• 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!

APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

lol all you are running is clinton and you have the gull to say we have no one?
that is rich myopic view is myopic.

You are one of very few that don't believe that Clinton is a formidable candidate and I doubt seriously that you even actually believe that. Sorry....but the nomination and the Presidency are her's if she wants it.....absent some unknown event or someone in the GOP comes out of the woodwork, because the current sorry lot doesn't cut it. Almost makes the 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates look good.
 
You are one of very few that don't believe that Clinton is a formidable candidate and I doubt seriously that you even actually believe that. Sorry....but the nomination and the Presidency are her's if she wants it.....absent some unknown event or someone in the GOP comes out of the woodwork, because the current sorry lot doesn't cut it. Almost makes the 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates look good.

Yeah, Clinton was a shoe in in 2008 and look what happened. So much for "it's her's if she wants it"
 
OK, so you're talking about a different "marching order" I assume that has nothing to do with the so-called 'stand down' order.

It's why I asked, because I can't tell what the person was talking about.

And I'm sorry, but right wingers whinging about democrats "politicizing the deaths of four dead Americans" just disqualifies you. Romney put out a statement condemning the Obama admin while the bodies were still warm, and the GOP has held non-stop hearings on this for two years. Give me a break.



No, I'm talking about Hillary's glaring dereliction of duty and the attempted Democrat cover up for Political purposes.

It's not a different " marching order" , it's entirely relevant.

You seem to have no problem justifying the response by the Obama administration by citing hindsight but the truth is the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton failed to provide adequate Security even after the terrorist blew a 12 foot hole in the Embassy wall.


You guys are trying to make the case that those military assets were told not to leave because they were needed in Tripoli.

The fact there wasn't sufficient assets off site to defend the Embassy or to mount a successful rescue during the attack, after Chris Stevens repeated and ignored request for more security and after every other Nation got the hell out of there or is just more proof of just how incompetent and unqualified this President is AND Hillary Clinton is.

Unfortunately, some people didn't learn the lesson of just how important it is to elect a qualified leader and not fall prey to empty platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.

The only plan of action from Washington and from Hillary Clinton's State department centered around a Bull s*** narrative about a video because 4 Dead Americans this close to an election was Politically inconvenient.

Seriously, the attack started 4 PM Washington time and they knew immediately. 6 Hours later Hillary releases her press statement blaming it o a video.

What disqualifies YOU is your unending defense of a Administration and a State Department that chose to not only lie to the American people but to also lie to the Families of the four dead Americans because a terrorist attack on a US embassy this close to a election threatened Obama politically.

Your'e taking up for a Women who stood in front of 4 coffins and perpetuated the Bull S*** narrative about a video so yea, your'e hardly in a place to pass moral judgment on " Right Wingers"
 
Last edited:
Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.



APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi - ABC News

WASHINGTON — Jul 10, 2014, 5:14 PM ET
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and DONNA CASSATA Associated Press

The testimony of nine military officers undermines contentions by Republican lawmakers that a "stand-down order" 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.

The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team of four — a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast — who were stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, they were 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 the military leaders by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees were made public for the first time on Wednesday. The Associated Press had reviewed the material ahead of its release.

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

snip~



I'm betting that you're feeling pretty good about investigating the matter now, aren't ya?
 
Certainly mistakes were made and the results were tragic.....but there is a big difference between the hyperpartisan feigned outrage conspiracy theories and what in hindsight should have been handled better.

Lol !

No, it wasn't hyper-partisan to perpetuate some BS narrative about a internet video.:roll:
 
Lol !

No, it wasn't hyper-partisan to perpetuate some BS narrative about a internet video.:roll:

I'm just curious - why did those guys attack when they did? And how did we know immediately that their motives, that I still don't understand, were not the same as the motives for other attacks on U.S. interests in that general region on the same day?

