• 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!

U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack

Taylor

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
30,168
Reaction score
13,867
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tidbits of truth concerning the attacks in Libya continue to challenge the ridiculous storyline provided by the Obama administration:

The two former Navy SEALs killed in last week's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were not part of Ambassador Chris Stevens' official security detail but took up arms in an effort to protect the facility when it was overrun by insurgents, U.S. officials tell the Washington Guardian.

The two former SEALS, Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security, the officials said.
Click to expand...
U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack | WashingtonGuardian

Amid heavy criticism for its lapse of security at the consolate, it appears that the administration actively misrepresented the roles of these fallen soldiers. Responding to concerns leveled this weekend by ABC's Jake Tapper, Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, had this to say:

"We had substantial presence," Rice said, "with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans there killed were providing security. That was their function. And indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them. It obviously didn't prove sufficient to the nature of the attack and sufficient in that moment."
Click to expand...

What she doesn't say is that their function in "providing security" that night had nothing to do with protecting the compound walls, or the ambassador. In fact, the only reason these two men picked up rifles, stepped into action, and laid down their lives was because of the very lack of a "substantial presence."

They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him...The two ex-Seals and others engaged in a lengthy firefight with the extremists who attacked the compound, a fight that stretched from the inner area of the consulate to an outside annex and a nearby safe house -- a location that the insurgents appeared to know about, the officials said.
Click to expand...

Finally, the only reason we're hearing the truth is because a few senior officials stepped forward out of respect for the deceased. Nice to know that honor exists somewhere up there in Washington.

The officials provided the information to the Washington Guardian, saying they feared the Obama administration’s scant description of the episode left a misimpression that the two ex-Navy SEALs might have been responsible for the ambassador’s personal safety or become separated from him.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Taylor said:
Tidbits of truth concerning the attacks in Libya continue to challenge the ridiculous storyline provided by the Obama administration:


U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack | WashingtonGuardian

Amid heavy criticism for its lapse of security at the consolate, it appears that the administration actively misrepresented the roles of these fallen soldiers. Responding to concerns leveled this weekend by ABC's Jake Tapper, Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, had this to say:



What she doesn't say is that their function in "providing security" that night had nothing to do with protecting the compound walls, or the ambassador. In fact, the only reason these two men picked up rifles, stepped into action, and laid down their lives was because of the very lack of a "substantial presence."



Finally, the only reason we're hearing the truth is because a few senior officials stepped forward out of respect for the deceased. Nice to know that honor exists somewhere up there in Washington.



Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

More is coming out on this event daily and obama's story is unraveling.
 
The Washington Guardian? Really? :lamo
 
sawyerloggingon said:
More is coming out on this event daily and obama's story is unraveling.
Click to expand...
I really hope it continues. I'm sickened by manner in which much of the media has joined in this campaign of misinformation. After days of playing dumb, the administration was finally forced to admit that the attack in Libya was a terrorist act. The administration is, however, sticking to their highly suspect claim of a spontaneous attack. In his statement to the Senate, the intel official stated:

"The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicates an opportunistic attack on our embassy...What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack. We’re still looking for any indications of substantial advanced planning. We just haven’t seen that at this point"
Click to expand...
Carefully crafted language to make it sound like there's no evidence of advanced planning, but of course he only says there's no specific intelligence, and no indications of "substantial" advanced planning. You'll also note that he at no time actually comes out and says "this was an opportunistic attack" - at best you might say he believed it "likely" or "highly likely" -- but somehow dozens of media outlets miss what he actually said, and lead with what the administration would like you to believe:

Libya Attack Not Coordinated in Advance, U.S. Official Says - San Francisco Chronicle
No evidence deadly Libya attack planned - US official - CNN
US official: Libya attack not planned in advance - Jerusalem Post
Intel official: Libya attack was terrorism, but not pre-planned - The Hill
US official: No evidence Libya attack planned - WPTZ

...and on and on. None of these headlines are true.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
More is coming out on this event daily and obama's story is unraveling.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen today's news before I wrote the previous post - so right you are, the **** is really starting to hit the fan now...

CNN: Libya ambassador feared he was on hit list
New evidence today suggesting that last week's attack on the Libya consulate was a planned terrorist attack. CNN, citing an unnamed source, reported that slain U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens had "worried about what he called the never-ending security threats in Benghazi and mentioned his name was on an al Qaeda hit list."
Click to expand...

U.S. ambassador was targeted for death - UPI.com
Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya killed last week was targeted for death, a U.S. official confirmed. Stevens said his name was on an al-Qaida hit list in the months before his death, CNN reported Thursday. The targeting of Stevens was confirmed Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Dispute over nature of Libya attack continues; Witness tells CBS there was no protest - CBS News
Witnesses of last week's deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya have told CBS News that the alleged anti-American protest that U.S. officials say morphed into the assault never actually took place
Click to expand...

Stevens knew his name was on a hit list? "No actionable intelligence" my ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom