Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:11 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: What about Benghazi? Back to Topics
mexicomaria
Champion Author
Minnesota

Posts:27,861
Points:1,997,255
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 9:19:29 PM

"There were 4 Americans murdered in Benghazi…and yes, it was terrorism. There were 4 Americans murdered at the Boston marathon…and yes, it was terrorism. I am glad the Administration put all the resources it did into finding the bombers in Boston – it was important. The Administration did exactly right in investigating in Boston (the jury is still out on what the Administration did or did not do before the bombing.) But why are our 4 murdered Americans in Benghazi not so important? I think they are." Greta Van Susteren

I still care.....what are we doing about the men we identified (???) that killed Americans in Benghazi?

REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
maryanneusa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:2,903
Points:653,465
Joined:Jun 2013
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 7:38:05 AM

Interesting video content.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 1:08:49 PM

"It seems that PiqueOil admitted that you were right on almost every count and she was wrong."

ROTFLOL!!! I love it when this guy doesn't understand what is posted. Keep up the jokes!
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,552
Points:1,705,285
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 4:37:44 AM

Oh, sorry, mexicomaria, your link works the way you have it, but only if I look at it in another browser. I should have stated it that way before.

[Edited by: mweyant at 2/21/2015 4:42:18 AM EST]
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,552
Points:1,705,285
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 4:27:40 AM

the three men who survived Benghazi

Got this to work in Firefox, mexicomaria. Can't get anything to work in Internet Explorer this morning! Thanks for posting this important page of information websites about the three men who survived Benghazi.

Funny how the conversation in this important thread keeps veering away from the heroes who lost their lives.

The hearing on January 27th focused on "what can we do now," and I believe that Representatives Cummings and Gowdy requested the important actions that should have been requested several administrations ago--as a result, the ARB(Accountability Review Board) will be reporting progress being made to insure that another Benghazi never happens in about 2 months from when the hearing took place, and also by the end of the year achievements that have been made in this regard. It was said at the hearing that is what the families want.
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,861
Points:1,997,255
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 3:25:08 AM

The three men who survived Benghazi.......

I can not get tinyurl to work so try this to listen to the three men who survived Benghazi.https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ag.
qeTJjcOykYvKzWPN9J1ebvZx4?fr=yfp-t-707-s
&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=three%
20men%20who%20survived%20benghazi%20on%2
0fox%20news

[Edited by: mexicomaria at 2/21/2015 3:27:21 AM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 10:26:16 PM



ministorage, congratulations.

It seems that PiqueOil admitted that you were right on almost every count and she was wrong.

And the same to you, mweyant.

Good job, both of you.

btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,990
Points:904,695
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 9:34:46 PM

mini LIED!!! Oh heaven forbid! And Wow!, mini, you want to present "facts" about Factcheck.org, by providing "proof" from a far right wing blog like Free Republic? Seriously, how can you just cut and paste from such a right wing BLOG that has such "Alliances:
Alamo-Girl.com
Free Dominion
FreedomWorks
FR on facebook
FR on yahoo
Gathering of Eagles
Liberty Belles
Move America Forward
Second Amendment Sisters
Swift Vets
Tea Party Express
Winter Soldier".

Seriously? And you think we should "prove" THEM wrong?!!
You are seriously losing it here, my friend. Anything from this site is "TAINTED".
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 10:33:42 AM


ministorage,

"If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to start by admitting you lied - and then made belittling jokes based on that lie - about what the author of the article said."

Taken seriously by you? Yes, that's important. As for the "lie" and "belittling jokes," it's fine with me that you lash out with those oh-so-damning charges.

"The article said Annenberg Foundation went further left after Annenberg died, but it didn't say what you kept accusing the author of - and joking about - that the article said Obama and Ayers were hired after Annenberg died."

Agreed. The word "hired" wasn't used. That's an enormous point in your favor and an enormous point against me.

Note: the loopy, false "history" didn't claim the foundation went "further left." It stated that "...it took a turn to the far left..."

Now if I were in search of some weapon to use in our back-and-forth, I could claim you "lied" by paraphrasing the inference made by the "historian." But in reality, there's no lie involved in your rephrasing of the obvious meaning of the original text. And it should be noted for posterity that you made no "belittling jokes" either.

"Your lack of concern or curiosity about the glaring contradictions between the boots on the ground and the official story line, which factcheck.org has parroted, has been very apparent."

The official storyline from the GOP-controlled House committee that spent nearly two years investigating events, yes. Those evil Republicans are helping evil Barack Hussein Obama and evil Hillary Clinton and the evil members of the chain of command cover up misdeeds, negligence, stupidity, ineptitude, etc.

Next time, check out your lamebrained source before copying and pasting. Then you won't have to go through these clownish contortions to defend a "history" with such an enormous, gaping hole in it.

***

mweyant,

"The findings of FACTCHECK.ORG and the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence both leave tremendous gaps when they leave unanswered questions."

FactCheck.org made no findings on the events in Benghazi themselves, but the committee did. It seems to me, and maybe to some others as well, that when tragedies happen it's likely to be nearly impossible to get every witness to agree completely with all other witnesses. Chaotic, violent, traumatic events do things to people and their memories that can't always be unraveled with questions and answers. Witnesses to horrible events -- and even mundane events -- often disagree on details.

There are likely to be unanswered questions in pretty much every event like this, as many who read the report on 9-11 would agree. The same can be said of car accidents, shootings, construction accidents, etc. These events certainly don't have the national security implications and political implications of 9-11 or Benghazi, but they are traumatic events to those involved and those who are nearby.

Even in everyday tragedies, people struggle to agree completely with one another. But a judge has to weigh the contradictions in testimony and consider the unanswered questions as best she or he can and then arrive at a conclusion about what took place and why it happened.



ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 6:14:23 AM

Ooops. Here's the LINK to the December CNN Jake Tapper report.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/20/2015 6:15:12 AM EST]
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 5:51:40 AM

mweyant quoting from Reliving Benghazi's 13 Hours, 9-9-14:

"JT[John Tiegen, Marine][: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?
JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

MG[Mark Geist, Annex Security Team]: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die."

________________________________________________________________

mweyant quoting from Review of 13 Hours in Benghazi, Mitchell Zuckoff:

“Their account "is not about what officials in the United States government knew, said or did after the attack, or about the ongoing controversy over talking points, electoral politics, and alleged conspiracies and cover-ups.

Instead, it is about what happened that terrible night. The contractors—three ex-Marines, a former Army Ranger and two former Navy SEALs—were in Libya to provide protection for CIA case officers, and they sought to defend U.S. facilities and diplomats during the attacks. What the five survivors have to say is at once compelling and enthralling, infuriating and heartbreaking.”

________________________________________________________________

mweyant: "FACTCHECK.ORG never mentions who the eyewitnesses were, never mentions their sources, and gives no recognition to anything said by the Annex Security Team that was on duty in Benghazi in 2012.

mweyant: "Read the review—it does not jive with FACTCHECK.ORG, simply because it does not seem that FACTCHECK.ORG makes no mention of talking to the contractors.

Personally, I think FACTCHECK.ORG falls a bit short. It is as if they did not complete their assignment."

That's right. They did not interview the eyewitnesses, contractors on the ground that night, who have repeatedly said they were told to wait or stand down. As Pique noted, they referred to the House Committee's report and quoted from it. Their assignment is completed.

Corroborating your sources concerning the contractors' consternation about the official report, about what the CIA contractors have had to say following the Committee's non sequitur conclusions:

"Washington (CNN) – Under fire from CIA contractors who were first-hand witnesses to the events in Beghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday reaffirmed the committee’s report on the events that day. John Tiegen and Kris Paronto, CIA contractors who were on the ground in Benghazi the night of September 11, 2012, called the report “full of inaccuracies” and asserted in a statement that “the authors of the report printed them anyway despite testimony and other truthful information that proved those statements wrong.”

[That is damning. FactCheck.org doesn't care. They completed their assignment.]

"The two men, part of a team who wrote the book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi,” issued a statement that details 13 findings in the committee report that they call false.

. “We have continually attempted to take the ‘high road’ and not delve into the political weeds, until we were once again called liars by the same government we had sworn to protect,” Tiegen and Paronto asserted. “We never did what we did that night into the following morning to support agendas, political parties or presidencies. We did what we did that night to save the lives of fellow Americans and defend American soil. We disobeyed orders and went to help the DS agents and our friends because they were under attack by terrorists and were on the brink of death. Now it’s our turn once again to set the record straight, show integrity and tell the truth. It’s a pity though that the truth is something that’s not very popular in today’s society.”"

[That is damning. In their gathering the facts in the search for truth, FactCheck.org can't seem to be bothered with pesky little facts that get in the way of their conclusion.]

"The most serious of the thirteen “false findings” take issue with how much the CIA chief of base, referred to as “Bob,” hindered their ability to try and rescue their colleagues.

The House Intelligence Committee report asserts that “Although some security officers voiced a greater urgency to depart for the TMF, no officer at the CIA was ever told to stand down. The evidence from eyewitness testimony, ISR video footage, closed-circuit television recordings and other sources provides no support for the allegation that there was any stand-down order.”

But the CIA contractors call that “grossly incorrect.” Paronto directly told the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, “that he was delayed and was told to wait twice,” their statement said, adding that “Bob” specifically used the words “stand down” to Tiegen.

Paronto also told the committee that the delay – which the CIA contractors assert lasted at least 27 minutes, though the committee puts it at 21 minutes – “was a severe military tactical mistake made by leadership figures who had little to no military training or experience in combat operations, and the delay cost the lives of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith due to them dying from smoke inhalation—something that takes time.”"

[The CIA contractors called that “grossly incorrect.” That is damning. FactCheck couldn't be bothered with these contradictions. They completed their assignment.]

"The video footage from the CIA Annex in Bengahzi, the two men say, shows the contractors continually getting in and out of their vehicles approaching Bob and another contractor. “This was due to the GRS security contractors continually requesting to ‘Bob’ and Team Leader to leave the Annex to save the lives of the DS agents who were under attack and burning.”

[Contractors itching to leave the Annex to go to the Compound, repeatedly asking, but repeatedly being told not to leave. That is damning. FactCheck.org doesn't seem to care.]

"CIA employee also filed a complaint with the CIA Inspector General which either was never investigated or dismissed due to the fact it contradicted the fabricated report.”"

[That is damning. FactCheck.org doesn't seem to care.]

"As for the assertion that there were no intelligence failures prior to the attack, the contractors noted a “BOLO” (be on the lookout) report given to them by CIA staff approximately two weeks before the September 11 attack: "Be advised, we have reports from locals that a Western facility or US Embassy/Consulate/Government target will be attacked in the next week.”
As the contractors note in their book, “the operators moved their body armor, long guns, ammunition, night-vision goggles, and other tactical gear into their bedrooms, so they could more quickly ‘jock up,’ as they called preparing for battle.

Discussions had been under way for some time about ‘co-locating’ the Compound and the Annex on the same property, so Bob the Annex chief suggested a trial run. He urged the Diplomatic Security team to move to the Annex during the ambassador's visit, for added layers of protection. The offer was declined.”"

[FactCheck.org couldn't be bothered with all these contradictions. They completed their assignment.]

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/20/2015 5:56:51 AM EST]
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,552
Points:1,705,285
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 5:45:05 AM

Investigative Report

11-21-14

go to p. 31 from “Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012” done by the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
I don’t like the fact that they didn’t name names of whom they said they spoke to on the Annex Security Team. Also, Finding #14 is interesting . . .

Finding #14(I can’t copy and paste from this pdf) “Overall, the CIA could have placed more weight on eyewitness sources on the ground and should have challenged its initial assessments about the existence of a protest earlier” just begs(my opinion, the word “begs”) for more investigation.

Reading the several paragraphs in Finding #14 convinces me that Trey Gowdy and others did not feel that all avenues were explored.

At any rate, may I please turn this conversation in another direction? If you have 2 hours and 21 minutes to spare( OK, I realize that is a hardship right there), do watch the January 27, 2015 House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing. It is still available on C-SPAN, and not the least bit boring. Many, many questions were posed to many different people.Benghazi Consulate Attack and Diplomatic Security 1-27-15

It is stated that a crucial purpose at this point in time, and with which the family members of the murdered victims agree, is to make sure that another “Benghazi” does not happen. Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Trey Gowdy both ask for updates in the future as to important recommendations being followed, particularly by the ARB(Accountability Review Board), a group which was not held to accountability through many administrations of both Republican and Democrat hue.

I was able to watch it due to a snow day on January 27, 2015. IMHO, it struck me that both conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning descriptions of this hearing on various news sites(including Fox and CNN both) bowed to melodrama and did not do this well-conducted hearing justice.

We can rehash what was done and not done ad infinitum. The findings of FACTCHECK.ORG and the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence both leave tremendous gaps when they leave unanswered questions. At this point in time, I rather like the decisions made at this hearing, particularly knowing that the families of the victims just really now want to make sure that another similar episode never happens again(according to what was said at this hearing).



[Edited by: mweyant at 2/20/2015 5:47:06 AM EST]
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 5:24:05 AM

Pique Oil: "Yes, that loopy little theory you posted and continue to struggle to defend. Wounded pride, I expect."

You were caught, either sloppily or purposefully, telling an untruth about what the author of one of three articles said, so it's laughable that you surmised I'm struggling to defend some theory and have wounded pride over that. LOL. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to start by admitting you lied - and then made belittling jokes based on that lie - about what the author of the article said.

"It's your contention that this sentence means that after Annenberg died, the foundation took a turn to the far left, though it had already had "left wing (sic) radical" Bill Ayers and fellow traveler Barack Hussein Obama on board. Your little theory gets even kookier."

No, that's your irrelevant tangent. The article said Annenberg Foundation went further left after Annenberg died, but it didn't say what you kept accusing the author of - and joking about - that the article said Obama and Ayers were hired after Annenberg died.

"Yes, Obama is connected to Ronald Reagan through Annenberg. And Reagan was the person responsible for Iran-Contra and the arming of terrorists with TOW missiles. It's the very same sort of connect-the-dots conspiracy theory employed by you and the imbecile historian. Using this method, I can also connect Jimmy Stewart and George Clooney to Iran-Contra."

Those bizarre connections fit with the lie that the "imbecile historian" said Obama and Ayers were hired after Annenberg died.

Quoting me: "You've been quite clear that's not your concern."

"I've been even clearer than that."

Yes. Your lack of concern or curiosity about the glaring contradictions between the boots on the ground and the official story line, which factcheck.org has parroted, has been very apparent. At least you admit it.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/20/2015 5:30:46 AM EST]
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 5:17:17 PM


mweyant,

Your objection is noted. However, FactCheck.org didn't conduct interviews or talk to witnesses. The GOP-controlled House Committee on Intelligence did that. FactCheck.org was referring to the committee's report and quoting from it. The committee spent nearly two years interviewing witnesses, contractors, officers, etc., and members then compiled and analyzed the sworn testimony, including the comments from those who are quoted in the book you mentioned.

Have you read the committee's report? It's pretty interesting.
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 5:06:37 PM


Nick,

I appreciate your constructive criticism. My only defense is that IT'S COLD OUTSIDE!!!! GLObull warming???!?!?!?!? ROTFL ROTFL!!!! There's SNOW on the GROUND!!!! LOL!!!! Science?!?!?!?!? LOL!
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:56:15 PM



"rumbleseat, "Note this topic. The FACT is it is just a topic with the SOLE purpose to attack Hillary!"

Hmmmmmmmm"

Weaslespit, "More LIES! This was NEVER said by rumbleseat! Another SLEAZY post form the right!!!"

You are absolutely RIGHT, Weaslespit.

rumble did NOT say that.

Passer said that and it should have been addressed to Passer.

I apologize to you rumbleseat.

But you know what, Weasle, it is SO hard to tell you progressive liberals apart.

You ALL look and SOUND the same.

You all read the same progressive liberal talking points and don't have an original thought of your own.

So it is VERY hard to tell you apart.

ROTFL

Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:49:19 AM

"rumbleseat, "Note this topic. The FACT is it is just a topic with the SOLE purpose to attack Hillary!"

Hmmmmmmmm"

More LIES! This was NEVER said by rumbleseat! Another SLEAZY post form the right!!!

Hmmmmmmmm <s>
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:47:20 AM

"How funny to watch the silly thrashing around of progressive liberals when they have NOTHING other than personal attacks.

ROTFL"

Projecting again?
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,318
Points:3,333,030
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:33:50 AM

>>You copied and pasted attacks on FactCheck.org, claiming it is "fraudulent" and "biased" without presenting any evidence of any fraud or any bias.<<

Well, Pique, if you had paid any attention at all to any of the numerous climate change topics over the years, you would not have been surprised by this tactic. ;-)
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:00:29 AM



rumbleseat, "Note this topic. The FACT is it is just a topic with the SOLE purpose to attack Hillary!"

Hmmmmmmmm

I don't see Hillary mentioned ONCE in the OP!

You sure have a great ability to read things that aren't there, rumbleseat.

SMH

ROTFL

More "silly thrashing around of progressive liberals" when they got NOTHING!

ROTFL

Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:71,874
Points:4,404,710
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 8:39:00 AM

"Using this method, I can also connect Jimmy Stewart and George Clooney to Iran-Contra. "

...and Kevin Bacon.
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,934
Points:2,344,510
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 2:12:25 AM

"How funny to watch the silly thrashing around of progressive liberals when they have NOTHING other than personal attacks.

ROTFL"

Note this topic. The FACT is it is just a topic with the SOLE purpose to attack Hillary!
But I will agree that this topic was created and shows "the silly thrashing around" of its creators and supporters. It's not that they just love to beat a dead horse but if they seem to enjoy beating any dead horse if it somehow, someway leads to beating a dead horse of a different color. (ie it no longer can even run)

[Edited by: Passer at 2/19/2015 2:13:30 AM EST]
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,552
Points:1,705,285
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:07:40 PM

Sorry about my grammar in my last post--should read "makes any mention" instead of "makes no mention."
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:55:42 PM



How funny to watch the silly thrashing around of progressive liberals when they have NOTHING other than personal attacks.

ROTFL

mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,552
Points:1,705,285
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:48:24 PM

Boehner and Benghazi from 2-17-15

"This order to wait has been described by some as a “stand down” order, but it was not. The Republican-controlled House intelligence committee said that based on all the evidence, “the Annex leadership deliberated thoughtfully, reasonably, and quickly.”

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Nov. 21, 2014: The evidence from eyewitness testimony, ISR video footage, closed-circuit television recordings, and other sources provides no support for the allegation that there was any stand-down order. Rather, there were mere tactical disagreements about the speed with which the team should depart prior to securing additional security assets.

A bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report released on Jan. 15, 2014, reached the same conclusion.Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jan. 15: The Committee explored claims that there was a “stand down” order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party."

FACTCHECK.ORG never mentions who the eyewitnesses were, never mentions their sources, and gives no recognition to anything said by the Annex Security Team that was on duty in Benghazi in 2012.
__________________________________________________________________Reliving Benghazi's 13 Hours from 9-9-14

"RK[Ross Kaminsky, writer for The American Spectator: What did Bob say to you?
JT[John Tiegen, Marine][: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”
RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?
JT: He used the words “stand down.”
RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?
JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.
MG[Mark Geist, Annex Security Team]: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die."
________________________________________________________________
13 Hours in Benghazi by Mitchell Zuckoff"“Their account "is not about what officials in the United States government knew, said or did after the attack, or about the ongoing controversy over talking points, electoral politics, and alleged conspiracies and cover-ups."
Instead, it is about what happened that terrible night. The contractors—three ex-Marines, a former Army Ranger and two former Navy SEALs—were in Libya to provide protection for CIA case officers, and they sought to defend U.S. facilities and diplomats during the attacks. What the five survivors have to say is at once compelling and enthralling, infuriating and heartbreaking.”

Read the review—it does not jive with FACTCHECK.ORG, simply because it does not seem that FACTCHECK.ORG makes no mention of talking to the contractors.

Personally, I think FACTCHECK.ORG falls a bit short. It is as if they did not complete their assignment.

[Edited by: mweyant at 2/18/2015 8:54:14 PM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:13:59 PM

"A true hysteric. I can only guess how many exclamation marks I've missed."

I'm guessing you haven't really 'missed' any... lol
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:10:53 PM


Weaslespit,

A true hysteric. I can only guess how many exclamation marks I've missed.
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:07:26 PM


"Theory?"

Yes, that loopy little theory you posted and continue to struggle to defend. Wounded pride, I expect.

"No, I didn't post that. That's not what the article said."

"However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama."

It's your contention that this sentence means that after Annenberg died, the foundation took a turn to the far left, though it had already had "left wing (sic) radical" Bill Ayers and fellow traveler Barack Hussein Obama on board. Your little theory gets even kookier.

"(I especially liked your whopper about Obama being connected to Iran Contra (sic). Funny stuff.)"

Yes, Obama is connected to Ronald Reagan through Annenberg. And Reagan was the person responsible for Iran-Contra and the arming of terrorists with TOW missiles. It's the very same sort of connect-the-dots conspiracy theory employed by you and the imbecile historian. Using this method, I can also connect Jimmy Stewart and George Clooney to Iran-Contra.

"You've been quite clear that's not your your concern."

I've been even clearer than that.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:49:49 PM

"It appears AnutterOne still posts to me. My goodness. I wonder how many years have to go by without any response from me before that hysteric finally gets the idea that I put him on ignore long ago."

Lol, he doesn't care - he is more impressed with the 'sound of his own voice' rather than having actual honest discourse with other human beings... Hence his trolling of white boards while he was banned from posting in the forums.
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:29:29 PM

"I have no idea of what "doesn't look good" to someone who thought that laughable "history" of the Annenberg Foundation looked good....But feel free to copy and paste another little theory about it, if you like."

Theory? We know what factcheck has said. And we know the account of the U.S. security men in Benghazi that night. Why don't you tell us why you think factcheck.org parroted the administration's line, and why they have dismissed key players on the ground that night in Benghazi.

Quoting me: "All three corroborated Obama and Ayers'connections with the Foundation, as well as Factcheck.org's connection."

"Yes, and Ronald Reagan's connection to Annenberg as well.

Which is what I said. Now you're going in circles.

"The mind reels at the conspiracy possibilities involved."

Your mind must have been reeling when you thought up the bizzare anecdote connecting Obama to Iran Contra, thinking you were clever playing gotcha and assuming that preposterous nonsense was equivalent to what I had posted.

"You're the one who posted that idiotic "history" of the Annenberg Foundation. I especially enjoyed the part in which the foundation took a turn to the left after Annenberg died, hiring the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and William Ayers."

But that's not true. No, I didn't post that. That's not what the article said. Indeed it said the Foundation turned left after Mr. Annenberg died, but it did not say that Obama and Ayers were hired *after* Annenberg died. It said the Foundation has ties to left wing radical Ayers and Obama:

"...when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama."

Which is true. What is NOT true is your preposterous claim that the article said the foundation hired Obama and Ayers after Mr. Annenberg died. It takes gall to keep claiming others are making stuff up, while at the same time floating one false narrative after the other. I especially liked your whopper about Obama being connected to Iran Contra. (Funny stuff.) ;-)

"I have made no claims about FactCheck.org."

That's right. You've been quite clear that's not your your concern. Nor is it about their stand with the Administration and the deep discrepancies that separate the Administration's official story with the detailed accounts of the men on the ground that night - who said there absolutely was a stand down given.

"I have merely dismembered the goofball claims about it that you copied and pasted here."

When one resorts to false narratives, the tendency is that that dismembers their own argument.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/18/2015 7:38:53 PM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:21:20 PM



PiqueOil, so that is all you have - NAME CALLING and PERSONAL ATTACKS?

ROTFL

Not surprising at all.

SMH



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 2/18/2015 7:21:44 PM EST]
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:14:05 PM


It appears AnutterOne still posts to me. My goodness. I wonder how many years have to go by without any response from me before that hysteric finally gets the idea that I put him on ignore long ago.

Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:05:39 PM

"PiqueOil, and you continue with your silly "but Annenberg was alive" argument, which proves NOTHING.

ROTFL"

You don't want to go anywhere near that debate, A1 - you are too used to the 'shallow' end... ;)
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:00:41 PM



PiqueOil, and you continue with your silly "but Annenberg was alive" argument, which proves NOTHING.

ROTFL

PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 5:21:04 PM


"There is plenty about FactCheck that doesn't look good, which you walked around and did not dare address."

I have no idea of what "doesn't look good" to someone who thought that laughable "history" of the Annenberg Foundation looked good.

"I have presented evidence of Factcheck.org's bias toward this administration..."

None. But feel free to copy and paste another little theory about it, if you like.

"If factcheck.org truly wanted to make sure the facts are straight, simply parroting the administration's official line, let alone what John Boehner had to say, and acting like the detailed accounts of boots on the ground who were in Benghazi that night do not exist, or don't matter, doesn't bode well for unbiased fact-checking."

My goodness. I'll bet that sentence is brimming with interesting opinions.

"All three corroborated Obama and Ayers'connections with the Foundation, as well as Factcheck.org's connection."

Yes, and Ronald Reagan's connection to Annenberg as well. The mind reels at the conspiracy possibilities involved.

"You have no idea who I am and whom I trust."

Oh, but I do. You're the one who posted that idiotic "history" of the Annenberg Foundation. I especially enjoyed the part in which the foundation took a turn to the left after Annenberg died, hiring the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and William Ayers.

"About those boots on the ground in Benghazi who said they were told to stand down - whom Factcheck.org dismissed and ignored in their hard-hitting search for the truth - is that what you call unbiased?"

I have made no claims about FactCheck.org. I have merely dismembered the goofball claims about it that you copied and pasted here.
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:19:33 PM

"This judgement comes from someone who copies and pastes from a source who couldn't figure out that Reagan ally Walter Annenberg was alive when Ayers and Obama were working on Annenberg-funded projects. Funny."

And that statement comes from someone who claims to be an editor, but seems to have trouble with reading comprehension:

"Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 12:06:34 AM Ignore ministorage Report Abuse
.... "It seems pretty clear that Mr. Annenberg, while alive in the last decade of his life, endowed projects that were run by liberals, before he died at the age of 94 in 2002."

When you brought it up the first time, it didn't disqualify criticisms of Factcheck.org. It does not now. It makes no difference. It's a red herring.

"Annenberg was connected to Reagan and Obama and Ayers -- according to your source."

According to the source, Annenberg had a relationship with Reagan. When he was about 85 years old, after Reagan was long gone from office, the Annenberg foundation funded the CAC, according to all three sources. You said Obama was connected to Iran Contra. That was a preposterous lie.

"You copied and pasted an idiotic "history" from a goof who tried to dismiss FactCheck.org because years ago Obama and Ayers worked on Annenberg-funded projects. Instead of presenting evidence of bias and fraud, he stupidly tried to smear FactCheck.org with a dimwitted game of connect-the-dots -- and he wasn't up to even that simple task."

If you want documentation that they're a card-carrying propagandist shill, sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There is plenty about FactCheck that doesn't look good, which you walked around and did not dare address. I have presented evidence of Factcheck.org's bias toward this administration - factCheck.org has not to my knowledge, acknowledged the boots on the ground in Benghazi, and instead has parroted the Obama Administration's incredible official line, and it repeats the same talking points.

Ignoring the accounts of those men on the ground that night makes factcheck.org no more reliable or trustworthy than the prior investigations that could not be bothered with their testimony. If factcheck.org truly wanted to make sure the facts are straight, simply parroting the administration's official line, let alone what John Boehner had to say, and acting like the detailed accounts of boots on the ground who were in Benghazi that night do not exist, or don't matter, doesn't bode well for unbiased fact-checking.

"Check out your source next time."

All three corroborated Obama and Ayers'connections with the Foundation, as well as Factcheck.org's connection.

"Your blind trust in right-wing "history" didn't serve you well."

Your imagination seems to have run wild. You have no idea who I am and whom I trust. Again, all three sources corroborated each other. That Annenberg funded these people in the last decade of his life doesn't disqualify anything I have said.

About those boots on the ground in Benghazi who said they were told to stand down - whom Factcheck.org dismissed and ignored in their hard-hitting search for the truth - is that what you call unbiased?

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/18/2015 4:27:26 PM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:04:49 PM



PiqueOil, it is funny to watch you spin and try to defend FactCheck by saying "Annenberg was alive"!

ROTFL

And then your apparent love for Communist Bill Ayres and his Comrade NObama is sleazy at best.

Here is a little gem of information for you about the radical, anti-US Communist that President NObama likes to pal around with.

"While Walter Annenberg provided the money that allowed CAC to function, William Ayers, the former Weather Underground terrorist, was, as author Stanley Kurtz puts it, the founder of CAC as well as “its guiding spirit.” In 1987 Ayers had launched a new career as a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where CAC was headquartered.

Under Ayers' stewardship, CAC scarcely focused at all on measures aimed at improving student performance in traditional curricular studies, but rather was guided by Ayers' belief – as outlined in his book Teaching Toward Freedom – that the primary duty of educators was to “teach against [the] oppression” that allegedly pervaded American society, and to thereby encourage revolution and social transformation. Toward that end, Ayers' teacher-training programs, which were funded by CAC, were designed to serve as “sites of resistance” against an oppressive social system."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

ROTFL



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 2/18/2015 2:06:18 PM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:39:28 PM



PiqueOil, "This judgement comes from someone who copies and pastes from a source who couldn't figure out that Reagan ally Walter Annenberg was alive when Ayers and Obama were working on Annenberg-funded projects. Funny."

And that proves which of your points?

Absolutely NONE!

SMH

Get a net folks!

The red herrings are running!

ROTFL

PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:29:13 PM


"Your connection was not just bizarre, it was false."

This judgement comes from someone who copies and pastes from a source who couldn't figure out that Reagan ally Walter Annenberg was alive when Ayers and Obama were working on Annenberg-funded projects. Funny.

"It is never okay to connect false dots."

Whatever that means. Annenberg was connected to Reagan and Obama and Ayers -- according to your source. Read what you copied and pasted, and then think, if possible.

"Did I say he is?"

You didn't say anything. You copied and pasted an idiotic "history" from a goof who tried to dismiss FactCheck.org because years ago Obama and Ayers worked on Annenberg-funded projects. Instead of presenting evidence of bias and fraud, he stupidly tried to smear FactCheck.org with a dimwitted game of connect-the-dots -- and he wasn't up to even that simple task.

"You can try to use that irrelevant smokescreen till the cows come home. Won't make it any more relevant."

Mixed metaphors. Check out your source next time. Your blind trust in right-wing "history" didn't serve you well.
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:30:30 AM

"I simply continued the connect-the-dots game that taints FactCheck.org because it is loosely connected to Bill Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama (and Ronald Reagan)."

Your connection was not just bizarre, it was false.

"It is just as valid to use the dot connecting Reagan as it is to use the dot connecting Obama."

It is never okay to connect false dots.

"Of course, what is missing is evidence that Obama is involved, or was involved, with FactCheck.org."

Did I say he is? We know that FactCheck.org's statements about "no stand down" are in complete agreement with the Administration's version of events - which were, and continue to be in direct contradiction with the boots on the ground who lived through that night.

"Also missing from your attack: evidence that FactCheck.org's statement about Benghazi is factually incorrect."

What IS missing is any evidence that the boots on the ground were making up stories. Links to those interviews and news stories have been posted here in this thread plenty. The boots on the ground have, from the beginning, said their orders were not to go to the embassy, or stand down and wait for orders.

"And try to use a source who can figure out when ol' Walter was alive and when he was dead."

You can try to use that irrelevant smokescreen till the cows come home. Won't make it any more relevant.

"If you want to call the organization fraudulent and biased, that's fine."

Thanks.

"Show evidence of fraud and bias."

What is evident and provable is that Factcheck.org parrots the administration's official line, that those men were never given orders to stand down. Perhaps factcheck.org would like to show some evidence that the boots on the ground were lying. It would at least make their parroting of the bizarre official story a bit more believable.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/18/2015 11:39:03 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 11:30:11 AM

Wow, pretty rare to see mini so utterly undressed in these forums...
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 9:09:49 AM


"I linked to three sources." You certainly chose well.

"Thanks for the red herring." It was merely an attempt at humor. When you use those kinds of "sources," you should bring a sense of humor to the discussion.

"I was responding to btc1's statement from FactCheck.org that contradicts what the three men on the roof have told..."

Yes, and you did a brilliant job of copying and pasting a laughably flawed attack on FactCheck.org.

"Well, at least you're not immune to distortion of those pesky facts."

Distortion of your goofy, false "facts"? Another charge that makes me go "geesh."

You copied and pasted attacks on FactCheck.org, claiming it is "fraudulent" and "biased" without presenting any evidence of any fraud or any bias. All you presented was evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was involved with an Annenberg-funded project while Annenberg was alive (not dead, as your dimwitted source stupidly claimed).

I simply continued the connect-the-dots game that taints FactCheck.org because it is loosely connected to Bill Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama (and Ronald Reagan). It is just as valid to use the dot connecting Reagan as it is to use the dot connecting Obama.

Of course, what is missing is evidence that Obama is involved, or was involved, with FactCheck.org. Also missing from your attack: evidence that FactCheck.org's statement about Benghazi is factually incorrect.

If you want to call the organization fraudulent and biased, that's fine. Show evidence of fraud and bias. And try to use a source who can figure out when ol' Walter was alive and when he was dead.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,017
Points:861,670
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 8:22:41 AM



PiqueOil, "So Ayers founded the Challenge years before Walter Annenberg's death and before the foundation took a turn to the far left.Ahhhhhh.

So now you are going to try to make us believe that Bill Ayers is not a uber radical left wing socialist?

Good luck with that one.

But thank you, Pique, for pointing out that Fact Checks left wing turn started even EARLIER than what mini said.

We appreciate it!

It is so humorous to watch the desperate lefties start these "fact check" organizations and claim that only THEY know what is biased and what isn't!

snopes is another one.

The couple that run snopes are very left wing. And they will take the smallest little inconsistency in something to build a whole case that that the lefties story is true and throw out all the facts that prove them wrong, when it is as false as ... well you pick what it is as false as.

ROTFL

If there is one thing that left wingers are consistent on, it is that they are dishonest to the core.

SMH

ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 7:19:48 AM

"Geesh, those pesky facts have connected Bill Ayers to Ronald Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama and Walter Annenberg."

Well, at least you're not immune to distortion of those pesky facts. But why stop there? You might as well say Ronald Reagan and FactCheck.org were also connected.
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 6:43:20 AM

Pique Oil, "It's clear that the person who wrote that fabulous "history" of the Annenberg Foundation and its turn toward the radical left had taken either a bullet or a speeding train to the forehead."

I linked to three sources. Feel free to trounce on FreeRepublic's statement about when Annenberg took a turn to the left, and discredit it all, if you'd like. Noted.

Pique Oil: "Obama's legacy is forever tarnished by this link to Iran-Contra, Ronald Reagan's lies about his dealing of arms to terrorists and perhaps worst of all, that horribly dyed hair."

Thanks for the red herring. Way to check those "facts" about Obama's legacy, and his links to Ronald Reagan, Pique Oil. Expected.

I was responding to btc1's statement from FactCheck.org that contradicts what the three men on the roof have told - that they were told to wait, or to stand down - If you would like to prove proof that they were lying, or disprove FactCheck.org's links and funding, or that it is not politically biased, then I will be happy read what you present

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/18/2015 6:52:44 AM EST]
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 12:39:18 AM


It's clear that the person who wrote that fabulous "history" of the Annenberg Foundation and its turn toward the radical left had taken either a bullet or a speeding train to the forehead. Despite (or because of?) the fabulous historian's inability to figure out that Walter was alive while Ayers and Obama were part of Annenberg projects, he insisted that the foundation took a turn to the left after Walter's death and the Annenberg family took over. Whoops. Ayers and Obama and both come and gone by the time Ronald Reagan's friend, Annenberg, departed this world.

Geesh, those pesky facts have connected Bill Ayers to Ronald Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama and Walter Annenberg.

Obama's legacy is forever tarnished by this link to Iran-Contra, Ronald Reagan's lies about his dealing of arms to terrorists and perhaps worst of all, that horribly dyed hair.

Way to check those "facts" about FactCheck.org, ministorage. Ironic.

ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 12:06:34 AM

Pique Oil, The Annenberg Foundation endowed many projects.In the last decade of his life it looks to me that Mr. Annenberg wanted to help Chicago's public schools with his private money. From what I have read, Bill Ayers was a founding member and Obama was involved with the founding of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as well as Chairman of the Board.

The Annenberg Foundation endowed the Annenberg School for Communication and created the Annenberg Public Policy Center. FactCheck.org is a Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

"The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago's public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation. The grant was contingent on being matched by $49.2 million in private donations and $49.2 million in public money. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was one of 18 locally designed Annenberg Challenge project sites that received $387 million over five years as part of Walter Annenberg's gift of $500 million over five years to support public school reform. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge helped create a successor organization, the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF), committing $2 million in June 1998 as the first donor to Chicago's first community foundation for education.

Beginnings
The three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge $49.2 million grant proposal were:[17][18]

William Ayers, associate professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago; co-director of the Small Schools Workshop; co-director of the Chicago Forum for School Change—an affiliate of the Coalition of Essential Schools;[19] chairman of the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs) coalition;[20][21] former Chicago assistant deputy mayor for education (1989–1990);[21] brother of John Ayers, executive director (1994–2004) of Leadership for Quality Education (an affiliate of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago) and former associate director (1987–1994) of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; son of Thomas Ayers, former president (1964–1980), chairman and CEO (1973–1980) of Commonwealth Edison and former vice president (1980) of the Chicago School Board
Anne Hallett, executive director and founder of the Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform; former executive director of the Wieboldt Foundation (1986–1993); former executive director of the Citizens Education Center in Seattle (1983–1986); former executive director and founder of the Chicago Panel on School Policy (1982–1983); former chair, founder, and chief lobbyist for Citizens for Fair School Funding in Seattle (1976–1982)[20][22][23][24][25][26]
Warren Chapman, senior program officer for education at the Joyce Foundation; former state coordinator at the Illinois State Board of Education for the Illinois Alliance of Essential Schools—a regional center of the Coalition of Essential Schools (1986–1992)[27][28]
On December 17, 1993, Ayers, Hallet and Chapman met to discuss how to win an Annenberg Challenge grant for Chicago. Hallett and Chapman were already informal pro bono advisors to the national Annenberg Challenge, and over the course of the following year they met repeatedly at Brown University with other Annenberg advisors and worked to ensure that Chicago would be one of the first cities selected to receive a grant.[18]
In Chicago, Ayers, Hallett and Chapman gathered a 73-member Chicago School Reform Collaborative Working Group from organizations involved in school reform to help them draft a proposal, with Hallett's Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform donating its headquarters and providing staff support to the Working Group.[18] In June 1994, Ayers and Hallett submitted a draft proposal to Gregorian on behalf of the Working Group.[29]

Board of Directors[edit]
The founding Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as announced in 1995 were:[38][39]
Patricia Albjerg Graham
Barack Obama, civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago; winner, Crain's Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1993; former president of the Harvard Law Review (1990–1991); former executive director of the Developing Communities Project (June 1985–May 1988); current President of the United States[24][40][41][42]....

The final Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 2001 were:[46]
Patricia Albjerg Graham
Barack Obama....

Barack Obama, elected by the Board of Directors as founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995–1999), resigned as chairman and president in September 1999 to run as a candidate in the 2000 Democratic primary for the 1st Congressional District of Illinois...." Link below.

It seems pretty clear that Mr. Annenberg, while alive in the last decade of his life, endowed projects that were run by liberals, before he died at the age of 94 in 2002. If that is pesky, so be it.

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/18/2015 12:15:24 AM EST]
PiqueOil
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:6,602
Points:806,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 11:22:05 PM


Oh, those pesky facts. Let's see: "The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama."

Annenberg died October 1, 2002. At that point, his family took over the foundation "and it took a turn to the far left" and radicals William Ayers and Barack Hussein Obama. Hmmmmmmmm.

Yet there is this claim made: "To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001."

So Ayers founded the Challenge years before Walter Annenberg's death and before the foundation took a turn to the far left. Things that make you go hmmmmmm and geesh: Conservative Annenberg was pals with radical Ayers. Ayers' entire tenure was during Walter Annenberg's life.

"Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there."

Geesh again. Annenberg was quite alive in 1995. So was Ronald Reagan, his friend. Now we have Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Walter Annenberg and Ronald Reagan all tied together.

Oh, those pesky facts.
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,861
Points:1,997,255
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 10:30:54 PM

Good job....mini....those pesky facts.
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,998
Points:1,204,965
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 10:15:35 PM

btc1 said, "There was no stand down order, and other answer have been presented." And he linked to FactCheck.org.

Some facts about FactCheck.org

Barack Obama was Chairman of The Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 until 2000. The Challenge had to do with reforming Chicago public schools.

But, it was funded by the same source that funds FactCheck.org: The Annenberg Foundation. If you go to FactCheck.org and look at the logo, you will see “ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACTCHECK.”

You can read all of the documentation about this connection between : Obama and the Annenberg organizations on Wikipedia

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

[Edited by: ministorage at 2/17/2015 10:17:54 PM EST]
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,990
Points:904,695
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 8:42:19 PM

There was no stand down order, and other answer have been presented.

"But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report."

This continues to be a witch hunt, as the right thinks they can id a witch, already. They are making a mockery of this for political gain only.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,689
Points:606,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 3:59:56 PM

"weasel..you are just such a savior, and champion of the truth, that is you..Truth."

Aw, thanks sweetie! ;)
Post a reply Back to Topics