CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

reply to post by Swills


Actually one drone replaced the other.

I like to look at the facts and you are making a lot of assertions based on your opinion. Cherry picking if you will. You even contest the time of the drones being there. I have my own opinions on what the Intel would have been like based on my personal experiences so I guess we will just have to leave this as we agree to disagree with no hard feelings.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills

 

Actually one drone replaced the other.

I like to look at the facts and you are making a lot of assertions based on your opinion. Cherry picking if you will. You even contest the time of the drones being there. I have my own opinions on what the Intel would have been like based on my personal experiences so I guess we will just have to leave this as we agree to disagree with no hard feelings.

I'm well aware one drone is said to have replaced another. It could have gone down that way or there could have been 2 drones at once. Point is, many reports are conflicting and tbh a lot of half truths and lies have come from it.

You're not the only one who likes fact and my only assertion is that I believe there were at least 1 drone in the skies above filming and waiting for the attack. Sure, I can believe that another drone came in to replace the other so it could refuel. Makes sense since I believe it was there the entire day waiting for the attack. That's my one assertion into this whole mess.

Whatever you think the intel was, the fact is Washington DC was fully aware of the threats made against the compound, especially for 9/11, the past attacks, and they had a drone watching the battle at some point. When the drone got there is really irrelevant since the attack lasted for so long. Two CIA ex USN SEALs fought and died that night against the terrorist and you can bet your last dollar those CIA agents were in contact with the USA during the seven hour event. No aid was given by the USA. So obviously a stand down order was given.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

Sounds like there is a possibility that the U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo on the same day might have been arranged between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood to get the movie protest established and set to go viral. The Cairo embassy was warned of an attack and issued the apology statement that Obama claims did not originate from him. The Cairo Embassy attack then laid the foundation for all following riots including Benghazi. The President tried like a screamin' demon to make the Libya movie protest story stick.

This is a very good analysis and a very plausible explanation for otherwise unexplainable behavior and ineptitide. In this way they can demonize the religious right, stir up trouble in North African muslim countries, and create the hatred for America that is classically leftist style.
Unfortunately, some left leaning people see obama's warmongering as a betrayal of the anti war stance but this is not the case of a true leftist. True leftists use anti war causes to further whatever agenda they may have but they are not truly against war and will use war whenever they feel like it.
That would explain why Obama ran on things like shutting down Gitmo and ending the wars, but did neither one. He just replaced Iraq with Libya. And now trouble is stirred up in Egypt and North Africa.

Report: Obama Watched Libya Attack Live

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday on Fox News that sources told him President Barack Obama was in the White House Situation Room watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as it unfolded. Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate, recording and transmitting the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. “This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said. “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

www.israelnationalnews.com...-sWClnY

reply to post by Swills


You even state there is a lot of conflicting evidence. I disagree with your assertion that the drones were there the whole time and I think it is important to know when they were there. My idea of good Intel and yours differs when we are talking about two operatives in the area. Like where were they what could they see. Obviously they wouldn’t be with the attackers phoning this in.

On the subject of Facebook threats I need more information as to how often this occurs and as I stated I would like some solid proof that stand down orders were given and it would be pertinent to know just who issued those orders if they were given.

I am glad there is an investigation on this but I think it will show a different picture from what the media is portraying.

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by NickDC202

 

You know I just had a revelation... That Candy Crowley business during the previous debate seems like it was meant to intimidate Romney from bringing up Libya again at the later foreign policy debate. Was she in on the cover-up? All along it almost seemed planned to me. But I kept saying nah.... Now I am not too certain. CNN's lack of coverage is just a bit too much right now. This cover-up may end up being even bigger than we imagined. Is it possible that CNN has turned into Obamas Pravda?

I've followed Candy's reporting closely since 1995 and can say without reservation that she has absolutely no agenda. She is a fine journalist whose biggest flub came at the worst possible time because she was in front of the largest viewing audience in her career. She was admittedly wrong in terms of her statement on Libya and has rightfully so been criticized for this; but by no means is she partisan.

CC is a well known Liberal shill and a profound LIAR - and she conspired with her boss and with BHO to rig the debate........but it was actually a very big FAIL.

reply to post by IAMTAT


As I stated in another thread with all due respect to Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer he is no longer in the loop his clearance for such things had been pulled a long time ago and on top of that he is getting second or third hand information without naming his sources.

I have served under many 0-4 LT.Colonels and would rather be hearing from at least a General on this matter and preferably one that is still in the military.

reply to post by Swills


Remember Panetta was appointed as CIA director, then the admin made him switch places with the real commander of our armed forces. And why'd he do that?
An article states an admin official says,

It is “the strongest possible team to exercise our strategies and policies,” said an official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, adding: “I stress the word ‘team.’ ”

The changes are scheduled to take place gradually over the summer. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will retire on June 30 and, assuming Senate confirmation, Panetta will take over on July 1, according to the senior administration briefer.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Here's another story of why Obama chose Panetta to replace Gates

Obama is betting he can — and in fact there may have been no better alternative than a former congressman, budget chief and White House chief of staff wise in the ways of Washington.

www.politico.com...

ok so now we've got a former Congressman running the military on an administration desire to cut the military budget. Sounds like a plan Stan. Now we know the admin wanted to cut the budget and still look like they are tough on militants.
Sure worked out great huh.

Although I've just read in another article that Gates recommended Panetta to replace him as Sec of Defense. For this reason, I would suggest that this is all part of a continuing effort by the Shadow Govt to manipulate things for their Hegelian "managed conflict".
Did Obama in fact do this because he thought it was a good idea or because this is what the Shadow govt wants?

Ok I have to admit that I dozed off a few times while watching the very long review committee hearing. Zzzzzz.... I am trying to go back and pick up the pieces that I missed for something good.

Well before 911, In Tripoli Libya, the US hired Libyan locals were all leaving. Since they heard that there would be up coming terrorist attacks. This is in the video 1 at somewhere before the 1 hour 30 min mark. You may want to watch a bit before that mark since it is intense. Additional security was admittedly flat out denied to our ambassador.

Also a bit before that point in the video, I learned that Benghazi was temporarily "overstaffed" by 2 guards. Since they were there after assisting with our ambassadors travel. And would have been leaving. So the pitiful amount of guards would have been 3. One was assigned as a driver? Did I catch this part right?

And the unarmed guards were just there to record. This was much earler in the video. Someone here commented that the guards were caught video recording the events. So our ATS poster was correct.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


To put those budget cuts into perspective.

Obama: In his latest budget, the president proposed spending roughly $5.8 trillion on the Pentagon's base budget over the next decade. In 2022, that means defense would account for roughly 11% of total federal spending.

"Obama is essentially reducing defense spending a little and then keeping it flat over the next decade," said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

Doing so would still leave the Pentagon with funding levels higher than they were under President Clinton and during the first term of President George W. Bush, noted Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings' 21st Century Defense Initiative

Barring legislative changes, the Pentagon's base budget is on track to fall to 12% of the federal budget by 2022, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. It would also fall to 2.4% of the size of the overall economy from 3.4% today. The anticipated withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and spending restraints set by last year's Budget Control Act, are the main drivers.

money.cnn.com...

"What If America" A Wake Up Call...

So now the Obama Administration has declared the Benghazi consulate surveillance tapes TOP SECRET!
Transparency, indeed! The only thing transparent about THIS administration...is the facade covering up the fact that it is guilty of lying to the American people.

John McCain says the Obama Administration has Classified Benghazi Surveillance Tapes Top Secret!

At the townhall in Yuma, Arizona today, Senator John McCain said that the Obama administration has classified the surveillance tapes from the Benghazi scandal as "Top Secret". This makes the tapes unavailable to the public and most legislators. Senator McCain seemed skeptical about the necessity of classifying the tapes.

www.freerepublic.com...

Hillary is still here...Panetta is still here...Susan Rice is still here...Obama is still here...So who has Obama actually FIRED over the Benghazi debacle?
Two Generals...and an Admiral!

reply to post by IAMTAT

Yep.
Nothing to hide here.
Move along people, nothing to see here.
At least we don't know what is here to see until we do a complete investigation.

The only way to swallow that plateful of crap is with a gallon of hi-test Koolaid!

reply to post by IAMTAT


Damn... if this doesn't tell you a cover up is happening right before our very eyes. Yet still the Obama apologists will make their excuses.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Then you will like this part in the oversight committee hearings. It was a great moment to see justice prevail for some other "top secret" documents. Start at the 1 hour 10 min 20 second mark in the first video. And get ready to jump out of your seat and wave your flag. Some of my words may be out of order or off, but I was typing dictation style from a video.

House Oversight Committee Hearings on Benghazi

Ambassador Kennedy was trying to claim a whole bunch of unclassified papers were "top secret" due to their nature. And would not release them to the public. But would release them to the committee AFTER the hearing. After going back and forth and getting nowhere, Chairman Issa said, "I agree with you AND.... With that I move to enter this document from the date 9-11-12 to the record." (Repeat this with many documents.) Cummings said, "excuse me Mr chairman, you already have those documents?" Chairman Issa said, "in real time a whistle blower has provided us with these documents". Etc... "And it is the findings of the chair that these documents are responsive, unclassified, and appropriate for discovery." Etc.... "Ambassador Kennedy, I don't like doing this". Etc...

Yipee!!!!!!!!! Justice prevails!!!! (Insert me and my family doing the "wave" to this video here. ) You really do need to watch this! Obviously there is more good stuff than I had the energy to type.

reply to post by elouina


I think it is interesting that this exchange took place at House Committee hearings involving what are described as documents that are of an embarrassing nature, but nothing was ever heard about this on the news.

A wwhistleblower provided the committee chair with copies of documents that the administration wanted to have classified, they are of an embarrassing nature....and it doesn't make the news?

Wtf.

Sorry wrong thread.

It is troubling seeing the images of the President grandstanding as if he's being hands-on dealing with the weather event impacting the East Coast and juxtaposing it with the knowledge that when American's who dedicated their lives to foreign service were being savagely murdered in Libya and he heard their cries for help he did nothing, then after a good night sleep he went to Vegas to raise money for his re-election. I guess it's clear that his loyalties are only to himself.

Just found an account of the events by Libyan witnesses. There is a lot more interesting information, but I can't quote the entire article. I think if you are interested in the subject of Benghazi, this would be a good read. Gee who would think that we would get more information from another country vs our own government? Plus it sounds to me like the Ansar al-Shariah created a cordoned off war zone. We should have let them have their war.

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) - It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack