Special forces ordered to stand down in Benghazi?

[P@triot]

Top Diplomat in Tripoli: Pentagon Told Special Forces to 'Stand Down' - US News and World Report

Pentagon spokesmen had previously stated that no U.S. assets were ever told to "stand down" the night of the attack in Benghazi. Air Force Maj. Rob Firman told USA Today Tuesday that the military's account of this response "hasn't changed."

"There was never any kind of stand down order to anybody," Firman said.

Firman reaffirmed this statement to U.S. News following Hicks' Wednesday testimony.

"Were these guys told not to do anything? No. They were in Tripoli, supporting the U.S. security in Tripoli, and they were told to stay there," Firman says. Special Operations Command Africa leadership told them to remain where they were, and "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli."

You can't make this shit up folks! In libtard world, security forces were not told to "stand down", they were told to "stay were they were"

Apparently libtards don't understand that being told to stay put and not get involved is being told to "stand down". Un-friggin-believable....

Apparently comatose conservatives can't understand that the leaders make the decisions, not the peanut gallery back home, and it wasn't Obama that told them to stay put, like they've been trying to say all along!

Very good Mertex! Leaders do "make the decisions". And remind us again who the leader of the U.S. armed forces is? Oh that's right, Barack Obama.

You're making progress nearly every day kid. I'm proud of you. Keep up the hard work.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

you have to wonder if not only do we have a "Situation Room", apparently we also have a "Lie Creation Room". maybe Reid and Pelosi oversee that department.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Top Diplomat in Tripoli: Pentagon Told Special Forces to 'Stand Down' - US News and World Report

Pentagon spokesmen had previously stated that no U.S. assets were ever told to "stand down" the night of the attack in Benghazi. Air Force Maj. Rob Firman told USA Today Tuesday that the military's account of this response "hasn't changed."

"There was never any kind of stand down order to anybody," Firman said.

Firman reaffirmed this statement to U.S. News following Hicks' Wednesday testimony.

"Were these guys told not to do anything? No. They were in Tripoli, supporting the U.S. security in Tripoli, and they were told to stay there," Firman says. Special Operations Command Africa leadership told them to remain where they were, and "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli."

You can't make this shit up folks! In libtard world, security forces were not told to "stand down", they were told to "stay were they were"

Apparently libtards don't understand that being told to stay put and not get involved is being told to "stand down". Un-friggin-believable....

Well, let's be honest here, they learned it from Bill Clinton and "...It depends on your definition of what "is" - is"

But...But....But...No one ever said "Stand Down" - so it doesn't count!!!

I would give my left nut to see the AARs...but Alas, I'm sure that they have mysteriously "disappeared" ; to those on the left - that means "gone bye-bye"....

and wasn't it Barry, who, before his first election, claimed he would have the "most transparent administration" in the history of politics?? Damn Barry - we got to sit down and discuss semantics!! YOUR definition of "transparent" and mine are quite different......

 

[Oldstyle]

Top Diplomat in Tripoli: Pentagon Told Special Forces to 'Stand Down' - US News and World Report

Pentagon spokesmen had previously stated that no U.S. assets were ever told to "stand down" the night of the attack in Benghazi. Air Force Maj. Rob Firman told USA Today Tuesday that the military's account of this response "hasn't changed."

"There was never any kind of stand down order to anybody," Firman said.

Firman reaffirmed this statement to U.S. News following Hicks' Wednesday testimony.

"Were these guys told not to do anything? No. They were in Tripoli, supporting the U.S. security in Tripoli, and they were told to stay there," Firman says. Special Operations Command Africa leadership told them to remain where they were, and "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli."

You can't make this shit up folks! In libtard world, security forces were not told to "stand down", they were told to "stay were they were"

Apparently libtards don't understand that being told to stay put and not get involved is being told to "stand down". Un-friggin-believable....

You can't make this stuff up folks! Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will lie in the face of the truth. Even after the quote clearly says they were told to do something, namely defend the embassy in Tripoli, the pathological liar says that means do not get involved.

Telling him to "stand down" is quite different from "you can't go." Stand down means do nothing and according to the Pentagon Gibson was told to do SOMETHING, but it wasn't go to Benghazi.

You see the Diplomats in Tripoli learned of terrorist plans to attack the embassy in Tripoli and Gibson was told to stay there and defend it while the Benghazi personal were being transported to Tripoli. So Gibson was not told to "stand down" he was told to stay and defend the embassy in Tripoli which was being threatened. Issa knew this and that's why Gibson was never called to testify!

Emotional Testimony Recalls Benghazi Attacks - WSJ.com

At about 12:30 a.m. local time, diplomats in Tripoli learned of a new threat by Islamists—to attack the embassy complex in the Libyan capital city. The 55 diplomatic personnel in two facilities began to prepare to evacuate.

So let me see if I've got this straight, Ed...forces were told to stay and defend Tripoli from an attack that never came...while not responding to an attack that was actually taking place? And you think this proves that the Obama White House handled this well? Really?

 

[edthecynic]

You can't make this shit up folks! In libtard world, security forces were not told to "stand down", they were told to "stay were they were"

Apparently libtards don't understand that being told to stay put and not get involvedis being told to "stand down". Un-friggin-believable....

You can't make this stuff up folks! Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will lie in the face of the truth. Even after the quote clearly says they were told to do something, namely defend the embassy in Tripoli, the pathological liar says that means do not get involved.

Telling him to "stand down" is quite different from "you can't go." Stand down means do nothing and according to the Pentagon Gibson was told to do SOMETHING, but it wasn't go to Benghazi.

You see the Diplomats in Tripoli learned of terrorist plans to attack the embassy in Tripoli and Gibson was told to stay there and defend it while the Benghazi personal were being transported to Tripoli. So Gibson was not told to "stand down" he was told to stay and defend the embassy in Tripoli which was being threatened. Issa knew this and that's why Gibson was never called to testify!

Emotional Testimony Recalls Benghazi Attacks - WSJ.com

At about 12:30 a.m. local time, diplomats in Tripoli learned of a new threat by Islamists—to attack the embassy complex in the Libyan capital city. The 55 diplomatic personnel in two facilities began to prepare to evacuate.

Wait a second Ed -your original "story" (and that of the Administration) was that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a YouTube video (which had been out there for over 6 months at that point).

So if this was a spontaneous event cause by a YouTube video, why would there be any threat to the Tripoli embassy and how would the Administration even know about it?

Your story is falling apart (just like your ideology)

I made no post about a video, you pathological lying POS!

And it was Hicks' own testimony that said HE saw the call for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli on Twitter. So you are calling Hicks a liar!!!

From Hicks' testimony:

HICKS: "About 12:30 at the same time that we see the Twitter feeds that are asserting that Ansar Sharia is responsible for the attack, we also see a call for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli."

 

[edthecynic]

You can't make this shit up folks! In libtard world, security forces were not told to "stand down", they were told to "stay were they were"

Apparently libtards don't understand that being told to stay put and not get involved is being told to "stand down". Un-friggin-believable....

You can't make this stuff up folks! Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will lie in the face of the truth. Even after the quote clearly says they were told to do something, namely defend the embassy in Tripoli, the pathological liar says that means do not get involved.

Telling him to "stand down" is quite different from "you can't go." Stand down means do nothing and according to the Pentagon Gibson was told to do SOMETHING, but it wasn't go to Benghazi.

You see the Diplomats in Tripoli learned of terrorist plans to attack the embassy in Tripoli and Gibson was told to stay there and defend it while the Benghazi personal were being transported to Tripoli. So Gibson was not told to "stand down" he was told to stay and defend the embassy in Tripoli which was being threatened. Issa knew this and that's why Gibson was never called to testify!

Emotional Testimony Recalls Benghazi Attacks - WSJ.com

At about 12:30 a.m. local time, diplomats in Tripoli learned of a new threat by Islamists—to attack the embassy complex in the Libyan capital city. The 55 diplomatic personnel in two facilities began to prepare to evacuate.

So let me see if I've got this straight, Ed...forces were told to stay and defend Tripoli from an attack that never came...while not responding to an attack that was actually taking place? And you think this proves that the Obama White House handled this well? Really?

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

 

[P@triot]

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

How about we place the blame where it belongs - with Obama. He could have ordered security at the Tripoli Embassy to engage. Or he could have sent hellfire missiles into the mob from predator drones (you know, the one's he claims he is authorized to use on American citizens). Of he could have fired missiles from Naval fleets in the area. Or he could have instructed Special Forces personnel in the area to intervene.

Your cries that nothing could possibly have been done to stop the horrific event proves you are either a partisan hack attempting to protect your precious "dear leader" at all costs (including your credibility - which is now officially 0), or it proves you are extraordinarily ignorant of our military capabilities. Which is it?

 

[Oldstyle]

You can't make this stuff up folks! Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood will lie in the face of the truth. Even after the quote clearly says they were told to do something, namely defend the embassy in Tripoli, the pathological liar says that means do not get involved.

Telling him to "stand down" is quite different from "you can't go." Stand down means do nothing and according to the Pentagon Gibson was told to do SOMETHING, but it wasn't go to Benghazi.

You see the Diplomats in Tripoli learned of terrorist plans to attack the embassy in Tripoli and Gibson was told to stay there and defend it while the Benghazi personal were being transported to Tripoli. So Gibson was not told to "stand down" he was told to stay and defend the embassy in Tripoli which was being threatened. Issa knew this and that's why Gibson was never called to testify!

Emotional Testimony Recalls Benghazi Attacks - WSJ.com

At about 12:30 a.m. local time, diplomats in Tripoli learned of a new threat by Islamists—to attack the embassy complex in the Libyan capital city. The 55 diplomatic personnel in two facilities began to prepare to evacuate.

So let me see if I've got this straight, Ed...forces were told to stay and defend Tripoli from an attack that never came...while not responding to an attack that was actually taking place? And you think this proves that the Obama White House handled this well? Really?

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

Gotta love you progressives...someone blows the whistle on Hilary and Barry for playing fast and loose with the truth...and suddenly he's George W. Bush and EVERYTHING is his fault? This whole notion that help wasn't sent to Benghazi because it was needed to defend Tripoli from an attack that never happened is just the latest Obama Administration excuse for why they didn't send help and I'm sure it won't be the last once it's shot down like all the others. Don't you guys get embarrassed falling for this nonsense after awhile?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddmXM-96-no]It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown - Football - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

How about we place the blame where it belongs - with Obama. He could have ordered security at the Tripoli Embassy to engage. Or he could have sent hellfire missiles into the mob from predator drones (you know, the one's he claims he is authorized to use on American citizens). Of he could have fired missiles from Naval fleets in the area. Or he could have instructed Special Forces personnel in the area to intervene.

Your cries that nothing could possibly have been done to stop the horrific event proves you are either a partisan hack attempting to protect your precious "dear leader" at all costs (including your credibility - which is now officially 0), or it proves you are extraordinarily ignorant of our military capabilities. Which is it?

Notice how the chickenhawks always know more about our military capabilities than the real military commanders in the field!!!

 

[Londoner]

“So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C‑130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now,” Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during an interview last month, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The committee released excerpts of the interview ahead of a congressional hearing that will take place on Wednesday.

Pure political partisan bullshit from the chief propaganda organ of the Republican Party - the Washington Examiner, which is less objective than FOX News and is known for reporting things out of context - like, for instance, the fact that the defense department did not certify that there was time or manpower to respond effectively. Yes, 4 people died- and yes, there should be an investigation as to why the US was not prepared on 9/11 to defend its considerable assets in the semi-occupied Muslim periphery.

FYI: Benghazi smells like a classic October Surprise, a la the delayed release of the hostages. It was likely a Hail Mary devised to hijack the election last minute, but it failed. And now they're trying to create a Monica Lewinsky out of it for purely political reasons (so it didn't completely fail).

