VIDEO: Retired General Keane Debunks FOX's Outright Lie that Obama Administration Didn't Send Help to US Embassy in Libya

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 03, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 4:06 AM GMT
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 5:09 AM GMT
    If you even bother listening to the first video, General Keene says that assets in Libya were dispatched within 24 minutes of the first call from Benghazi and a second response force was sent in within the first 4 hours. Cue 1:35.
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 04, 2012 5:10 AM GMT
    See also:

    http://www.npr.org/2012/11/02/164207549/general-cia-responded-quickly-to-benghazi-attack

    General: CIA Responded Quickly To Benghazi Attack

    November 2, 2012
    Robert Siegel speaks with retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane for more information around the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    topathlete said
    Another likely fact - Obama did not authorize intervention because 1) he wanted to get permission from Libya, and/or 2) his political advisers were unsure of the adverse political impact.


    "Another likely fact..."

    Only in the land of hate believe.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 5:26 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    topathlete said
    Another likely fact - Obama did not authorize intervention because 1) he wanted to get permission from Libya, and/or 2) his political advisers were unsure of the adverse political impact.


    "Another likely fact..."

    Only in the land of hate believe.


    I am ready to believe 100% of what the retired general says. But guess what he is NOT in the administration. He has no current accountability. And could never be held responsible for what he says.

    It is the responsibility of the administration for officials to go on the record. Not put advocates on tv to put out stories.

    It seems only hearing will bring out more information.

    by the way, if all of what he said was true. How come it never was brought up in any of the statements before congress?

    Eric NordstromWe have the first hand congressional hearings of Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility.


    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/politics/congress-libya-attack/index.html

    Its pretty clear the press is not going to get the Administration to give a timeline, outside of innuendo from retired brass who can only speculate on operations.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 5:38 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    I am ready to believe 100% of what the retired general says. But guess what he is NOT in the administration. He has no current accountability. And could never be held responsible for what he says.

    It is the responsibility of the administration for officials to go on the record. Not put advocates on tv to put out stories.

    It seems only hearing will bring out more information.

    by the way, if all of what he said was true. How come it never was brought up in any of the statements before congress?


    OH MY GOD!!!

    By your own assertions, every single conservative conspiracy bandwagon who says otherwise as fact has no accountability and cannot be trusted either.

    This is denial at its worst. This is what is so infuriating to me and why political discourse is as negative as it is! Congratulations! You reveal yourself as part of the problem!

    And to answer your question about why this hasn't come out before, ever heard about a lie traveling halfway around the world before the truth gets it's shoelaces tied?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 5:47 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    musclmed said
    I am ready to believe 100% of what the retired general says. But guess what he is NOT in the administration. He has no current accountability. And could never be held responsible for what he says.

    It is the responsibility of the administration for officials to go on the record. Not put advocates on tv to put out stories.

    It seems only hearing will bring out more information.

    by the way, if all of what he said was true. How come it never was brought up in any of the statements before congress?


    OH MY GOD!!!

    By your own assertions, ever single conservative conspiracy bandwagon who says otherwise as fact has no accountability and cannot be trusted either.

    This is denial at its worst. This is what is so infuriating to me and why political discourse is as negative as it is! Congratulations! You reveal yourself as part of the problem!

    And to answer your question about why this hasn't come out before, ever heard about a lie traveling halfway around the world before the truth gets it's shoelaces tied?



    I have not a CLUE what you are talking about.

    When the administration changes its story on a weekly basis simply there is no reason to believe them. And since they are silent the only thing that comes out is second hand leaks.

    I am part of the problem? I doubt it.

    I have no idea how you can determine everything about that Libya incident is just hunky dory, considering the story has changed and is brief and devoid of meaningful facts. Then when a retired general speaks upon the topic it is to be taken as golden.

    It is the administrations obligation to put for the timeline.

    Again Eric Nordstrom testified in front of congress. Maybe look at the CNN timeline again.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html

    On a outside political thought in response to the "burden of proof" for so called conservative pundits. It boils down to this. The Obama administration is not on equal footing with political pundits. I mention this as a pet peeve i have about some liberal commentators, and RJ posters. When you are in office "Its on YOU", simply pointing at your rivals weak points is not a statement , is not a plan and is not leadership. This is all I see with Obama's 4 years in office. They treat governance as a run on campaign. And our country has suffered because of it.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 5:51 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    I have not a CLUE what you are talking about.


    I rest my case!
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 5:57 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    musclmed said
    I have not a CLUE what you are talking about.


    I rest my case!


    Read or view the congressional testimony. The timeline from CNN shows a changing story.

    Its not clear what your case is. But if it is that I somehow give the conservative narrative more weight, in this case i would say YES. Because the adminstration has given us a big fat 0.

    You just want to rely on a retired generals thought on the situation. Since Obama remains silent, of course news will trickle out.

    Again the Administration has the burden here. Simply showing faults in others explanations is not a statement at all. Its something that may work in a courtroom were legal arguments can get you off on a technicality.

    Unfortunately it is going to take a congressional investigation obviously for the facts to come out.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 6:00 AM GMT
    musclmed said

    On a outside political thought in response to the "burden of proof" for so called conservative pundits. It boils down to this. The Obama administration is not on equal footing with political pundits. I mention this as a pet peeve i have about some liberal commentators, and RJ posters. When you are in office "Its on YOU", simply pointing at your rivals weak points is not a statement , is not a plan and is not leadership. This is all I see with Obama's 4 years in office. They treat governance as a run on campaign. And our country has suffered because of it.


    Proof is proof, regardless of the source. If you can't accept that, that's on you and not the President.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 6:03 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    musclmed said

    On a outside political thought in response to the "burden of proof" for so called conservative pundits. It boils down to this. The Obama administration is not on equal footing with political pundits. I mention this as a pet peeve i have about some liberal commentators, and RJ posters. When you are in office "Its on YOU", simply pointing at your rivals weak points is not a statement , is not a plan and is not leadership. This is all I see with Obama's 4 years in office. They treat governance as a run on campaign. And our country has suffered because of it.


    Proof is proof, regardless of the source. If you can't accept that, that's on you and not the President.


    Like I said I would like to believe the Retired General. But its does not address all of the issues surrounding the Libyan scandal.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 04, 2012 6:06 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    You just want to rely on a retired generals thought on the situation.


    Again, LISTEN to the general's words. This is not his thoughts or guesses on what happened. He actually says, "Now we know for a fact based on surveillance tapes..."

    cue: 1:50

  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 04, 2012 6:16 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidBy your own assertions, every single conservative conspiracy bandwagon who says otherwise as fact has no accountability and cannot be trusted either.

    This is denial at its worst....

    It's even worse. When I first quoted an NPR report, the retort was: "Because it comes from NPR does that mean it is true?" As in, if it's not from Fox then it's dubious?

    At least we didn't have Keane dismissed because he spoke on NPR (given that he also appeared on Fox). But nonetheless he is being dismissed ("innuendo from retired brass who can only speculate") simply because the FACTS he provides are inconvenient to the conspiracy theory.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 6:22 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    musclmed said
    You just want to rely on a retired generals thought on the situation.


    Again, LISTEN to the general's words. This is not his thoughts or guesses on what happened. He actually says, "Now we know for a fact based on surveillance tapes..."

    cue: 1:50



    Yes the CIA response team from Tripoli. In country assets.

    Is anyone saying the administration decided to send these assets or did they by routine plans in place?

    No one knows as the Administration is evading answering this.

    a handful of agents against mortar attacks ?

    I am not disputing that those agents did arrive. FYI everyone is talking about the assets and requests before the attack and during and after the attack. Not from the in country assets but help from the military and a more robust force.

    its a bit dishonest to suggest that this force is what people are talking about when they criticize the response.
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 04, 2012 6:22 AM GMT
    musclmed saidYou just want to rely on a retired generals thought on the situation. Since Obama remains silent....

    So if Obama were to say something, you'd believe it rather than claiming it is a lie (based on conspiracy theory madness)?


    musclmed saidSimply showing faults in others explanations is not a statement at all.

    And this is different from what you are doing how?
    Except that your "faults" are better spelled as "false".
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 04, 2012 6:27 AM GMT
    Both in the NPR article and on the Fox interview, the retired but still-in-the-loop General mentions assets being moved DURING the attacks. Note the plural? This is what the conspiracy theory timeline ignores. There were 2 different battles. Not one dragging on for hours.

