The Benghazi Story goes critical

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
They define intelligence as trust in Obama.
lol
"Nothing to see here,only an embassy destroyed and the Ambassador and staff killed,mutilated and tortured..eh..it's a nothingburger."

This is how they're trying to spin it.

Oh..and all the main news outlets were given propaganda to spread..outright lies.

but it's ok..
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
lol
"Nothing to see here,only an embassy destroyed and the Ambassador and staff killed,mutilated and tortured..eh..it's a nothingburger."

This is how they're trying to spin it.

Oh..and all the main news outlets were given propaganda to spread..outright lies.

but it's ok..
Yep. But I'd be a lot more pissed about Benghazi if the lies were to spread a false flag concept. This I consider politics, much as Bush when he told us that the British government has learned that Saddam tried to buy yellow cake uranium (of which he already had several hundred tons!) from Niger. While true on the face of it, we know (and Bush knew when he made that speech) that this story was in fact mostly an allegation based on forgeries by a French agent designed to ultimately discredit the proposed invasion.

Some major fuck-ups occurred in Benghazi, which resulted in an ambassador being murdered (first one since the Carter era) as well as three other brave Americans losing their lives. Heads should roll over that. But I see no reason to assume that it goes up to Obama or even to Hillary, and it MIGHT have seemed a legitimate risk at the time.

I despise the lying after the fact for political advantage, but I'm not going to pretend that it's not common to both sides. Frankly I'm more pissed at the sycophantic media.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
lol
"Nothing to see here,only an embassy destroyed and the Ambassador and staff killed,mutilated and tortured..eh..it's a nothingburger."

This is how they're trying to spin it.

Oh..and all the main news outlets were given propaganda to spread..outright lies.

but it's ok..
No. Put down the Foxpipe. There was no embassy in Benghazi, not was there mutilation or torture.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Some major fuck-ups occurred in Benghazi, which resulted in an ambassador being murdered (first one since the Carter era) as well as three other brave Americans losing their lives. Heads should roll over that. But I see no reason to assume that it goes up to Obama or even to Hillary, and it MIGHT have seemed a legitimate risk at the time.

It obviously must have seemed reasonable at the time or it wouldn't have been done the way it was, rendering the rest of your post bullshit.

It's an imperfect world full of imperfect knowledge & forces beyond our control, like Islamist militias in Benghazi & all the other perps who've attacked the American diplomatic corps in the past.

It'll happen in the future, too, despite best efforts to avoid it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It obviously must have seemed reasonable at the time or it wouldn't have been done the way it was, rendering the rest of your post bullshit.

It's an imperfect world full of imperfect knowledge & forces beyond our control, like Islamist militias in Benghazi & all the other perps who've attacked the American diplomatic corps in the past.

It'll happen in the future, too, despite best efforts to avoid it.
By that standard the Watergate break-in must have seemed reasonable, the Watergate cover-up must have seemed reasonable, Clinton's nailing an intern in the Oval Office must have seemed reasonable, etc.

That something happened - even if it was done by people you worship - does not necessarily mean it seemed reasonable at the time. It could also have been negligence or stupidity or in service of an ulterior motive.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Look! Moving goalposts! First you claimed that libs opposed supporting the mujahedin at at the time, now point to evaluations made after the whole thing was over to support the original assertion.

Desperately lame.

No "goal posts" have been moved at all.

I don't understand why you even claim that?

Nor did I say anywhere that libs opposed supporting the mujahedin back when it was happening.

I think you should reread what I posted.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Beat me to it.


So no link, no acknowledgement of Iran and AQ being separate entities. Thanks for playing Fern, you may return to your tin foil now.

Yours is another post I don't understand.

WTH does Iran have to do with anything?

Links are easy to find. Knock yourself out.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
It obviously must have seemed reasonable at the time or it wouldn't have been done the way it was, rendering the rest of your post bullshit.
-snip-

"Seemed reasonable"?

In the run up to the attack the embassy security staff was reduced in spite of requests to enhance it and contrary to growing security concerns prompting other nations/orgs to abandon the place.

"Reasonable' for proggies is something normal people can't understand.

Fern
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
Yours is another post I don't understand.

WTH does Iran have to do with anything?

Links are easy to find. Knock yourself out.

Fern

Yes, clearly you are not understanding so I'll give it another shot, going slow this time.

You said: "That's really an odd position. I can't count how many times I've heard liberals complain about our weapon shipments to Afghanistan when they were fighting off the Russians."

That was literally the first time I've ever heard anyone say that or insinuate anything like it, so I mused if you were actually citing Reagan arming the Iranians - Iran Contra, any of that ring a bell? Never have I heard an American of any stripe or persuasion criticize Operation Cyclone, the very successful support of the muj in Afghanistan fighting the Russians.

You do realize that Afghans are not Iranians, yes? You do realize that Iranian shia and AQ sunni aren't exactly the best of friends, with far different histories and agendas?

I asked for an example of the liberal outrage you cited in regards to Reagan arming the Afghans. You not only didn't attempt to provide one despite the overwhelming frequency and duration of the sentiment (which would make it easy I would imagine), you went on to insinuate that anti-invasion criticism from liberals that cited "blow back" was what you were talking about, despite it happening decades after Reagan was out of office.

It just smacked of history fail, or at least some willful conflation of two separate events regarding two different adversaries which had opposite levels of regard here in the States. I asked for a clarification and you did not provide one. Hope that clears it up.

Links are easy to find, although I'm not sure why you are pretending it's up to me to support your claim. You can back up your position with one of those easy links, you can admit you misspoke and got something wrong, no biggee, but as a regular poster who should be well acquainted with the workings of debate, you can't suddenly decide that someone else has the burden of proof for your claims. I hope you can appreciate how it undermines your argument to those interested in your position.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No "goal posts" have been moved at all.

I don't understand why you even claim that?

Nor did I say anywhere that libs opposed supporting the mujahedin back when it was happening.

I think you should reread what I posted.

Fern

That's really an odd position. I can't count how many times I've heard liberals complain about our weapon shipments to Afghanistan when they were fighting off the Russians.

Your syntax was vague, at best, subject to interpretation in the context of your other remarks. It's as if you intended to convey one impression while now claiming to have done otherwise.

To be clear, You have not shown libs to have opposed support of the mujahedin at the time, correct? And if you haven't, or have no intent, why bring it up?

My point is that whatever else was going on in Benghazi at the time had no demonstrable bearing on the attack & therefore matters not in the least in terms of what anybody said about it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
"Seemed reasonable"?

In the run up to the attack the embassy security staff was reduced in spite of requests to enhance it and contrary to growing security concerns prompting other nations/orgs to abandon the place.

"Reasonable' for proggies is something normal people can't understand.

Fern

Obviously, it seemed reasonable to the Ambassador & his staff or, as I offered, he wouldn't have been there. I'm sure it seemed reasonable to his superiors, as well. The rest is just accusatory 20/20 hindsight, a right wing Hate-um Obama! specialty.

What part of "unpredictable forces beyond our control" are you having trouble with, anyway? The same problem you're having with "complete surprise"?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
I think he told you to go fuck yourself. Just a guess because I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth.


Funny way to do it, counter productive even, but come now the facade is unnecessary. I think we both know you're no stranger to putting things in other guys mouths. Would it count as sucking diction? Debatable, but I will admit to being impressed with you even attempting to speak for others. With your cranium as firmly embedded as it is, it just sounds incredibly difficult, certainly uncomfortable.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
Great movie, great documentary, and great book. Clearly a story what one man (with help) can do.

I wish the movie had done a better job with regard to Masood and the fucking Paks, but yeah overall I agree.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
http://news.yahoo.com/officers-no-stand-down-order-benghazi-062821082--politics.html

Officers say no 'stand-down order' for Benghazi

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military officers testified that there was no "stand-down order" that held back military assets that could have saved the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. Their testimony undercut the contention of Republican lawmakers.

The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team — a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast — that was stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, it was instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

The senior military officer who issued the instruction to "remain in place" and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated. And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks.

Transcripts of hours of closed-door interviews with nine military leaders by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees were made public for the first time on Wednesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the oversight panel, has suggested that Hillary Rodham Clinton gave the order, though as secretary of state at the time, she was not in the military chain of command.

Despite lingering public confusion over many events that night, the testimony shows military leaders largely in agreement over how they responded to the attacks.

The initial, Sept. 11 assault on the diplomatic post, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and another American, prompted immediate action both in Benghazi and in Tripoli. Though not under any known further threat, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, was evacuated early in the morning of Sept. 12, its sensitive information and computer hard drives destroyed. Diplomats and military officials left in armored vehicles for a classified U.S. site several miles away. Upon arrival there, the head of a small detachment entrusted with training Libyan special forces told his higher-ups he wanted to take his four-member team to Benghazi.

Military officials differ on when that telephone conversation took place, but they agree that no help could have arrived in Benghazi in time. They put the call somewhere between 5:05 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. local time. It would take about 90 minutes to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. The next U.S.-chartered plane to make the trip left at 6:49 a.m., meaning it could have arrived shortly before 9 a.m., nearly four hours after the second, 11-minute battle at the CIA facility ended at about 5:25 a.m.

Republicans investigating Benghazi have clashed over whether military superiors, in effect, ordered the team to stand down. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the Armed Services Committee chairman, has cited previous testimony from military officers that ordering the foursome to stay in Tripoli and protect embassy personnel there didn't amount to "standing down."

Others, such as Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, have said a stand-down order was given.

We had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed, about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi, and they were told to stand down," Chaffetz said more than a year ago. "That's as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen. That is not the American way."

Beyond questions of timing, the testimony of Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who was then Special Operations commander for Africa, also challenged the idea the team had the capacity to bolster security in Benghazi.

Losey said there was "never an order to stand down." His instruction to the team "was to remain in place and continue to provide security in Tripoli because of the uncertain environment." Earlier on Sept. 11, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo had been breached as well.

Losey questioned what the four could have done to aid the situation in Benghazi, where American personnel were preparing to evacuate as soon as possible. He said assigning the small team to defend a perimeter wouldn't have been appropriate and would have meant the military's losing its command operation in Tripoli "for the benefit of four riflemen who weren't even riflemen."

"The guy's command and control, he's communications, medical," Losey recounted. "I've got one weapons guy with his foot in a cast. Didn't make a lot of sense."

The Special Operations detachment leader's name is omitted from the testimony transcript, but he previously has been identified as Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson. More than a year-and-a-half later, Gibson, who is now a colonel, agreed that staying in Tripoli was the best decision.

It was not a stand-down order," he testified in March. "It was not, 'Hey, time for everybody to go to bed.' It was, you know, 'Don't go. Don't get on that plane. Remain in place.'"

"Initially, I was angry," Gibson said. "A tactical commander doesn't like to have those decisions taken away from him. But then once I digested it a little bit, then I realized, OK, maybe there was something else that was going on. Maybe I'm needed here for something else."

His contingent would indeed prove useful in Tripoli, according to the testimonies.

When the Americans from Benghazi arrived, among the wounded was one person with a unique blood type. Gibson and others credited the medic in the team with saving a life.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
My apologies. I thought your ignorance was willful. Instead, it appears your reading skills are as juvenile as your math. Hint: that one can train a parrot to repeat Republican talking points doesn't make the parrot Republican. It makes it a mindless tool for spreading propaganda.

And you still failed to address a single point I made. You are a joke.

My money is on tea party loon.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
Lol Benghazi!

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07...-completely-baseless-benghazi-conspiracy.html

And so ends the Benghazi conspiracy!

Note the transcripts at the bottom as well as who released them.

If I get the gist of the news correct, it wasn't a "stand down" order because resources in the area were never meant to protect the Ambassador?
Great... now who decided there shouldn't be any forces to use for security or rapid response in a war torn African nation?

If those responsible for this security planning have been outed, then please reply with that info and I'll include it with the OP. Far as I know, the State Department has not disclosed that information.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You mean who is responsible for not occupying Libya? You do realize it's a foreign country, and we don't just decide to have forces on the ground without their government's permission?
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Funny way to do it, counter productive even, but come now the facade is unnecessary. I think we both know you're no stranger to putting things in other guys mouths. Would it count as sucking diction? Debatable, but I will admit to being impressed with you even attempting to speak for others. With your cranium as firmly embedded as it is, it just sounds incredibly difficult, certainly uncomfortable.

Big difference is, at least on the forums, these "evil right wingers" you all constantly crow about are very accepting of the modern progressives and having open debate.

So many times I just read some things, and sit here with my mouth open.
Shake my head, wonder why I bother..then I post again


edit- That may look like I was including you kage when I was agreeing with you
Shakes my head at myself
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,039
136
You mean who is responsible for not occupying Libya? You do realize it's a foreign country, and we don't just decide to have forces on the ground without their government's permission?

It is logical to suggest embassy security is not designed nor equipped to protect an Ambassador 600 miles away, and that the nature of embassies do not typically allow rapid response or force projection. Your point is reasonable.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |