RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Obama's Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Obama's Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • 1.4% Neanderthal
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 49,300
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 10 September 2018 - 12:28 PM

Obama's Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory

American Thinker
By Daniel John Sobieski
September 10, 2018

Excerpt:

The arrogance of the man who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons' caskets as they were returned to the country they fought for is mind-boggling. As he attempted to rewrite many chapters of his failed presidency in a speech at the University of Illinois, he called the accurate and documented reports of the criminal negligence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton and himself during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our Benghazi compound a mere "conspiracy theory."

Conspiracy theories don't produce body bags, sir, but perhaps you don't remember that night all too well because you spent the time four brave Americans were being killed under your command in Libya readying up for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Kris Paronto, former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who fought with his colleagues on the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi, remembers that night and tweeted his response to the then-president's arrogant and dismissive ridicule of their sacrifice and your incompetence:

Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?! How bout we do this,let's put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg's&Ak47's at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent

Obama and Hillary had plenty of warnings that the security at Benghazi was woefully inadequate, that the compound was swimming in an ocean of terrorist training camps. They ignored these warnings, and when the attack happened, they did nothing when a rescue mission could have been mounted. Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers, and following the attack, the infamous video lie was concocted and spread over the airwaves, with President Obama repeating it no fewer than six times in a speech before the United Nations.

Hicks, the last man to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, has exposed the video lie, documenting how he told Hillary's State Department what was happening in real time that fateful night and how her State Department ignored warnings from Chris Stevens and others about the gathering terrorist storm and the woeful lack of security.

Now retired, private citizen Hicks goes farther, telling Fox News Hillary Clinton broke laws while condemning four Americans to death at the hands of terrorists:

Just as the Constitution makes national security the President's highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs "to provide for the security ... of all United States personnel on official duty abroad."

This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.

The Benghazi Committee's report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure. It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi. Thus, according to the Report, "there were no surplus security agents" to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens "without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk."

Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who fought and died for his country at Benghazi, spoke of Hillary's callousness at the 2012 GOP convention. Smith focused in her riveting convention speech on Hillary's disregard for the families of the Benghazi dead:

I know a few things could've been done to prevent it. But nobody's admitting to anything. Right now, my understanding is Hillary didn't do a damn thing. And I wonder what she did as Secretary of State, because she disavows everything. She disavows the fact that she even got any call for security[.] ... If this is her Department, she certainly doesn't know how to run the Department. And she lied the whole time. She lied to me and called me a liar on TV[.]

The movie 13 Hours is based on the book, in which the three CIA contractors, Kris Paronto, John Tiegen, and Mark Geist, who fought at Benghazi, tell the tale of the battle they fought with Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods in the terrorist attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose name Hillary could not remember.

It confirms that Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration gone bad due a video, despite Susan Rice repeating that lie on five Sunday talk shows, and President Obama repeated six times before the United Nations. Hillary Clinton knew that it was a lie, telling the truth to daughter Chelsea and an Egyptian diplomat before she lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead. It confirms that rescuers were told to stand down.

Hillary and her State Department had warnings, including from Ambassador Stevens himself, that Benghazi was an unsecure trap in the face of a growing terrorist threat. As Investor's Business Daily editorialized on documents unearthed by Judicial Watch:

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 51,764
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 10 September 2018 - 01:21 PM

Yup.

<_<

Obama's incredibly idiotic assertion that the Benghazi debacle somehow qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" only proves once again what a shameless liar he is, and what mindless morons his admirers/supporters/voters are.

<_<
0

#3 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,629
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 10 September 2018 - 06:17 PM

This should be brought up at every Obama speaking engagement and appearance, as well as Hillary Clintons.

These vile swine should be in prison for the crimes they committed against this nation and Americans while they held office, and instead they are pulling down half a million dollar per speaking engagement to spew their lies and anti American agenda.
0

#4 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 11 September 2018 - 06:05 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 10 September 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

Yup.

<_<

Obama's incredibly idiotic assertion that the Benghazi debacle somehow qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" only proves once again what a shameless liar he is, and what mindless morons his admirers/supporters/voters are.

<_<

There is not a leftist alive that will simply take responsibility for something. It is always someone else's fault, or not that big of a deal, or (as Obama is asserting) never really happened...it is all fantasy. If they expended half as much time and effort into actually planning something as they do into making excuses when their lack of planning blows up in their faces, they wouldn't need to make near as many excuses.

They would, of course, no longer be leftists, either, because if they actually planned things out, they would see that their ideas are moronic and won't work.
0

#5 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,164
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 11 September 2018 - 06:35 AM

View PostLiz, on 10 September 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:



The House Armed Services Committee disagreed with this assessment:

In recounting his experiences to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Greg Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli and became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was missing, suggested that he thought such an aircraft from Aviano might arrive over Benghazi within a few hours. Mr. Hicks thought an unarmed overflight was desirable. Using a colloquialism for a fighter, he declared before the Oversight Committee that “a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point...as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”

Although the committee will continue to gather and assess information on this topic, it seems that had the risks been deemed acceptable and one or more unarmed fighter aircraft were flown over Benghazi, the effort would probably have been ineffective. Even if such planes could have been dispatched in a timely manner, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for pilots (even with night vision capability) to identify and overfly attackers in very low light. Furthermore, to minimize the antiaircraft threat, an overflight would probably taken place at a relatively high altitude and this would have lessened the putative deterrent effect on enemy forces arrayed far below. This is especially the case because the Benghazi attackers demonstrated that they were the sort of experienced fighters that Major General Roberson warned might be less fearful of an unarmed overflight. Those who struck the U.S. facilities seemed to have carefully planned their actions, scouted the scene beforehand, and were able to skillfully and accurately employ mortar fire.

Nonetheless, some have suggested that dispatching unarmed aircraft should have been considered, at least as an interim step before more about the attack and potential response became known. In this reading, had one or more jets been launched, a recall order could have been issued before arriving over Benghazi if problems arose with refueling or overflight permissions, or if a preferable alternative was developed in the meantime. But, in light of all these factors, majority members believe the use of unarmed aircraft, with no countermeasure capability, refueling arrangements, or targeting assistance, amidst a dangerous antiaircraft environment, would have offered only a small likelihood of benefitting those under attack. It makes sense that this remote option was apparently not more actively contemplated.


Quote

Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers


Not true, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.


The rescue mission, overflight, and stand-down order conspiracies have all been thoroughly investigated and essentially de-bunked years ago - which is part of what President Obama was referring to when he said:

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics. Systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people, the minorities and the poor to vote. Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net wherever it could, cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans, embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi or my birth certificate, rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change, embraced a rising absolutism from a willingness to default on America's debt by not paying our bills, to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic president. None of this is conservative.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 11 September 2018 - 06:37 AM

0

#6 User is offline   USMCforever60 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 02-November 04

Posted 11 September 2018 - 08:17 AM

Meh, like Hillary said, at this point, what difference does this make?
0

#7 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 51,764
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 11 September 2018 - 11:40 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 11 September 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

The House Armed Services Committee disagreed with this assessment:

In recounting his experiences to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Greg Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli and became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was missing, suggested that he thought such an aircraft from Aviano might arrive over Benghazi within a few hours. Mr. Hicks thought an unarmed overflight was desirable. Using a colloquialism for a fighter, he declared before the Oversight Committee that “a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point...as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”

Although the committee will continue to gather and assess information on this topic, it seems that had the risks been deemed acceptable and one or more unarmed fighter aircraft were flown over Benghazi, the effort would probably have been ineffective. Even if such planes could have been dispatched in a timely manner, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for pilots (even with night vision capability) to identify and overfly attackers in very low light. Furthermore, to minimize the antiaircraft threat, an overflight would probably taken place at a relatively high altitude and this would have lessened the putative deterrent effect on enemy forces arrayed far below. This is especially the case because the Benghazi attackers demonstrated that they were the sort of experienced fighters that Major General Roberson warned might be less fearful of an unarmed overflight. Those who struck the U.S. facilities seemed to have carefully planned their actions, scouted the scene beforehand, and were able to skillfully and accurately employ mortar fire.

Nonetheless, some have suggested that dispatching unarmed aircraft should have been considered, at least as an interim step before more about the attack and potential response became known. In this reading, had one or more jets been launched, a recall order could have been issued before arriving over Benghazi if problems arose with refueling or overflight permissions, or if a preferable alternative was developed in the meantime. But, in light of all these factors, majority members believe the use of unarmed aircraft, with no countermeasure capability, refueling arrangements, or targeting assistance, amidst a dangerous antiaircraft environment, would have offered only a small likelihood of benefitting those under attack. It makes sense that this remote option was apparently not more actively contemplated.




Not true, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.


The rescue mission, overflight, and stand-down order conspiracies have all been thoroughly investigated and essentially de-bunked years ago - which is part of what President Obama was referring to when he said:

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics. Systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people, the minorities and the poor to vote. Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net wherever it could, cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans, embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi or my birth certificate, rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change, embraced a rising absolutism from a willingness to default on America's debt by not paying our bills, to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic president. None of this is conservative.



First off - The scandal begins long before the night of the actual attack. Or have you forgotten the many times the embassy desperately requested more protection, more personnel, more weapons, etc? They knew long in advance that an attack was very likely, and Hillary & Obama ignored the requests and left them hanging out to dry, sitting ducks.

THAT'S the original scandal in Benghazi.

Then there's also the deliberate lies they repeatedly told afterwards about "why" it happened, as though it was "unexpected" and therefore "impossible to prepare for" (because they were desperate to keep the truth about their repeated disgraceful negligence hidden from the public.)

As for your post (:rolleyes:) - Just because something seems to have a "small likelihood" of helping, it means you shouldn't even TRY to help? Just "To hell with it, let 'em die"?

Sorry T_G, but Benghazi WAS AND REMAINS A HUGE SCANDAL, and only one of the MANY scandals of the incredibly corrupt Obama administration.

And of course the rest of that crap was equally dishonest, like the idiotic lies about making it "harder for young people, the minorities and the poor to vote" and "reject[ing] science" and so forth.

It's really sad that millions of people are so moronic they still take this lying charlatan seriously.

<_<

This post has been edited by MontyPython: 11 September 2018 - 11:46 AM

0

#8 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,250
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 11 September 2018 - 12:03 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 11 September 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

The House Armed Services Committee disagreed with this assessment:

In recounting his experiences to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Greg Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli and became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was missing, suggested that he thought such an aircraft from Aviano might arrive over Benghazi within a few hours. Mr. Hicks thought an unarmed overflight was desirable. Using a colloquialism for a fighter, he declared before the Oversight Committee that a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point...as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.

Although the committee will continue to gather and assess information on this topic, it seems that had the risks been deemed acceptable and one or more unarmed fighter aircraft were flown over Benghazi, the effort would probably have been ineffective. Even if such planes could have been dispatched in a timely manner, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for pilots (even with night vision capability) to identify and overfly attackers in very low light. Furthermore, to minimize the antiaircraft threat, an overflight would probably taken place at a relatively high altitude and this would have lessened the putative deterrent effect on enemy forces arrayed far below. This is especially the case because the Benghazi attackers demonstrated that they were the sort of experienced fighters that Major General Roberson warned might be less fearful of an unarmed overflight. Those who struck the U.S. facilities seemed to have carefully planned their actions, scouted the scene beforehand, and were able to skillfully and accurately employ mortar fire.

