New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting commentary from the Speaker of the House Boehnr, in which he opines that the Obama administration has stonewalled the investigation into the Benghazi terror attacks.

As avid readers expect, a link: http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/01/09/boehner-obama-stonewalled-irs-benghazi-inquiries.html#.Utshs8tOKSM

The claims that the Obama administration has stonewalled is interesting, given the Senate's most recent report regarding the talking points. They claimed that it was due to intelligence failures, of course, avid readers of this thread know that the state department knew it was the terrorist gang ansar al sharia well before the talking points were finalized.

Good reading for a long weekend.

16.5
 
"Quit blaming the dead guy."

In a thoughtful and illuminating piece, Greg Hicks hits back at those who "have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack."

Hicks' response is succinct as it is clear: "This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington."

Rather than detail the reasons why, I urge you all to read the link: Gregory Hicks: Benghazi and the Smearing of Chris Stevens
Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts. I know—I was there.

Avid readers of this thread will recall that General Ham's offers were discussed in some detail in this thread. Avid readers will also recall that members of this forum explained that the decision regarding whether or not to accept the offer was not the ambassador's to make, but rather was a policy decision to be made at State. That analysis was absolutely correct, as I have shown. This is why I have consistently said that this thread should be considered one of the key sources of information regarding the Benghazi Terror Attacks.
 
16.5 said:
Rather than detail the reasons why, I urge you all to read the link: Gregory Hicks: Benghazi and the Smearing of Chris Stevens
Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts. I know—I was there.
Click to expand...

He may have been there, but he sure wasn't paying attention. He was too busy watching TV on the a night which was both the anniversary of the 9//1 attacks and the night that his boss the Ambassador was spending in a highly dangerous city with inadequate protection to bother answering his phone when said Ambassador tried to call him twice after the attacks started.

Seriously, why is this guy being lauded by the people who are pretending to be so concerned about Benghazi instead of being raked over the coals by them as he should be? Well, other than the obvious, I mean, which is that their focus on Benghazi is a meaningless farce that's little more than an thinly-disguised attempt to find something to stick on Hillary Clinton in case she runs for President in a couple years.
 
15 months later and not one survivor has openly testified ... that speaks for itself.
 
A'isha said:
He may have been there, but he sure wasn't paying attention. He was too busy watching TV on the a night which was both the anniversary of the 9//1 attacks and the night that his boss the Ambassador was spending in a highly dangerous city with inadequate protection to bother answering his phone when said Ambassador tried to call him twice after the attacks started.

Seriously, why is this guy being lauded by the people who are pretending to be so concerned about Benghazi instead of being raked over the coals by them as he should be? Well, other than the obvious, I mean, which is that their focus on Benghazi is a meaningless farce that's little more than an thinly-disguised attempt to find something to stick on Hillary Clinton in case she runs for President in a couple years.
Click to expand...

Your contempt for Greg Hicks is well documented. You see. A'isha believes that Hicks should be raked over the coals for watching TV while off duty, while the actual people responsible for the inadequate security in Benghazi, Kennedy and Clinton, should get a pass,

Of course, you have not rebutted anything in the article I posted, it is just a bizarre and utterly meaningless ad hominem against Greg Hicks.

It is indicative of the very same type of attacks that are being lodged against the dead Ambassador though.
 
It bears repeating (and although avid readers will recall that we discussed the smear campaign against Greg Hicks months ago) that the attack commenced at approximately 9:40. At 9:45 The Regional Security Officer John Martinec came into Hicks' villa and informed him that the compound was under attack. Hicks then called and spoke to the ambassador no later than 9:50 and confirmed that the facility was under attack.

Hicks then went to the Tactical Operations Center. In the TOC Martinec was on the phone Alec Henderson, the regional security officer at the Benghazi compound.

No later than 10 p.m., Hicks called the operations center at the State Department in Washington, D.C., to report the attack.

The fact that he missed two calls between 9:40 and 9:45 is part of a smear campaign fairly commonly employed against whistleblowers, of course. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the State Departments gross failure to provide the security that the ambassador had requested in August of that year.
 
16.5 said:
The article you posted says that hey testified in secret, not "openly."
Click to expand...

Ok, any particular reason why they would testify "openly"? In ongoing investigations is it common for witnesses or those involved to testify in front of everyone or is that saved for court in case some charges are actually brought against people? Is there any reason we should circumvent that standard procedure in this particular case? Is this another 9/11 conspiracy style theory?

Explain to me what the actual conspiracy is here. I've read this entire thread so don't say something lame like, "The information is in the thread, go back and read it". I see you use the word "avid readers" a thousand times in your posts, and I would consider myself a reader of this thread. After all these posts and all these sources I just don't get what the *********** problem stems. Is it because they didn't give him more security? Do we know how many other locations ask for increased security and don't get it? Is the accusation that they specifically denied him, knowing there was an attack, so that he would die? I mean, what's the point of all this? Is this just fear mongering by Republicans to try and taint Hillary's run at the office? That's an awful lot like what it looks like at this point. It's just whittled down to a witch hunt now.
 
16.5 said:
The fact that he missed two calls between 9:40 and 9:45 is part of a smear campaign fairly commonly employed against whistleblowers, of course. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the State Departments gross failure to provide the security that the ambassador had requested in August of that year.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It shows that, far from being a "whistleblower" on the State Department's failure, his slack attitude and utter lack of concern leading up to the attack means that he was part of the problem that allowed such a failure to happen in the first place.

In other news, despite using a survey featuring massively leading and loaded questions, the right wing still can't get a majority of Americans to buy into their partisan conspiracy theory.
 
A'isha said:
Of course it does. It shows that, far from being a "whistleblower" on the State Department's failure, his slack attitude and utter lack of concern leading up to the attack means that he was part of the problem that allowed such a failure to happen in the first place.
Click to expand...

His utter lack of concern being documented by missing two phones in a five minute span? The Smear campaign enters high gear.

At least you acknowledged the systematic failure on behalf of the Hillary Clinton's state department that allowed such a failure to happen in the first place. I assume that if the failure to answer a phone call shows a "slack attitude and utter lack of concern" the failure to approve necessary security and ignoring documented security threats by Kennedy/Clinton is criminal?
 
16.5 said:
His utter lack of concern being documented by missing two phones in a five minute span? The Smear campaign enters high gear.
Click to expand...

Please explain how this is a smear campaign if it's based on factual events. I have no idea how that would work, if the events that are shown here happened, then it's not smear. It's factual information. It's amazing that you can point out a smear campaign against this guy, but you have blinders on when it comes to the smear campaign against Hillary. Irony or hypocrisy?

16.5 said:
At least you acknowledged the systematic failure on behalf of the Hillary Clinton's state department that allowed such a failure to happen in the first place. I assume that if the failure to answer a phone call shows a "slack attitude and utter lack of concern" the failure to approve necessary security and ignoring documented security threats by Kennedy/Clinton is criminal?
Click to expand...

Strawman.
 
plague311 said:
Please explain how this is a smear campaign if it's based on factual events. I have no idea how that would work, if the events that are shown here happened, then it's not smear. It's factual information. It's amazing that you can point out a smear campaign against this guy, but you have blinders on when it comes to the smear campaign against Hillary. Irony or hypocrisy?
.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a smear campaign. First it has absolutely nothing to do with Hicks' article regarding Kennedy's refusal to extend the DoD forces in August. He allegedly missed two phone calls in in a five minute period and therefore that makes his statement questionable? That is utterly ridiculous. It is a classic ad hominem. In fact no one has actually even attempted to rebut a single claim in his article, other than: Hicks missed two calls

Furthermore, the "facts" are so laughably inconsequential and meaningless, there obviously is no other reason to even mention them other than to smear Hicks. He missed two phone calls in a five minute span? Did they actually connect? Was he in the washroom? Was he at evening prayers? Who cares? What possible affect could that have had? Had he heard five minutes earlier, would that mean the Kennedy would not have grounded FEST? Would that mean that they would have released the special forces in Libya that Hicks begged for? That the Administration would not have lied about the attack spontaneously arising from a non-existent protest?

There is an old saying "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

Hicks missed calls are less than a speck of sawdust, while Kennedy's/Clinton's gross incompetence is the plank.
 
16.5 said:
Your contempt for Greg Hicks is well documented. You see. A'isha believes that Hicks should be raked over the coals for watching TV while off duty
Click to expand...

And just why was he "off duty" and watching TV on the night of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks when the Ambassador was off in a dangerous situation, leaving him in charge?

Of course, you have not rebutted anything in the article I posted, it is just a bizarre and utterly meaningless ad hominem against Greg Hicks.
Click to expand...

It's not an ad hominem. It cuts to the heart of Hicks' self-serving attempts to avoid facing up to his own failures, up to and including telling lies about stand-down orders and making up nonsense about how F-16s could have saved the day.

And the only reason he's not being ripped apart by the partisan witchhunters on the right is because they love using his lies to support their conspiracy theory garbage about the Obama Administration's response that night.
 
A'isha said:
And just why was he "off duty" and watching TV on the night of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks when the Ambassador was off in a dangerous situation, leaving him in charge?



It's not an ad hominem. It cuts to the heart of Hicks' self-serving attempts to avoid facing up to his own failures, up to and including telling lies about stand-down orders and making up nonsense about how F-16s could have saved the day.

And the only reason he's not being ripped apart by the partisan witchhunters on the right is because they love using his lies to support their conspiracy theory garbage about the Obama Administration's response that night.
Click to expand...

The second post in this thread is virtually identical to this post. Broken record comes to mind, It is the same bizarre smear tactics, for example, the apparent belief that Hicks is required to be on duty 24/7 in Tripoli while his boss was in Benghazi? Really?

In any event, other than ad hominems, do you have any comments about Hicks article I quoted above. Surely you can't believe that because Hicks "missed two phone calls" that his clear statements about the incompetence in the State Department leading up to 9/11 should be disregarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom