The Benghazi Cover-Up Myth: No "Stand Down" Order Issued

[Old Bookaroo]

JunkShopFiddler:

I continue to wonder why people hold such firm beliefs without knowing the facts. Is their hatred of our President so great they are willfully blinded to the truth? Seems to me the least these four American heroes deserve is for the facts to emerge and be considered.

That's what Pat Tillman's family wanted. I don't think they got it. I see no good purpose in repeating those serious errors.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dave44]

Book,, running low on thorazine? It may be time to check.

Benghazi Attack, Revisited

"Obama said he used the term “act of terrorism” a day after the attack. Not exactly. He said “acts of terror” and “act of terror.” Also that day, the president said he did not use the word “terrorism” because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Over the next several days, he would repeat that the attack began as a protest of an anti-Muslim video and spiraled out of control."

 

[Old Bookaroo]

pat-tekker-cat:

If it really matters then the facts are even more important.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[TheRingFinder]

Some of the libs on this site have a pattern of doing "drive bys" posting snide little remarks & one liners and then disappearing until they Google something else "clever" to say. They don't address rebuttals usually and they present biased comments from liberal sources and shady polls as their "proof". Luckily most folks with at least average intelligence can see right through them... The sad reality that they can't seem to grasp is that it only serves to make them appear as clueless drones that preach the government gospel and try to force the rest of us to have a glass of Kool Aid. They are making fools of themselves and don't even know it. They walk a tightrope where the rules are concerned purposely insulting those of us who don't agree with them while denying that they do it. The only thing they're really good at is patting eachother on the back... I have named no names or insulted anyone directly. Just calling a spade a spade.. They won't respond to this... because it's all true.

There's one that does respond with lies, nonsense and foolish little comebacks - just read between our posts. I just can't even respond to the dolts anymore, they are so far gone.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

If you gain some measure of comfort calculating how many of your semantic angels can dance on the head of a pin, go for it.

Personally, I find this matter more important than that.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Benghazi Attack, Revisited

ABC News published 12 drafts of the talking points. All of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to a violent protest in Cairo (which was sparked by the anti-Muslim video). But the original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.”

The final draft, used by Rice, in her appearances on political talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, would only say that “extremists participated.” Rice, reflecting the talking points, said it wasn’t clear if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates were involved.
ABC News — based on reporter Jonathan Karl’s review of administration emails and the drafts of the talking points –reported that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objected to including the names of terrorist groups, saying “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
ABC News also reported that the emails — which were released by the administration five days later on May 15 — showed “the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points,” including the removal of a reference to CIA warnings of al Qaeda-linked threats in Benghazi.

ABC News, May 10: Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
​

That paragraph was deleted after a Saturday morning meeting at the White House. ABC News later updated its report to say that “a source familiar with the White House emails” said that Nuland was concerned that the talking points went beyond what she could say at State Department briefings and that, ABC News said, “she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.”

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

You can try to take this Thread off topic by rehashing the talking points nonsense. It has nothing to do with what happened the night of September 11th and nothing to do with what our President said on September 12th.

If you want to discuss history, look at the Little Big Horn Battle. Well over 100 years later people are still writing and debating and trying to figure out what happened. It comes as no surprise to me that the events of September 11th in Libya were not instantly fully understood. This is real life - not 24.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

"When you criticize something and you have no idea what you’re criticizing, it undermines your credibility.”
~ Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio)

I love this quote,, Because of the fella that uses it for a signature. Thread after thread he posts without knowing a thing about the subject. Looks like it works this way, read thread,, research talking points, regurgitate talking points, understanding ....zero. Post count,, numerous.

 

[Dave44]

• Benghazi Attack, Revisited
• Obama said Republicans acted “as if there’s something new to the story” about the talking points used by an administration official to discuss Benghazi on the Sept. 16, 2012, Sunday talk shows. But this much is new: We learned that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely claimed the White House and State Department made no substantive changes to the talking points. Extensive revisions were made after State raised objections and after a White House meeting.
• The president also said “congressional committees” reviewed emails “several months ago” regarding changes to the talking points, and they “concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used.” There was no such conclusion. Obama was referring to a February closed-door meeting in which senators viewed the emails as part of John Brennan’s confirmation. Some senators were satisfied and some weren’t. Sen. Marco Rubio, in fact, said a review of the emails “raises other questions with regard to process.”

 

[Dave44]

Dave44:

You can try to take this Thread off topic by rehashing the talking points nonsense. It has nothing to do with what happened the night of September 11th and nothing to do with what our President said on September 12th.

If you want to discuss history, look at the Little Big Horn Battle. Well over 100 years later people are still writing and debating and trying to figure out what happened. It comes as no surprise to me that the events of September 11th in Libya were not instantly fully understood. This is real life - not 24.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

So you keep bringing it up because.....?

 

[Chadeaux]

Chad:

You peddle the myth that President Obama saw some political advantage in not telling the truth. History tells us time and time again precisely the opposite is true - one of the fastest ways to unite the people in a country is to start a war.

He could have done what President Bush's administrations did - raise the terror alert level to ORANGE and claim only he and his people can save us from another attack. You and the others ignore the "war the dog" scenario - apparently when it is to your advantage to do so.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

PS: Where did the "two hour time frame" come from?

HELLO!!! Do you really think it was a misunderstanding? He said once that it was a terrorist attack? Here's the speech:



He blamed the video. He later mentioned terror, but watch the speech again.

This thread isn't about Bush, it's about the commander in chief who LIED.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

Because there have been far too many lies peddled about the terrible events in Benghazi. Those brave Americans deserve the truth - as I previously noted, just like Pat Tillman's family deserved and still deserves the truth. There was recent testimony about what happened in Benghazi. That's "news."

We could write about Darrell Issa's embarrassing ACA roadshow - going around the Red States ginning up support for the GNoP with "field investigations" that only permit witnesses fitting his preconceived conclusions. I don't find that interesting.

Not only is there no useful purpose in trying to score domestic political points standing on the bodies of the US Military and other Federal government employees and contractors (unlike some here on TN I don't advocate shooting them), it is destructive.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

Again, you are trying to make the case that terrorists never have a reason to strike. You may not agree with it - but that doesn't mean it does not exist. There were violent demonstrations in the Middle East against the video. That's a fact.

And it is a fact Mr. Obama immediately spoke about "acts of terror."

None of this, of course, has to do with the topic of this thread. You can try to deflect, distract, or derail it - you've got company in that effort.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[NHBandit]

Dave44:

You can try to take this Thread off topic by rehashing the talking points nonsense. It has nothing to do with what happened the night of September 11th and nothing to do with what our President said on September 12th.

If you want to discuss history, look at the Little Big Horn Battle. Well over 100 years later people are still writing and debating and trying to figure out what happened. It comes as no surprise to me that the events of September 11th in Libya were not instantly fully understood. This is real life - not 24.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

You claim HE is taking it off topic by posting the FACTS of the situation and then ramble on about Little Big Horn ? Sir you are a laugh a minute... You have proven time after time day after day with posts like this that you are ONLY here to argue and create drama. You have the audacity to sit there and accuse people of doing exactly those same things you do constantly. Why you are still here is a complete mystery that only the mods can answer and they ain't talking..

 

[Dave44]

Treasure Hunter:

Our President did not scream it wasn't a terrorist attack. He called it just that the next morning.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

HELLO!!! Do you really think it was a misunderstanding? He said once that it was a terrorist attack? Here's the speech:



He blamed the video. He later mentioned terror, but watch the speech again.

This thread isn't about Bush, it's about the commander in chief who LIED.

Good Post Chadeaux, when some are confronted with facts they feel the best thing to do is hang on to the lie while trying to change the subject.lolo

 

[Chadeaux]

Chad:

Again, you are trying to make the case that terrorists never have a reason to strike. You may not agree with it - but that doesn't mean it does not exist. There were violent demonstrations in the Middle East against the video. That's a fact.

And it is a fact Mr. Obama immediately spoke about "acts of terror."

None of this, of course, has to do with the topic of this thread. You can try to deflect, distract, or derail it - you've got company in that effort.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Typical !!!

You "deflect, distract and derail" and then accuse me of doing what you have.

My post was DEAD ON. You can ignore it, but it won't change the fact that the speech you cited (1) didn't say what you said it did, and (2) it DID say what you said it didn't.

 

[Red James Cash]

If you want to discuss history, look at the Little Big Horn Battle. Well over 100 years later people are still writing and debating and trying to figure out what happened.

Sorry book,that debate ended in 1984.Please proceed everybody.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Red James cash:

Uh - Little Big Horn was 1876. Add 100 years - that would be, well, 1976.

You state the debate ended in 1984. I certainly don't agree with that - there's a gentleman here on TN writing a book as we write this. Still, 1984 was "well after" 1976...

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Red James Cash]

It doesnt matter who writes what,the facts stand and cant be changed to somebody elses liking.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

Post #26 - above. "No acts of terror." Again, this has nothing to do with the mythical Benghazi Stand Down Order.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo