• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

So to reiterate, Jack, this was a CIA operation, and as such, CIA secret operatives would not expect US military intervention in a sovereign state for their rescue.
 
then it would make sense that you agree with the earlier Kessler quote, it was a CIA operation.44901721.jpg
 
There were 2 attacks, Doherty from Tripoli was killed in the 2nd attack. The point was that not even that JSOC unit could have made it in time to the 1st attack. You can't even apply your comments to your own context.

Are you saying that when the attacks began the State Department knew how long they would last? How would they know they couldn't make it in time?

The fact is they just waited around until everyone was dead, then BHO went to Vegas, Hillary said she was responsible and the entire screw-up was blamed on a Youtube video. Are you still buying that, by the way?
 
He was on all the Sunday morning news shows. They're probably all repeated somewhere sometime.
I'm kinda surprised the WH would encourage a repeat of the kind of thing that would have folks recall Rice's mendacity fest.

As matter of interest, a CNN/ORC report dated May 19, 2013 titled... POLL: CONGRESS NOT OVERREACHING ON OBAMA SCANDALS dated May 19, 2013, showed that 54 percent of Americans don't believe that Congress is overreacting to the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups, while 42 percent said it is.

By an even larger margin, 59 percent to 37 percent, respondents said that Congress is making the right moves on the administration's actions on the Benghazi terror attack.
 
Are you saying that when the attacks began the State Department knew how long they would last? How would they know they couldn't make it in time?
Um, there were drones observing....which would be one answer.

The fact is they just waited around until everyone was dead, then BHO went to Vegas, Hillary said she was responsible and the entire screw-up was blamed on a Youtube video. Are you still buying that, by the way?
What a sad self commentary.
 
I don't think so, especially for a secret CIA mission.

What mission could be so "secret" that they couldn't try to rescue their fellow Americans?

Did this mission succeed as a result of the secrecy or did it fail anyway?
 
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.


.....

Of the more than 30 U.S. officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department, officials briefed on the intelligence told The Wall Street Journal. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, the Journal said.

Read more: Ex-Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty: CIA workers, not State Dept. - UPI.com

It does not matter in the slightest what agency anyone was from. They were all under Chief of Mission authority -- both compounds and all personnel.:cool:
 
What mission could be so "secret" that they couldn't try to rescue their fellow Americans?

Did this mission succeed as a result of the secrecy or did it fail anyway?
I will ask you for the same info I asked Jack, show me where the US military has been used to rescue CIA operatives on secret missions in sovereign states.
 
this was a CIA operation

what was the ambassador doing there?

spying?

counting hostages?
 
It does not matter in the slightest what agency anyone was from. They were all under Chief of Mission authority -- both compounds and all personnel.:cool:
Again, it was a CIA operation, not a State dept mission, the State dept was being used as a cover, they were not in an authority position.

Face it Jack, this time you are not in the know.
 
So to reiterate, Jack, this was a CIA operation, and as such, CIA secret operatives would not expect US military intervention in a sovereign state for their rescue.

That is a silly, uninformed statement. The answer of course is: yes,: the personnel of any agency would expect the USG to use all its resources on their behalf.:roll: That is why the Acting Chief of Mission was so interested in getting help to Benghazi.:cool:
 
what was the ambassador doing there?

spying?

counting hostages?
Bzzzzzzz...
As previously posted, he was there temporarily to hand over the "consulate" compound over to the Libyans, it was converted into an "American Center", pr, leaning facilities, computers.."hearts and minds".

Find out for yourself.
 
Um, there were drones observing....which would be one answer.

The drones were observing the Americans under attack but no one kknew how long the attack would continue. therefore how would anyone know whether they would get there in time or not? They should leave immediately with the understanding that they could get there in time, shouldn't they?

What a sad self commentary.

A sad self commentary?

Indeed it is a sad commentary on those in charge, and those who contributed to this sad commentary should be held responsible.
 
Again, it was a CIA operation, not a State dept mission, the State dept was being used as a cover, they were not in an authority position.

Face it Jack, this time you are not in the know.

Ignorance speaks. What you describe is both illegal and contrary to policy. The Chief of Mission represents the President, not the Department of State. All personnel on both compounds were under his authority. It was that way 100% of the time during my nearly 34 years of service, and it was that way in Benghazi.:cool:
 
It does not matter in the slightest what agency anyone was from. They were all under Chief of Mission authority -- both compounds and all personnel.:cool:

The bureaucracy must be immense and moribund if Americans can only be rescued depending on which agency they belong to.
 
I will ask you for the same info I asked Jack, show me where the US military has been used to rescue CIA operatives on secret missions in sovereign states.

Why? How is that relevant to the situation in Benghazi?

What 'secret mission' was this, and is it still a secret?
 
The bureaucracy must be immense and moribund if Americans can only be rescued depending on which agency they belong to.

You would be correct if that were so. I assume your intent was sarcasm, and I appreciate it. My other interlocutor is posting well beyond his knowledge.:cool:
 
That is a silly, uninformed statement. The answer of course is: yes,: the personnel of any agency would expect the USG to use all its resources on their behalf.:roll: That is why the Acting Chief of Mission was so interested in getting help to Benghazi.:cool:
Sure he would, but he was not in charge of CIA operations in Benghazi.
 
Again, it was a CIA operation, not a State dept mission, the State dept was being used as a cover, they were not in an authority position.

Face it Jack, this time you are not in the know.

If it wasn't a State Department mission, why did the Sec. of State take the responsibility for it?
 
Ignorance speaks. What you describe is both illegal and contrary to policy. The Chief of Mission represents the President, not the Department of State. All personnel on both compounds were under his authority. It was that way 100% of the time during my nearly 34 years of service, and it was that way in Benghazi.:cool:
Really..OK...I just posted multiple sources...just for you.....showing that this was not a State dept operation but a CIA operation, but you keep on with your narrative of this is a State operation.

Again Jack, you are ignoring facts. State doesn't have authority over CIA ops.
 
Back
Top Bottom