I suspect the motives were related to the CIA operations out of those locations, which were obviously secret and not something the administration was going to broadcast on day one, or any day really, since those activities were secret. Remember, incompetent Petraeus, who was in charge of the CIA operations that were attacked, and at least bears co-responsibility for the security in place for his operation. And even after his incompetent security arrangements allowed for a deadly attack, he didn't even have the guts to show up at the memorial for his own dead employees. Or he was trying to distance himself from the fact that it was a CIA operation being run out of the locations attacked. One of the two.

But I'm off track - even now I don't know WHY they attacked those CIA outposts. So I was hoping someone could tell me what the reason was, since everyone is sure what it was not and was sure on day 1 what it was not, and the only way to know that is to know the REAL reason. Can anyone fill me in?
 
No, I'm talking about Hillary's glaring dereliction of duty and the attempted Democrat cover up for Political purposes.

You seem to have no problem justifying the response by the Obama administration by citing hindsight but the truth is the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton failed to provide adequate Security even after the terrorist blew a 12 foot hole in the Embassy wall.


You guys are trying to make the case that those military assets were told not to leave because they were needed in Tripoli.

The fact there wasn't sufficient assets off site to defend the Embassy or to mount a successful rescue during the attack, after Chris Stevens repeated and ignored request for more security and after every other Nation got the hell out of there or is just more proof of just how incompetent and unqualified this President is AND Hillary Clinton is.

This brings up something else I've wondered about. It was a CIA operation being run under State Dept cover. And Petraeus reported to Clapper. So if there was a decision to close down that CIA operation, who makes it? Does Petraeus talk to Clinton at State and they make a joint decision, or does Hillary just tell Petraeus and Clapper that their operation is being shuttered and they'll have to talk to Obama if they have a problem, or does Petraeus through Clapper make that call to shut down an active operation in Benghazi, and Hillary is just the person putting pen to paper to make the order decided ultimately by the DNI?

It's kind of a weird thing - CIA operatives being paid by CIA and directed by CIA, but under State cover, so who is responsible? I don't know, which is why I'm asking. And I'm wondering why no one ever mentions Petraeus or Clapper in all this. Sort of strange - at a minimum they share responsibility for the entire operation, including when to shut it down, how much security is needed to protect CIA assets and their operations there, etc.

Seriously, the attack started 4 PM Washington time and they knew immediately. 6 Hours later Hillary releases her press statement blaming it o a video.

I'm curious, what did they "know" immediately. Lots of conflicting reports coming out those first few days, including people on the ground - locals - blaming the attack on the video. So what did they 'know?'

What disqualifies YOU is your unending defense of a Administration and a State Department that chose to not only lie to the American people but to also lie to the Families of the four dead Americans because a terrorist attack on a US embassy this close to a election threatened Obama politically.

I said so above, but I'm still not sure if it was a 'terrorist' attack or more akin to an act of war on U.S. interests in that area. After all, if it was in response to whatever the spooks were doing, that's not exactly a terror attack, as it had an operational purpose beyond the "death to America" motives of your average terrorist nutjob.

Your'e taking up for a Women who stood in front of 4 coffins and perpetuated the Bull S*** narrative about a video so yea, your'e hardly in a place to pass moral judgment on " Right Wingers"

Actually, I'm pointing out obvious problems with the right wing narrative.
 
I'm just curious - why did those guys attack when they did? And how did we know immediately that their motives, that I still don't understand, were not the same as the motives for other attacks on U.S. interests in that general region on the same day?

I suspect the motives were related to the CIA operations out of those locations, which were obviously secret and not something the administration was going to broadcast on day one, or any day really, since those activities were secret. Remember, incompetent Petraeus, who was in charge of the CIA operations that were attacked, and at least bears co-responsibility for the security in place for his operation. And even after his incompetent security arrangements allowed for a deadly attack, he didn't even have the guts to show up at the memorial for his own dead employees. Or he was trying to distance himself from the fact that it was a CIA operation being run out of the locations attacked. One of the two.

But I'm off track - even now I don't know WHY they attacked those CIA outposts. So I was hoping someone could tell me what the reason was, since everyone is sure what it was not and was sure on day 1 what it was not, and the only way to know that is to know the REAL reason. Can anyone fill me in?


Yea the left wings tried the CIA angle already.

In a desperate attempt to disconnect Obama and Hillary from the Benghazi attack, conspiracy theories started rolling in as soon as it became apparent that the whole Internet video narrative was made up.

It was a CIA gun running operation and the White House had no control over it.

Anyway, it didn't gain much traction because of the WH's initial reaction to the attack and because of the actions of other Foreign Governments and the Red Cross who decided to get the hell out of there ASAP.

Why would Hillary and Obama take the chance of getting caught in a lie over a operation that they had no control over in the first place ?

Why would Western Governments chose to pick up and leave ?

No, setting up a Embassy in Lybia was an attempt to manufacture a Foreign policy narrative that Obama and his greatness had our enemies in the run.

Everyone but the US bailed out because there had been clear indications that the local Islamic extremists were planning on a attack of all Western interest.
 
Yeah, Clinton was a shoe in in 2008 and look what happened. So much for "it's her's if she wants it"

You guys love to try to spin that one....the reality is quite the opposite. No one thought Hilary was a shoo-in in 2008. Anyone in the know knew it was going to be a tight race between her and Obama. But...if it makes you feel better to believe your statement...by all means have at it.
 
I'm betting that you're feeling pretty good about investigating the matter now, aren't ya?

Lmao... Thrilla defending an Issa investigation that got nowhere.

what_are_the_odds.jpg


Well, on to the next politically motivated investigation meant to clear Obama of any wrong doing. Useful idiot that Issa is.
 
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 don't understand. If the article is 100% factually correct, it doesn't change what happened and it doesn't change our response. Not receiving a "Stand Down" order does not clean up the accountability on what happened on 9.11.
 
I don't understand. If the article is 100% factually correct, it doesn't change what happened and it doesn't change our response. Not receiving a "Stand Down" order does not clean up the accountability on what happened on 9.11.

As we learned during the Reagan administration, presidents often abuse their power conducting operations apart from congresses knowledge. The more serious problem with Benghazi is the CIA smuggling arms to the terrorist groups, no matter how "moderate" they claimed to be, in Syria which has given them the strength to hold on for over three years now, resulting in the deaths of 165,000 civilians. China and Russia both correctly predicted/warned that US interference in Syria would cause the conflict to spread to the entire region, look about!
 
As we learned during the Reagan administration, presidents often abuse their power conducting operations apart from congresses knowledge. The more serious problem with Benghazi is the CIA smuggling arms to the terrorist groups, no matter how "moderate" they claimed to be, in Syria which has given them the strength to hold on for over three years now, resulting in the deaths of 165,000 civilians. China and Russia both correctly predicted/warned that US interference in Syria would cause the conflict to spread to the entire region, look about!

Don't take this the wrong way, but that doesn't explain anything. My question is why does not receiving a "Stand Down" order clear accountability for what happened in Benghazi?

Instead of celebrating a talking point, someone is accountable for what happened. President, Secretary of State, Defense Department...someone did not protect our people when they begged for help.
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but that doesn't explain anything. My question is why does not receiving a "Stand Down" order clear accountability for what happened in Benghazi?

Instead of celebrating a talking point, someone is accountable for what happened. President, Secretary of State, Defense Department...someone did not protect our people when they begged for help.

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.
 


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.


It's amazing how people can fall for this doubleplusgood speak from the Administration and their subservient media outlets.

While the situation was still in flux, while the consulate was in flames, and before anyone could know how far the attack would go, the willing defenders were told not to go in.

Monday morning quarterbacking at its worse.
 
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.


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.
 
It's amazing how people can fall for this doubleplusgood speak from the Administration and their subservient media outlets.

While the situation was still in flux, while the consulate was in flames, and before anyone could know how far the attack would go, the willing defenders were told not to go in.

Monday morning quarterbacking at its worse.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom