Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 12:59 AM - Edit history (1)
Your reply is this:
"I really can't tell you whom needs to apologize" and "I do think mistakes were made AND I don't think there is anything wrong admitting it and apologizing." Don't ask 'cause I can't tell and "I think" followed with no evidence or support for what you think.
I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting a mistake and apologizing either. So why don't you set an example and admit your post
"1. Did any of you actually..." with the text:
Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 08:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
watch the hearings yourselves, or are we just relying on "what the media says"?
Edit...I did (watch the hearings) and while there may not be a "smoking gun that will bring down the administration", I think some people in the government owes us some apologies."
was a mistake to post because all you really did was throw out there the I watched the hearings (so trust me on what I say) then threw out there "I think some people in the government owes us some apologies." Which now that you're questioned on you have no better answer than the Republicans who can't answer the simple question "what is the cover up?" with respect to Benghazi. So yes, I think you should apologize for your implied denigration of unnamed government officials for things for which they should apologize yet you can't identify those things.
ON EDIT:
You said "There were orders to stand down and it's still unclear whether or not they could have sent rescue help out in time" This is not accurate. It is not at all unclear and even today's testimony by Mr. Hicks didn't change that or seriously challenge it. Here is the relevant part of the hearing from a CNN article. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/politics/benghazi-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 I'm sure it can found in the transcript as well.
"Hicks also argued the U.S. military could have blunted the attack by scrambling intimidating military aircraft from Italy's Aviano Air Base -- an assertion denied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey when he testified before Congress in February.
Dempsey told Congress it would take up to 20 hours to scramble the aircraft to get to Benghazi; Hicks said he believed it would take two to three hours.
'I was speaking from my perspective ... on the ground in Tripoli based on what the defense attache told me,' Hicks said; when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, asked Hicks if he had any reason to question Dempsey's assertion." Later in the article "Pentagon officials insist the members of the military in question were told not to go to Benghazi because they were not equipped for combat, and were needed in Tripoli to care for wounded headed their way."
So there's really no lack of clarity. The civilian diplomat believes that jets could have been there faster than the actual Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The highest ranking military officer in the entire US military with actual knowledge of the capabilities of his forces and not just speculation by a civilian. The other forces were told to stand down to help at the US Embassy instead. Since, at the time, there was no reason not to think the embassy might be attacked next it seems rather wise to keep forces there just in case.
As for "Telling us it was the because of the video I think now its pretty obvious that they knew from the getgo that the video wasn't the cause, yet it was repeated for nearly two weeks." You are so mistaken. Yes, it is obvious now it was terrorism given our 20/20 hindsight. Repeated for two weeks? I guess you missed the Presidential Debates where Candy Crowley put that BS to rest when she corrected Romeny and pointed out the President had been calling it a terrorist attack since the day after the initial news broke. It didn't take Obama two weeks to call it a terrorist attack and not a protest gone wild.
= new reply since forum marked as read
