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

reply to post by Phoenix


Even if the enemy has no electronic means of seeing the infrared laser target designators, the operator still has to have his head up and in the line of fire to some degree. I can't see them doing that if there isn't a weapon available to home in on the signal.

I think that we are correct in our assumption that there was an available aerial weapons platform on station.

Originally posted by Sissel
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Where has the MSM been in all the fights with any Muslim country?

I am old (56) and I do remember the days when I would come home and sit in front of the news watching coverage of soldiers that were shot being dragged through the mud by their buddies

I remember watching the draft lottery when the first number picked was April 21st, which was my brothers birthday.

Seems a lot of crap is hidden, covered up, dramatized, or not paid attention to at all in my years on earth, and especially in this country.

Why was the CIA ignored only proves in my mind, that people are waking up to what a crap organization they are.

And their handlers? They pay attention to what they offer, only to their benefit.

I'm relieved to find out someone else remembers seeing the war on the news. I suspect your family and mine are the only ones that watched the news at the time. I bring this up, and no other persons of my generation seems to remember this at all.

I've been listening, watching, and reading all I can about the Libyan Massacre. So many contradictions, I'm really confused. The contradictions, to me, point to a cover up, as you and I will both remember with Watergate. It, too, was confusing at first.
Because humans lives were lost in this crises, it's very important for me to understand this, see the timeline, the cause and effect of certain actions, or, as in the case of this post, inactions. It won't bring anyone back, but in understanding, hopefully we can squelch things like this in the future.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Related?

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

Sep 14, 2012
patdollard.com...

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Your military leadership is controlled by your civilian leadership. One of those Constitution things...

TheConselor, I also remember watching the news concerning Vietnam. My father was there. I remember watching and praying. He came back only to be spit on by protesters. I remember his prayer thanking God for the release of our prisoners. I remember his continued prayers for those still missing and their families. For years Vietnam Vets fought to get information concerning these fallen missing brothers.

Likewise, many of us will continue the fight for these four families right to know.

Senators demanding to see the video.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican senators are demanding that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte wrote to President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video be declassified.

In the run-up to the presidential election, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of distorting the account of the attack on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Officials first blamed it on a mob set into motion by an anti-Islamic film. Obama administration officials have pointed to U.S. intelligence reports that showed conflicting information. Administration officials did not respond to requests for comment."

www.theblaze.com...

I wonder if Colin Powell is comfortable with his choice of Commander in Chief now?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
This is just breaking, more details on the Benghazi attack timeline, if true only furthers my outrage over the handling of security in Libya, that in my opinion created the opening and opportunity for terrorists to attack and eventually kill 4 US citizens.

www.foxnews.com

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."

edit on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:00:12 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: fix link

Yes...Fox News says "sources" tell them all kinds of things.

Any idea who these "sources" are? Do the "sources" have any "documents?

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Yes...Fox News says "sources" tell them all kinds of things.

Any idea who these "sources" are? Do the "sources" have any "documents?

Thanks for contributing...

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
This is just breaking, more details on the Benghazi attack timeline, if true only furthers my outrage over the handling of security in Libya, that in my opinion created the opening and opportunity for terrorists to attack and eventually kill 4 US citizens.

www.foxnews.com

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."

edit on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:00:12 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: fix link

A lot of people are directly blaming the President for this tragic event. The President was not directly responsible for either the attack, the deaths and security failures. The US has bases, consolates and embassies around the world. They have been attacked, and people have been killed (many more than the recent four) all over the world by terrorists. No one blamed any of the last four presidents for the deaths. Were the security failures of the USS Cole the fault of that president? What about US embassies in Africa that were bombed over the last decade or so? No one tried to pin those on Clinton, Bush, etc. Or if so, not with so much wide publicity, fervor and hatred as they have with President Obama. The mere mention of his name on Fox News sends their hosts (especially the females who speak of sex, fashion, attraction and "what turns women on" as their primary voting filters) into a hateful tirade.

Here is one of the bottom lines: if the President has a success, they minimize it and claim he cannot take credit; if the President has a failure, then they aggrandize it and claim it was entirely his fault. To have it both ways is hypocritical to the maximum. Back to the consolate attack.

Does anyone really think that the President of the United States (any President) directly oversees the security plan for each and every US installation around the world? Do you think he even is responsible for the oversight of his own security? If the answer is anything other than "NO" then a greater understanding of government, logistics and security is needed. The State Department is largely responsible for setting such policy, and I'm sure many other agencies have their hands in the process. But to the President, the details are invisible and far below his paygrade. OTHER PEOPLE ARE PAID TO OVERSEE SECURITY. And there is a reason for this. In economics, it is called "comparible advantage." Simply put, you do what you do best and other people do what they do best ---this maximizes an efficient use of skill and time.

Presidents are not supposed to waste their time on security matters. They are paid to lead our country and the free world. Security specialists are supposed to spend their time on security matters. To make a direct connection to President Obama and consolate security is *absurd.* If the people who make these assertions are picking at those feeble straws, then perhaps it shows a bit of desperation.

The events were a terrible tragedy for our country and everyone involved. However, placing blame on the President is misguided, unfounded and in extremely poor taste.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Yes...Fox News says "sources" tell them all kinds of things.

Any idea who these "sources" are? Do the "sources" have any "documents?

Thanks for contributing...

Propoganda News, er-- I mean Fox News? er-- I mean Revolving-Door-Hiring-Agency-for-Former-Bush-Whitehouse-Staffers?

Special Report Investigates: Benghazi -- New Revelations

Saturday, October 27 at 1 p.m. ET
Sunday, October 28 at 3 p.m, and 10 p.m. ET

Tune in this weekend, Bret Baier reveals explosive new details that you haven't heard.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I will be watching, and I can't wait to see what they have to say. Somehow I have a feeling that they will deliver more than Trump.

A mockery seems appropriate here. Of all the irony, an ad spalshed on the bottom of the video that said "Stand with Obama".

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by OneisOne
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Thanks for posting and I agree with you. If this holds to be true it is enraging.
The 2 guys calling for help ended up getting killed because they just didn't want to stand down and let the ambassador and staff die.
A friend and I were talking about this this other day and she thinks the government wanted Stevens dead. Which if he was involved with running guns to militants, that very well could be the case. And it could explain why the CIA operators were told to stand down. Just this administration covering up another Iran–Contra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see my posts here on the truth of the MURDER OF CHRIS STEVENS - you will find it very enlightening because it allows you to see Obama's personal hand in it all.

edit on 26-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

Then you might want to read this also

www.globalresearch.ca...

And remember who is keen on blaming Obama from the start on !
Its Romney with his scumbag liars club

Originally posted by WhySoBlinded

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by OneisOne
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Thanks for posting and I agree with you. If this holds to be true it is enraging.
The 2 guys calling for help ended up getting killed because they just didn't want to stand down and let the ambassador and staff die.
A friend and I were talking about this this other day and she thinks the government wanted Stevens dead. Which if he was involved with running guns to militants, that very well could be the case. And it could explain why the CIA operators were told to stand down. Just this administration covering up another Iran–Contra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see my posts here on the truth of the MURDER OF CHRIS STEVENS - you will find it very enlightening because it allows you to see Obama's personal hand in it all.

edit on 26-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

Then you might want to read this also

www.globalresearch.ca...

And remember who is keen on blaming Obama from the start on !
Its Romney with his scumbag liars club

We already knew Obama was running guns to Al-Qaeda. And you know what else? I have posted about this in another thread. I have coined a new phrase for everything someone does wrong.,"Romney did it".

Now in reality, Obama did it to himself. And it hurt so good. Doesn't this sound sooo sexy.... Oh yeah!!! Makes me want to run out and vote for Obama and then smoke a cigarette.

Sex, guns and rock and roll! Woo hoo!

Is the source for this story credible? Infallible? Who told the CIA to stand down? Why? Were the CIA agents trained in gunning down an entire mob of jihadists? Would they have risked making the American casualties even higher? Would they have risked unacceptably high collateral damage? Were the Americans already gone by the time the CIA offered to help? Was there some other reason why intervention by the CIA agents was either a bad idea or at least not necessarily a good one?

These questions are very important I don't know the answers to any of them. Neither do you. What I do know is that we should view with severe skepticism any suggestion that Obama personally decided not to assist the Benghazi embassy without a good reason. I highly doubt he was just like "well, we could help, but eh, I don't really see the point." That's terribly immoral and politically stupid if nothing else. Do I hope these questions about what happened get answered. Absolutely. But I'm disgusted by everyone who is foaming at the mouth and clinging to ambiguous facts.

reply to post by spaceinvaders


And was the president qualified to make the decisions that he did? There is only one person I know that can answer that question. But they are afraid to tell themself the truth. They need to stop running and to and answer our questions honestly. Obama will not release any of the info that can prove him innocent or guilty. Instead he wants an ongoing "investigation" until after the election. Well guess what? It is way too late for that. He dug himself in so deep that only the coal miners can dig him out. But guess what? He fired them all.

Originally posted by queenofswords
This whole thing stinks to high heavens. As American citizens, we should DEMAND that this president hold a press conference immediately with the White House press corps, who, btw, represent our questions....questions we, as American citizens, have the right to expect answers to.

Ambassador Stevens is dead just like Seal Team Six members that killed Osama are dead. Dead men tell no tales. Just who is "our" commander-in-chief serving?

Did you express this much outrage -- or more -- after the 9/11 attacks, given the failure of the Bush II WH, the CIA and the FBI to stop them even though they had multiple warnings and known terrorists (i.e. on terrorist watch lists) passed into the US?

Did you have this much outrage over the fact that troops sent to Iraq had inadequate body armor and under-armored vehicles?

If so, please point us to where you expressed this outrage. Otherwise, I can only imagine that you are making a big deal out of this because you don't care for the present president and there is an election in a week and a half.

Many more Americans died directly through incompetence of the Bush regime than during Obama's reign. So why the outrage against Obama? Think it is like Col. Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former assistant just recently said: Many in the GOP are racist. I would add that the same can be said of other conservative fringe groups including the Teabaggers.

reply to post by JacKatMtn



So the attack began at 9:40 pm and there was a relief force that got into town at 2:00 am, and apparently came from about 640 miles away. Then it took an hour to get ground transportation in Benghazi. So it took a little over two hours to get the forces together, and another two hours, in all likelihood, to travel there. That seems reasonable to me. Or do you expect all US forces everywhere to be constantly at the ready? This certainly wasn't the case on 9/11/2001 when US air defenses failed to stop at least three of hijacked planes.

As for the CIA HQ telling their people in the Benghazi annex to stand down, that was their call; perhaps they didn't want to risk losing them as well and wanted them to wait until reinforcements came -- which did happen, even according to the FOX news article.

You seem to fail to see or acknowledge these things and only want to paint the picture as egregious incompetence or even willful malfeasance in some sort of conspiracy to kill the ambassador, which seems like the height of ridiculousness.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Lets compare analogies in elementary school terms that even children can understand. Whoopie(Obamas dear friend) , did you succeed in summoning Mr. Rogers? Ok we are a go. Mr. Rodgers are you on standby?

A. 2001 Surprise attack -Huge massive country (US) to protect and many countries and collaborators involved -Bush closed airspace and involved fighter jets etc... - terrorists go bye bye
B. 2012 Surprise attack - Gunman turns 'Batman' screening into real-life 'horror film' - What could Obama or any president do to prevent this? - How is this any different than "A"?
c. 2012 Benghazi -a small embassy - and many requests for extra security due to notably perceived threats - many cries for help during the 7 hour episode - WH staff just sat and watched the action on live TV via drone - Seals disobeyed orders and saved all that they could - Terrorists throwing parties nearby and posting on Facebook and twitter.
D. None of the above

Now my 2 questions

1. Which was Bush responsible for?
2. Which was Obama responsible for?

Cheat sheet (answers)
1. D. None of the above
2. C. Benghozi

reply to post by 2gd2btru

I recall relatives returning from the war, they left when I was too young to remember, but it was a great thing to go to someone's house and see them home. They looked like superheroes to me at that age, they seemed larger than life.
I'd like to get to the bottom of all this Libyan business, what people knew and when they knew it. I can't abide the idea itching at the back of my head that those poor men were used as pawns. I'm furious that they tried to cover up immediately by insinuating that people were protesting a film not even viewed by 2 dozen people.
Also, in speaking of the film, the man who produced the film is still incarcerated, is he not? What were the charges brought against him?

reply to post by TheCounselor


The man, who was not in jail the day before, was incarcerated for probation violations. I have said the same thing all along. I do not agree with the mans film, but we are talking freedom of speech here.

Plus, he is in jail all because of Obamas lie. I say if one man goes to jail because of a presidents lie, the president should be impeached. The thing is that even if Obama says it was "under investigation", the man is in jail beacuse of Obamas "factual" (at that time) statement. If it was in fact under investigation, than no movie should have been brought up. Just the same as terrorism was not brought up. And the man should not have been incarcerated.

My question for all Americans... If you were put into jail for something found out later to be made up, would you want impeachment of that president? Americans, all for one and one for all. United we stand! Color should not apply here, just principles!

Every music video that I posted has meaning. listen to the words and pay VERY CLOSE attention to the name of the songs, the people, and their actions if any. If Obama wants a modern campaign, then he has it! Mine just happens to be set to music.