A simple benghazi quiz. Do you know the answer to any of these?

[Jim Craik]

Pete, they did not have a Copter nearby. Even if they did, even if they were sitting in a fueled, running Copter, took off the second they got the message, at 150 mph is still almost 3 hours.

I don't think Gibson has changed his story. From what I can tell, it went something like this.

Gibson heard about the attack and immediatly wanted to rush to the rescue and began preparing. But after what seemed like a very long time to him, but was probably only a few minutes, his Commender after checking the situation, told him it was too late, too far and it was over.

They were told to stay in Tripoly and prepare for wouned who were on the way......(today Col. Gibson agrees that it was too late and says that their Doctor saved injured in Tripoly) His Commanders made the right call!

But I can understand their being upset at not being able to help and I think this carried over into their first interviews.

When they talked of being upset, and then said we wanted to help, we were ready to help, but we were told to stay in Tripoly.......which is all true.

Fox New turned this into we were "Ordered" not to help, later a Retired Military "Expert" added the "stand down" line and FOX never looked back.

Fox built an entire scandal out of this that Larry, Al and the rest had no trouble believing.....

Hell they still believe it and no matter the facts, they always will.

*********

Remember this is how it looks to me, but I'd be very suprised if it played out much differently.

Pete,

Keep in mind that if Col Gibson really felt the way Fox painted the picture, If he really felt that he was orded to let them die........

He would be a highly paid Fox Contibuter and we would be hearing the story over and over.....

I wonder why Fox does not put Gibson on their show?

 

[Larry L.]

Larry its 400+ miles from Benghazi to Tripoly...........driving fast without traffic its a six hour drive. It was too late.

Again, you're Monday morning qtrbacking.

No one knew the status of those on the ground, how long the attack might last, OR what other targets may or may not have been scheduled for attack when the whole thing started.

An op should have been launched. (I cannot imagine there being no Apache gunships [or the like] available in that region for use in just such a scenario. Apaches do close to 200 mph. Several of those should have been able to be on site in Bengahzi in about two hours [from Tripoly - or wherever else 'round there.] Regardless, the "go" button should have been pushed...choppers or no choppers.)

'Done here...

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Jim, I have no dog in this fight apart from being a right wing red neck but Fox News were not the only ones who reported Gibson was ordered not to go. I'm happy to accept that the term stand down was used by an ex military type on Fox. Believe it or not I don't watch Fox News, but it was reported by the press here that Gibson was ORDERED not to go to the rescue. I also accept that because in my experience nothing happens in the Military without an order.
If Bristol didn't order Gibson not to go who did? The C.I.C, Or someone under him?

 

[Jim Craik]

Say Pete, have you wondered why Fox has never put Col. Gibson or the others who were with him on the "NEWS" to tell the whole truth?

I mean if what Fox says is true, then of course it would also be Gibson's story, Right?

Can't you just imagine the Fox ratings, an angry bitter man speaking with tears and contempt about how the FOUR of them could have easily covered the 400 miles and saved them, but Hillery and Obama wouldn't let us........its a conservatives dream!

Pete, have you ever wonder why that hasn't happened?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

No I haven't, do you believe that Gibson wasn't ordered not to go?

 

[Jim Craik]

No I haven't, do you believe that Gibson wasn't ordered not to go?

Well Pete, I have wondered about it......

I can only come up with one reason why Fox has not interviewed Col. Gibson or the others.......

I know you Ausies love a challange, so I'm going to give you another chance, can you think of a reason why we have not seen Col. Gibson or the three other brave men on Fox confirming their story?

***************

Pete, Col. Gibson says he received no orders telling them not to go on the rescue misson, he said he was told it was too late... injured were already on the way to Tripoli.

You have already accused this hero of changing his story, now you are coming very close to calling him a lier.

With what evidence?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Fuck here you go again putting words in my mouth, I did not call anyone a liar. I spent six years in the Military and I know from my experience nothing happens without orders.
Gibson originally said he was ordered not to go. That was reported by several news sources other than Fox News. He has since said he received no such order. Both can't be correct.
Two scenarios are possible.
1. He received no orders.
2. He was ordered to deploy and then ordered to stand down.
If he received no orders why would he initially say he was ordered not to go?
He could have easily said I received no orders. He didn't , he reportedly said he was ordered not to go.

I'll repeat my previous question, what do you think his orders were?

 

[Jim Craik]

I take Col Gibson at his word. He appears to be the only class act of this sad affair.

Good by.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Well good for you, but his first word was he was ordered to stand down, his second after his boss denied that, was there were no orders. Which one of his words do you believe?
Sleep well.

 

[Keith]

Why is this Gibson fellow being referred to here as a "hero?"

 

[Jim Craik]

We have everyone from Col, Gibson to the House Republicans saying that no one told him to "stand down".

Everyone involved says there was no stand down order except Fox News, Pete and Larry.

Oh wait, Fox News, Pete and Larry were not there.

If you guys insist on calling the Republican House leaders, Col Gibson and the Head of the Joint Cheifs liers, that OK with me but in this case you are wrong.

 

[Jim Craik]

Here is an interesting article excerpt from Elizabeth Scalia as to your question.

Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

Pat, I went back and re-read your post.

You may find this interesting, but to me this does not make any sense. in explaining why the attacks under BushII were different than Benghazi, she says that.....

"Well because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war"

If you look at the list of the 13 attacks during BushII, none of the listed 13 took place in IRAQ.

We have one Embassy in Iraq, is she really saying that most Embassy attacks took place in Iraq....

If we had 13 attacks outside Iraq and she is saying that most took place in Iraq.....then there would have to be an additional 13+ attacks in Iraq.

Pat,

Is it possible that she had not heard of the other 13 attacks?

Because if she has heard of them, then it sounds to me like she is actualy saying that there were 26+ Embassy attacks during BushII?



Does this make any sense?

 

[Larry L.]

We have everyone from Col, Gibson to the House Republicans saying that no one told him to "stand down".

Everyone involved says there was no stand down order except Fox News, Pete and Larry.

We had everyone from Obama to congressional Democrats saying that we could keep our doctor/plan, that no one could could take them away from us - period.

Everyone involved said there there was no way anyone could take them away from us...except FOX News, several members of the GOP and Larry. (I don't know about Pete!)

Oh wait, Jim Craik was not there.



An aside: The Republican House leaders said what they said based on what they were told...isn't that right? 'Because it's obvious they "weren't there" either.

'Bottom line on Benghazi is we may never truly "know" anything past the fact that no rescue attempt of any kind was launched from anywhere by anyone (...except for the guys 'on site' who died trying to do it themselves) and the fact that repeated requests for additional security at Benghazi were ignored.

So, if I were employed as a staff member at any U.S. diplomatic post in any Muslim country anywhere, I'd hand in my resignation wiki-wiki and get the heck outta Dodge 'cause I'd now know that it's very likely I'd be left totally on my own if/when the you-know-what hits the fan.



I have a T-shirt from the Reagan years on the front of which is a likeness of a bomb-laden U.S. fighter jet (in flight), over which is printed, "Good morning, Mr. Gaddafi...Terrorize this"...and on the back is written, "...if necessary we'll do it again". Reagan's name & the date are printed below that. Times - and the people in the White House - have sure changed...and NOT for the better.

And now the hiking trail summons...

 

[Pat]

Pat,
After the right has spent YEARS and investigation after investigation, lets see how the American People feel about Bengazi and Secratery Clinton.....

Jim, I'm not sure what Florida voter preference has to do with Benghazi and if you remember Mrs. Clinton had a sizable polling lead over Mr. Obama in 2006. An interesting phenomenon about Mrs. Clinton is that the more public exposure she has, the less popular she becomes.

However, it would appear the current Rasmussen polling indicates most voters suspect the Obama administration hasn’t been completely forthcoming about how it reacted to the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and several other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Just over half think the Benghazi matter deserves further investigation. The truth is the only disinfectant for this sorted mess.

I was in the military a long time and a core value was to leave no one behind. It would from the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Benghazi as well as the climbing death toll of veterans who perished as a result of mismanaged, malpracticed or denied VA medical care, the Administration and Mrs. Clinton do not share this value.
FYI, The body count to date is 40 in Phoenix, 6 in Pittsburg, 6 in Columbia, SC, and hundreds more under investigation. Mr. Holder has said the matter does not merit his department's investigation.

I personally think Mrs. Clinton will win the presidency, should she run for it. The media and her sycophants will provide her all the cover she needs. They will also savage whoever runs against her, destroying them as they did Mr. Romney. I also believe her presidency will have all the successes of that of Mr. Obama.

 

[Jim Craik]

Pat,

The Forida data is used to show that the American People are not falling for this Benghazi crap.

You just said this, "An interesting phenomenon about Mrs. Clinton is that the more public exposure she has, the less popular she becomes"

Pat, truthfully, thats bullshit!

Its hard for me to imagine ANY Political person with more public exposure over the last 20 years than Secratary Clinton, yet even after that, she is way more popular than ANY REPUBLICAN!

She has been Veted, investigated grilled, accused, probed and prodded on a National/World Scale by the very best the right wing has to offer.

Yet she is way way more popular than ANY Republican.......

How to you think the Republican candidates will fair under similar scruteny?

As far as I can tell, of this group, only Ryan has undergone the National Vetting and he did very poorly, that accounts for his dismal showing against the way more popular already vetted Secratary Clinton.

Likely Florida Voters
Clinton vs Christie...........Clinton +18
Clinton vs Paul................Clinton +18
Clinton vs BushIII...........Clinton +8
Clinton vs Ryan...............Clinton +20
Clinton vs Huckabee.........Clinton +18
Clinton vs Rubio...............Clinton +12
Clinton vs Cruz................Clinton +26

It looks like BushIII is your best bet in 2016........

That bring up one of my favorite questions......

When was the last time a Republican won the Presidency without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Your next President?

House Benghazi Hearing: Rep Duncan Blasts Hillary Clinton - YouTube

http://youtu.be/AKamAIFw3rs

 

[Jim Craik]

Pete why do you think that none of the four men who Fox insists were....

"Ordered to Stand Down" have never appeard on Fox to confirm the story that Fox has been telling?

Wouldn't that settle the controversy once and for all?

I think its because fox is lying and these four men who know the truth, would point that out to everyone!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

One more....

HEATED Hearings - Hicks: State Dept. lawyers told me Not to Testify on the Attack - YouTube

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Pete why do you think that none of the four men who Fox insists were....

"Ordered to Stand Down" have never appeard on Fox to confirm the story that Fox has been telling?

Wouldn't that settle the controversy once and for all?

I think its because fox is lying and these four men who know the truth, would point that out to everyone!

Or they were ordered not to, just as Hicks was.
And Jim the YouTube films I posted were not Fox News, but part of the hearing.

 

[Jim Craik]

Pete you have fallen for more BULLSHIT!

Hicks received no ORDER to not testify, neither did Gibson!

Yes Pete your vidio is not from Fox but it is edited just like Fox!

Hicks had been interviewed many times, at one interview he was told to bring an State Dept Attorney.

Pete is being told to bring an Attorney to an interview the same a being ordered not to be interviewed?

********************

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
May 9, 2013 12:59 PM EDT

Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities.


But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion.

Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya.

He had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period.

****************

Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

*****************

Pete, why do you think your video left out that last part?

Why do you think they left out the fact that he had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya.


He had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation.

Pete, you say Hicks was ORDERED not to talk to anyone? Bullshit!

First Hicks was interviwed many times......

He was only told to include a "STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY" in this interview with Chaffetz.