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

After the most recent Fox News report on Friday, Obama signed an executive order at 4 PM that day. But Benghazi doesn't exist to the MSM, so you wouldn't know this, right? Anyways, it deals with handling of US security differently. What no czars? Although I feel things worked pretty well before his defense budget cuts.

So is he saying this is what was wrong before Benghazi happened? And that we need to actually talk to the locals to know what is going on? Who would have though of this? Ingenious! Or am I interpreting this wrong?

Now am I getting this right? They are creating a new council that will cost the US citizens even more money? To get us back to the security level that we used to have before Obama screwed things up?

Executive Order -- Establishing the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council

Section 1. Policy. The purpose of this order is to maximize the Federal Government's ability to develop local partnerships in the United States to support homeland security priorities. Partnerships are collaborative working relationships in which the goals, structure, and roles and responsibilities of the relationships are mutually determined. Collaboration enables the Federal Government and its partners to use resources more efficiently, build on one another's expertise, drive innovation, engage in collective action, broaden investments to achieve shared goals, and improve performance. Partnerships enhance our ability to address homeland security priorities, from responding to natural disasters to preventing terrorism, by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources.

Obama spent an hour on the phone on 9-11-12 for business unrelated to Benghazi. During the evening of 9-11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recieved a call from Obama and was not amused by what he considered election tactics. I guess we all know where Obamas mind was on 9-11. That and getting to vegas the next day.

The issue has taken on a decidedly political tone with Netanyahu's call coming at the height of the presidential election season.

The prime minister told CNN that he knew people "are trying to draw me into the American election, and I'm not going to do that."

"But I will say that we value, we cherish the bipartisan support for Israel in the United States, and we're supported by Democrats and Republicans alike," he said.

"This is not an electoral issue. It is not based on any electoral consideration. I think that there's a common interest of all Americans, of all political persuasions, to stop Iran. This is a regime that is giving vent to the worst impulses that you see right now in the Middle East."

Netanyahu urges U.S. to set 'red line' for Iran

Obama Discusses Iran Nuclear Threat With Netanyahu in Phone Call



Addendum to my previous post:

In the news related to my post about Obamas executive order, the talk of the town is that this will bring more loss of freedoms for Americans. And will bring the federal government into state business. I am off to bed, but I think we need to look into this a bit closer.

Originally posted by elouina
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

edit on 29-10-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)

elouina I'm shocked that no one has replied to this post calling you completely reckless, only politically motivated and how much you must hate our dear President by being so irresponsible to share an article from such a right wing source as the Associated Press which is known for their anti-Obama propaganda. LMAO

Great find! Hopefully this will silence some of these people who don't understand the lies being told to us.

reply to post by TTAA2012
These things are always done for a reason and people are expendable.No different from security forces/police receiving bomb warnings from IRA which are then either not passed on or passed on with incorrect info to create civilian casualties to politicaly undermine the IRA cause.Someone somewhere makes the decision to sacrifice people to manipulate public opinion which then allows them to take some form of action which was pre planned but would be seen as immoral without the just cause of the "deaths" which were allowed to take place

reply to post by elouina


OMG there was an hour he wasn’t siting in a room watching a screen doing nothing as people have said. Do you have a timeline on if he went to the bathroom that day?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well an important phone call would be fine. This one was routine and for election purposes to get jewish votes. Obvioulsy this phone call and his next day visit to Vegas was his most important priority. Otherwise Americans would not be dead.

reply to post by elouina


Sorry I disagree on the issue that Americans wouldn’t be dead. I am not ready to assume such things based on speculation, theory’s, and armchair generals.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by elouina

 

Sorry I disagree on the issue that Americans wouldn’t be dead. I am not ready to assume such things based on speculation, theory’s, and armchair generals.

I have no horse in this presidential campaign, frankly I feel both candidates are awful and will both continue to erode American's rights explicitly stated in the United States Constitution without following the explicit process outlined in said document to alter it.

That being said the Associated Press reporting cited earlier is crystal clear and come from an unquestionably credible media outlet.

First and foremost if this attack occurred at any other time that wasn't right before an election and resulted in the senseless murder of an American Ambassador and was followed by a clear misinformation campaign and the truth finally being exposed, it would be the centerpiece of the news and the outrage by every American calling for the truth would be on every front page of every newspaper. The first American Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979 is a HUGE story meriting the attention and an investigation that will not only explain how this happen and expose the cover-up following the attack and also lead to assuring that all of the Americans who dedicate their life to foreign service are safe in the future.

However because of the unfortunate timing of this attack, although there is a bipartisan call for an immediate investigation of the attack and cover-up and explanation of why the administration led a campaign of lies which they tried to sell to the American public the response from the administration and president's campaign follows the following patter:
1) Continue the lie
2) When the lie can't be continued anymore accuse the right of politicizing the issue
3) As the truth comes out in media, blame one or two of the countless media outlets reporting the administration's lies and call them right wing partisans
4) Question the sources of the information the most credible media outlets are reporting
5) Accuse people who are vocal about the critical need for the truth to come out as being racists who are afraid of a black president

Don't get me wrong the right does the same thing when attacked and for 5) you could change racist to mormon-phobic and change black to Mormon.

reply to post by NickDC202


You really seem to be assuming a lot about me on this issue.

I can’t say I even bothered to address your political affiliation because on this issue I don’t think it should matter.

What I am concerned about is what I pointed out which is the speculation, theories, and armchair generals throwing so much into the wind metaphorically and seeing what sticks as acceptable scenario’s.

I have read where people have said we should have used AC-130s never mind that there were people missing and opening fire would have been just as likely to hit them.

I have read people saying we should have sent in troops never mind that the rapid response team was scrambled and were still hours away and there were conflicting reports coming in.

How about we should have fired a hellfire from the first drone but we still have the problem of where are these missing people.

Maybe troops should have been sent in but it is obvious that Intel was less than reliable and when I think of the area and situation unfolding the Battle of Mogadishu comes to mind.

Then there is the claim that support was told to stand down and every source I have read all imply this is alleged and hasn’t been confirmed but the accusation is out there. Let’s say it’s true. Question who ordered the stand down? Why? Who were the people told to stand down? Soldiers? CIA? Security forces? Also at what time was this order given? Was it before the report was made that the attack had ended or after. Also who made the report and why was there a report the attack had ended.

Let’s look at Intel. One armed drone was on seen two and a half hours after the attack began so what was the visibility? Were the buildings on fire and were they putting off smoke. Four hours after the attack a second unarmed drone replaced the first. We know there were two CIA operatives on scene in communication with the Washington by phone or some other means. What could they see, where were they? Were they the ones giving conflicting Intel?

It seems there are four options on the table. For a few hours there was a hellfire on site and from what I understand an AC-130 within range which is a proverbial sledgehammer trying to hit flies and there is a rapid response team still hours away. There is always a fourth option but I can't say what it would be.

Last question would be did the two generals that were with the POTUS recommend a strike of any sort which from reports I know they said they were not willing to send in more Americans without better Intel. You should really look up the Battle of Mogadishu. In my opinion Benghazi had eerie similarities as far as environment, temperament of locals, what the mission objective would have been, and equipment. The differences that stand out is in Mogadishu we had the benefit of planning and recon Intel in the area but it still went to hell. I definitely agree we could have done things different in Benghazi but I also know if done incorrectly things would have gone from bad to worse to put it lightly.

You see I do not care what political side anyone is on and these are the questions I have about Benghazi. My mind is far from being made up on the issue of course I do not watch the news so I haven’t been blasted by the hyperbole that’s been put out there. My information comes from articles and threads on the web because I am out of the country. I generally do not take anything as factual on this until I have seen it in two or three different sources so in a way I am insulated from this and probably see it a different way than most in the US.

Anyway I hope this explains a little of where I am coming from on this. I always get out of the country during elections I just send in my absentee ballot before leaving and escape the political madness.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by elouina

 

Sorry I disagree on the issue that Americans wouldn’t be dead. I am not ready to assume such things based on speculation, theory’s, and armchair generals.

But more then willing to attack Bush for his "lack of response" when he was reading to a group of kindergartners during the 9/11 attacks in New York right? Cause you guys were ready to crucify him for that......

Yet heres a man who was watching this LIVE, did nothing, Takes a call non related, did nothing......watches more.........THEN GOES TO BED..........

I love the passe attitude amongst liberals in regards to this.........and the complete double standard......

reply to post by Grimpachi

What I am concerned about is what I pointed out which is the speculation, theories, and armchair generals throwing so much into the wind metaphorically and seeing what sticks as acceptable scenario’s.

Again.......have you watched the Hearings at all? Why do all the people denouncing the claims REFUSE to watch the hearing of any information that came out of it?

Cause its not just arm chair generalling.........they testify to what was happening......and what SHOULD have happened..........and what DIDNT happen.........and the resources they had to handle it.......

So you can obfuscate, you can try and deflect.........you can call names.........

The fact is.........the FACTS are out...and continue to come out....and you and others who have decided to take a stance of willful ignorance on this can chose to deny them all you want......it doesnt change a damn thing....

The facts are the facts.........you can try and feign moral superiority about this whole thing and decide not to admit what he did was horrible and negligent......

Or you can take in all the information and do the RIGHT thing, and call for everyone involved to be held accountable.....

For all of you on ATS who have chosen to turn a blind eye to this......and then go around spouting Deny Ignorance.........and refuse to see the conspiracy behind THIS one RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.......you look like hypocrites.....

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I believe you are the one calling people names here. If you didn't understand what I wrote then it is not I who has a problem. And no I am not watching the hearings and the reason would be obvious to you if you had comprehended my post. You assume too much.

I will get the news on this matter although it may not be as fast as you like. Not that I care what you like.


Edit to add

Perhaps instead of going off on your frothing rant you could have answered the questions I made sense you seem to be in the know. Instead I believe this is nothing more than a political issue for you to try and score points.

If you had read my post in its entirety you would see I have long since voted if I had not already done so your insults and accusations would have been counterproductive because that kind of dialog does not sway me.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grimpachi my most sincere apologies if my post seemed too directed at you rather than my own disgust with the way our country has become so politically polarized and cable "news" outlets and radio are directionalized so that individuals can and do live in a media vacuum in which messaging, "reporting" is tailored to their general beliefs and facts are less important than a storyline. I mention this not because I in any way feel that you live in such a vacuum, but in this thread have plethora of posts from other folks on both ends of the political spectrum whose back and forth is purely political and not a non-partisan quest for the truth. Again, I am truly sorry if you felt that I was aiming my words at you; I assure you that was not the case.

Your post (www.abovetopsecret.com...) raised a lot of good questions and highlighted a lot of things that people have said in posts that personally I would consider to fall into the category of "things that a proper investigation would reveal" and potential responses/reactions that I do not have the facts of the situation or military knowledge to agree or disagree with.

It is clear that the Executive branch engaged in a calculated misinformation campaign and lied to the American public about why the consulate in Benghazi was attacked, how Americans who dedicated their life to foreign service died and made this a left/right issue when countless elected officials from both the left and the right raised concerns. Furthermore, it is crystal clear that the Executive branch's fictional tale which drove an obscure video to go viral on the Internet at an unseen pace led to the subsequent protests/attempted attacks on American interests throughout the region and placed the lives of our foreign service officers in grave danger. These are the facts I know.

This attack and subsequent cover-up deserve a proper investigation if only to honor the memory of those who died and reveal the truth to the American public.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The coverage (or lack thereof) of the first round of hearings were the victim of a busy news cycle. As this story is unfolding, especially with Senator McCain's comment's on Sunday's Face the Nation washington.cbslocal.com... 2/10/29/mccain-obama-might-be-conducting-massive-cover-up-with-libya-attack/ ; the national media is focused on a storm hitting the East Coast.

Well, well, well... look what a little digging netted. Here is an article from kuna.net (Kuwait News Agency) quoting General Ham. This just gets more interesting all the time.

from 4/23/12

"General Carter Ham warned Monday against a real danger in the African continent resulted from smuggling of large quantities of weapons out of Libya."

Arms Smuggling from Libya Threatens Africa--Africom Commander

reply to post by NickDC202


Thank you for your response and I appreciate your tone. Apology accepted and I see now it wasn’t fully directed at me. But thank you none the less.
Every 4 years it seems the nation goes crazy I am glad to see some are still sane. I got lucky this time because my job dictated I leave the country so I am simply staying put till after the election.

With the attack on Benghazi I feel everything is so politically charged right now that it’s hard to sort fact from opinion. I am very interested in this issue because I am prior service and the similarities between this and Mogadishu it hits home for me. I still like to come on ATS to look around and I usually find it amusing but on this issue there have been so much disinformation that it is kind of sickening. I am not the type to need information right away so for me I am letting the dust clear to get the best picture. It amazes me how this is being portrayed by so many. As I said I probably have a different perspective on it because I am out of the news bubble opinion outlets.

I am interested to see if there is a cover up or if it was bad Intel. That has been sort of confusing because there were protests that broke out everywhere about the same time but what’s logical to me may not be seen the same way by others.

Anyway thanks.

BTW even though I am away from it all I still get caught up in the partison stuff on here sometimes because it can be fun I just do not feel this should be a partison issue.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

What I am concerned about is what I pointed out which is the speculation, theories, and armchair generals throwing so much into the wind metaphorically and seeing what sticks as acceptable scenario’s.

Again.......have you watched the Hearings at all? Why do all the people denouncing the claims REFUSE to watch the hearing of any information that came out of it?

Cause its not just arm chair generalling.........they testify to what was happening......and what SHOULD have happened..........and what DIDNT happen.........and the resources they had to handle it.......

Actuallty I found many interesting facts exposed at the hearings. I am not certain I have the strength to scan throught them yet again for key points. I guess I should have taken notes. Besides, folks should watch them and make their own decisions about what parts are most important to them. I just want the truth for me and everyone else that truely wants to hear it. "Wants to hear it", is the key phrase.

Grimpachi, why don't you just watch the two looooong videos? I tell you what, I can offer some quick viewing advice. Every person that speaks for the first time gets to make a 5 min speech. So once they begin, scan ahead 5 min exactly. Until you honestly watch the videos, how can you post here and say what is true and what is false? I will make it easy for you, here is the link yet again.

The Security Failures of Benghazi

Yesterday, the State Department began the process of coming clean about what occurred in Benghazi. They made two witnesses available for interviews with this committee and, for the first time, publicly acknowledged the truth many had long suspected. Contrary to earlier assertions by Administration officials, there was no protest. The attack had nothing to do with a video made in California. The attack was a brutal and coordinated assault by terrorists on the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. I appreciate Secretary Clinton’s efforts to cooperate with this investigation. The steps she has taken to have those working under her tell the truth about what occurred is an important step in the right direction.

It is tragic when anybody dies doing their duty but there needs to be some perspective, 4 people died. Coalition troops die daily in 2 pointless wars and they are not paid danger money.

Value for life has to be placed on all people who die needlessly. 8017 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.. Get angry over that. Each one of those could have been saved too, had our war-mongering leaders not sent them to the slaughter.. Our leaders have always watched our troops die from afar in their comfy offices, there has been no change in policy.

reply to post by rolfharriss

Well if using perspective is the standard, we can't use Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam to complain.

Many millions were killed in WWII. Complain about that.

Makes a shooting in a theater in Colorado look like a day in the park.

reply to post by elouina


The reason I am not watching the videos is because I am not in America as I have stated in two posts in this forum on this page above your post. For those who do not already know the internet does not run as fast in every part of the world like it does in the US. A 5 minute speech can take 30 minutes to buffer depending on the traffic and near impossible when it starts cuting out. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

I would love to have a fast reliable connection here but I probably wouldn’t be on ATS if I did.