What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

reply to post by DistantRumor


Clinton took a head injury severe enough to have her in public wearing glasses that I believe, are for correcting double vision. See the Congressional hearing where she just about lost it while testifying about this.

Also, Obama did not take responsibility for this as we know it to be at this point. He played around the edges of taking blame for falsehoods and a woefully incomplete picture of what we now know, he knew to be the truth. He misrepresented it while his own people outright and without shame, lied about it in so many words.

I mention the head injury and loss of composure for the Secretary of State though, to highlight just how little chance she'll ever have at holding high elected office ...IF she'd even want to. She aged many years more than she served over that first term. I'll bet she's as happy to be out of that meat grinder as Obama will be ..and almost all Presidents are...by the end of his current term.

I don't care, either way, if Obama is brought down by this. I seriously doubt that will happen, even if he's guilty as sin and was recorded making jokes the night it happened. Even that extreme? Presidents are surrounded by people who WILL give all to save them and the Office of the President itself. As it probably should be, for what it's worth. Iran/Contra showed that as well.

Iran/Contra ALSO showed that while a President may know and order (and no way was Reagan some ignorant Oaf about that...he just had exceptionally loyal people), there are many many people in lower positions who make these tragedies happen. Until those who MADE the decisions account for them and stand for what they've done? This isn't over. We don't know who all those people are.

Likely, a good many of those in the chain of decision making for the months prior and into that very night, ARE still IN the decision making for State, Defense and Intelligence. THAT needs to change and at best, they need OUT of positions where their flaming incompetency can get more people killed.

reply to post by DistantRumor

Why is it so hard for you to just say what those "facts" are.

Revising intel before revising it is not a earth shattering revelation.

So...what are these "facts" that are so damaging?

I've already linked the two other ATS threads where these are posted. Do you want me to spam them all over? No, that's against the T&C here, the links to them are sufficient. And I'm not doing anyone's homework who either has been in a box since Wednesday, or is purposely lying about not knowing anything about a subject that is breaking all over the media as we speak.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Why is it so hard for you to just say what those "facts" are.

Revising intel before revising it is not a earth shattering revelation.

So...what are these "facts" that are so damaging?

I've already linked the two other ATS threads where these are posted. Do you want me to spam them all over? No, that's against the T&C here, the links to them are sufficient. And I'm not doing anyone's homework who either has been in a box since Wednesday, or is purposely lying about not knowing anything about a subject that is breaking all over the media as we speak.

In other words...you don't know.

Thanks.

reply to post by DistantRumor


What do you mean I don't know? I've already linked them.

reply to post by 48e18


A large special operations force is located in Naval Air Station Sigonella. A quick google search shows this to be true. It is less than a 2 hour flight from Sigonella to Benghazi in an AC-130. An AC-130 uses turbo props for flight. Basically a super fast propeller. No jet engines. If turbo props can get you to Beghazi in 2 hours, how fast would a jet engine get you there?

Drones bomb Pakistan without question violating the country's sovereignity. We don't ask Pakistan's permission to do this, but we asked Libya which caused a delay in response. They do so to kill terrorists, but won't to rescue fellow Americans?

I can not find a single instance anywhere on the internet or from reading where the State Department has been given ANY authority to deal with SOCOM. To the contrary they have been rebuffed of attempts in the past. Only the Commander-in-chief and a select set of DoD officers can order around SOCOM. So who gave that stand down order?

I don't want to hear about budget cuts and all that non-sense. I want an answer to these three questions.