Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 193

Thread: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Why did the Red Cross and every other Nation bail out of Benghazi prior to the attack ?

    Were their intelligence agencies running guns too ?

    Or did they tie the rising threat of a terrorist to our suppposed CIAs activities ?

    Was the prior attack that blew a 12 foot hole in the compounds wall a message to our CIA ?

    We were not the only Nation in Benghazi, just the only one with a administration incompetent enough to stay put.
    So was it the CIA or State who made the decision to stay? If it was CIA, then why doesn't Petraeus or Clapper's name get mentioned in here? Why aren't they being called to testify about the security arrangements or called to task for inadequate ones for their spook operations?

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.[INDENT]
    That was not the question, the question was, was there any orders issued by the CnC ?

    If not why ?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by keymanjim View Post


    So...... being told "not to proceed" or "not to go" (4:14 in video) does NOT, in the leftist thesaurus, equate to being told to "stand down".

    Got it.
    Obama's disregard for the military men and women is truly a scandal. Outrageous: Combat Troops to Receive Pink Slips While Deployed Overseas - Daniel Doherty

  4. #74
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeside View Post
    I am still waiting to see how Democrats and Liberals spin the "video" that Obama and Hillary BLAMED for three weeks. Probably will hear the ole "Bush did it" routine.
    I'm still trying to figure out why anyone cares about the 'video' nearly two years later. The event that matters is a group of armed people attacked the CIA outposts and killed 4 Americans. During the same time period, other protests at U.S. facilities occurred which were tied to the video. For some reason, the CIA/DOJ/FBI/WH issued talking points linking those events. Whether they believed the video was likely/possibly/could be and it passes the smell test the proximate cause for the attack isn't really known. Could be they just had no plausible alternative they could release given the secret nature of the activities at those facilities, and so settled on the video. Or maybe it was pure politics.

    But I can't think of another time in the post 9/10, including 9/11, when the MOTIVATION for an attack on U.S. interests has been elevated to a scandal. Soon after 9/11, Bush said this: "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." Well, that's wrong in every way. We could argue which part of decades of meddling over there motivated the attack, but 20 people don't volunteer to die because some country a world away minding their own business is a 'beacon for freedom.'

    But that was never a scandal. Sure, anyone with and IQ above room temp and who knew the slightest bit about the ME and our decades of meddling over there knew it was BS, but we all recognized that it was spin and that's what politicians do, and have done for as long as there have been politicians. I just don't get why the motives of terrorists matter so much in this case.

    One more point - let's assume it was the CIA operations that motivated the attack. Well, the Admin isn't going to say, "Well, our spooks have been engaged in secret operations, and those operations are why we suspect there was an attack." Petraeus didn't even show for the memorial to keep the link to CIA from being made. So either they say they have no idea why, which is a lie, or they blame it on the video, which is (arguably) a lie, but either way we're deceived. So why do I really CARE beyond some intellectual level how I'm deceived? When it comes to CIA operations, we all should EXPECT to be deceived. That's the nature of covert operations.

  5. #75
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,666

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    You need to review the timeline, because what you're asserting as fact just isn't. Or maybe you can tell us when the request to leave Tripoli and head to Benghazi was made. When did the transport leave. What time did or would that transport have arrived in Benghazi. When did the first plane of wounded evacuated from Benghazi take off. When did that flight arrive in Tripoli.

    And I agree, you're engaged in faulty Monday morning quarterbacking. The evidence is clear that the decision to leave that team in Tripoli was made at the appropriate military chain of command level, based on the information those people whose JOB it was to make those decisions had at that time, and they were forced to weigh trade offs. Given the situation at that time, would the team be better utilized some hours later in Benghazi, or more likely useful in Tripoli?

    What we KNOW now is that decision was correct. Had they left on the first plane out, they'd have arrived well after the personnel were already evacuated and at the airport. Now you want to Monday morning quarterback and second guess a decision that was in hindsight the CORRECT one. It's bizarre, frankly.


    From the AP article, key quote:

    1- 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

    2- 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.

    The decision was made to stand down before anyone could have known the fight was over. This is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. At the time that the order was given Ambassador Stevens had not been located. Stevens wasn't located until his body was delivered to the airport hours later. So, in perspective, the order not to go in was made while the Ambassador was still missing and before anyone could possibly know the attacks wouldn't continue.

    And of course, there is the little problem that the Mission came under attack hours earlier, hours after Steven sent a message to State warning of security problems in Benghazi, and after a month of asking for more security.

    Also, the stand down orders have many sources, here is a Washington Times article about the hold up at the Annex that some soldiers saw as a stand down order.

    In the end, when you take all of the information into account, the problem was that the piss poor security offered by the State Department of the Annex and Mission left the US security forces in an untenable position of having to bargain with local Libyan Militias for sufficient firepower to defend the Mission, and later defend the Annex because the US State Department didn't see a need to give military hardware and heavy weapons to security teams in a war zone.

    So feel free to make the semantic argument of whether the exact words "stand down" were made to willing rescuers in Tripoli, or Italy, or the Benghazi annex, but in the end it's the same Charlie Foxtrot by another name.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  6. #76
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    True enough, but I think the "our **** doesn't stink" coming from Fenton is amusing...except that he actually believes it.
    It's very unlikely that he seriously believes it, though he may on some level of consciousness. More like denying it is much more satisfying than acknowledging it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    From the AP article, key quote:

    1- 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

    2- 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.

    The decision was made to stand down before anyone could have known the fight was over. This is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. At the time that the order was given Ambassador Stevens had not been located. Stevens wasn't located until his body was delivered to the airport hours later. So, in perspective, the order not to go in was made while the Ambassador was still missing and before anyone could possibly know the attacks wouldn't continue.

    And of course, there is the little problem that the Mission came under attack hours earlier, hours after Steven sent a message to State warning of security problems in Benghazi, and after a month of asking for more security.

    Also, the stand down orders have many sources, here is a Washington Times article about the hold up at the Annex that some soldiers saw as a stand down order.

    In the end, when you take all of the information into account, the problem was that the piss poor security offered by the State Department of the Annex and Mission left the US security forces in an untenable position of having to bargain with local Libyan Militias for sufficient firepower to defend the Mission, and later defend the Annex because the US State Department didn't see a need to give military hardware and heavy weapons to security teams in a war zone.

    So feel free to make the semantic argument of whether the exact words "stand down" were made to willing rescuers in Tripoli, or Italy, or the Benghazi annex, but in the end it's the same Charlie Foxtrot by another name.
    There are probably a 100 problems with what you just said, starting with the characterization of Benghazi as a "war zone" and ending with your suggestion that we needed a stronger security presence.

    To begin with, its not our country and its a diplomatic embassy. "Relying" on foreign security to protect them is what you are supposed to do, because generally you aren't allowed to have a strong military presence or weapons grade technologies in someone else's country, particularly not at an embassy that is supposed to promote the ideals of peaceful cooperation and co-existence.

    Granted, exceptions exist according to treaty, but those take a long time to make and revise and countries tend to be prickly about the exact terms.

    Every country that has an embassy in the U.S. relies on foreign security.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-15-14 at 03:50 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    It's very unlikely that he seriously believes it, though he may on some level of consciousness. More like denying it is much more satisfying than acknowledging it.
    Then you should have no problem refuting what he says rather than going the ad hom route.

  8. #78
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Oh, you and I have no conflict on that at all. I'm just saying that the underlying activity going on out of the Benghazi annex made it vulnerable to such attack to begin with.
    Ah. I get what you are saying.

    I would say, and have said, our imperialism justifies the attacks on us in foreign nations. Although a embassy is not an imperialistic act on its own. But yes, our picking of winners and losers comes back to bite us every time.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  9. #79
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Then you should have no problem refuting what he says rather than going the ad hom route.
    What, that Republicans politicized the deaths?

    Blaming your political opposition for something is what it means to 'politicize' something. If you can find a Republican figure or official who said something resembling 'blame' against a political opponent concerning Benghazi, then you've found someone who politicized the deaths.

    Not very ambiguous.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,738

    Re: APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    From the AP article, key quote:

    1- 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

    2- 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.

    The decision was made to stand down before anyone could have known the fight was over. This is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. At the time that the order was given Ambassador Stevens had not been located. Stevens wasn't located until his body was delivered to the airport hours later. So, in perspective, the order not to go in was made while the Ambassador was still missing and before anyone could possibly know the attacks wouldn't continue.
    I'm still mystified why you want to question an order that turned out to be the correct one. I understand why the military in the AAR might address that decision, but why it's part of any political discussion undermines any other legitimate point. It was the correct decision.

    it would be like this:

    Drunk at bar on Monday: That third and 14 call on the last drive in the 4th quarter was stooopid! We need to fire that OC.
    Other Guy: But they gained 16, got a first down, and went on to score....
    Drunk: Right, that was a dumb call and the OC needs to be FIRED!

    And of course, there is the little problem that the Mission came under attack hours earlier, hours after Steven sent a message to State warning of security problems in Benghazi, and after a month of asking for more security.

    Also, the stand down orders have many sources, here is a Washington Times article about the hold up at the Annex that some soldiers saw as a stand down order.
    OK, that's different than the original one, and it's less clear. Should they have sent the teams immediately? Perhaps, but I saw nothing there where Hillary was on the phone with CIA people making decisions during an attack telling them what to do and what not to do.

    In the end, when you take all of the information into account, the problem was that the piss poor security offered by the State Department of the Annex and Mission left the US security forces in an untenable position of having to bargain with local Libyan Militias for sufficient firepower to defend the Mission, and later defend the Annex because the US State Department didn't see a need to give military hardware and heavy weapons to security teams in a war zone.
    It's a fair and obvious point that the security was inadequate. Investigating WHY is clearly appropriate, but you know as well as I do that this isn't an investigation into an event to learn and prevent future attacks, but to tar Obama and Hillary with all the blame. And we know this because there have been dozens of attacks on U.S. facilities, and hundreds of battles overseas where more security or a better immediate response would have saved U.S. lives, and we just don't care about them.

    And even with all we know now, with perfect hindsight, what is clear is people in charge of making security decisions made mistakes that turned out to be fatal. But that's the nature of those decisions. They had limited resources and so had to use their best judgment to allocate them. They failed, but I don't get why failure is a political scandal in this case, and only in this case.

    So feel free to make the semantic argument of whether the exact words "stand down" were made to willing rescuers in Tripoli, or Italy, or the Benghazi annex, but in the end it's the same Charlie Foxtrot by another name.
    I don't care about the semantics. I've argued the decisions on the merits, not what we call them. If you want to argue that the team in Tripoli SHOULD have been sent, only to pass the plane carrying wounded in the air from Benghazi on their way to Tripoli, make that argument.

Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •