• 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!

Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Karl said:
Why didn't you answer the question?

I find your post mostly incoherent (not to mention totally off topic in relation to my question), but this one part did stand out:

.
First, I didn't think that; second, how do you know what I think, and third, why would you post something that wasn't true? :screwy

But I think we all know that since you've dodged the original question twice now, that no answer will be forthcoming on this one either. In any case, since you are having some success in deflecting away from that original question I'll repost it for all to review:
Click to expand...



Well that's due to me showing what you have posted there was always false and doing so in the same post.....coming from those Two government officials who you are showing doing the talking.

Also I really can only go by what you say out that Mouth and type up onto the screen. Perhaps you should go back and read all of your own Posts. Did you forget all that you brought up already. Is that why you couldn't figure out that Stevens requested Security up to the attack. Is that why you still are trying to cling to a question that has no bearing whatsoever.


In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya. Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security. On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September." On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request

On August 8, as the special security teams left Libya, another cable from Stevens says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks.".....snip~

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/before-death-amb-stevens-warned-of-violent-libya-landscape/


Here was where I gave you and your Two Government Officials the real scoop. That which you couldn't figure out. Why is Stevens requesting Security Right before the attack? Why is there a cable Aug 8th 2012? Why did Stevens even send a cable on the Day of the Attack?

What happened? I thought your government officials said Stevens Denied Requests for Security? Can you explain why Stevens wasn't denying but Requesting Security in July and Aug Right before the attack? Goes against what your 2 government officials are saying.

Now.....why is there Physical evidence to Steven's requests for Security?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Just keep projecting that you would let fellow American's die...It highlights what a brave soul libs have....
Click to expand...

Cmon Now JMac. You know they will do anything and everything to make sure their BO peep doesn't look bad. But then tell you they didn't agree with BO when is was wrong. :lol:
 
MMC said:
Cmon Now JMac. You know they will do anything and everything to make sure their BO peep doesn't look bad. But then tell you they didn't agree with BO when is was wrong. :lol:
Click to expand...

It is frustrating.
 
mak2 said:
I agree, if I had to give that order I would like to think I would go with them, cause I would not want to be alive after giving an order like that.
Click to expand...

Because someone might get killed isn't a good reason to stand down.
 
I know you know what I am talking about so quit trying to spin it to someone might get killed. There is no reason to send 3 more men to die if it would not do any good. i know it is a right wing meme now, but you would not order meaningless meaningless death of your men either.
apdst said:
Because someone might get killed isn't a good reason to stand down.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I know you know what I am talking about so quit trying to spin it to someone might get killed. There is no reason to send 3 more men to die if it would not do any good. i know it is a right wing meme now, but you would not order meaningless meaningless death of your men either.
Click to expand...

Well your perspective was put in check.....perhaps you should look into how many CIA Ops were in the area. That way the Number 3 wont throw you for a loop.
 
cpwill said:
Uh. We did.
Click to expand...

We knew who did it? That's news to me....

We also know that the attackers used a combined arms approach and a focus of effort that demonstrated impressive intelligence preparation of the battlespace - the kind of thing that takes some serious time and preparation, not the kind of thing you throw together at the last minute as part of a protest.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it was part of a protest.


:shrug: if you want to get technical with definitions you could argue the semantics of that. Regardless was an attack by an Islamist Militant Group against the United States of America, an attack that had been planned for some time and which was carried out successfully. And whether you want to define "terrorism" in such a way to include it or not, it wasn't a youtube video and we knew that at the time.
Click to expand...

So the idea here is it was planned, but otherwise random and not in response to CIA activities, but because we had facilities there and that's reason enough. And the big scandal here is that the terrorist attack wasn't a random attack in response to a video, but a random attack in response to nothing at all but that there were Americans in some buildings and so were attacked. Ever since this whole thing started, I have yet to figure out why my give a damn meter should ever tick off about 2 on a 10 point scale.

....wait. You think that the only reason that Islamist militant groups attack Western interests is because the CIA is working out of a consulate in Benghazi?

No, dude. The only excuse these people need is availability.
Click to expand...

You must have misread my comment - I obviously don't think that the ONLY reason we could be attacked is for spy activities. Heck, on that day, other facilities around the world were also attacked, and it's unlikely those attacks had anything to do with Benghazi....

No one is suggesting that we ever thought it was random. Random terrorism is rather rare. Usually targets are selected for a purpose. In this case, because it was American and because they hoped to kill the Ambassador and likely because they hoped to get access to the SCIF.
Click to expand...

You know they hoped to kill the Ambassador how? He wasn't stationed there, so any speculation he was the target is just that. Or at least I've not seen any evidence the attackers knew the Ambassador would be making a visit there, that day, at that time.

And if it was to get access to the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" ( I assume that's what you meant) then you're making my point. The admin can't say that's the reason because the world wasn't supposed to know those facilities were CIA outposts doing spook stuff - which is why Petraeus was a no show at the memorial. Do you expect the various agencies to sign off on talking points that blow a CIA operation in the immediate aftermath of an attack? Question 2 is "what the hell was CIA doing in Benghazi?" which was and still is presumably classified information. And if the Admin knew that was the reason for the attack and then blamed it on a random attack , it's also a lie, just a different one. Which is my point. You're effectively demanding that they tell a BETTER lie or a DIFFERENT lie, in the immediate aftermath of an attack.
 
mak2 said:
I know you know what I am talking about so quit trying to spin it to someone might get killed. There is no reason to send 3 more men to die if it would not do any good. i know it is a right wing meme now, but you would not order meaningless meaningless death of your men either.
Click to expand...

I do know what you're talkng about. You just said it again.

Anytime someone puts their life on the line for a comrade, it isn't meaningless! You're a Marine! You know better!
 
JasperL said:
We knew who did it? That's news to me....



I don't believe it was part of a protest.




So the idea here is it was planned, but otherwise random and not in response to CIA activities, but because we had facilities there and that's reason enough. And the big scandal here is that the terrorist attack wasn't a random attack in response to a video, but a random attack in response to nothing at all but that there were Americans in some buildings and so were attacked. Ever since this whole thing started, I have yet to figure out why my give a damn meter should ever tick off about 2 on a 10 point scale.



You must have misread my comment - I obviously don't think that the ONLY reason we could be attacked is for spy activities. Heck, on that day, other facilities around the world were also attacked, and it's unlikely those attacks had anything to do with Benghazi....



You know they hoped to kill the Ambassador how? He wasn't stationed there, so any speculation he was the target is just that. Or at least I've not seen any evidence the attackers knew the Ambassador would be making a visit there, that day, at that time.

And if it was to get access to the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" ( I assume that's what you meant) then you're making my point. The admin can't say that's the reason because the world wasn't supposed to know those facilities were CIA outposts doing spook stuff - which is why Petraeus was a no show at the memorial. Do you expect the various agencies to sign off on talking points that blow a CIA operation in the immediate aftermath of an attack? Question 2 is "what the hell was CIA doing in Benghazi?" which was and still is presumably classified information. And if the Admin knew that was the reason for the attack and then blamed it on a random attack , it's also a lie, just a different one. Which is my point. You're effectively demanding that they tell a BETTER lie or a DIFFERENT lie, in the immediate aftermath of an attack.
Click to expand...


Yeah they knew who did.....that's why Petraeus was trotted out in front of the people. As a Matter of fact they knew while the attack was taking place.....and then later when Ansar al Sharia claimed credit.


The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.....snip~

Benghazi Timeline




Oh, and Stevens said he was on a hit list. Also....I think the Libyans had stated the same.



Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List.....

American intelligence officials insist that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was not pre-planned, but a new CNN report says that Ambassador Chris Stevens had expressed concerns about the safety of the mission in the months before his death. According to "a source familiar with his thinking," Stevens was worried about the growing threat of al-Qaeda and other extremists in Libya and even mentioned that he was on a terrorist "hit list.".....snip~

Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List
50e9fadf-7d79-46fd-b2a3-0b4991befdce_logo_90x60.jpeg
September 20, 2012 11:28 AM <<<<< !
 
apdst said:
I do know what you're talkng about. You just said it again.

Anytime someone puts their life on the line for a comrade, it isn't meaningless! You're a Marine! You know better!
Click to expand...

That is exactly what threw me for a loop....I have known, and had the privilege of working with more than a few Marine's in my life, both in, and out of the Military, and of those I worked with, NONE would have thought for a NY second that a mission to save a life of an American in ANY situation was too risky....
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

j-mac said:
Yes, she absolutely said that, and to that Issa immediately said he didn't believe that for a moment...



I also believe that was a bit of CYA on her part....For instance why no increased security? Was it lack of funding? We already know that from her own lips she said 'No Sir', well, then was it a spontaneous attack? We also know the answer to that is no. In fact we know that after previous attacks on other embassy's and consulates in the area that Stevens begged for more security and was turned down by State because they wanted to optics to show "normalized relations".... It was a dumb plan, and it got people killed. Period.
Click to expand...


I think Amb. Stevens was asked twice if he needed more security and twice he said, "no". It was someone else in Tripoli...a guy named Nordstrom?...that requested more security and he claims his requests were never answered. Which is kind of strange since he also claims to know the reason his requests were denied...but how would he know that if he never got a reply?
 
j-mac said:
That is exactly what threw me for a loop....I have known, and had the privilege of working with more than a few Marine's in my life, both in, and out of the Military, and of those I worked with, NONE would have thought for a NY second that a mission to save a life of an American in ANY situation was too risky....
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I've known Marines that I wouldn't trust with my dog.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Moot said:
I think Amb. Stevens was asked twice if he needed more security and twice he said, "no". It was someone else in Tripoli...a guy named Nordstrom?...that requested more security and he claims his requests were never answered. Which is kind of strange since he also claims to know the reason his requests were denied...but how would he know that if he never got a reply?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yours or my speculation about what we think happened, so if you're trying to turn what you think Stevens said into any kind of fact, we can stop there.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

j-mac said:
Unfortunately, yours or my speculation about what we think happened, so if you're trying to turn what you think Stevens said into any kind of fact, we can stop there.
Click to expand...

If facts are a problem for you then perhaps you should have stopped a long time ago. Amb. Stevens turned down two offers for more security and that's a fact, jack.
 
Marine envy. Ugly.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Moot said:
If facts are a problem for you then perhaps you should have stopped a long time ago. Amb. Stevens turned down two offers for more security and that's a fact, jack.
Click to expand...

Oh is it now....

"One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy."

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC


So the political pressure from State was for Stevens to NOT request more security, which falls in line with the idiotic plan to "normalize" optics so that the world would think that everything was just a peachy success after Obama's illegal war there....Do yourself a favor and stop trying to parse the impossible.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

mak2 said:
It would have just been 3 more dead guys. The RW is really shameful, using the deaths of Americans for political gain, and trying to bash Obama because there weren't more deaths. What are we 2 years out? and still no evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Do you believe everyone involved at Benghazi was killed?

It looks like five guys held off the attack at the CIA annex. Three more fighters (shooters) would have helped. But the real problem was the failure to send air support. The mortar attack killed two and seriously injured a third fighter.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Moot said:
I think they'll fact check and find that the story only confirms what we already know. The CIA was acting on it's own.

The politicization of the attacks on Benghazi is BS. It's right up there with the Birthers and Truthers. Now there's the Benghazianiacs to add to the growing list of nutballs.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Hillary voter nut ball! I hope the truth actually comes out about this!
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

I think I am down to just believeing this. Not Fox, not the books released by people just wanting to make some bucks etc. What air support was available and how do you know?
Misterveritis said:
Do you believe everyone involved at Benghazi was killed?

It looks like five guys held off the attack at the CIA annex. Three more fighters (shooters) would have helped. But the real problem was the failure to send air support. The mortar attack killed two and seriously injured a third fighter.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom