It was "Bob's" fault

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:17 pm

So it WAS the CIA's fault that people died in Benghazi, not Obama's. Specifically the TOP CIA officer in Benghazi, only identified as "Bob", who told a security team to "Stand down, we need to wait". So given that order, those security teams at the annex waited around for nearly half an hour before they finally took the initiative and went in on their own. It was too late by then of course. This development won't make all those Obama haters very happy I'm guessing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09 ... -security/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:33 pm

Who was Bob trying to get on the phone while he made those guys wait? This was definitely one of those 3am phone calls Hillary warned us about....

Why did Hillary approve of being there in the first place to gather weapons in Libya and ship them off to Syrian rebels....ISIS being one of the groups on the receiving end of those shipments?

Why is it so easy for you to accept plausible deniability from a D administration and you have had no trouble taking the severe opposite approach toward R administrations who provided their chief executive the same excuse?

Damn TC! Three simple little questions and your premise just blew up!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:50 pm

ya know will, i was thinking about benghazi and I think you're right.

Because Obama was in office at the time, he HAD to have given the orders to the marines stationed there telling them that they're relived of duty and they didn't have to guard the embassy that night. So in effect, Obama gave the terrorists a direct order to kill the people there.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:56 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Who was Bob trying to get on the phone while he made those guys wait? This was definitely one of those 3am phone calls Hillary warned us about....

Why did Hillary approve of being there in the first place to gather weapons in Libya and ship them off to Syrian rebels....ISIS being one of the groups on the receiving end of those shipments?

Why is it so easy for you to accept plausible deniability from a D administration and you have had no trouble taking the severe opposite approach toward R administrations who provided their chief executive the same excuse?

Damn TC! Three simple little questions and your premise just blew up!

Oh, so you don't think a top CIA officer has a little "authority" to make quick decisions on his own, before bothering the president for permission? Maybe he was trying to get on the phone with the President, maybe not. Maybe he was a wussy waffler waiting to see how things developed BEFORE he saw things were turning into a massive clusterf*ck and then decided to call the president? If that's the case, maybe this "Bob" needs to fess up. I kinda doubt that's going to happen with a CIA officer though. Besides, the CIA has a history of going rogue and doing things on their own when it pleases them. They were caught snooping on Congress, WITHOUT a presidential order as far as we know, just a short while ago.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:13 pm

Ferno wrote:ya know will, i was thinking about benghazi and I think you're right.

Because Obama was in office at the time, he HAD to have given the orders to the marines stationed there telling them that they're relived of duty and they didn't have to guard the embassy that night.

No Ferno, it wasn't an embassy, it was a front for a CIA/State Department operation to gather and ship weapons to rebels in one of the places in the middle east we were meddling with. And the 'Marines' who would have been guarding the place were removed weeks before by the State Department (Hillary) and the additional security that the ambassador asked for were refused by the same people. He had just been there and saw how the al Queda types were becoming more and more prevalent and bold enough to fly their flags from surrounding buildings and the buzz on the streets there was that the locals were on to his gun-running op.
He was warned by the head of security to not proceed as they had been... so he sought reinforcements and was rebuffed. Lame stories about budget cuts and filing wrong papers to request it were offered after the ★■◆● hit the fan. Some people will swallow anything...

But your version of things seems to work much better if you need to ignore reality and dismiss the whole thing as nothing at all...nothing but some peckerwood redneck hating on black people...right? So you go with what ever makes you feel better. Feelings are really important too I hear.

Ferno wrote:So in effect, Obama gave the terrorists a direct order to kill the people there.

No, that would be a stupid thing to say, however, he sure didn't try to dissuade them or prevent them and ignoring that fact and concocting lame arguments to protect him is equally stupid.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:35 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:ya know will, i was thinking about benghazi and I think you're right.

Because Obama was in office at the time, he HAD to have given the orders to the marines stationed there telling them that they're relived of duty and they didn't have to guard the embassy that night.
No Ferno, it wasn't an embassy, it was a front for a CIA/State Department operation to gather and ship weapons to rebels in one of the places in the middle east we were meddling with. And the 'Marines' who would have been guarding the place were removed weeks before by the State Department (Hillary) and the additional security that the ambassador asked for were refused by the same people. He had just been there and saw how the al Queda types were becoming more and more prevalent and bold enough to fly their flags from surrounding buildings and the buzz on the streets there was that the locals were on to his gun-running op.
He was warned by the head of security to not proceed as they had been... so he sought reinforcements and was rebuffed. Lame stories about budget cuts and filing wrong papers to request it were offered after the ★■◆● hit the fan. Some people will swallow anything...

But your version of things seems to work much better if you need to ignore reality and dismiss the whole thing as nothing at all...nothing but some peckerwood redneck hating on black people...right? So you go with what ever makes you feel better. Feelings are really important too I hear.

Ferno wrote:So in effect, Obama gave the terrorists a direct order to kill the people there.
No, that would be a stupid thing to say, however, he sure didn't try to dissuade them or prevent them and ignoring that fact and concocting lame arguments to protect him is equally stupid.

You are SO adorable.

Z.. · Post by **Z..** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:22 am

I heard that Obama personally led the attack on the compound.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:38 am

Somehow I'm not surprised thats what you heard

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:29 pm

Maybe "Bob" is really Hillary's boyfriend on the side.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:16 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe "Bob" is really Hillary's boyfriend on the side.

Now you are just trying to build some sympathy for Bob.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:41 pm

Poor Bob. Ladder climbing the hard way.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:07 pm

It's always Bob's fault.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:45 pm

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:41 pm

Wait.. Bob the Builder??

Aw man.. another hero fallen from ranks. Who Next?? Dora??!!??

Now watch as this derails to boarder containment. ;D

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:07 pm

Duper wrote:Now watch as this derails to boarder containment. ;D

wait... you did that on purpose, didn't you?

It was "Bob's" fault

It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault

Re: It was "Bob's" fault