Benghazi Report

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
What makes you say SHE blocked military assets? There seems to have been some delay caused by confusion within the military, but no evidence at all that she had any role in that particular problem.
Click to expand...

Semantics buddy. IMO any "confusion" within the military was caused by no clear direction from the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
Question. Seriously.

Why? Why would she order them to stand down, or otherwise block them?

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there was some type of arrangement to enrich the Clintons through their "foundation".

Just spit balling here. And playing the bell curve.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
Question. Seriously.

Why? Why would she order them to stand down, or otherwise block them?

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Because Al-Queda is on the run remember? Has to fit the narrative like ever other piece of BS this regime pushes down the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
Question. Seriously.

Why? Why would she order them to stand down, or otherwise block them?

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Why? Why did she blatantly lie to the victims families and the American people about why the attacks occurred?

It makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#33
#33
election coming up, can't have terrorists killing Americans when you are running around touting how great you have been at defeating all of them
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#36
#36
MT LeConte said:
If Military assets were blocked intentionally don't you thing Committee would have shared that with us and tried to find out who did it?
Click to expand...

I don't think they were "blocked" by the strict definition but they were not given permission to go to the site to deal with the attack. So, by inaction and delay, the forces that possibly could have reacted, couldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#37
#37
MT LeConte said:
If Military assets were blocked intentionally don't you thing Committee would have shared that with us and tried to find out who did it?
Click to expand...

to borrow a line from Hillary, what does it even matter if she directly or indirectly gave the order? The fact remains we sent no one to help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#39
#39
hohenfelsvol said:
I don't think they were "blocked" by the strict definition but they were not given permission to go to the site to deal with the attack. So, by inaction and delay, the forces that possibly could have reacted, couldn't.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

What is the difference in blocking military assets and not sending any at all? It's the same outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#40
#40
hohenfelsvol said:
I don't think they were "blocked" by the strict definition but they were not given permission to go to the site to deal with the attack. So, by inaction and delay, the forces that possibly could have reacted, couldn't.
Click to expand...

So she gave the order by not giving the order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
"Blocked" implies someone with full knowledge of the situation prevented them from going, and in this context, for some sort of bad reason. So no, I don't agree.

Now, if there were bureaucratic problems or some sort of communication problem within the military that slowed it down, or "blocked" it, I'd agree that should be looked at and fixed to avoid any such slow response.
Click to expand...

lol @ bureaucratic problems.

You might say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
"Blocked" implies someone with full knowledge of the situation prevented them from going, and in this context, for some sort of bad reason. So no, I don't agree.

Now, if there were bureaucratic problems or some sort of communication problem within the military that slowed it down, or "blocked" it, I'd agree that should be looked at and fixed to avoid any such slow response.
Click to expand...

Never mind. You figured it out.

Firewalls blocked her emails from coming through again. Good thing it was an honest mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#46
#46
MT LeConte said:
If Military assets were blocked intentionally don't you thing Committee would have shared that with us and tried to find out who did it?
Click to expand...

hohenfelsvol said:
I don't think they were "blocked" by the strict definition but they were not given permission to go to the site to deal with the attack. So, by inaction and delay, the forces that possibly could have reacted, couldn't.
Click to expand...

Basically what Hohen said. There is a subtle, but distinct, difference in sitting on something and not giving a direct order not to go in.

Even pre-staging the assets to go in would allow the perception that "something" was being done. When in reality, nothing was being accomplished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
Why go through the effort and expense for this boondoggle - investigation/report? No one is going to be held accountable - either this time or the next. We don't hold people at the top accountable - either government or corporate because that might just cause the rabble to demand more accountability. And that's just not acceptable to corporate and government royalty.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Question. Seriously.

Why? Why would she order them to stand down, or otherwise block them?

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I will tell you what makes no sense, sending no one, that makes no sense. I would expect the SOS to send everyone to protect her employees, I would. If I made a mistake then we wasted some fuel. She and Obama were in the sit room and in full control, don't blame this on the military they leave no one behind as proven on the ground that night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top