"Stand Down!!" - Here's Why

reply to post by Taiyed


Just so you know, Reuters and AP have been reporting the same things.

It isn't just Fox News. If it appears everywhere but Fox then it's true. The next day it appears on Fox than it's a lie. That's how you seem to be operating in thread after thread.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Taiyed

 

Just so you know, Reuters and AP have been reporting the same things.

It isn't just Fox News. If it appears everywhere but Fox then it's true. The next day it appears on Fox than it's a lie. That's how you seem to be operating in thread after thread.

If you have links, I'd like to see them.

Because all the reports I see about the "Stand down" comments link back to the "unnamed source" obtained by Fox News.

reply to post by Taiyed


That particular example is true. I haven't found that particular claim anywhere other than right wing sites.

Which is a problem, and I believe this story needs to be vetted before people start screaming about it.

But that doesn't mean that all of the criticism is unfounded which seems to be what you are trying to convince everyone of. The Administration spent a lot of time blaming a damned video when the attack was coordinated and organized. It was a military attack by Islamic extremists who, because of the recent revolution, are now armed to the teeth and roaming the country at will with no one to really stop them.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Taiyed

 

Just so you know, Reuters and AP have been reporting the same things.

It isn't just Fox News. If it appears everywhere but Fox then it's true. The next day it appears on Fox than it's a lie. That's how you seem to be operating in thread after thread.

Reporting what? I haven't seen the OP story on the AP or Reuters???? Help me out with a link?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by RangerClark29

Being prior military, the term stand down means not to engage, as in; the idea you/we had we will not follow through with. They told those men not to help even though they had prior knowledge.

Being prior military you must understand the value of actionable and credible intelligence? How would you rate Fox News and anonymous sources a couple weeks before election day?

Fox isn't any less slanted than the other 95% of the media. They just slant in the other direction.
As far as sources, the White House is about the least credible source available judging by recent events.

reply to post by Indigo5


See post above.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Fox isn't any less slanted than the other 95% of the media. They just slant in the other direction.

False equivelance...Fox is the most biased of the major news outlets AND they happen to lean right. Doesn't absolve any other outlet from bias or stupidity, but Fox is hands-down the worst...not a Fox thread, so I will leave it there..tonnage of evidence to support that fact.

Originally posted by badgerprints
As far as sources, the White House is about the least credible source available judging by recent events.

If you read statements from the administration based on the intelligence reports...amazingly you will find that they were the most accurate and reliable in this mess.

(a) The administration explains that evidence and intelligence is still being gathered, that we don't have solid answers yet, but it appears...thus far..to have been a protest resulting from the film that was "hijacked" by heavily armed extremists AKA terrorists.

(b) The Media....It was protestors!!! Heavily armed Protestors!!!...completly disregarding the bits about "we aren't sure yet" or "heavily armed extremists" or "hijacking" etc..

(c) The Adminstration after a couple of days of analysis and intelligence....Definetly not protestors, but a terrorist attack that used the ongoing protests across the middle east regarding the film as a cover to get close to the embassy.

(d) the Media...they lied to us!!! Cuz the story we constructed and ran with wasn't right!!

God's honest truth...show me the evidence that the White House lied vs, the Media rushed to construct a story and compete.

AND show me the full quoute and transcript...This is GOP spin and BS.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ararisq

 

I could be mistaken about this but didn't that YouTube dissing Islam come out before the events in Ben Ghazi? I'm not trying to dismiss your idea, just trying to understand.

A film called The Innocence of Bin Laden was shown at a small independent cinema on Hollywood Boulevard called the Vine Theatre on 30 June this year. Then the title was changed (more than once). Finally titled as The Innocence of Mslims

Now, Obama denies he lied about Benghazi.

President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people

Same BS.

Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.

More BS.

And Republicans have questioned the president's truthfulness after the administration spent days, they say, blaming the assault on reaction to an Internet film that ridicules Islam. Yahoo News reported in late September that American officials had concluded on Day One that terrorists were behind the siege. But The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Obama's presidential daily brief from the CIA tied the assault to a spontaneous protest linked to the video—despite intelligence contradicting that scenario.

$64,000 Question Ignored.

Obama was not asked about, and did not bring up, a report by Fox News Channel that American officials repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. A spokesman for the president's National Security Council did not acknowledge a request for comment on that report.

Obama rebuts claims he’s lying about attack on US Consulate in Libya By Olivier Knox

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ararisq

 

Then why did he, his administration, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton lie for weeks afterwards?

I could see your OP as a possibility if they stated it was a terrorist attack right away.

Why blame the youtube video for weeks afterwards???

More Lies:

President Barack Obama reportedly refused to provide a direct answer to repeated questions on whether requests for help in Benghazi were denied as the attack was underway during an interview with 9News in Denver on Friday.

Kyle Clark, a reporter with 9News, asked the president about the requests for help and whether or not it was fair to make Americans wait for answers on Benghazi until after the election.

“The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” Obama said. “Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”

“President Obama was directly asked twice whether pleas for help on the ground in Libya were denied during the attack. Both times, he repeated his standard call for a thorough investigation,” 9News reports.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 9News reporter also asked Obama about his previous calls for more “civility” in the race, calling him out for calling Romney a “bullsh**ter in a Rolling Stone interview.

“What did you mean and why did you choose that word?” he asked.

“You know, this was a conversation after an interview, a casual conversation with a reporter,” Obama explained.

Kyle Clark, a reporter with 9News, posted the following message on Twitter:

Kyle Clark @KyleClark .@BarackObama would not directly answer our repeated questions on whether requests for help in Benghazi were denied #copolitics

Obama Refuses to Answer ‘Repeated Questions on Whether Requests for Help in Benghazi Were Denied’ by Jason Howerton

Article's Video Link:
9NEWS questions President Obama on Libya attack

Petraeus:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

Decision to "Stand Down" was likely President's.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
6:05 PM, Oct 26, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

reply to post by ararisq


BS, BS, BS, BS.....
2nd... BS, BS, BS....
3d... Bs, BS, BS.....

reply to post by alternateuniverse

Originally posted by Vitruvian
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

But please bear in mind that Michael Smerconish is PRO -BAMA all the wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. So take the interview (content notwithstanding) with a G of S

They don't come any more liberal than "Smirky"

You are the President... you are awakened and informed that an American diplomatic compound/ housing facility is under attack by well armed crowds/militia... you have Army- AirForce- Marine- Naval capabilities all with in an hours fly time.. some on the ground and already in the air.

Do you save the Americans by intervening... or let them die.

They are calling for help.. we have assets in place Mr President... what are your orders?

Mr Obama let them die.

Mr Obama let them die and the heroism of the two young men was all the resistance offered up... they volunteered, fought and died.

Mr Obama let them die and then he lied about it.. He lied about how they died. He lied about what he knew. He is lying about what has yet to be revealed.

Mr Obama is a liar of the lowest order.

As an Aussie, we don't get a lot of coverage of this over here, but after watching some fox myself recently, I think it's a very biased station. I've been watching it for a few days here and there, and I am yet to see anything positive for Obama, is this normal?

I hope you yanks re-elect him, Romney is a twat and you can't have Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by ararisq

 

There is still a lot that is not known and the right wing media is creatively filling in the blanks for exploitive purposes. FOX's sources for this article are "anonoymous".

Wonder why on the last debate, on FORIEGN POLICY, Mitt Romney did not mention Behngazi???

Because as candidate for President, he started getting official intelligence briefings a few weeks ago...and he shut-up on the issue.

Well the story was still shaping up and taking on a life of its own outside the political contest.......and that was a good place to keep in now in hind sight.

reply to post by DaesDaemar


I hope all is well down in Australia. As for the news, I have a converter box... no cable or satellite. Yet, I get my news from many sources.

In the case of Benghazi, nothing is more damning than the truth.

At first, it was an obscure video that caused the attack. Absolutely.. so sure we are arresting the guy that made the movie. It is all his fault. For two weeks... it is the video.

Then Obam blamed the State Dept... nope, not us.

Then he blamed the CIA and Intelligence... nope, not us.

We find out they had a drone there, sat and watched the 7 HOUR attack unfold like a bad movie.

We have had e-mails released that show them begging for help... declined.

We had US military within an hours range... nothing.

Where would orders that kept the military from intervening come from. What person in the Obama Administration has the power to keep the military from helping Americans.

Defense Sec Panetta said the area was unsafe and that US military would be endangered if they intervened.

DUDE... WAKE UP... that's what Marines train for their entire career. That's what AIRBORNE train for their entire career. That is why they exist.. to go in under fire and blow the hell out of everything that isn't American and take casualties.

This has nothing to do with media. It has to do with our President and trust.

sidenote: One of the first lessons my father taught me was about lying. "Son, never tell a lie." It will make people not believe you and then they won't trust you. "A man is only as good as his name and word." Even if it is mostly the truth, always tell the whole truth, because even a little bit of a lie makes the whole thing a lie.

I realize poiticians exagerate and , yes, even lie. Money, sex, power, intentions.. I dig it. BUT, to lie about 4 Americans killed... abandoned... that makes the liar pure trash and I am so disgusted with the individual that did this... it looks more and more as if it is indeed President Obama.

reply to post by Vitruvian

The trailer appeared on youtube within a day or so.............it had all of 17 views when the scandal broke.

Actually the video appeared on YouTube July 2nd. Long before the sept 11 protests throughout the middle east. You can check for yourself. Blaming a 2 month old video for a protest that began on Sept 11 as a false flag is disinformation at best. Realizing the Middle East generally hates our guts because we bomb, invade, and conquer country after country is closer to the mark.

Why would the "protesters" wait until Sept 11 to begin their protest of a 2 month old film trailer? The protest was started by them on the anniversary of 911 which they know was the excuse for all the wars that followed and are to follow. They (the protesters) are delivering a message directly to the American people... Our government is covering that by blaming the video...

Sorry Vetruvian, I am tired of this lie. Not directing my comments at you but at the whole stink of the US involvement on foreign soil and the media campaign (even here) to distract us from the truth.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ararisq

 

Then why did he, his administration, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton lie for weeks afterwards?

I could see your OP as a possibility if they stated it was a terrorist attack right away.

Why blame the youtube video for weeks afterwards???

To throw off the conspiracy theorists of course

they were to told to stand down because 2 c.i.a. officers running to the embassy while it was attacked would only accomplish getting themselves killed.

even 25 seals would have been killed, despite what the movies and the media like to portray, they wouldn't have stood a chance against 400 fanatical and armed protesters.

and its common knowledge around the world that americans can't fight without massive air support.