    The Consulate had been refortified from the annex. By the time forces in Italy were ready to launch, the Consulate had already been evacuated to the Annex.

    Then the Annex came under attack. Again it was evacuated before forces in Italy could be dispatched.

    The narrative of a battle raging for hours while quick response units were forced to sit on their hands is FALSE.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 6:27 AM GMT
    morleyq said
    musclmed saidYou just want to rely on a retired generals thought on the situation. Since Obama remains silent....

    So if Obama were to say something, you'd believe it rather than claiming it is a lie (based on conspiracy theory madness)?


    musclmed saidSimply showing faults in others explanations is not a statement at all.

    And this is different from what you are doing how?
    Except that your "faults" are better spelled as "false".


    Imaging what I would do is a flimsy argument.

    In the second debate the president was specifically asked who refused the requested additional security prior to the Benghazi attack and why. He patently dodged the question by saying only what he did after hearing of the attack. The president's unwillingness to answer such a direct question (and many others) gives conspiracy theorists reason to be suspicious.

    for me I have not made up my mind because the facts are not out. It seems some have made up there mind based on "in the loop retired Generals"?? who address only a small part of the questions at hand.

    And its obvious they have made up their mind as they shoot down EVERY statement on the topic. When an administration remains mute about the subject. Again I will wait for the hearings.
  • morleyq

    Posts: 175

    Nov 04, 2012 7:35 AM GMT
    musclmed saidImaging what I would do is a flimsy argument.

    I was pointing out your posturing and hypocrisy.
    On one hand you claim not to believe what the administration says, but then wish them to say more?

    musclmed saidfor me I have not made up my mind because the facts are not out. It seems some have made up there mind based on "in the loop retired Generals"?? who address only a small part of the questions at hand.

    And its obvious they have made up their mind as they shoot down EVERY statement on the topic. When an administration remains mute about the subject. Again I will wait for the hearings.

    Only shooting down statements that are erroneous or based on false premises.

    You seem to be saying a lot for someone who hasn't made up his mind.
    But if you are waiting for the hearings, then I guess you won't be saying anything more until after them, right?
    Nor will it influence how you vote on Tuesday, since the hearings will be later, right?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 04, 2012 10:05 AM GMT
    morleyq said
    musclmed saidImaging what I would do is a flimsy argument.

    I was pointing out your posturing and hypocrisy.
    On one hand you claim not to believe what the administration says, but then wish them to say more?

    musclmed saidfor me I have not made up my mind because the facts are not out. It seems some have made up there mind based on "in the loop retired Generals"?? who address only a small part of the questions at hand.

    And its obvious they have made up their mind as they shoot down EVERY statement on the topic. When an administration remains mute about the subject. Again I will wait for the hearings.

    Only shooting down statements that are erroneous or based on false premises.

    You seem to be saying a lot for someone who hasn't made up his mind.
    But if you are waiting for the hearings, then I guess you won't be saying anything more until after them, right?
    Nor will it influence how you vote on Tuesday, since the hearings will be later, right?


    There is not enough information to draw a conclusion. Which is its own indictment on the administration.
    Hardly the open and transparent administration Obama promised. It was quite the opposite, he barely gives press conferences. And because of that apparently retired Generals serve as information conduits. Which is a sad state of affairs.

    There is no reason to believe the General is lying, in kind since he is not a responsible party, you can not accurately determine what he was told and what information was withheld.

    This event was not something that is changing my mind about the election.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2012 10:11 AM GMT
    "topathlete, John, socalfitness"

    Besides FOX News, Drudge and WorldNetDaily.....where are you getting your "facts"?

    Elsewhere in these forums, you suggested that The White House intentionally made the embassy vulnerable to attack.

    WHY?

    WHY THE FUCK?

    The new meme on the Right has been to suggest that President Obama knew of and allowed the attack ....and are of course now trying to cover it up.

    WAS THAT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR AND BARACK WERE SECRET GAY LOVERS?

    Don't worry. You can tell me. I won't think you are any CRAZIER.