Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Oct 17, 2012, 02:08 PM

I see a great difficulty in a system that has two court systems, and uses ordinary politicians in a judicial capacity

speechlesstx · Oct 17, 2012, 02:58 PM

That's the problem with these witch hunts to exploit tragedies in public in the name of investigations.

I guess discreet never crossed any ones minds?

What's to be discreet about already public information? Try to focus your outrage on Team O leaking classified info for political gain and not what anyone can read in the NY Times weeks before the hearing.

talaniman · Oct 17, 2012, 03:35 PM

LOL, no outrage on my part since everyone has a right to opinions, outrageous or NOT!

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 09:54 AM

So this is how we support our guys in the field, denying their requests for help and telling the guys on the ground to "stand down" while under terrorist attack?

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

That Tyrone Woods that ignored orders and to rescue his comrades? His father told Glenn Beck that Hillary Clinton vowed to him to get the guy responsible for the infamous film we now know was not at the heart of the attack on Benghazi. “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,” said Clinton.

Not "we will get those who killed your son," we'll get the filmmaker. And by golly they did, a few weeks after she ran ads apologizing for the film in Pakistan, the feds arrested the guy.

I can only imagine if this had happened on Bush's watch...

excon · Oct 26, 2012, 10:52 AM

Hello again, Steve:

Yawnnnn...

Wake me up when Glenn Beck or the crack FOX News team reveals the coverup that Obama committed. If you're just now reporting that we were attacked by terrorists, Duhh.. Obama said so the next day. If you're reporting that mistakes were made, double duhh.

What ARE you trying to say?

excon

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 11:24 AM

Ah, are you saying when you served you would have been OK with your calls for help going unanswered and doing nothing while your buddies died? Are you saying it's more important to get the film maker, guilty of exercising his rights, than the terrorists?

What are YOU Saying?

NeedKarma · Oct 26, 2012, 11:39 AM

Ah, are you saying when you served you would have been OK with your calls for help going unanswered and doing nothing while your buddies died? Are you saying it's more important to get the film maker, guilty of exercising his rights, than the terrorists?

Textbook case of setting up strawman arguments - those that you said you hate so much.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

excon · Oct 26, 2012, 11:48 AM

Hello again, Steve:

What are YOU Saying?

I'm saying that in the heat of battle, mistakes are made. I'm reminded of Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer. He wrote a book so people would know the story of his brothers in arms who didn't survive the ambush in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

He called for backup. It was ignored. Lots of his brothers died. It was bad. It happened under Bush. LOTS of those things happened under Bush. That's WHY we lost the war.

The KEY word above is LOST. That means we're STILL at war and mistakes are STILL going to happen.. No, I don't like it..

But, this started as some big coverup that Obama was perpetrating on the American public. He was LYING about something.. But, you (and FOX) found NO coverup. You found NO lies. You just found some people who died in battle and you want to make it the presidents fault. Well, it DIDN'T work.

Excon

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 11:57 AM

Textbook case of setting up strawman arguments - those that you said you hate so much.

Actually I asked questions. This is a strawman. This is a strawman. Learn the difference.

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 11:58 AM

Ex, you're about the only one who can't see the coverup.

NeedKarma · Oct 26, 2012, 12:07 PM

Actually I asked questions. This is a strawman. This is a strawman. Learn the difference.

Nope, neither of those contain what you do: put words in people's mouths then tell them how stupid they are to think that. It's an intellectually dishonest approach to debating and usually used by someone who has no other material. Why do you do that when you hate those types os positions so much?

excon · Oct 26, 2012, 12:10 PM

Hello again, Steve:

What did he cover up, and what benefit would it have given him if he didn't get caught by your crack news team?

The only benefit I could possibly see, is that Obama wanted to maintain the fiction that he SOLVED the Middle East, like you guys think he did. That would be true, of course, if he had said anything like that, or intimated anything like that. Maybe he did and I missed it. I don't know. But, I'm happy to hear what you think it was.

excon

talaniman · Oct 26, 2012, 12:21 PM

The right is famous for seeing cover ups and conspiracies in anything. That's why they have to investigate everything, but they hate lawyers. The flaw is always they do it themselves, cheap, ain't they? Loud, and cheap.

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 01:10 PM

Nope, neither of those contain what you do: put words in people's mouths then tell them how stupid they are to think that. It's an intellectually dishonest approach to debating and usually used by someone who has no other material. Why do you do that when you hate those types os positions so much?

Dude, familiarize yourself with this word before throwing stones.

speechlesstx · Oct 26, 2012, 01:18 PM

What did he cover up, and what benefit would it have given him if he didn't get caught by your crack news team?

Newsweek? CBS? Daily Beast? CNN? Jon Stewart? WaPo? You do know this goes deeper than Fox News don't you? To answer your questions, review the thread. Been there, done that.

NeedKarma · Oct 26, 2012, 05:18 PM

Dude, familiarize yourself with this word before throwing stones.

Yep, that's why I was calling you out on your hypocrisy.

paraclete · Oct 26, 2012, 05:24 PM

All I have to say to the way this debate is going is are you guys dillusional or What?

tomder55 · Oct 27, 2012, 09:45 AM

OK I'll go out on a limb and say what is being covered up. The Benghazi mission (the adm. Never calls it a consulate ) was there to recruit and arm anti-Assad jihadists who then infiltrate into Syria through Turkey. That is the reason why the Adm. Stuck with the phoney video story for so long ,even as the coverup was unravelling before their eyes. The world press has already reported on this .Just waiting for the US press to catch up .

excon · Oct 27, 2012, 10:09 AM

Hello again, tom:

That's what you call a coverup?? Really?? Sounds like they were just keeping state secrets. You DO think we should do that, don't you? I guess not if it's Obama...

You guys are so transparent..

excon

talaniman · Oct 27, 2012, 10:14 AM

I tend to agree Tom, there was more than just ambassador stuff going on, and under those circumstances I wouldn't admit to any covert stuff either. What the CIA is supposed to give daily briefings of operations to the press?

I didn't want to raise that possibility but whenever the CIA is in the area something secret IS going on. I wouldn't tell a big mouth like Issa a darn thing either.