White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!

[BT]

And if you cared to read on, you'll note that I acknowledged his transition from Bush --> Bushco, and subsequent questions were in reference to that.

Did he transition or did he explain a possible source of your confusion?

In any case i do not see where he backed down from a position he never had. Which brings us full circle.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You are partisan.

It is not nearly as simple as that.
I can't speak for SIRS....but BT it really depends on how you define the word.
Look at Merriam-Webster.com
I think SIRS and I both hold the belief that "Party" means absolutely nothing,
and that either of us would as soon vote for a conservative no matter what the party.
If Clarence Thomas was a democrat would I love him any less? Ha Ha...that's silly.
If Col West was a democrat with the same beliefs he has...why would it matter?
Unless of course it effected committee chairmanships, ect....
But really having allegiance to a party seems rather silly.

So as far as "partisan" defined as "a firm adherent to a party".....No way Jose!

If you define "partisan" as  "a firm adherent to a cause" then yes I think we all
are...SIRS and XO...and pretty much everyone else are adherents to a general
approach of less or more gvt.....no one is exactly split 100% down the middle
and in my mind it is no lofty goal to not take stands on issues and not have
an opinion...a decision....on anything. Why is an undecided any more lofty
than someone that has studied the issues and come to a conclusion?

[BT]

It is not nearly as simple as that.

In Sirs case it is, else why choose a handle like Partisan Conservative, as he has used in the past.

[BSB]

I'm still not sure what the "attack" looked like, where exactly they were when they were killed, how big the atacking force was, how long it took, and so forth? It's a damn shame because I understand the Ambassador was very good at what he did, worked hard to know the lay of the land, etc.


BSB

[Christians4LessGvt]

I'm still not sure what the "attack" looked like,

BSB....I got this e-mail yesterday...not sure how accurate it is:

Earn your Trident every day

About the two Navy SEAL's killed in Libya:

Quite an astounding tribute to the courage and bravery of the two former Navy SEAL's that went to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and Embassy staff. Courageous!

The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi , Libya . However, apart from the shameful amount of disinformation willingly distributed by the Main Stream Media and the current administration, there's a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story of every news agency across the fruited plain.

So what actually happened at the U.S. embassy in Libya? We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi. Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair. Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation. Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable

A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix. And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he was quite concerned for his personal safety and the welfare of his people. It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a "hit list."

A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy SEALs. When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.

Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter.

Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.

As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I'm fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!

Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code: 1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate, 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield, 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit, 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates, 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation, 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation?s Enemies, and 7) Earn your Trident every day ( http://www.navyseals.com/seal-code-warrior-creed).

Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code.
You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death.

And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others. God bless America !

Dr. Charles R. Roots Senior Pastor Former Staff Sergeant,
USMC Captain, U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret)

This should be passed on and on and on.

[hnumpah]

Ah BSB, good to see you again.

For a timeline on the attack you might look here http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Details are still coming out as the investigation delves into who knew what when and exactly what went on. You know how slow moving bureaucracies and investigations can be, but some are in a rush to lay blame, especially this close to the election, so the usual crap is flowing back and forth.

Hope everything is well, old friend.

[sirs]

Welcome back BsB.....wikipedia has a pretty detailed synopsis of events as well.  It even indicates reports of upwards of 125 - 150 gunmen attacked the Consulate of no more than 7 Americans, using automatic weapons, RPG's, and mortars.  Even heard a report that one of those killed, defied orders to stand down, and "painted" the location of the mortars with a laser, assuming incorrectly that we had air reinforcements coming in....I mean, Obama said that the 1st time he heard of the events in Benghazi, he gave clear orders for our folks to be secured & protected, by any means necessary. 

Seal Tyrone Woods was apparently killed, as he kept the laser on the target, that no air asset was ordered to take out

But yea, H is right, same old knee-jerk defense of the indefensible around here    

[sirs]

And if you cared to read on, you'll note that I acknowledged his transition from Bush --> Bushco, and subsequent questions were in reference to that.

Did he transition or did he explain a possible source of your confusion?