Here is why this thing is so sad. Imagine a president who was told on August 6 2011 that Bin Laden was - in the near term - determined to hijack planes and turn them into flying bombs for the purpose of attacking skyscrapers. Further, please imagine that the president in question was advised to have planes "scramble ready" - which is standard protocol for protecting the eastern seabord - so that our military forces could at least engage these "flying bombs" which were aimed at the most densely populated parts of these United States. Now, further imagine that the president's chief terrorism advisor - Richard Clarke, first hired by Reagan - was sternly rebuffed when he tried to explain the urgency of Bin Laden and the pending attacks. Specifically, Clarke was told that the administration was only interested in removing Hussein, which was a policy developed by the neocons under Clinton (who, by the way, agreed with the neocons because Iraq, after 10 years of sanctions/bombing, was the best option for increasing our military footprint near the world's most vital resource. I happen to think the policy makes a lot of sense when you realize what would happen if the region fell under the control of someone capable of denying us access to the lifeblood of our economy: oil).

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Please, finally, imagine that because the August 6 2011 memo was ignored (and because a host of unambiguous and actionable warnings by Clarke were ignored), 3,000 Americans died - and another 4,000+ were sent to their deaths because of a misrepresentation of the motives for war. Worse, imagine if that same president forbid anyone from his team from testifying in front of a Grand Jury about this collassel failure to defend the United States. And because of this president's unwillingness to provide information about what happened, the American People will never learn how the most basic defense protocols were somehow left off on this day, and, as a result, "flying bombs" aimed at high-causality targets (as was predicted in the August 2011 memo) were allowed to fly unobstructed to their targets.

After you imagine all that, please ask yourself one question: is it any wonder that the party responsible for ignoring the greatest attack in American history is now trying to make something out of nothing? The party of Monica Lewinsky never stops manufacturing scandals. They are fighting a civil war.

When are we going to wake up? The Republicans are not fighting Islamic Terrorists. They are fighting Obama and the Democrats. Benghazi, like 9/11, is a political weapon used for agitating the stupid and winning elections.

The leadership of the radical right is not concerned about Islamic terrorism, which in this case is very real. They are concerned with the political uses of Islamic terrorism. FYI: This is the oldest political strategy in the book. Hitler claimed to be defending Germany against the Jewish Bolsheviks who, he claimed, were bent on destroying Real Germans and the German way of life.

 

[edthecynic]

So let me see if I've got this straight, Ed...forces were told to stay and defend Tripoli from an attack that never came...while not responding to an attack that was actually taking place? And you think this proves that the Obama White House handled this well? Really?

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

Gotta love you progressives...someone blows the whistle on Hilary and Barry for playing fast and loose with the truth...and suddenly he's George W. Bush and EVERYTHING is his fault? This whole notion that help wasn't sent to Benghazi because it was needed to defend Tripoli from an attack that never happened is just the latest Obama Administration excuse for why they didn't send help and I'm sure it won't be the last once it's shot down like all the others. Don't you guys get embarrassed falling for this nonsense after awhile?

It hasn't been shot down yet, but keep wishing.

Hicks made sure SOCAFRICA knew that the embassy in Tripoli, where his chicken ass was located, was under threat and needed protection and only pretended that the forces kept in Tripoli to protect his chicken ass should have been sent to Benghazi after the fact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You all keep saying they are lying, but you all can't come up with any evidence that they are. The truth is, we know that Bush/Cheney lied about WMDs, more than 4 people died, and how come Republicans aren't investigating that?

Alright, since you liberals are too freaking stupid to understand it in adult language, I'll just go Sesame Street on your ass. Thank your lucky stars they didn't kill Big Bird, ya know?

Today is brought to you by: the number 12. As in how many times the official talking points of the attack were redacted until someone was able to safely say it was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from an anti-Islamic video.

Today is also brought to you by: the word REALITY.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/w...r-is-focus-at-hearings.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.
snip/
“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that Mr. Petraeus explained to lawmakers that the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Mr. Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

The New York Times is the mouthpiece for the White House. Quoting it to me only confirms that you Liberals are reaching for a defense of what Obama and Hillary has done, and failing.

He looked very upset during the press briefing with the British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday. He has two things going wrong for him. The IRS just made fools of themselves by auditing conservative groups, and now it has been discovered that the Justice Department tapped the phone lines of the Associated Press. His presidency is unraveling fast, and you can do nothing but remain helpless as it does so.

Famous quote from yesterday?

"There is no there, there!"

-President Barack Obama (5/13/13)

 

[Meathead]

Pure political partisan bullshit from the chief propaganda organ of the Republican Party - the Washington Examiner, which is less objective than FOX News and is known for reporting things out of context - like, for instance, the fact that the defense department did not certify that there was time or manpower to respond effectively. Yes, 4 people died- and yes, there should be an investigation as to why the US was not prepared on 9/11 to defend its considerable assets in the semi-occupied Muslim periphery.

FYI: Benghazi smells like a classic October Surprise, a la the delayed release of the hostages. It was likely a Hail Mary devised to hijack the election last minute, but it failed. And now they're trying to create a Monica Lewinsky out of it for purely political reasons (so it didn't completely fail).

Here is why this thing is so sad. Imagine a president who was told on August 6 2011 that Bin Laden was - in the near term - determined to hijack planes and turn them into flying bombs for the purpose of attacking skyscrapers. Further, please imagine that the president in question was advised to have planes "scramble ready" - which is standard protocol for protecting the eastern seabord - so that our military forces could at least engage these "flying bombs" which were aimed at the most densely populated parts of these United States. Now, further imagine that the president's chief terrorism advisor - Richard Clarke, first hired by Reagan - was sternly rebuffed when he tried to explain the urgency of Bin Laden and the pending attacks. Specifically, Clarke was told that the administration was only interested in removing Hussein, which was a policy developed by the neocons under Clinton (who, by the way, agreed with the neocons because Iraq, after 10 years of sanctions/bombing, was the best option for increasing our military footprint near the world's most vital resource. I happen to think the policy makes a lot of sense when you realize what would happen if the region fell under the control of someone capable of denying us access to the lifeblood of our economy: oil).

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Please, finally, imagine that because the August 6 2011 memo was ignored (and because a host of unambiguous and actionable warnings by Clarke were ignored), 3,000 Americans died - and another 4,000+ were sent to their deaths because of a misrepresentation of the motives for war. Worse, imagine if that same president forbid anyone from his team from testifying in front of a Grand Jury about this collassel failure to defend the United States. And because of this president's unwillingness to provide information about what happened, the American People will never learn how the most basic defense protocols were somehow left off on this day, and, as a result, "flying bombs" aimed at high-causality targets (as was predicted in the August 2011 memo) were allowed to fly unobstructed to their targets.

After you imagine all that, please ask yourself one question: is it any wonder that the party responsible for ignoring the greatest attack in American history is now trying to make something out of nothing? The party of Monica Lewinsky never stops manufacturing scandals. They are fighting a civil war.

When are we going to wake up? The Republicans are not fighting Islamic Terrorists. They are fighting Obama and the Democrats. Benghazi, like 9/11, is a political weapon used for agitating the stupid and winning elections.

The leadership of the radical right is not concerned about Islamic terrorism, which in this case is very real. They are concerned with the political uses of Islamic terrorism. FYI: This is the oldest political strategy in the book. Hitler claimed to be defending Germany against the Jewish Bolsheviks who, he claimed, were bent on destroying Real Germans and the German way of life.

If you had a sense of irony, you would not have prefaced a diatribe of political BS by pointing out political more political BS.

Why are some people incapable of grasping the obvious?

 

[Oldstyle]

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

How about we place the blame where it belongs - with Obama. He could have ordered security at the Tripoli Embassy to engage. Or he could have sent hellfire missiles into the mob from predator drones (you know, the one's he claims he is authorized to use on American citizens). Of he could have fired missiles from Naval fleets in the area. Or he could have instructed Special Forces personnel in the area to intervene.

Your cries that nothing could possibly have been done to stop the horrific event proves you are either a partisan hack attempting to protect your precious "dear leader" at all costs (including your credibility - which is now officially 0), or it proves you are extraordinarily ignorant of our military capabilities. Which is it?

Notice how the chickenhawks always know more about our military capabilities than the real military commanders in the field!!!

Sometimes you have to use a little "common sense" to know whether or not our "leaders" are giving us just another line of bullshit to cover their asses! In order to believe what our "real military commanders in the field" are telling us...you'd need to believe that out of the 600 plus tankers that the US military possesses that none of those tankers were in the area thus rendering our entire fighter capability useless in that part of the world. Now why would our military shift all it's tankers out of a theater of operation? Common sense tells you that they wouldn't. Common sense tells you that the LAST thing that a military command would do was have fighters with no tankers to refuel them. It would be analogous to a NASCAR team having a race car but not having a pit crew. Yet that is what the Obama Administration would like us to believe. To say that it strains credibility is an understatement.

Which once more brings us back to the fundamental problem with Barry's crew when they try to lie their way out of their failure to act in Libya. If they REALLY want to use the excuse that they couldn't use any of their air power to protect US interests on the ground in one of the most combustible spots on the planet because inexplicably none of our 600 refueling tankers were available...then kindly explain how they could possibly be THAT stupid? Who's running the show again? Who's in charge of what we're doing around the world?

 

[Oldstyle]

Blame it on Hicks, he's the one who reported the threat on the embassy in Tripoli, where he was at the time.

Gotta love you progressives...someone blows the whistle on Hilary and Barry for playing fast and loose with the truth...and suddenly he's George W. Bush and EVERYTHING is his fault? This whole notion that help wasn't sent to Benghazi because it was needed to defend Tripoli from an attack that never happened is just the latest Obama Administration excuse for why they didn't send help and I'm sure it won't be the last once it's shot down like all the others. Don't you guys get embarrassed falling for this nonsense after awhile?

It hasn't been shot down yet, but keep wishing.

Hicks made sure SOCAFRICA knew that the embassy in Tripoli, where his chicken ass was located, was under threat and needed protection and only pretended that the forces kept in Tripoli to protect his chicken ass should have been sent to Benghazi after the fact.

In case you hadn't noticed, Ed...EVERY excuse this Administration has used to explain their failure to act in Benghazi has eventually been shot down. Are you REALLY that naive that you think their attempt to blame it on Hicks is going to fly?

 

[Oldstyle]

“So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C‑130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now,” Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during an interview last month, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The committee released excerpts of the interview ahead of a congressional hearing that will take place on Wednesday.

Pure political partisan bullshit from the chief propaganda organ of the Republican Party - the Washington Examiner, which is less objective than FOX News and is known for reporting things out of context - like, for instance, the fact that the defense department did not certify that there was time or manpower to respond effectively. Yes, 4 people died- and yes, there should be an investigation as to why the US was not prepared on 9/11 to defend its considerable assets in the semi-occupied Muslim periphery.

FYI: Benghazi smells like a classic October Surprise, a la the delayed release of the hostages. It was likely a Hail Mary devised to hijack the election last minute, but it failed. And now they're trying to create a Monica Lewinsky out of it for purely political reasons (so it didn't completely fail).

Here is why this thing is so sad. Imagine a president who was told on August 6 2011 that Bin Laden was - in the near term - determined to hijack planes and turn them into flying bombs for the purpose of attacking skyscrapers. Further, please imagine that the president in question was advised to have planes "scramble ready" - which is standard protocol for protecting the eastern seabord - so that our military forces could at least engage these "flying bombs" which were aimed at the most densely populated parts of these United States. Now, further imagine that the president's chief terrorism advisor - Richard Clarke, first hired by Reagan - was sternly rebuffed when he tried to explain the urgency of Bin Laden and the pending attacks. Specifically, Clarke was told that the administration was only interested in removing Hussein, which was a policy developed by the neocons under Clinton (who, by the way, agreed with the neocons because Iraq, after 10 years of sanctions/bombing, was the best option for increasing our military footprint near the world's most vital resource. I happen to think the policy makes a lot of sense when you realize what would happen if the region fell under the control of someone capable of denying us access to the lifeblood of our economy: oil).

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Please, finally, imagine that because the August 6 2011 memo was ignored (and because a host of unambiguous and actionable warnings by Clarke were ignored), 3,000 Americans died - and another 4,000+ were sent to their deaths because of a misrepresentation of the motives for war. Worse, imagine if that same president forbid anyone from his team from testifying in front of a Grand Jury about this collassel failure to defend the United States. And because of this president's unwillingness to provide information about what happened, the American People will never learn how the most basic defense protocols were somehow left off on this day, and, as a result, "flying bombs" aimed at high-causality targets (as was predicted in the August 2011 memo) were allowed to fly unobstructed to their targets.

After you imagine all that, please ask yourself one question: is it any wonder that the party responsible for ignoring the greatest attack in American history is now trying to make something out of nothing? The party of Monica Lewinsky never stops manufacturing scandals. They are fighting a civil war.

When are we going to wake up? The Republicans are not fighting Islamic Terrorists. They are fighting Obama and the Democrats. Benghazi, like 9/11, is a political weapon used for agitating the stupid and winning elections.

The leadership of the radical right is not concerned about Islamic terrorism, which in this case is very real. They are concerned with the political uses of Islamic terrorism. FYI: This is the oldest political strategy in the book. Hitler claimed to be defending Germany against the Jewish Bolsheviks who, he claimed, were bent on destroying Real Germans and the German way of life.

Did you REALLY just accuse Republicans of "manufacturing" what happened in Benghazi as an "October surprise"? Wow...the breathtaking ignorance of that statement is something to behold!!!
And then you follow up that bit of "wisdom" with a inference that the GOP is channeling Hitler attacking the Jews because they'd like to know why this Administration screwed up so badly in Libya?
This is the kind of stupidity that Deanie normally provides! Congrats for putting yourself in RARE company!!!

 

[Claudette]

Obama took no action and he sanitized the reality of what happened to the American people. An actual stand-down order would just be the smoking gun. We know what happened though.

There is no question that there was a stand down order, only who it was that gave the order.

{Washington, D.C. – Congressman Mike Turner, a senior member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, today at a hearing entitled “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage” questioned State Department officials on who gave the order for a team of Special Forces to stand-down and why.}

Congressman Turner: ?Who gave the stand-down order to Special Forces in Libya?? ? Fayette Advocate | Fayette County, Ohio | Washington Court House | Newspaper

Maybe it came from Hillary, but it could have come from the military. Either way, Hillary lied under oath to congress.

There was no "stand down" order which is why the GOP cannot produce anyone who gave it. It would have been piss easy for Issa to name this phantom, after all Hicks said it was Gibson who told him of the stand down order and if Issa did not know that Hicks was lying then Issa would have had Gibson testify. But since Issa knew Hicks was lying he didn't call Gibson to testify and expose Hick's lie.

Wonder what the difference between stand down and you can't go is?? You can't go meaning you don't have permission from Libay, where we were being attacked, to let our troops go in and defend our consulate.

Hell. All Barry had to do was pick up a phone and call the powers that be in Libya and he would have gotten permission for our guys to go.

Wonder why that didn't happen??

Mayby he was to busy getting ready for his fundraiser in Vegas.

 

[bendog]

Does anyone realize Amb. Pickering shot this story down months ago?

 

[Jarhead]

Does anyone realize Amb. Pickering shot this story down months ago?

Actually, he didnt.

He admitted he found no wrong doing.

What he neglected to admit wa that he did not interview all of the decision makers. What he found was that the lower level personnel did as they were told to.

 

[Jarhead]

Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST)

The Foreign Emergency Support Team is the United States Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide. Led and trained by the Operations Directorate of the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, it assists U.S. missions and host governments in responding quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks. The FEST, which has deployed to over 20 countries since its inception in 1986, leaves for an incident site within four hours of notification, providing the fastest assistance possible.

Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST)

At the hearing, the head of FEST claimed he was told that FEST was not going to be used for this...the reason being that it was an "unsettled situation"...

As he put it.....FEST was developed so go INTO unsettled situations......

Now.....why would FEST not be used in this situation?