Nonetheless, some have suggested that dispatching unarmed aircraft should have been considered, at least as an interim step before more about the attack and potential response became known. In this reading, had one or more jets been launched, a recall order could have been issued before arriving over Benghazi if problems arose with refueling or overflight permissions, or if a preferable alternative was developed in the meantime. But, in light of all these factors, majority members believe the use of unarmed aircraft, with no countermeasure capability, refueling arrangements, or targeting assistance, amidst a dangerous antiaircraft environment, would have offered only a small likelihood of benefitting those under attack. It makes sense that this remote option was apparently not more actively contemplated.




Not true, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.


The rescue mission, overflight, and stand-down order conspiracies have all been thoroughly investigated and essentially de-bunked years ago - which is part of what President Obama was referring to when he said:

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics. Systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people, the minorities and the poor to vote. Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net wherever it could, cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans, embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi or my birth certificate, rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change, embraced a rising absolutism from a willingness to default on America's debt by not paying our bills, to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic president. None of this is conservative.







Obama is obviously corrupt to the core. It couldn't be boiled out of him. The senators who aided in the cover up are just as corrupt.
0

#9 User is offline   Buckwheat Jones 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 7,857
  • Joined: 08-May 03

Posted 11 September 2018 - 01:07 PM

From the Lessons Learned at the bottom of tgs report:

Given the current fiscal and budgetary environment, the military likely is not able to maintain the readiness to respond quickly to similar crises and, thereby, is unlikely to address the issues that the HASC has identified.

The Administration does not appear to have a policy that secures U.S. interests in the region by comprehensively addressing the evolving nature of the al-Qaeda threat, its interplay with the regional dynamics within the context of the Arab Spring, and the resourcing required for the military to address those threats.

...you can fault bam bam for these failures as well as the points Monty brought up.

Nota Bene, tg. Read the whole thing. Not just the parts you want to paste.

This post has been edited by Buckwheat Jones: 11 September 2018 - 01:09 PM

0

#10 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 12,471
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 11 September 2018 - 02:56 PM

A fighter aircraft making a low supersonic pass over a combat area will definitely put the fear of god Allah into people and tends to disrupt combat giving our guys a chance to take advantage of. Armed or not the bad guys assume it is armed.

But we couldn't do that, it might have interrupted the sleep of all the peacful Musims in the area. Derp. Wouldn't want to have that now, what's a few dead Americans compared to upsetting the locals.

Let's add to the pile the idiotic statements that this was all a spontaneous protest against an obscure internet video no one had seen that got out of hand. Yeah, coordinated heavy weapon, RPG, and mortar fire have always been the sign of a spontaneous peaceful protest that got out of hand.
0

#11 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 12,471
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 11 September 2018 - 02:57 PM

View PostBuckwheat Jones, on 11 September 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

From the Lessons Learned at the bottom of tgs report:

Given the current fiscal and budgetary environment, the military likely is not able to maintain the readiness to respond quickly to similar crises and, thereby, is unlikely to address the issues that the HASC has identified.

The Administration does not appear to have a policy that secures U.S. interests in the region by comprehensively addressing the evolving nature of the al-Qaeda threat, its interplay with the regional dynamics within the context of the Arab Spring, and the resourcing required for the military to address those threats.

...you can fault bam bam for these failures as well as the points Monty brought up.

Nota Bene, tg. Read the whole thing. Not just the parts you want to paste.

Nota Bene? Isn't that the woman who used to be page turner for Rubinstein? :whistling:
0

#12 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 24,854
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 11 September 2018 - 03:09 PM

Flight time in a regular passenger jet from Sicily to Benghazi is an hour, including slowdown for landing. We could have scrambled jets, used our extensive night vision technology, and exact targeting without fear of hitting friendlies. The exact location coordinates of the American compound was well known. Crew is ready for takeoff within minutes from the time command is given. The report TG provides is political BS, not reality.

View PostSeverian, on 11 September 2018 - 02:57 PM, said:

Nota Bene? Isn't that the woman who used to be page turner for Rubinstein? :whistling:

:lol:
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users