Even the good folks of your fair and balanced network have finally admitted that their narrative of the "stand down myth" is FALSE. I know how you guys like to focus on lies, real or imagined, so will you continue to believe FOX that has pushed the same lie for almost 2 straight years? Of course you will. That's how true believers work. Good for you. Keep posting those FOX stories. FOX is almost as entertaining as the Onion although with somewhat less truth. I wonder when they will apologize? What Will It Take For Fox To Let The Benghazi Stand Down Order Myth Die? March 2, 2014 2:05 PM EST ››› ELLIE SANDMEYER Fox News host Chris Wallace admitted that Fox's "stand down order" narrative about the 2012 Benghazi attacks was false, but still allowed disreputable source Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to desperately try and redefine the debunked claim into a new attack on the Obama administration. Fox News has persistently pushed the myth that the administration had issued a "stand down" order to stop reinforcements from coming to the aid of American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya during the September 11, 2012 attack. Though the claim was rapidly discredited, by June 2013, the network had repeated the charge at least 85 times in prime time segments, and the allegations didn't stop there. In early February, a House Armed Services Committee report and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report put the myth to rest. On the March 2 edition of Fox Broadcasting Network's Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace admitted that the Senate report had thoroughly debunked claims of a "stand down" order and reported that The Washington Post Fact Checker had given Issa "four pinocchios" -- the rating it issues for "whoppers" -- for his suggestion that "Secretary Clinton told [then-Defense Secretary] Leon [Panetta] to stand down, and we all heard about the stand-down order for two military personnel. That order is undeniable." But Fox's focus on the facts was short lived. Though Wallace's acknowledgement of the facts led Issa admit that the term "stand down" was not "used in some sort of an explicit way," Wallace made no move to question Issa's attempt to spin the administration's supposed "failure to react" to the attack as the kind of thing that could "represent a stand down": WALLACE: But to be honest, you do not have any evidence that Secretary Clinton told Leon Panetta to stand down. ISSA: Well, the use in answering questions in a political fundraiser -- that was in response to a question -- the term "stand down" is not used in some sort of an explicit way. But rather the failure to react, the fact that only State Department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used, that members arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. Those kinds of things through State Department resources represent a stand down. Not maybe on the technical terms of "stand down, soldier," but on the American people believe is a failure to respond what they could have. WALLACE: All right.Even Issa's effort to repackage his attack falls flat. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already debunked claims that further assistance could have been sent from U.S. military bases, criticizing the conservative media's "cartoonish impression of the military" which has ignored the need for "planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way." As Gates said: Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances.
All I have ever asked for is the facts. Over a year later, we still don't know what happened. It seems someone i hiding something. What is it?
"It seems someone i hiding something." That is what you are basing your argument on? "Somebody" is hiding "something". I say let's spend another couple of million investigating that for sure. Geesh!
For 2 weeks, Clinton, Rice, Obama, et al blamed a film. Who and why brought that into the fray? Why were the survivors not permitted to testify? What did Obama and Clinton do during that time frame? And I needn't repeat the rest of the questions yet unanswered.
Ah! The conspiracy theory angle. Always so much credibility that goes along with that approach. BTW That was sarcasm in case it didn't come across as such.
Here is a better question. Why did FOX push an obviously lie for almost 2 years? Hum? Instead of acknowledging that you bought into a lie, you simply move onto the next set of lies, which by the way have been debunked by everyone but FOX, and continue to believe more FOX pushed lies. Are you that thick that you can't even doubt what FOX is telling you even after they have been proven to push false narratives? That is some mental retardation on an epic scale on your part. Good luck in the Special Olympics this year. Remember, you're special too.
"Obvious" lie? I don't think so. Too many folks on the ground, early in the investigation, reported a stand down order was issued. Having the administration issuing a proclamation claiming that the administration acted properly just doesn't ring all that credible to me.
FOX "News" is hiding the truth from it's viewers, because FOX "News" is un-American. They would rather sow chaos through misinformation than agree with their political opponents in any meaningful way. By their acts of misinformation, they are harming their own country.
So even though the only source pushing this the false narrative has admitted that it was a false narrative (See Chris Wallace above) you are going to continue to believe the false narrative anyway. You know what they say about conspiracy theorists don't you? The more something is proven false, the more they believe the conspiracy theory is true. You must be absolutely sure this nutty conspiracy is written somewhere in the bible at this point. Probably in The Book of Leviti-cuz-yur-ass-is-crazy.
So hearsay is driving your opinion rather than those that have investigated this and found it to be false? Well I can't dispute hearsay nor would I lend it any credibility like you have. But that is just me. So who were these people on the ground you trust so much?
