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

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Ok those were just a small number of communications out of many. Even your own sources state this. Picking and choosing bits out of all the evidence is a disservice to the American people. And is intended to perpetuate the lies. Just the same as they will not release the drone videos. In "real time", those in the situation room got to see exactly what happened. So no matter what "bits and pieces" you pick up from the internet, the real proof is in those videos. And I see no reason why we should not have those. Concentrate on the real evidence, not what is being spoon fed to you.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by elouina

 

you seem well versed from the posts i've read so i was surprised that Feb 17 was news to you.
the link you offered, i read as i hadn't seen it before but i cannot blindly accept that timeline with what i've been reading for almost a month now.

hmmm, if that was news, try this on for curiousity sake.
the title won't pass ATS censors, so please cut/paste to search or google "Penetta Doctrine" [spelled wrong on purpose]

blackfive.net/main/2012/10/former-delta-operator-on-the-panetta-doctrine-or-also-known-as-the-dumbest-#-i-ever-heard.html

i find it odd that CNN doesn't name their source (any of them), especially when Dempsey has been quite vocal about the denial, and of course, there's the Panetta Doctine (above c/p link) and the basic presumption that 'security' shouldn't have to arrive if they are tasked with protecting the consulate, should they ??

ETA -- and here's another point that nags at me ... the primary excuse is poor intel ... well ok, since there is an existing "investigation", why aren't the participating militia members being interviewed ?? [you know, those Feb 17 guys who agreed to the post]

i'd have to spend some time looking for it, but, i do remember reading something about this "possibility" ... since we don't really know any details, i guess anything is possible.
it is said that the whole debacle was a pre-planned, coordinated kidnapping gone wrong.
there was a prisoner exchange value they wanted to exploit. (they being alCIAda)

edit on 2-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA

edit on 2-11-2012 by Honor93 because: typo

edit on 2-11-2012 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)

The striking thing to me about the CNN report was that it was done by an obscure reporter that is not one of their top tier correspondents. Makes me think the administration's spin machine found an easy mark to push their spin.

reply to post by Honor93


Yes, I still have faith in the media. And Fox news is one of the few outlets to provide accurate investigative information along with proof. Thus why there is an obvious campaign to discredit them. Fox is the last shred of American decency, and I thank them.

Myself, I am not interested in theories that others have postulated unless proof can be obtained. I like to read the facts presented to me and make my own determinations. I can be a bit stubborn in that respect, since I refuse to go along with the majority if I feel they are wrong. I am particularly interested in your idea of the lased target. And I feel that you should make an organized thread of your suspicions. Not just a post here in this already existing thread. Then we could work together in an organized effort to find the proof we need. Count me in. I am pretty good at investigative work when I have an objective.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Ok those were just a small number of communications out of many. Even your own sources state this. Picking and choosing bits out of all the evidence is a disservice to the American people. And is intended to perpetuate the lies. Just the same as they will not release the drone videos. In "real time", those in the situation room got to see exactly what happened. So no matter what "bits and pieces" you pick up from the internet, the real proof is in those videos. And I see no reason why we should not have those. Concentrate on the real evidence, not what is being spoon fed to you.

Panetta said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack [90 minutes after the attack began]. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

security.blogs.cnn.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Well, if the drones videos don't offer up much to see, then why the big deal over releasing them? Bring them on...

But I have an even bigger question. This isn't just about drones,you know. The guards that were not armed were video recording this as a function. Plus what about the surveillance cameras? AND has anyone asked about spy satellites? Years ago they touted being able to see a dime from outer space. So I imagine a terrorist and their weapons would be plenty big to catch. Eh?

reply to post by NickDC202

hmmm, thanks for pointing out that you noticed it, i wouldn't have

yes, i do find that rather striking indeed.
someone without a reputation to put on the line ... there are no better patsies.

reply to post by elouina

el, when you come back from the honeymoon, check in will ya ??
Fox is just that ... the fox capitulating outside the hen house

been there, done that ... found enough wrong to move on to a wider variety of sources and form my own opinions as theirs (fox) are somewhat off the mark.

none of the msm are on the mark ... it is sad that you don't realize it, yet.
hmmmm, msm for facts ? :LOL:
i prefer source documents, thanks anyway.

idea ?? isn't my idea, i read about it.

Two more considerations: The pulse repetition frequency code of the laser target designator and laser-guided munitions (the Hellfire missile on a Predator, for example) must be compatible, and the ground laser designators run on batteries. For the first consideration, Woods would've had to talk to any Predator or Reaper operator to make sure his designator was compatible with the missiles. For the second consideration, he wouldn't have turned on his ground laser designator and used up his battery power unless an air strike was imminent.

Prior to Tyrone Woods painting a target, he had to have been in contact with someone for quite a long time in order to work out all the technical aspects of an air strike. Panetta and Obama would've been listening to all that.

from a source that will not link here properly (ATS censors) ... search: Penetta Doctrine [spelled wrong on purpose] scroll into the comments section and read the post from - Duck Bank

if you do, you'll also find this ...

It seems pretty definite that Woods synched up with an aerial platform, thinking an air strike was about to be carried out, and then someone ordered the aerial platform to not engage. This order came only after Woods painted the target. Whoever gave the order waited until Woods had exposed his position, and then he--Panetta and/or Obama--told the pilot of the aerial platform to not fire.

Whoever told the aerial platform to not fire knew that Woods would soon be killed. Whoever gave the order would have heard the conversation between Woods and the pilot of the aerial platform, so the order giver must have heard Woods shouting on the radio, "Why aren't you firing? Fire! What are you waiting for? Hurry!"

And then Woods was killed because the attackers used their cell phones or night-vision goggles to pinpoint Woods' position, and they dropped a mortar on him.

from the same poster.

thanks for the suggestion but i don't author threads.
fyi, i'm actively posting in about 5 of them.

i'm all for a group effort toward revealing the truth, however, please invite someone who has the time and attention to captain such an adventure. sounds fun so i'd like to ride along and help out but such an effort needs a real leader

reply to post by buckrogerstime

but, but ... there's this ... one blog is as good as the next, right ?

blogs.cfr.org...
At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page. Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon’s command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military’s Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants. But the images didn’t help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

well of course not, they (CIA team on the ground) weren't receiving said images, were they ???

reply to post by elouina


now you're steppin outside the box ... good for you
not that we'll ever be privy to such information, it would be best if we just forgot about it.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NickDC202

 

hmmm, thanks for pointing out that you noticed it, i wouldn't have

yes, i do find that rather striking indeed.
someone without a reputation to put on the line ... there are no better patsies.

Like I said it was stunning that CNN with their well-connected national security correspondents such as Barbara Starr was not the reporter to share this news but, in my opinion as someone who regularly watches CNN, had a reporter I have never seen on their airwaves before sharing this story. Only to have the story this girl reported completely contradicted in a CNN article online that essentially refuted the on-air story (as mentioned on the previous page of this thread).

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Honor93

 

Yes, I still have faith in the media. And Fox news is one of the few outlets to provide accurate investigative information along with proof. Thus why there is an obvious campaign to discredit them. Fox is the last shred of American decency, and I thank them.

Myself, I am not interested in theories that others have postulated unless proof can be obtained. I like to read the facts presented to me and make my own determinations. I can be a bit stubborn in that respect, since I refuse to go along with the majority if I feel they are wrong. I am particularly interested in your idea of the lased target. And I feel that you should make an organized thread of your suspicions. Not just a post here in this already existing thread. Then we could work together in an organized effort to find the proof we need. Count me in. I am pretty good at investigative work when I have an objective.

Remember that the Watergate break-in was reported on prior to Nixon's re-election but the White House wouldn't share information; it was only after the election that Woodward & Bernstein were able to fully expose the major cover-up by the Administration. I would say that history teaches us that if Obama is elected to a second term, the full story of the White House cover-up could result in his resignation by the end of next summer. In my opinion a presidential resignation could be avoided if in the next 72 hours people just hammer home this fact: there are more people unemployed than there were when this President took office. (I think both candidates are awful but as someone who supported O in 08, I'm ready for a change of leadership here in '12),

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


You were joking right...

Presidents do have power!

The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the Constitution, implied powers, powers granted by Acts of Congress, and enormous influence and soft power from his position as leader of the United States.

Source

Source

Let's not forget that this President has shown by his actions that he is above the law and can break it with no problem because Congress and the Media Do Nothing about it!

We the People are going to show him that he's going down like a rodeo clown! Deal with it!

Here are 95 examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, and cronyism

Source

reply to post by NickDC202


Want to hear something totally ironic? Romney's father ran against Nixon (Watergate). And Romney is running against Obama (Benghazigate.)

Anyways, I too am ready for change.

reply to post by elouina

ahhhh, i do apologize elouina, i often forget the "history lesson" you mentioned above just aren't taught anymore ... but yes, you're correct and if you find that interesting, you should look further back and into what was going on in the world during the days of Prescott Bush as well.
you should be shockingly amazed at the similarities/ironies appearing all over the place.

another member shared this info with me and i'm sharing it here because it clarifies alot of what us laymen call/called a stand down order.
now hopefully, most everyone understands the difference between protocol and policy.

this article helps explain the policy of CBA or cross-border authority.
imho, it is nothing more than a fancy way of not issuing a needed order (rescue) and allowing the "standing orders" to be applied, hence, avoiding any such "stand down" conflict we're having currently.

please review it and then you and others will understand why i'm sticking to blaming BHO for this entire fiasco ... yes, the CIA too but they just don't have the authority POTUS does.
www.breitbart.com...

while i agree, reviewing the video footage could be valuable.
i seriously doubt i could bring myself to believe it hasn't been tampered with considering the tech of today and how long it's been since the incident occurred.