The father of a Benghazi victim destroys CNN's Costello's attempts to deflect for Hilary.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Hillary has been on the spotlight since her husband was in office. People have concocted conspiracies around her because they dislike her and have to resort to conspiracies to justify it.

Know why? Because there is no real evidence to substantiate their claims.

All of it is conspiratorial nuttery.

a reply to: burntheships

What we don't know is why she lied.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Means nothing.

Let me know when you have my qualifications to say some stupid crap like that.

You are on the internet. You could be lying yourself.

Forgive me if I want facts over anecdotal fallacies.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

What we don't know is why she lied.

Ahh here we go.

This is the "intent" argument all over again.

The hell does it matter? When you ignore SOP, when you delay for 12 hours the support assets surrounding a TIC, that is incompetence. Then to lie about it? That is outright dereliction of duty.

a reply to: introvert

Ahh yes. Let's make it about me.

I'm the one that's lying...Ok buddy.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

What we don't know is why she lied.

Oh, yes we do know why she lied.
To protect her own Arse, thats why.

Nothing to do with an "approved operation".

We already know there were weapons transfers,
but it was done by her, to benefit her and her CF connections.

You can believe what you wish.

a reply to: seagull

When someone can give an educated opinion based on his own experiences, how is it, as you imply, meaningless?

Because they are not necessarily privy to all of the facts of the case. They can only speak from their own experiences, which may not reflect the facts of the current discussion.

Now my opinion can be safely disregarded...as I don't have a clue how Tier One operations work, or QRF units are deployed. But when someone who does know opines why disregard, unless it somehow doesn't gibe with your own?

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I was not there. I do not have access to all of the information. Neither does the other member.

a reply to: projectvxn

Intent has nothing to do with it.

It appears the point went over your head.

It's quite possible that something else was going on in Benghazi and they had to lie to cover their asses.

Why? It may have been a classified operation.

a reply to: introvert

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Yet you continue to give it.

You're right I'm not privy to the facts of the case.

But I am 100% on how these operations are required to be carried out.

This was my job for 4 years. 1/3 of which was combat.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Ahh yes. Let's make it about me.

I'm the one that's lying...Ok buddy.

Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?

a reply to: introvert

Ok.

So what of it?

Multiple operations in one area isn't anything new.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seagull
I do not have access to all of the information. Neither does the other member.

Except for the fact that that member has knowledge of standard operating procedures. They are just that, standard. So unless an outside force (State Department) prevented the execution of standard operating procedures, the outcome at Benghazi likely wouldn't have happened as we know it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace

There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.

# high level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.

If I'm not mistaken, lack of a stand down order does not indicate an authorization for engagement or a ROE change...

So there was no stand down order?

Your words not mine.

That was in the form of a question. Officials testified that there was no stand down order. You also said the the "order was withheld from the State Department".

So the SD didn't know what the "order" was?

Please clarify.

Seems NO ORDER was given to go.

She said they didn't have permission for the Libyian govt to go from Tripoli.

How the f does that work?!

Besides, how did they know Stevens and others were not hostages?

and doing something like trafficking weapons to Turkey for the rebels in Syria, doubbly compounds the BS fustercluck if they were trying to cover that up.

a reply to: introvert

Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?

All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Ok.

So what of it?

Multiple operations in one area isn't anything new.

Yes, you are missing the point.

The point is that the Benghazi embassy may have been part of a classified operation to arm rebels in the region. People got pissed and stormed the embassy...killing those men.

If it was a classified operation, what would Obama and Hillary do?

They would lie. I don't like that idea, but I am not beyond that consideration.

a reply to: EternalSolace

We know from the hearing that no stand down order was given.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

and doing something like trafficking weapons to Turkey for the rebels in Syria, doubbly compounds the BS fustercluck if they were trying to cover that up.

I agree with that.

a reply to: introvert

If it was a classified operation, what would Obama and Hillary do? They would lie. I don't like that idea, but I am not beyond that consideration.

That is understandable.

But not providing support is NOT.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace

We know from the hearing that no stand down order was given.

And like I've stated previously, the lack of a stand down order is NOT an authorization to engage.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?

All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.

Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.