"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

I was hoping that you could actually post the quote from 'ambassador' of tiger droppings itself. We already had the link.

I'm not sure I understand the request. This is a thread started by "Ambassador" on the FSU Sports forums:
www.tigerdroppings.com...

In his first post, "Ambassador" does indeed quote two sources, but those sources have nothing to do with the "interesting rumor" he heard. They are just news stories to provide context:
www.stripes.com...
www.nytimes.com...

If you follow the article from the OP, it links to a Washington Times article that then quotes this Tiger Droppings thread.

reply to post by buckrogerstime


The Washington Times article is a cut and paste of 'ambassador's' post, and is attributed as such. It was presented as nothing more than speculation.

With the classification of most of the info about this case, we are limited mostly to speculation.

One thing that we don't have to speculate about is the fact that the Obama Administration mislead the American people about this affair from the beginning.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

The Washington Times article is a cut and paste of 'ambassador's' post, and is attributed as such. It was presented as nothing more than speculation.

With the classification of most of the info about this case, we are limited mostly to speculation.

One thing that we don't have to speculate about is the fact that the Obama Administration mislead the American people about this affair from the beginning.

I guess I wonder if this thread would have had the same "oomph" if it had been called *Anonymous Caterer and LSU Sports Fanatic Hears Interesting Rumor About U.S. General*

Also, you actually still need to speculate about the White House's deceit since it has been completely unsubstantiated so far in ways that I listed on the prior page. Not that I'm saying they haven't been deceitful. Just that no one on this site is able to show it in any meaningful way whatsoever, especially since no one - including the government - has a coherent and compelling theory of the entire attack.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

i read the previous page and didn't see any such thing.

still need to speculate about the White House's deceit since it has been completely unsubstantiated so far in ways that I listed on the prior page

could you be more specific ?
how exactly is the WH deceit unsubstantiated ?

did Obama lie about the "terrorist" aspect of this attack ? yep
did the WH/Obama specifically indicate a movie was the cause ? yep
did the WH/Obama intentionally mislead the public, service members and those soldiers in need ? yes
and, did the WH/Obama fail in the responsibility to protect our citizens abroad then lie about it ? yep

so, aside from all the speculation about particulars, how can you possibly think the WH deceit is anything but in our face consistently ?

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Do me a favor please. Don't talk or post anymore, just watch this. It is only a few minutes of time. Watch it and tell me that we are not being lied to. Tell me there is no obfuscation going on here. Remember these are employees of the DoS. They work for the President. Try to have an open mind.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Interesting video. I had not seen this before. You don't articulate your "interpretation" of it, but I suppose you're asserting this is hard evidence that the State Dept - and the White House - were aware of the nature of the attack on the night that it occurred.

I believe you're confusing two types of knowledge: 1) knowledge of the identity of the assailants and the motivation for the attack; and 2) knowledge of locations, embassy personnel, and movements within the compound. You're assuming - without any evidence - that people within the compound somehow had extensive and precise knowledge about the nature and source of the attack during an extremely confusing (and traumatic) sequence of events.

Imagine you're one of the embassy personnel in "constant communication" with Ms. Lamb.

Would you tell her, "The embassy is under attack. Even though I'm currently being assaulted with grenades, AK-47s, and mortars - and even though I have no idea who is attacking me or what is motivating the attack - I can tell you with absolute certainty that it has nothing to do with the other huge protests occurring in North Africa right now."

Or would you say, "The embassy is under attack. Here are the people in the embassy, where we are located, where we plan on moving to, what we are being attacked with, how we are evacuating, etc."

I already discussed this previously and provided sources, but I may as well reiterate: 1) eyewitnesses at the compound (correctly or incorrectly) stated that the assailants told them that the attack was motivated by the Innocence of Muslims video; and 2) the most recent U.S. intelligence about the attack continues to state that Ansar al-Shariah selected that day to exploit the instability fomented by the Cairo protest.

Originally posted by Honor93
how exactly is the WH deceit unsubstantiated ?

did Obama lie about the "terrorist" aspect of this attack ? yep
did the WH/Obama specifically indicate a movie was the cause ? yep
did the WH/Obama intentionally mislead the public, service members and those soldiers in need ? yes
and, did the WH/Obama fail in the responsibility to protect our citizens abroad then lie about it ? yep

so, aside from all the speculation about particulars, how can you possibly think the WH deceit is anything but in our face consistently ?

Perhaps you should refresh your memory regarding the definition of "substantiated." It's generally not easy to convince people you're correct with three Yeps and a Yes. My post on the last page includes several articles addressing your questions, but here's a quick repetitive overview:

1) Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" on 9/12 and 9/13.
2) Eyewitnesses at the scene claimed the movie was the cause, and U.S. intelligence continues to state that Ansar al-Shariah chose that day in part because of the Cairo protest.
3) I don't know what you're specifically referring to here.
4) An e-mail from embassy personnel to the White House, State, Defense, and the FBI stated that Stevens was in a "safe haven" with security personnel and that the Libyan militia was providing additional security. Forty-nine minutes later, a second e-mail stated that firing had stopped, the compound had been cleared, and a response team was on the site.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

An e-mail from embassy personnel to the White House, State, Defense, and the FBI stated that Stevens was in a "safe haven" with security personnel and that the Libyan militia was providing additional security. Forty-nine minutes later, a second e-mail stated that firing had stopped, the compound had been cleared, and a response team was on the site.

Keep in mind that you are relying on the very tiny bit of official info that has been released.

We know that two emails do not constitute what the White House knew at the time.

Why do you suppose that they aren't releasing the other info that they have that would (according to them, they did everything that they could, so any info they have should) vindicate their total lack of response to the attack?

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

An e-mail from embassy personnel to the White House, State, Defense, and the FBI stated that Stevens was in a "safe haven" with security personnel and that the Libyan militia was providing additional security. Forty-nine minutes later, a second e-mail stated that firing had stopped, the compound had been cleared, and a response team was on the site.

Keep in mind that you are relying on the very tiny bit of official info that has been released.

We know that two emails do not constitute what the White House knew at the time.

Why do you suppose that they aren't releasing the other info that they have that would (according to them, they did everything that they could, so any info they have should) vindicate their total lack of response to the attack?

Definitely agree with this sentiment. Only thing I will add is that we do not know what the White House itself received beyond the three e-mails. We do know the State Dept received flash messages.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

are you serious ?? how does answering my own questions reference substantiated or not ?

why aren't you disputing the answers given ??
perhaps because you can't.

you open with ...

Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" on 9/12 and 9/13

and at this point, just about EVERYONE knows that's a bold-faced lie.
[it's not surprising that you fail to include a link]

your post on a previous page is propaganda as usual but you want to flaunt it as fact ??
leave it to a newb

eyewitnesses at the scene were Feb 17 insurgents or are you skipping that on purpose ?
security at the consulate was also provided by Feb 17 members who abandoned their post at the onset of the attack.

so, which of those "eyewitnesses" didn't participate in the attack ?
and, which of those eyewitnesses defended the consulate during the attack ?

sorry, but you're stated eyewitnesses don't count for much.
btw, it has been reported that a small group of about 20 students had gathered nearby to conduct a protest, but, how close is nearby ??
a block, a mile, next city, next door ?? how close were they, really ?

why don't you know what "intentionally misled" means ??
Obama did and continues to intentionally mislead the public, the service members and the agent who tased a target in preparation of air support that never arrived, so what's your point besides obfuscation here ?

hmmmm, emails huh ?? ok, you keep believin it.
question ... where are the FLASH mssgs supposedly sent/received ??
maybe ... "classified" ... as is often the excuse.

did it ever occur to you that emails are less than evidence of anything ?
emails can be and often are, manipulated.
emails can be and often are, incomplete/inaccurate.
emails can be and often are, faked.

so, you trust the "emails" do ya ??
well, for myself and many others, when you pit email vs live video feed ... email rates second every time.

reply to post by Honor93


Just curious, if youhave you seen this yet? You really, really want to watch this one! In fact I might just make a thread with it if you don't beat me to it.

An impassioned Brian Lilley tells us what we already know: that the mainstream media is lying when they report that the mohammadan riots are a response to the film "The Innocence of muslims."

FYI:

Buckrogerstime joined us on 10-31-12

Interesting to note that we have a newbie with so much propaganda.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

as i cannot view video on this machine --> no, i haven't watched any video of this debacle, yet.
all my info comes from the written word ... and bunches of them.

go for the thread build ... i don't do that either ... not enough time to maintain them properly.

now that it's the weekend, i may get to view a few of them at a friend's place but i'm not all that interested in the hype and supposition they often contain.

any chance you'd care to summarize for us less techy types ??

[yes, i noticed ... they are getting much easier to spot]
btw, i wonder why they don't realize their sudden appearance only lends credence to the theories presented

i have one other question ... if the airstrike was expected to arrive from the Spectre, where are the interviews with her or her crew ??

because i've unknowingly posted less than "allowed" links previously, please google/search the following for additional details ... "Libyan guards recount what happened in Benghazi"
[edit to add: the article i read was "Time/World" article]
gotta go for now but i'll be back laters.


since i'm well aware Time has the reputation as a propaganda generator, this story could be completely false, then again, if there is even a speck of truth to it, well then, it sheds another light on many questions, doesn't it ?

the BIG question that keeps resounding in my mind is this ... why did the POTUS wait until a scheduled meeting to discuss the details of an ATTACK against Americans ??

does this mean our citizens abroad are on their own unless there is a high-level meeting scheduled where such details would be discussed ??

what is the point of having a Terrorism Response team if they aren't going to be consulted ??

while the story above may be less than a truthful accounting, it does poke quite a few holes in the current story being released to the public at large.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

you open with ...

Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" on 9/12 and 9/13

and at this point, just about EVERYONE knows that's a bold-faced lie.
[it's not surprising that you fail to include a link]


hmmmm, emails huh ?? ok, you keep believin it.
question ... where are the FLASH mssgs supposedly sent/received ??
maybe ... "classified" ... as is often the excuse.

did it ever occur to you that emails are less than evidence of anything ?
emails can be and often are, manipulated.
emails can be and often are, incomplete/inaccurate.
emails can be and often are, faked.

so, you trust the "emails" do ya ??
well, for myself and many others, when you pit email vs live video feed ... email rates second every time.

I'll chime in a bit. (sorry been away for a while). It is fact that the president came out on the first two days following the attack and said it was an act of terror. This fact was brought up in one of the debates when Romney accused the president of the same thing you are, and the moderator told Romney that it was true, the president did say it was an act of terror right next to the rose garden at the White House during two separate conferences.

Next are the emails. Now when the government uses the word "emails" it's not exactly yahoo, gmail, etc. People who have seen these email machines know what they are. They are a system of computers set up for various levels of clearance. The situation room at the White House will have probably 5-6 different computers who sole purpose is to catch these electronic communications from around the world. They have a different computer for unclass, classified secret, TS, and for other things I can't talk about. It's not really an email like me or you get, there just messages that can be printed out if need be...sort of like an EAM message you will see on submarines.

FLASH messages are a tad different. They come from another machine that has different levels of classification itself. FLASH is a message that has to be in the presidents hand in 10 minutes. All other communication coming into that machine will be halted until the message is printed out, decoded/translated, etc, and taken to the president. Everyone in the room when a FLASH message goes off stops what they are doing and helps with the message. Brevity of the message must be short sweet and to the point. They are usually reserved for initial enemy contact messages or operational combat messages of extreme urgency.

After FLASH comes IMMEDIATE (30 min response time), PRIORITY (Not to exceed 3 hours), and the lowest ROUTINE (handled as soon as traffic flow allows, but no later than the next day).

Before you call bull#, or where's your source, know that I've seen these machines myself and had to learn about them during my Air Force days. They were kept in the command post on base in Grand Forks AFB, ND. TS screens went off with a rotating beacon, and when not in use, had a flap made of paper laying over the TV/Monitor with Top Secret written on it. Every time we conducted SIOP/8044 nuclear war exercises and ORI's, we used these systems to get our launch orders.

I can ensure you that these "emails" are neither manipulated or faked, but obviously you can have incomplete/inaccurate information that comes in . That's because its a human on the other end sending the message.

BTW, did we ever get "hard, factual (ie. non-foxnews) evidence that we had a live feed for the entire thing? Serious question here, honestly don't know...

reply to post by boomer135

the president did say it was an act of terror right next to the rose garden at the White House during two separate conferences

[color=amber] resulting from a "movie", why is that all of a sudden no longer important ??

there was no mention of the CIA operation, the gun-running, or the Feb 17 involvement. neither the security aspect or the attack aspect.

please, i wasn't born yesterday.
remember telegraph rooms ?? i do.

hmmmm, FLASH ... now that's the one that rattles me.
10 min you say ... so, why then did POTUS WAIT til a pre-scheduled meeting to discuss these URGENT message ?

[i compare a Flash mssg to a STAT one in the medical field, am i close ?]
*** only difference is STAT has to be relayed FASTER ***

so, my question to you is this ... which are they ?
priority ranked emails or flash messages ??

since the WH admits receiving the FLASH, why wait at all ??

hard factual evidence, like the video/photo-op over Bin Laden ??
no, is it really necessary at this point ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135

 

the president did say it was an act of terror right next to the rose garden at the White House during two separate conferences

[color=amber] resulting from a "movie", why is that all of a sudden no longer important ??

there was no mention of the CIA operation, the gun-running, or the Feb 17 involvement. neither the security aspect or the attack aspect.

please, i wasn't born yesterday.
remember telegraph rooms ?? i do.

hmmmm, FLASH ... now that's the one that rattles me.
10 min you say ... so, why then did POTUS WAIT til a pre-scheduled meeting to discuss these URGENT message ?

[i compare a Flash mssg to a STAT one in the medical field, am i close ?]
*** only difference is STAT has to be relayed FASTER ***

so, my question to you is this ... which are they ?
priority ranked emails or flash messages ??

since the WH admits receiving the FLASH, why wait at all ??

hard factual evidence, like the video/photo-op over Bin Laden ??
no, is it really necessary at this point ??

edit on 2-11-2012 by Honor93 because: hmmm, color displays in preview, oh well.

All I was saying is that you were wrong to claim that fact as false when it was true. I don't know why he said that about a video. Maybe that's the evidence we had at the time. Maybe cause the head of al Qaida said to kill Americans in Egypt because of the video. We just don't know. And you'll probably never hear that the CIA got caught with their pants down. It's the CIA.

As for FLASH. It's important to note that it has to be in POTUS hand within 10 minutes of receipt. That includes possible decipher, translation, and how much time it takes to get from the situation room to Obama. That's pretty damn good. And we don't know if he waited until the scheduled meeting to discuss it. You don't think SECDEF and VP don't have cell phones in their cars? I'm positive that the FLASH message got to them quick as well and communication was established before that meeting.

The emails and FLASH messages are different. The FLASH message will most likely be coded and short. Very short. They don't mess around with brevity. Another difference is that only five countries have that system and the ability. Once the initial message is received, the email system was used for the rest of the time. Another interesting fact is POTUS is the only person in the world with FLASH OVERRIDE ability. He can stop all messages from coming in or direct the system to only let in FLASH messages.

And last, hard visual evidence as you put it. Yes it matters. How the hell did we get not one but two UAV'S over that area so fast? They aren't fast planes. They probably wouldn't just happened to be in the area. It says one was diverted to the area after the attack. I'm willing to bet it took a couple hours at the minimum to get it there. Lets not forget the second message said the attack had stopped not even an hour after the first message and a recovery team was on site to assess.

Having said all this, I don't have an opinion either way about what really happened. None of us know. It's all speculation. I was simply bringing up the idea of different things that wasn't discussed that much in detail. I think it's tragic what happened and if the White House is behind this then they need to be held responsible for it. But the bottom line is we just don't know the truth yet. If ever.

This story has been proven false over and over.

No General was arrested and there was no "stand down" order.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

You know this guy was in the armed forces for almost 40 years right? If anything happened the most likely thing to go on would be lack of action and a premature retirment instead of taking away everything the man worked for over 40 years.

Had this man really went rougue, being fired would be the least of his issues to deal with.

If General Ham chose to ignore a "stand down" order and the statement was made by the deceased ex-seal's father: "Whoever gave the order to "stand down" killed my son." and nobody takes the blame for it - not Obama, not Panetta, then I think refusing to obey this "stand down" would make Ham a hero in the eyes of John Q. Public. I can't see him being censured for it publicly. I am inclined to think he may have refused the order and resigned his position right then and there.

Now, if General Ham had made the "stand down" order on his own he would be the one that would have gotten fingered so the heat would be off Obama. Same deal with the Fleet Commander who lost his command and is being investigated for improper judgement.

Obama Met With Panetta, Biden on 9/11/12 55 Minutes After State Notified WH Benghazi Was Under Attack
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 30, 2012
cnsnews.com...

This was a planned meeting entered on the official White House schedule - 5:00 P.M.

About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.

About the Benghazi attack and that Stevens and others were in the compound

Today (10/302012) CNSNews.com was told by a Defense Department spokesman:

“However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

I cannot fathom that discussing this attack would not take precedent over any planned discussion. Panetta and Obama claim no involvement in the refusal to provide support for this attack. America isn't buying it.

There is a reason for a lack of transparency, people. If they could blame someone for the "stand down" they would be on it like ducks on a June Bug

Either Obama and Panetta were involved in the decision to "stand down" and won't admit it or these people are too incompetent to be holding the offices they have because they can't find anyone to blame. The latter is beyond belief IMHO.

Politics

edit on 10/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

Thank God for Fox News and alternative news websites or America would be in the dark on this. The networks and CNN won't touch this issue at all in fear of ruining their messiah's chance of being re-elected. You're right Sad Eyed Lady, it's funny how we know that a "stand down" order was given, yet we don't know who gave it and no one is being fingered as the scapegoat to take the heat off of Obama and Panetta, most certainly not Ham who is most likely the hero in this whole thing. Obama gave the order and it was for either one of two reasons, the arms shipments to the rebels in Libya and now Syria, or he didn't want to look over-aggressive to his Muslim friends in the region by sending in an armed response. It's that simple.

More info just released

abcnews.go.com...

Troops deployed from a base in Europe and the US. Drone arrived 90 minutes after start. No spectre.

reply to post by boomer135

i didn't say that fact was false, just incomplete and presented falsely, as it was and still is to this day.

most anyone who listened, left with the impression that the terrorist in Obamas eyes was the video author, not the attackers.
(and, let's not forget how the administration hassled the guy either)

look, the CIA is just as much a part of government as the military.
If Gen Ham can be relieved of duty, so can the CIA and its operatives.

at this point, from all of what i've read, it would be the CIA who provided the greatest response and assistance during the crisis, not the WH or any department of it.

And we don't know if he waited until the scheduled meeting to discuss it.

actually we do or the CRG would have been convened.

and, let's not forget, from the time it's reported the FLASH was sent, Obama had it for more than an hour without ANY response at all ... not even convening a meeting with the CRG. (i may have that abbreviation wrong but it's the Counter-Terrorism Response team - whatever their alphabet designation is)

i don't deny some form of communication may have been established but any actions resulting from it certainly don't reflect Obamas statement of (paraphrased) "we're expending all available resources to assist our personnel" ... if it did, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

really ?? interesting tidbit about the FLASH override, thanks.

hey now, i was quoting you ... "hard visual evidence" ... you asked if there was any.
i haven't seen any but if it exists, it will leak eventually.

regarding the UAVs (drones?), i am taking the word of those who were there that day, as i don't know enough about them to really argue either side but if those fighting said they were there, then i'm believing them until proven otherwise.

it'd be kinda hard to hold anyone accountable/responsible without the truth, wouldn't it ??