This surprisesme. No "stand down" order given in Benghazi

A House committee formally concluded for the first time that there was no military “stand down” order given on the night of the deadly terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

It’s a finding that one committee aide acknowledged to TheBlaze, “some people are going to be upset about.” The allegation that the military was told to stand down on aiding the Americans in Benghazi has long been used to accuse the Obama administration of not doing enough to save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02 ... -benghazi/

The devil is in the DETAILS (or interpretation)......fog of "war" creates confusion...either way
the WSJ reporting of a "misunderstanding" of responsibilities for Benegahzi is STILL out there....
the CIA and the State Dept. did NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND who was doing what and whom was
responsible the security detail of Benegahzi...per WSJ several months after the incident occurred.

Cathy_Lee wrote: A House committee formally concluded for the first time that there was no military “stand down” order given on the night of the deadly terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

It’s a finding that one committee aide acknowledged to TheBlaze, “some people are going to be upset about.” The allegation that the military was told to stand down on aiding the Americans in Benghazi has long been used to accuse the Obama administration of not doing enough to save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02 ... -benghazi/

Wow...Imagine my surprise...

I'm sure it won't stop the usual crowd from thinking they can win points with "a noun, a verb, and the word 'Benghazi'" in a sentence...

But homeagain, this report on The Blaze is from the last few days, not from several months ago when all the congressional hearings had not happened. Anything from several months ago is no longer relevant, IMO because new information came out of the hearings that were held since then. Why would you go with old information instead of the latest information?

I think we all wanted to know who gave the stand down order, didn't we? That was the big question in my mind.

Cathy_Lee wrote: But homeagain, this report on The Blaze is from the last few days, not from several months ago when all the congressional hearings had not happened. Anything from several months ago is no longer relevant, IMO because new information came out of the hearings that were held since then. Why would you go with old information instead of the latest information?

I think we all wanted to know who gave the stand down order, didn't we? That was the big question in my mind.

SORRY, I am elated there is an explanation (thru the congressional report).....it was a matter
of misinterpretation/misunderstanding ( so I am in AGREEMENT with you)...what I can NOT
"square" is the REMAINING fact that the WSJ reported, but it was DROPPED like a lead ballon.

In another thread many months ago, I also questioned Petraisus "girlfriend's" admission that
SHE KNEW there were captive prisoners at that site....DROPPED LIKE A LEAD BALLON....so
there are STILL A COUPLE of factors that are not "squaring"....JMO

House: Military Couldn't Change Benghazi Outcome
Posted: 11 Feb 2014 10:19 AM PST

In a new report released on Tuesday, the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene. "Given the military's preparations on Sept. 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack," the report concludes.

Oh, darn...ANOTHER right-wing fact-free, source-free MYTH...busted....

Do you get extra points for using Benghazi, and "IRS" in the same sentence?

The biggest problem most people have isn't that the military didn't act, the problem is that the obvious warnings were ignored, the requests for more security were ignored, the 9/11 date was ignored, and when all was said and done, the story was changed in order to help Obama get reelected. Obama knew right away it was a terrorist attack, yet for weeks he said nobody was sure. Everything the man does is to save his own thin skin.

The "stand down" revelation is just another diversion from the incompetency and deceptions.

Rick wrote: The biggest problem most people have isn't that the military didn't act, the problem is that the obvious warnings were ignored, the requests for more security were ignored, the 9/11 date was ignored, and when all was said and done, the story was changed in order to help Obama get reelected. Obama knew right away it was a terrorist attack, yet for weeks he said nobody was sure. Everything the man does is to save his own thin skin.

The "stand down" revelation is just another diversion from the incompetency and deceptions.

Sounds pretty sure to me.

[youtube:2jji5gzp][/youtube:2jji5gzp]

If you keep repeating them often enough...(and out of context)...they become true, don't they? And there's always the fact-free, source-free echo-chamber to prop you back up.

BlazerBob wrote:

Rick wrote: The biggest problem most people have isn't that the military didn't act, the problem is that the obvious warnings were ignored, the requests for more security were ignored, the 9/11 date was ignored, and when all was said and done, the story was changed in order to help Obama get reelected. Obama knew right away it was a terrorist attack, yet for weeks he said nobody was sure. Everything the man does is to save his own thin skin.

The "stand down" revelation is just another diversion from the incompetency and deceptions.

Sounds pretty sure to me.

[youtube:1szggbkk]

[/youtube:1szggbkk]

Poor LJ, she can't remember what she doesn't want to remember. On one hand, the left says Obama knew and acknowledged it was a terrorist attack, but on the other hand, they still want to blame some douchebag that made a video. They refuse to acknowledge the warnings, the requests for help prior to the attack, the fact that the Brits were smart enough to bail. But the real problem with Obama sheep is that they believe everything he tells them, even when they find out it was all a bullsh** story.