In any case i do not see where he backed down from a position he never had. Which brings us full circle.

Did I not explain clearly enough for you, the 1st time you asked?  Yes, Full circle indeed

So, we have this topic, which grows worse and worse for the Obama administration on a daily basis, yet now you seemed to be fixated on Bush & Partisan, as it relates to Sirs.  The former having been put to bed long ago, and the latter, largely irrelevent.  Unless you're concluding some claim that one can not be both Partisan & Objective.  Is that what it is?  Or is it something more nefarious?

[BT]

I simply asked how one can back down from a position one never took.

Just to be clear you are agreeing that Bear never claimed that Bush personally lied about the WMD's, and after agreeing, it was you who moved on to the BushCo tangent, that being the source of your confusion?

I'll check back for your reply, no worries, i'll remind you if it slips your mind.

[sirs]

And as I read subsequent responses, he has not backed down from from a position he apparently has adopted, that BushCO indeed lied us into war.  It's right there in his answer to that question, in which he typed "YES or no"

[sirs]

Just to be clear you are agreeing that Bear never claimed that Bush personally lied about the WMD's, and after agreeing, it was you who moved on to the BushCo tangent, that being the source of your confusion?

Minus your confusional proclamations, yea.  Can we move on to the preoccupation you have with my being partisan now, and get that settled?  That way we can get back to actual substantive issues.....no, not anything about Benghazi....naaa.  Like what other derrogatory names is Xo going to come up with for Romney.  Hard hitting issues, like that seem to be in vogue

[Christians4LessGvt]

I simply asked how one can back down from a position one never took.

People can back down from a position they claim they never took.
Good grief BT.....
How many people would take your "define is" position?
Bush lied or BushCo lied....
Obama lied or ObamaCo lied about Libya
You think the public would really give a damn about some minced word clarification?
Get real....thats not reality.
What is the completely obvious implication of such a statement ObamaCo lied?
Your earlier analogy does not work.
You ever heard "The Buck stops here"?
As far a president if you say "BushCo lied" you are saying Bush lied.
A President can not escape leading us to war if it's a lie by him or his admin
But with that said....it's all for not because a lie has never been proven.
H is wrong either way!
lets see the exact evidence that someone was willingly lying to take us to war?
Just more hogwash by "H".
the asinine claim of a lie by Bush/BushCo didnt work out.
so now it's time to dodge.

[sirs]

<error>

[BT]

I'll refer you , CU, to your selling of the used car.

If the car breaks down after you were assured it was in good shape, and you in turn assured the buyer that it was in good shape, did you lie? Did CUCo lie? Did anyone lie?

But the splitting of hairs is unnecessary, because Sirs claimed that Bear had said that Bush personally lied in the lead up to war. Now i have seen no evidence of this claim, but i have seen Bears denial. And i have seen Sirs deflect that by claiming saying BushCo lied is the same as Bush lying. And i don't believe that is true. Just as you relied on your mechanic for the true status of your vehicle, Bush relied on members of his administration to build the case for war. And i don't see how Bear backed away from his position that Bush personally didn't lie.

There is an important distinction between the statements and i don't believe that blowing it off as a "define is" situation does that distinction justice.

[sirs]

Are you STILL fixating on Bush after it was cleared up LONG AGO??        ...and when H referenced to sirs, that he really meant Bushco as in Cheney & Bush's advisors, the issue of "Sirs claimed that Bear had said that Bush personally lied in the lead up to war" was done and over with

And i have seen Sirs deflect that by claiming saying BushCo lied is the same as Bush lying

WHAT THE FRELL??  WHEN DID I EVER CLAIM THEY WERE THE SAME THING??  Gads, I have made it painfully clear the aknowledgement that H was now using Bushco vs Bush.  That doesn't mean I said that they're the same.  Remember, ironically in this thread, your proclamation that perhaps I was reading into what H said as something he meant.  YOU'RE DOING THAT..... AGAIN.  I, sirs, did NOT claim or even infer they were "the same", regardless of what you thought I meant to say.