It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The father of a Benghazi victim destroys CNN's Costello's attempts to deflect for Hilary.

page: 2
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: introvert

Hindsight would also say that during a 12+ hour attack, one has time to take action with assets in place unless you're completely incompetent... Which i'd say Hillary is at best.



So you agree it is easy to make decisions in hindsight. Cool.

You are starting to understand. Being an armchair quarterback is easy for those that are misinformed.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Hillary lied to this father.

Now she is lying to America, about lying to them.

She lied to him, and America about Benghazi.

No Republicans involved!



The 8 investigations would prove otherwise.


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'm pretty well informed on how QRF units respond and who can give the order.

You're wrong.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

The 8 investigations would prove otherwise.


Flat out misleading untruth.

Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Orionx2

What you guys are not understanding is that there may have been a reason to lie about what happened in Benghazi because those people in Benghazi may have been doing something they should not have been doing.

Classified support for rebels, including running guns.

There is a lot more to this than we know and you guys are clutching pearls over the scratch on the surface.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

I'm pretty well informed on how QRF units respond and who can give the order.

You're wrong.


Anecdotal. Logical fallacy.

Means squat.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thank you for helping to clear up my point. It's been awhile since I've read up on all the exact details, but there were definitely units available to respond to the embassy that could've without a doubt defended the Benghazi embassy without fail.

There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.

I also cannot fathom any reason that an embassy would not have marines stationed at any given time.

The Americans at Benghazi were left there to die. There's absolutely no excuse.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert

The 8 investigations would prove otherwise.


Flat out misleading untruth.

Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies



I was referring to the republicans being involved. They did lie.


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Except I have hundreds of combat missions under my belt including several tier 1 mission sets.

It's not anecdotal. It's standard operating procedure.

That SOP was ignored in Benghazi.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.


High level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Except I have hundreds of combat missions under my belt including several tier 1 mission sets.

It's not anecdotal. It's standard operating procedure.

That SOP was ignored in Benghazi.


Means nothing. You were not in Benghazi and cannot confirm or deny anything in relation to it.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace



There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.


# high level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.


If I'm not mistaken, lack of a stand down order does not indicate an authorization for engagement or a ROE change...
edit on 8/2/2016 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace



There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.


# high level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.


If I'm not mistaken, lack of a stand down order does not indicate an authorization for engagement or a ROE change...


So there was no stand down order?



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Orionx2

What you guys are not understanding is that there may have been a reason to lie about what happened in Benghazi because those people in Benghazi may have been doing something they should not have been doing.

Classified support for rebels, including running guns.

There is a lot more to this than we know and you guys are clutching pearls over the scratch on the surface.

Not sure you are helping your argument here.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace



There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.


# high level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.


If I'm not mistaken, lack of a stand down order does not indicate an authorization for engagement or a ROE change...


So there was no stand down order?


Your words not mine.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Please share with me from your great knowledge of history if there has been anyone in history tied to so many conspiracies as Hillary? All encumbents run through the grist mill of ther past. Ask yourself, why has Hillary been singled out over and over again since her earliest years? Deny ignorance. She is power hungry and everyone beneath her are her minions.

Btw...this is coming from one who does not trust Trump. Who thinks he was Clinton's tool in disrupting the GOP to ensure no one questions her election as President. Unfortunate for them both, that Hillary is seen as more dangerous than Trump's acting a complete chump!

I am voting for Johnson. Not that he will be elected, but to truly make my vote send a message to the establishment! You both suck!



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Lets see, find the Republican in the video below.

She is here lying to America, lying to the families
of the victims, on video.



And here it is she gets NAILED for lying about the "internet video".



+3 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Means nothing.


Let me know when you have my qualifications to say some stupid crap like that.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace



There's only one reason they did not. It's because the order was withheld from the State Department.


# high level intelligence officials said there was no stand down order, including Gen. Patraeus.


If I'm not mistaken, lack of a stand down order does not indicate an authorization for engagement or a ROE change...


So there was no stand down order?


Your words not mine.



That was in the form of a question. Officials testified that there was no stand down order. You also said the the "order was withheld from the State Department".

So the SD didn't know what the "order" was?

Please clarify.


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

When someone can give an educated opinion based on his own experiences, how is it, as you imply, meaningless?

Now my opinion can be safely disregarded...as I don't have a clue how Tier One operations work, or QRF units are deployed. But when someone who does know opines why disregard, unless it somehow doesn't gibe with your own?




top topics



 
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join