U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack (NO Stand Down!)

reply to post by Kali74

star for you ... this will probably get bagged as off-topic but i couldn't have said this any better ...

Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy

yes, it is.

regardless anyone's devotion, they are still an msm outlet, so, i present the same question, where's the credibility ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kali74

 

star for you ... this will probably get bagged as off-topic but i couldn't have said this any better ...

Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy

yes, it is.

regardless anyone's devotion, they are still an msm outlet, so, i present the same question, where's the credibility ??

Honor93 ........Go here for the truth on Benghazi-Gate - you will not find it anywhere else...........This applies to you too Kali74

FOX NEWS SITE
Fair, Balanced + Un-afraid - All the news that fit to report - un-biased - objective - truthful.

reply to post by Vitruvian

Christmas bonus eh ?

reply to post by Honor93


I would argue that they are not MSM. I would say they are a very popular News Entertainment channel... legally that is what FOX is, News Entertainment, so they are not obliged to be credible, fair or balanced.

reply to post by Vitruvian


The only Benghazi-Gate in existence is within FOX nation.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Kali74

 

star for you ... this will probably get bagged as off-topic but i couldn't have said this any better ...

Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy

yes, it is.

regardless anyone's devotion, they are still an msm outlet, so, i present the same question, where's the credibility ??

Honor93 ........Go here for the truth on Benghazi-Gate - you will not find it anywhere else...........This applies to you too Kali74

FOX NEWS SITE

Fair, Balanced + Un-afraid - All the news that fit to report - un-biased - objective - truthful.

edit on 3-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

You work for Fox News don't you? Every single post I've seen of yours as of late is advertising how great Fox News is. You do realize what website you are on, right? Do you seriously believe posters here will believe you when you try to tell us Fox News is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

reply to post by Honor93


You responded to me, not I too you. You started the argument and continue it by ranting away this and that. I'm sick and tired of going around in circles and now my response to you are well off topic so this will be my last response to you in this thread.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Honor93

 

I would argue that they are not MSM. I would say they are a very popular News Entertainment channel... legally that is what FOX is, News Entertainment, so they are not obliged to be credible, fair or balanced.

edit on 3-11-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Kali, that would be a dead end argument or a red herring as they are all Main Stream Media outlets in one form or another.
my point was simply, none of them have earned more credibility than the next ... anyone who boxes themselves into the rhetoric of one is destined to be deluded.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Honor93

 

You responded to me, not I too you. You started the argument and continue it by ranting away this and that. I'm sick and tired of going around in circles and now my response to you are well off topic so this will be my last response to you in this thread.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

edit on 3-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

actually, i can't agree to disagree because i agreed with the majority of your posts
(did you get that?, plural posts)

i challenged you for a source and this is your response.
perhaps a site that relishes in seeking information isn't for you ?

reply to post by Taiyed

This isn't TV or a video game, things don't happen in an instant.

That is why the CIA guys were the only ones to respond.

The SEALs were painting targets with their laser designators. They are plenty smart enough to know that there is no use doing that unless there is something that can engage those targets. So, they must have been in contact with something.

By the way, drones are used precisely in this manner. They can orbit something of interest so that they can be "on station" when needed. The CIA already knew that something was going to happen. That means it is perfectly plausible that drones were already deployed.

This has been in the news reports for weeks.

Don't know, the CIA are usually pretty secretive about what they are doing. Maybe they wernt inclined to say anything, but the absolute filth being spewed at fox news for the past few weeks has forced them to say something? Who knows.. do i think somethings a stray, yes. Do I believe Fox News when they say Obama and co sat there, stood down help and watched as if they were eating popcorn on the couch? hell no!

reply to post by Agit8dChop
Well since when does the CIA get involved in politics? They have no reason to release anything to the public, this seems to be a protective action. After all those lovely pics from the command center from the Bin Laden raid, it's not a stretch to assume that is what they were doing. Look, if they could send out two recon drones why couldn't they have used a armed one to cause a little damage in the ranks of the attackers? Not like the administration has respected other countries borders in regards to drone use before.

reply to post by hangedman13

Look, if they could send out two recon drones why couldn't they have used a armed one to cause a little damage in the ranks of the attackers? Not like the administration has respected other countries borders in regards to drone use before.

This is an easy question to answer. When you have a report that your people are missing you do not shoot hellfire missiles at dots on your screen just in case those dots wind up being some of your people.

Does that make sense to you?

To make things clear only one drone was armed and it was relieved later by the second that wasn’t.

reply to post by hangedman13

Well since when does the CIA get involved in politics?

since it's inception ... do you need examples ?

as for drones - as i've come to understand, it wasn't likely the ones deployed were armed, however, i doubt we'll ever know for sure.

but i agree, targets aren't lased for the heck of it.
a strike was anticipated and failed to engage ... still not sure if we'll ever learn who gave the order but there really is no denying one was issued.

Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account (with video report)
11/3/12
www.foxnews.com...


Compare the CIA Account:

CIA timeline of Benghazi attack shows errors, but not failure, in leadership
11/2/12
www.oregonlive.com...

Flashback: Obama Admits He Knew of Benghazi Attack in Time to Send Rescue Team (video clip)
www.ijreview.com...

‘Complete Incompetence’: Security Officials in Libya Challenge CIA Timeline of Benghazi Attack
www.theblaze.com...

Another source added, “Why would they put a ragtag team together in Tripoli as first responders? This is not even what they do for a living. We had a first responder air base in Italy almost the same distance away.” Despite the team arriving from Tripoli that night, sources said sufficient American back-up never came.

Using a plane they had to charter???????? You have got to be kidding!!!! (fox story)

This CIA claim of errors, but not failure in leadership is so wrong. Errors of this magnitude show a complete failure of leadership.

reply to post by GrantedBail


from LA Times: ...."Panetta learned of the attack shortly after it began, about 4:30 p.m Eastern time"...

Now wait a second. Obama spent nearly two weeks trashing a nobody and blaming Christian based islamaphobia for causing a riot. Are you saying Panetta DIDN"T tell him of the attack? Or are you saying he KNEW, but LIED, while SCAPEGOATING an odd and insensitive, but completely legal, use of free speech? resulting in the arrest of an innocent man? and bolstering the case for censoring the internet?

Or if BHO did know at that time, how long did he hesitate before issuing orders to respond? And who did he order? The military? The CIA? State dept? Gen Hamm, commander of AFRICOM, says he never received such orders, and mysteriously decided hes going to retire early. Fighters could have arrived in an hour. Even if not used, no one thought of having them on station just in case? A reaction force would have arrived from Italy within hours, but yet never did? This not enough intel doesn't fly. Precision ordnance can be landed within yards of the target. And BHO sure doesn't seem too concerned with collateral damage anywhere else with his drone wars. Why the sudden concern when American lives are in direct jeopardy? No one said a rescue team had to repel onto the roof in the middle of the fight. Did they at least secure the facility the next day after the fight was clearly over? Apparently not if CNN was wandering around finding sensitive documents just strewn about.

And your defense of what happened now hangs on wether someone ORDERED those two SEALS to try and stop an armed force of 100 +/- men by themselves. Which is it? They ordered them not to go, or they ordered them to commit suicide? What they did has no any bearing on the administrations RESPONSIBILITY as commander and chief. What, the CIA called up the white house and said "don't sweat it Barry, its under control, we've got TWO guys on this", and he went to bed?

Did BHO know or not? Did he issue orders to respond, and to who? If he did, why did the military apparently do absolutely nothing? The answers to this are looking ever more ominous.

My guess. Stevens was there trying to hide Obamas Fast and Furious middle east addition, and maybe help open their new syrian branch. In fact I'll go one conspiracy further. I say BHOs people knew, or strongly suspected, an attack was coming and did nothing to stop it, expecting a jimmy carter moment that the great world healer could play out for the election. When it actually blew up in their faces, BHO was more concerned about how it would play in the media then saving lives. Bush spent fifteen minutes on 911 and he s still being drug through the mud. BHO goes to Vegas fundraising while the building was still smoldering, before anyone knows if it was part of a larger ongoing plot, then spent two weeks LYING about what happened and scapegoating other people. No problem, free pass. The whole story of the movie appears to have intelligence fingerprints all over it. It sat for months on the internet, then days before the attack, it gets translated into arabic and worldwide riots errupt? Even now, BHOs giving vague and conflicting answers, and everyone involved, or should have been involved, is playing musical chairs and pointing fingers.

This hole you're trying to save BHO from is just getting deeper.

reply to post by purplemer


You would feel the same way if your government abandoned some of your people for dead.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Ohhhhhhhh....Get it! The New York Times and the L.A. Times wrote the articles......Geeeeee....Wow...of course it must be fact !!!!!! Di you hear the interview with the Father of one of murdered Navy Seals?????? So sick and tired on the BIGGEST LYING ADMINISTRATION IN OUR HISTORY being protected by people like YOU! Unreal!Guess what kool aid drinkers???! in less than 3 days your socialist run on the USA will be over. Stone wallers unite behind the author of this post! What was REALLY going on in Benghazi?????????

Is it just me, or has the irony of the fact that a thread was started on ATS citing the CIA as if it was a 100% trustworthy source of public distribution of information struck most of you as well?

Originally posted by HabiruThorstein
Is it just me, or has the irony of the fact that a thread was started on ATS citing the CIA as if it was a 100% trustworthy source of public distribution of information struck most of you as well?

My sincere objective in posting the truth of what happened is to debunk the false premise implied by the title of this thread - which we now know to be patently FALSE. As a direct result of the top notch investigative reporting at FoxNews several of the family members of the Obama murder victims have learned the truth and are now expressing their absolute outrage at the fact that they know that Obama had a direct hand in their murders and that he is in fact himself a murderer.

I have been convinced of this from day one and have posted on that fact on several occasions.

MOTHER OF SEAL: 'I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA MURDERED MY SON'

Just one of many examples of comments from ordinary San Diego citizens
Bob Churchill • Top Commenter
Trust this Mrs. Smith, WE BELIEVE HE MURDERED HIM TOO.
Reply • 5 • about an hour ago

Patricia Smith, the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith, is now blaming President Barack Obama for her son’s death. “I believe that Obama murdered my son,” she said Thursday from the living room of her Clairemont home. “I firmly believe this.”
Patricia Smith, who voted for Obama in 2008 at the insistence of her son, said reporting by Fox News is the basis for much of her belief that Obama is ultimately responsible for her son’s death.
She said Sean, who went to Mission Bay High School but lived abroad, was a fervent supporter of the president.
Smith’s view echoes that of Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the 41-year-old former Navy SEAL from Imperial Beach who died fighting in Benghazi.

Charles Woods appeared on Fox News shows over the weekend to denounce decisions made by U.S. officials during the Libya attack.
“I’m a retired attorney, and I know that these actions legally do not constitute murder. But in my mind the people in the White House, all of them who have authority to send in reinforcements to prevent what they knew was going to be the death of my son, are guilty of murdering my son,” Woods said Sunday on Fox’s Sean Hannity show.

DP sorry