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

[JunkShopFiddler]

JunkShopFiddler:

Why you choose to ignore the facts is up to you.

Good luck to all, ~ The Old Bookaroo

You have the terms "facts"and "lies" confused and continue to illustrate it...(and thanks for the good luck to all... we are going to need it when we get sick.)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[JunkShopFiddler]

Yet 56% of Americans aren't following the investigation. Why is that? Just who is deluded!

Mr. Obama was re-elected wasn't he?...That means a heck of a lot of Americans are deluded...That's pretty obvious isn't it?...Good question, though.

 

[packerbacker]

OB, if it wasn't a consulate, what was it? I'm genuinely puzzled by your comment. I always thought it was a consulate or diplomatic mission with thoughts of them being, technically, the same thing. I agree, using the deaths of anyone, even the enemy, to further a political agenda is unforgivable. My overall feelings about Benghazi is the embassy, consulate, mission, whatever you want to call it was poorly protected given its location and the possibility of terrorism (especially on 9-11) and then the non-response of this administration to the attack of US citizens on what is considered US territory. No amount of love or hate for o-bama can overcome those feelings.

 

[packerbacker]

sheep don't follow investigations, they follow the sheep herder.

 

[Red James Cash]

You complained about my example from 1876 - yet you have no comment about someone else's example from 1776.

April 19 1775 to be precise.

 

[Chadeaux]

Chad:

You complained about my example from 1876 - yet you have no comment about someone else's example from 1776.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Not sure what the hell you are talking about.

I responded to an insult that should have been reported to the administrators, nothing more.

Since you can't stay on topic ... even in your own thread ... I doubt there is any hope of a rational thought process in any of your posts.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

It is my understanding it was a "diplomatic facility" - not an embassy and not a consulate. You may well ask, "What difference does it make?" If I read something that doesn't get that fact correct, it's an indication to me the writer hasn't carefully studied the situation.

The property was not up to the established safety standards of American embassies. I don't buy the "non-response of this administration." First of all, I don't think the President of the United States personally directs the US Military in every firefight. President Lyndon Johnson personally selected bombing targets in North Viet Nam. I don't think that was a wise decision.

One of the American heroes killed in Benghazi was part of the armed assistance sent when word was received the building was building attacked.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

I was mistaken - the comment wasn't yours. I removed it. Thank you for bring that to my attention.

All the best,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Chadeaux]

packerbacker:

It is my understanding it was a "diplomatic facility" - not an embassy and not a consulate. You may well ask, "What difference does it make?" If I read something that doesn't get that fact correct, it's an indication to me the writer hasn't carefully studied the situation.

The property was not up to the established safety standards of American embassies. I don't buy the "non-response of this administration." First of all, I don't think the President of the United States personally directs the US Military in every firefight. President Lyndon Johnson personally selected bombing targets in North Viet Nam. I don't think that was a wise decision.

One of the American heroes killed in Benghazi was part of the armed assistance sent when word was received the building was building attacked.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Originally , an embassy referred to an ambassador and staff who were sent to represent and advance the interests of their country with another country’s government. It was not the building or compound, although later those physical structures have come to represent the embassy.

As there was one ambassador, that compound was effectively the U.S. Embassy even though the administration and others called it a consulate.

 

[packerbacker]

Let's find out together OB. Was Benghazi considered US territory; was it a consulate and, if it was a consulate, is it considered by our government as having the same status as an embassy? What source shall we inquire?

 

[packerbacker]

Closest I've found in government literature is Benghazi was considered a "US Special Mission" so you may be "technically" correct OB but I'll still stand by my claim of non-response to an attack on US citizens including a diplomat. I'll stand corrected on it being a "consulate".....for the time being.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

Again - that's just a detail. An indicator, if you will. A data point to be considered. When you claim we didn't respond, I don't believe you intend any disrespect to Glen Doherty.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[njal]

Yet 56% of Americans aren't following the investigation. Why is that? Just who is deluded!

How many of 56% are dead voters , Illegal aliens oops I meant to say undocumented workers,
acorn workers, New Balck panthers members

 

[NHBandit]

Chad:

I was mistaken - the comment wasn't yours. I removed it. Thank you for bring that to my attention.

All the best,

~ The Old Bookaroo

You've been doing that alot lately. Hitting the eggnog a bit ?

 

[packerbacker]

OB, the thing is Glen Doherty was not acting under orders or directives from our fearless leaders, he was acting on courage and training with the added element of knowing that his citizens were in dire straights and he would do everything in his power to help them. Not so at the white house.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

You believe Mr. Doherty just took off on his own? I don't. I believe he was part of a team dispatched to help.

The White House doesn't micromanage every military operation around the world. Much of the Benghazi Brouhaha depends on the contention that Mr. Obama didn't permit the professionals to do their job. Where was our President that night? In the White House, doing what he was supposed to do. And the CIA, despite whatever mistakes it had made before, sent the available assistance immediately.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[packerbacker]

correct OB, they don't micromanage every operation but, when there is a NEW threat involving a compound that houses a diplomat and his staff, you can bet they are all advised, from the generals on up, as to the seriousness of the situation and what the outcome will be if nobody responds. The closest I've heard about what they decided to do was nothing, it would be too dangerous to send our military into an "unknown" situation. Are you kidding me? That's what they do.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

packerbacker:

They didn't "do nothing."

State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack - Boston.com

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Chadeaux]

packerbacker:

They didn't "do nothing."

State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack - Boston.com

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Why did you skip page one of the October 10, 2012 article?

A few interesting tidbits that perhaps don't fall in line with your statements?

You said that Obama said immediately that the attack was a terrorist attack, but the article says:

The account answers some questions and leaves others unanswered. Chief among them is why for several days the Obama administration said the assault stemmed from a protest against an American-made Internet video ridiculing Islam, and whether the consulate had adequate security.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

Don't let conspiracy theories cloud your brain. Nothing nefarious: You found page 1 didn't you? I read page 1, read page two, then copied the link. I firmly believe people see the world as they see themselves.

Off topic - again - however, Mr. Obama called this an act of terror September 12, 2012. The morning after the attack. One more time - some terrorists have a reason or reasons to attack. As for the adequate security "question," based on events the answer would be "No." Is it possible to turn every diplomatic facility in the world into an impregnable fortress? "No" again.

Should we close many of our inefficient and costly military bases around the world and reallocate some of the resources expended on them? I'd give that one a "Yes."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo