoke but Stevens would have escaped along with the other 3 who escaped? Or that they could have spent a few hundred bucks for proper ventilation? Or that the mortar that hit the CIA compound would have missed?

Can you link to these clairvoyant conclusions please.

Read the findings VB and stop being obtuse. They are numbered. I know its a long document and you wont take the time to read it prior to assuming you know what it says...but at least read the findings before spouting off. You are too smart to remain this ignorant.

quote:

---

Good luck. The other poster is cheery picking senate report facts and then twisting them around.

---

I quoted directly from the report and gave you the page number. If you want to reply with your own excerpts from the report, please do.

Or...be like the rest of these guys and continue to speak from a point of ignorance. The only quote you have provided came from DU. I am citing to the Senate report. Carry on in your ignorance. You say I am twisting, but provide no evidence to back up your assertion. No citation...nothing. Are you new to this "debate" thing?

They have to run cover for Hillary for a few reasons.

1. Stevens asked for more protection in Benghazi and Hillary was of petting pussycats.

2. The whole Benghazi incident was a weapons buy back scheme.


Since the V.P. will be running against H.C. I suspect things will be leaked on her in a couple of years.

quote:

---

You know this isn't true. I provided you with no link to DU, and you know it.

---

I know. go look at my very first response to you. I copy and pasted your quote and guess where it came from??? I even linked it in my first post.

Here...in case you forgot:
LINK

quote:

---

You have picked out a few sentences, presented them out of context and declared victory

---

No. You claimed that Stevens turned down security twice. I went to the report (page 20) where they discuss that and learned that the security he turned down was to be based in Tripoli. If you can't understand the plain language of the report, I can't help you. You claim the report is taken out of context....well, then...by all means it should be easy to put it in context. I will anxiously await your taking this opportunity to show everyone here what I cherry picked. Here is a link to the report:

LINK


Just head to page 20 and set me straight.

quote:

---

The ignorant one here is you

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

Directly From page 20: DoD confirmed to the Committee that Ambassador Stevens declined two
specific offers from General Carter Ham, then the head of AFRICOM, to sustain
the SST in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. After reading the August 16,
2012, EAC cable, General Ham called Ambassador Stevens and asked ifthe
Embassy needed the SST from the U.S. military, but Stevens told Ham it did not

---

That is correct. I bolded the SST in your post to try and help you keep up.

Now see if you can find on page 20 where SST is based and how often they went to Benghazi??

You need my help?

I'm just wondering ... do the Dems have some sort of machine ... say a ...


"T-POS Douchematic 5000"

that they consult on matters such as this.


Seems like it is was really Stevens fault ... they probably would've already pinned it on him by now.


But ... since they couldn't and can't ... they wait around until some "requisite" period of time ... in which they and their minions now float this absolute BS of a turd.



Why add disgrace to the already disgraceful?





Should've just stopped with "What difference does it make?" ... at least there is absolute truth in that statement regarding how Dems actually feel about people.



If it was Stevens' fault ... then why alll this BS about a youtube video?


By the way ...does anyone know where President Obama was and what he was doing while our Embassy was being sacked?