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

mak2 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why there is PDF on the State Dept Hiring Ansar al Sharia as Security too. Hope you didn't miss that screw up. Just sayin.

Oh, and don't forget those Fact Checkers Timelines.....Politi-Fact. Fact Check. org, CNN's, The Guardian's and the BBC. This way you wont be confused on why they are all saying the same thing too.

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

mak2 said:

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?

Click to expand...

It was a 13 hour fight. Air support could have come from anywhere in Europe in 13 hours.

Did the senate intelligence committee put its witnesses under oath and depose them using professional investigators?

Karl said:

It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be :shrug:

Click to expand...

I believe cpwill. I talked to Jason Bourne and he said he knows him. :lamo

cpwill said:

:shrug: you accused me of coming to believe in a conspiracy theory, namely coming to believe in the conspiracy theory that the Administration had chosen to lie about the Benghazi attacks. Given that the specific topic therefore is my understanding of these events, and given that my understanding of those events stem from the fact that I follow things like this professionally, who I am does indeed have relevancy .

Click to expand...

Unless you can post a credible source defending what you say about yourself, it's nothing but talk. What you say you know doesn't mean **** unless you can back it up. Your personal recollections mean nothing by themselves.

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

APACHERAT said:

It was the Obama White House who politicized the 9-11-12 terrorist attack and the murder of four Americans by blaming it on a You Tube video (cover up) and Obama claiming that Al Qaeda was being decimated and was on the run just to be given a second chance of being reelected.

Click to expand...

Funny... Isn't the video the reason given by the guy they caught? Why yes it is the reason he said it happened. Go figure.

Let's spend a few hundred million more for a fifth and sixth investigation into this tin foil hat garbage. Wise with the money you conservatives are.

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

poweRob said:

Funny... Isn't the video the reason given by the guy they caught? Why yes it is the reason he said it happened. Go figure.

Let's spend a few hundred million more for a fifth and sixth investigation into this tin foil hat garbage. Wise with the money you conservatives are.

Click to expand...

So, you're siding with and defending "the guy they caught"? Sad.

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

j-mac said:

So, you're siding with and defending "the guy they caught"? Sad.

Click to expand...

Lol... Weak sauce attempt to ignore evidence you don't like.

This is the problem with conspiracy nuts. No amount of facts will ever sway them from their nutty fact free goal.

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

No, he is saying that is why they did it. You know, kinda like a confession. So why dont you beleive him?

j-mac said:

So, you're siding with and defending "the guy they caught"? Sad.

Click to expand...

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

poweRob said:

Funny... Isn't the video the reason given by the guy they caught? Why yes it is the reason he said it happened. Go figure.

Let's spend a few hundred million more for a fifth and sixth investigation into this tin foil hat garbage. Wise with the money you conservatives are.

Click to expand...

So noted that you believe what ever a terrorist says.

He lawyered up and that will be his defense.

And no, I don't find anything funny about the murder of four Americans.

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

poweRob said:

Lol... Weak sauce attempt to ignore evidence you don't like.

This is the problem with conspiracy nuts. No amount of facts will ever sway them from their nutty fact free goal.

Click to expand...

I am not ignoring anything, because you didn't provide any evidence....You simply tried to refute someone based on the words of a known terrorist....I only asked if that was whom you choose to believe? Clearly I have my answer.

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

mak2 said:

No, he is saying that is why they did it. You know, kinda like a confession. So why dont you beleive him?

Click to expand...

We already know where you stand in this....Thanks for your input, but no thanks.

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

APACHERAT said:

So noted that you believe what ever a terrorist says.

He lawyered up and that will be his defense.

And no, I don't find anything funny about the murder of four Americans.

Click to expand...

If only you gave as much of a **** about the thousands of Americans that died on 9/11 and the be war in Iraq... Too bad you don't. Those deaths don't fit your partisan spew fest agenda so much.

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

j-mac said:

I am not ignoring anything, because you didn't provide any evidence....You simply tried to refute someone based on the words of a known terrorist....I only asked if that was whom you choose to believe? Clearly I have my answer.

Click to expand...

Yes you do. You have now pretty much said you don't believe confessions. Guess we should empty the prisons.

cpwill said:

:roll: Dude. Nixon lied about a breakin and it got him run out of office.

Click to expand...

Nixon was impeached because he tampered with evidence AND lied about his involvement concerning the break in at the Watergate Hotel and what he knew about the eavesdropping on the Democratic National Convention. It was much more than him simply lying to the American people.

Presidents lie all the time. I don't dismiss that as par for the course, mind you. I"m just saying the Nixon impeachment situation was far more involved than what has been presented to date concerning President Obama and Benghazi. Seems to me that the only reason many of you are upset about this issue is because "he lied".

Most of your arguments concerning Benghazi center around talking points on how to characterize the attack on that day. I understand the politics of it, but in the grand scheme of things the worse you can blame President Obama for here is "plausible deniability" yet claim he should have known, but how exactly do you prove that? The bigger issue, of course, is the fact that four Americans lost their lives in a situation that could have been avoided. However, critics are quick to forget (or ignore) the fact that Ambassador Stephens refused added security for himself. Could his death been avoided had he had more personal protection, i.e., body guards? Maybe, maybe not. But since so many people are convinced that 4 CIA agents could have made a difference...

In the grand scheme of things, Benghazi doesn't measure up to the other "terror attacks" that took place abroad on U.S. installations. It's like Jet57 said, "Ronald Reagan lost 225 American service men in Lebanon". Moreover, 12 Americans lost their lives in the 1998 terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Africa. And folks are all hell bent on digging in their heals for four dead Americans? I'm not being dismissive about them; I just don't think the "missteps" the critics and pundits have uncovered to date measure up to the high stench of missteps and scandal of events from the past that were far worse. I mean, Reagan and Clinton both got passes and yet folks seem hell bent on crucifying President Obama and he was no more directly involved in this incident than Reagan or Clinton were in the bombings that took place on their respective watches.

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

poweRob said:

If only you gave as much of a **** about the thousands of Americans that died on 9/11 and the be war in Iraq... Too bad you don't. Those deaths don't fit your partisan spew fest agenda so much.

Click to expand...

It wasn't I or the GOP who politicized "9-11" the war against Al Qaeda and the Islamist or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

BTW:
Care to explain the two other attacks in Benghazi before there was a video ?

Objective Voice said:

Nixon was impeached because ...

Click to expand...

Nixon was never impeached.

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

poweRob said:

Yes you do. You have now pretty much said you don't believe confessions. Guess we should empty the prisons.

Click to expand...

OJ confessed he didn't murder Nicole.

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

j-mac said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified 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


I bolded it so you'd be sure not to miss it.

It was a guy named Nordstrom that made the requests for extra security, not Stevens. Stevens was trying to get the locals engaged in providing the security. Why? Because using military security is more expensive and the cost would have had to come out of the state departments budget. It is rare that the State Department uses the military for security.

APACHERAT said:

Nixon was never impeached.

Click to expand...

That's because he resigned first.

Moot said:

That's because he resigned first.

Click to expand...

That's true, Nixon was never impeached, Clinton was impeached.

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment comparable to a county or federal grand jury indictment.
Nothing more than a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. Guilt or innocence isn't determined during a grand jury hearing or during impeachment.

APACHERAT said:

That's true, Nixon was never impeached, Clinton was impeached.

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment comparable to a county or federal grand jury indictment.
Nothing more than a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. Guilt or innocence isn't determined during a grand jury hearing or during impeachment.

Click to expand...

Impeachment doesn't remove a president from office. But resigning sure does. lol

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

j-mac said:

[...] "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. [...]

So the political pressure from State was for Stevens to NOT request more security [...]

Click to expand...

So, I take it your conclusion from this report is that Sevens risked his own life -- which was mostly my repeatedly-ignored point quite some posts ago -- speculatively as a result of political pressure. Actually he risked not only his own life, but that of everyone in the facility.

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

Moot said:

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified 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


I bolded it so you'd be sure not to miss it.

It was a guy named Nordstrom that made the requests for extra security, not Stevens. Stevens was trying to get the locals engaged in providing the security. Why? Because using military security is more expensive and the cost would have had to come out of the state departments budget. It is rare that the State Department uses the military for security.

Click to expand...

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape


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 positions," 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~

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News

I bolded it to show.....How CBS News went with the memos that are physical evidence that went before the House and Government Reform Committees. Not just Generals Ham statement. Nor the 2 Government Officials that talked with McClatchy.

Moot said:

Impeachment doesn't remove a president from office. But resigning sure does. lol

Click to expand...

I can't argue that.

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

Moot said:

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified 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


I bolded it so you'd be sure not to miss it.

It was a guy named Nordstrom that made the requests for extra security, not Stevens. Stevens was trying to get the locals engaged in providing the security. Why? Because using military security is more expensive and the cost would have had to come out of the state departments budget. It is rare that the State Department uses the military for security.

Click to expand...

I suggest strongly that you actually read the article, and not just the headline that McClatchy want's you to put forth.