This movie is about the 13 hours after the Al Qaeda attack on the US Embassy in 2011.

A group of US security forces at a compound near the Embassy was told to "STAND DOWN" repeatedly

Time passed and hearing more and more beseeching from the Embassy - this group ignored the STAND DOWN order and went to the rescue.

These guys have quit to tell the truth what happened that night

Hillary denied there were no STAND DOWN order.

Hillary denied 600 requests from the Embassy for more security

Hillary 2 days after the attack sent an email to Egyptian Minister and a separate email to Chelsea Clinton saying the event was UNRELATED to the video on Youtube about Muhammad

Hillary 4 days after the attack told family she will hunt down the person who made the YouTube video that caused the Embassy attack

In the 4 weeks after the attack - she instructed her department to continue to blame the attack on the YouTube video

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

This movie is about the 13 hours after the Al Qaeda attack on the US Embassy in 2011. A group of US security forces at a compound near the Embassy was told to "STAND DOWN" repeatedly Time passed and hearing more and more beseeching from the Embassy - this group ignored the STAND DOWN order and went to the rescue. These guys have quit to tell the truth what happened that night Hillary denied there were no STAND DOWN order. Hillary denied 600 requests from the Embassy for more security Hillary 2 days after the attack sent an email to Egyptian Minister and a separate email to Chelsea Clinton saying the event was UNRELATED to the video on Youtube about Muhammad Hillary 4 days after the attack told family she will hunt down the person who made the YouTube video that caused the Embassy attack In the 4 weeks after the attack - she instructed her department to continue to blame the attack on the YouTube video

someone has been watching too much Faux News.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 6:29pm: This movie is about the 13 hours after the Al Qaeda attack on the US Embassy in 2011. A group of US security forces at a compound near the Embassy was told to "STAND DOWN" repeatedly Time passed and hearing more and more beseeching from the Embassy - this group ignored the STAND DOWN order and went to the rescue. These guys have quit to tell the truth what happened that night Hillary denied there were no STAND DOWN order. Hillary denied 600 requests from the Embassy for more security Hillary 2 days after the attack sent an email to Egyptian Minister and a separate email to Chelsea Clinton saying the event was UNRELATED to the video on Youtube about Muhammad Hillary 4 days after the attack told family she will hunt down the person who made the YouTube video that caused the Embassy attack In the 4 weeks after the attack - she instructed her department to continue to blame the attack on the YouTube video someone has been watching too much Faux News.

11 hours of the Benghazi testimony

Stephanopoulos also grilled her

So did Morning Joe

It's interesting your first reply was saying I watched Fox News

Lets say I watched Fox News. And lets assume Fox is bias

Does that make the story less true?

Does that somehow discredit the testimonies of these men?

Does this somehow discredit the testimonies of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi?

Does it someone lessen Hillary's culpability?

So why would you want to divert attention to the story and issues raised?!

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

It's interesting your first reply was saying I watched Fox News Lets say I watched Fox News. And lets assume Fox is bias Does that make the story less true? Does that somehow discredit the testimonies of these men? Does this somehow discredit the testimonies of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi? Does it someone lessen Hillary's culpability? So why would you want to divert attention to the story and issues raised?!

How many reports now done that dismiss clintons culpability?  4 is it ?  But sure, faux news isn't biased.  ;D

The word "Bengahzi" sends male Hillary-haters into full-body spasms. By the looks of it, that is the only orgasm they are able to experience ... other than through wanking.

AiA wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

The word "Bengahzi" sends male Hillary-haters into full-body spasms. By the looks of it, that is the only orgasm they are able to experience ... other than through wanking.

maqqa just fails to understand basic rules of information assessment.

I blame our education system.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 10:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 8:38pm: It's interesting your first reply was saying I watched Fox News Lets say I watched Fox News. And lets assume Fox is bias Does that make the story less true? Does that somehow discredit the testimonies of these men? Does this somehow discredit the testimonies of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi? Does it someone lessen Hillary's culpability? So why would you want to divert attention to the story and issues raised?! How many reports now done that dismiss clintons culpability?  4 is it ?  But sure, faux news isn't biased.  ;D

Reports done by Democrats

Lets see what the FBI say

Lets say Fox is bias

How does it change the content of what I said?

If what I said is untrue - provide evidence to contradict

AiA wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

The word "Bengahzi" sends male Hillary-haters into full-body spasms. By the looks of it, that is the only orgasm they are able to experience ... other than through wanking.

Once again - you draw the focus away from the real issue

Rather than discuss the details of Benghazi you instead draw attention to "Hillary haters"

Alevine draws attention to Fox News instead of the real issue

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 10:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 10:08pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 8:38pm: It's interesting your first reply was saying I watched Fox News Lets say I watched Fox News. And lets assume Fox is bias Does that make the story less true? Does that somehow discredit the testimonies of these men? Does this somehow discredit the testimonies of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi? Does it someone lessen Hillary's culpability? So why would you want to divert attention to the story and issues raised?! How many reports now done that dismiss clintons culpability?  4 is it ?  But sure, faux news isn't biased.  ;D Reports done by Democrats Lets see what the FBI say Lets say Fox is bias How does it change the content of what I said? If what I said is untrue - provide evidence to contradict

Reports were never done by democrats. reports were from departments, and congressional hearings that were dominated by republicans.  At least pretend to know what you're talking about.

And of course it changes the content of what you say because you are watching a stupid news program that is the media arm of the republican party, and who know very well that if they continue to smear the leading democratic party candidate then it raises their hopes of a republican win in November.  Just like the republican led congress, Faux News isn't concerned with the truth. They are concerned with keeping this pittance of an issue in the spotlight in the hope of swaying voters towards their pathetic side of politics.  That's all it is. And, like a goose, you fall for it.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 10:44pm:

AiA wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 10:18pm: The word "Bengahzi" sends male Hillary-haters into full-body spasms. By the looks of it, that is the only orgasm they are able to experience ... other than through wanking. Once again - you draw the focus away from the real issue Rather than discuss the details of Benghazi you instead draw attention to "Hillary haters" Alevine draws attention to Fox News instead of the real issue

The minimum cost of the Benghazi hearings is USD 20 million. Does this not sound familiar to you? I think Republicans spent $80 million investigating Bill Clinton. Political witch hunts are expensive.

In contrast, only USD 15 million was spent investigating 9/11.

Looks like a lam-O piece of Hollywood pro-militarism, pro-capitalism propaganda. Directed by Hasbro Toy Micheal Bay. Golly! 

AiA wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 11:32pm:

The minimum cost of the Benghazi hearings is USD 20 million. Does this not sound familiar to you? I think Republicans spent $80 million investigating Bill Clinton. Political witch hunts are expensive. In contrast, only USD 15 million was spent investigating 9/11.

So we move the discussion to COST

Not once did anyone have the courage to stick to the topic raised

I am happy to discuss these other points - however it seems you guys avoid the facts at every opportunity

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

Reports were never done by democrats. reports were from departments, and congressional hearings that were dominated by republicans.  At least pretend to know what you're talking about.

And the hearing was headed by democrats

And the reports were vetted by Hillary before it was released

The same democrat hearing conveniently left out the email server incident

The same democrat hearing conveniently left out all the classified email - which we now know number over 2,000

General Petraus was convicted on sending 1 classified email

So know your facts before you post

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 11:00pm: Reports were never done by democrats. reports were from departments, and congressional hearings that were dominated by republicans.  At least pretend to know what you're talking about. And the hearing was headed by democrats And the reports were vetted by Hillary before it was released The same democrat hearing conveniently left out the email server incident The same democrat hearing conveniently left out all the classified email - which we now know number over 2,000 General Petraus was convicted on sending 1 classified email So know your facts before you post

what hearing was headed by democrats? Show evidence.

Which one of these 7 odd committees was led by democrats, droopy? Which one of thes e7 odd committees produced a differing view to the others?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack


just stay away, your integrity is hitting negative digits now.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 1:35am:

Which one of these 7 odd committees was led by democrats, droopy? Which one of thes e7 odd committees produced a differing view to the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack just stay away, your integrity is hitting negative digits now.

You haven't even read the link have you?!


Quote:

State Department Accountability Review Board As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department established on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community

Most of them are Clinton supporters or hand picked by Clinton

[list bull-redarrow]

The U.S. State Department was resistant to cooperating with the Senate investigation.

The Obama administration manipulated the facts of the attack, with its handling of the attacks having been "a source of confusion" and that the "Administration chose to try to frame the story in a way that minimized any connection to terrorism". However, the majority also concluded that "there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes.

Quote:

The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."

Clinton lead the charge on this one - she was Secretary of State during this time

Quote:

Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

Interesting - the movie 13 hours was all about the stand down orders

These guys was so angry that their testimony was struck off and decide the world need to know the truth

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 1:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:35am: Which one of these 7 odd committees was led by democrats, droopy? Which one of thes e7 odd committees produced a differing view to the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack just stay away, your integrity is hitting negative digits now. You haven't even read the link have you?! Quote: State Department Accountability Review Board As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department established on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community Most of them are Clinton supporters or hand picked by Clinton

Show evidence this was a democrat led investigation, droopy.  Once again you seem to confuse public service and political parties.   You arent very smart. :(

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:

Quote: The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video." Clinton lead the charge on this one - she was Secretary of State during this time

;D you eeediot.  This quote is from one hearing where tea party republicans wanted to put this into t h e report but were unanimously overruled by the rest of the commitee.

Learn to quote, droopy.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 1:46pm:

[list bull-redarrow] The U.S. State Department was resistant to cooperating with the Senate investigation. The Obama administration manipulated the facts of the attack, with its handling of the attacks having been "a source of confusion" and that the "Administration chose to try to frame the story in a way that minimized any connection to terrorism". However, the majority also concluded that "there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes.

Another republican led commitee thst found the exact same thing as the rest. No efforts to cover up.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 1:53pm:

Quote: Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." Interesting - the movie 13 hours was all about the stand down orders These guys was so angry that their testimony was struck off and decide the world need to know the truth

Their testimony was struck off from 8 republican led commitees?  Really says something, doesnt it?

Yet another 9/11 conspiracy like nonsense. And droopy falls for it.  Sad.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Quote: Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." Interesting - the movie 13 hours was all about the stand down orders These guys was so angry that their testimony was struck off and decide the world need to know the truth Their testimony was struck off from 8 republican led commitees?  Really says something, doesnt it? Yet another 9/11 conspiracy like nonsense. And droopy falls for it.  Sad.

Despite the testimonies - you think it's a conspiracy??!!  ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:13pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:46pm: [list bull-redarrow] The U.S. State Department was resistant to cooperating with the Senate investigation. The Obama administration manipulated the facts of the attack, with its handling of the attacks having been "a source of confusion" and that the "Administration chose to try to frame the story in a way that minimized any connection to terrorism". However, the majority also concluded that "there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. Another republican led commitee thst found the exact same thing as the rest. No efforts to cover up.

And Obama is leading her around by the nose otherwise he'll set the dogs on her

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:35am: Which one of these 7 odd committees was led by democrats, droopy? Which one of thes e7 odd committees produced a differing view to the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack just stay away, your integrity is hitting negative digits now. You haven't even read the link have you?! Quote: State Department Accountability Review Board As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department established on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community Most of them are Clinton supporters or hand picked by Clinton Show evidence this was a democrat led investigation, droopy.  Once again you seem to confuse public service and political parties.   You arent very smart. :(

Look at who was in the committee moron

Maqqa wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 2:18pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 1:35am: Which one of these 7 odd committees was led by democrats, droopy? Which one of thes e7 odd committees produced a differing view to the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack just stay away, your integrity is hitting negative digits now. You haven't even read the link have you?! Quote: State Department Accountability Review Board As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department established on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering served as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community Most of them are Clinton supporters or hand picked by Clinton Show evidence this was a democrat led investigation, droopy.  Once again you seem to confuse public service and political parties.   You arent very smart. :( Look at who was in the committee nice person

Yes droopy, I have. That's why I'm asking you to point out the reference hat says it was democratic led.  ;D

I have not only point out the issues but quote the issues as well

You can't read

Maqqa wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:03am:

I have not only point out the issues but quote the issues as well You can't read

What issues, droopy??? I'm asking you to point out where in the references material it states the hearing was led by democrats??????????

You are losing what is left of your tiny mind. Go lie down.