Benghazi: The American People Want The Truth

a reply to: rickynews

so it seems you just want to know where the president was?

good question. not a scandal tho.

i liked how you want to hold obama to the fire for promising to bring those responsible to justice. guess bush saying the same thing and never doing it slipped your mind. you did mention that obama finished that job, so good on you.

my question is what questions are left to be asked?

heres a timeline of the attack btw: www.cnn.com... posted aug of last year!

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: rickynews

If it's a "phony scandal" or a "witch hunt" then they have nothing to fear in releasing the information. Until they do I will assume they are attempting to hide something. Why else would they not cooperate?

well, in that case, i want to plunder though your house and all your records. if you dont let me, then you obviously have something to hide.

originally posted by: GNOarmy
a reply to: gusdynamite
Again, Americans died. I don't expect you to understand that. I'm arguing with someone halfway around the world. Another Peirs Morgan wannabe telling Americans they know best. What happens to him by the way. Oh wait, We Americans got tired of hearing his s**t too.

What is it with people from other countries telling Americans that they know best? I like Fosters beer by the way....

perhaps you should ask the owner of fox news, an australian.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

his body wasnt dragged through the streets. factcheck.org

To add to what I have already shared on this thread for source documents, I was digging around what I had in my archives of bookmarks and files. I came across something I definitely want to remind folks about on this topic.

There was Testimony given, under oath, to the United States Congress by US Government Officials that say there were flat out things that happened that night, to move off the past months for a moment, that ARE problems, and continue to be. Really, to this day, given a look over the discussions going right now and how many don't mention things here, either way.

The most meaningful people who testified for this were Gregory Hicks, and Eric Nordstrom. Hicks is who you can see on cables and reports from the original documents posted earlier in the thread and was 2nd in command for the State Department in Libya on September 11th. When Stevens died, he was briefly #1 by default and rank. Nordstrom was the Regional Security Officer for Libya. Again, referring back to the documents? The RSO is quite heavily featured through out the time prior to the attack that night.

Gregory Hicks, then deputy chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, told investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that U.S. officials had persuaded the Libyan government to allow the Special Forces operatives to board the rescue flight from Tripoli to Benghazi. But an officer received a phone call telling them to stand down before they left for the airport, according to excerpts of his account made available to NBC News on Monday. That conversation occurred after the U.S. ambassador to Libya and another American had been killed in the initial attack, but hours before a second attack that killed two other Americans.

Hicks quoted a Special Forces commander as telling him, "I have never been so embarrassed in my life, that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military," referring to his willingness to authorize the mission.

That is immediately followed by reporting that Military sources confirmed his account but said the team in question was there for a security review and not equipped for combat.

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced,” said Hicks, “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them. “

Source: ( NBC News May 06 2013)

I believe he may well be right on that point. However, he said much more...and it's important, in my opinion, to remain aware of the entire record of this and all that has happened. After all, the day to day, back to back seeming crisis mode the nation has been in since 2007/2008 makes it incredibly easy to forget perspective.

There absolutely are real, valid and legitimate reasons for people to be asking questions. The White House response, as some may well recall, was to say this 'covered old ground', for his testimony. Well... Indeed... How many people is this new for, even NOW?

Before long, embassy workers learned that "the ambassador was in a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia, the group whose Twitter feed said it was leading the attack on the consulate," Hicks said.

Hicks said he received several phone calls about the ambassador saying "you can come get the ambassador, we know where he is," but Hicks was worried about "wading into a trap." Then he said they saw on the same Twitter feed as before that Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group, "was calling on an attack on our embassy in Tripoli."

Embassy personnel in Tripoli started making preparations to protect themselves, he said.

Source: USA Today (May 09 2013)

Now Hicks, supported by the RSO, made some powerful allegations in that sworn testimony and so I checked around to see how it was covered by all sides of media. Huffpo and others agreed he met the criteria of Whistleblower and regardless of the politics, the man has a right to be heard. This was #2 assigned below the Ambassador for a foreign nation, not simply one post. At the time this was given, he had 22 years with the State Department. This is what he went through, to get that far.

It appears, according to experts, that indeed Hicks not only fits the profile of a whistleblower but is also being unfairly retaliated against by his superiors. The unfortunate backdrop here is an administration with a troubling record of retribution against federal employees who speak out against official policy.

Hicks first testified that State Department officials would not allow him to speak with Republican members of Congress without a State Department lawyer present, which he said had never happened before when meeting with congressional delegations. He also said that Cheryl Mills, a top aide to then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called him to voice displeasure that he had met with Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz without a lawyer anyhow:

Source: The Nation (May 10 2013)

This is also not the only major example which someone can cite that indicates far deeper problems than just the top visible players (Obama and Clinton) account for. This is more systemic. Institutional.

The problems that led to this were there before Obama was elected and are still there, for all we know. They'll be there after he leaves. We've seen some action here and there, in discreet ways, while dismissing things dating back to the first WEEK, continues. Hicks wasn't the only one who got real direct and real pointed pressure, as media reported directly from individuals experiencing it.

There is definitely something here and we haven't seen what explains all of it. Nothing close, in my personal opinion.

a reply to: stormson

The color photographs posted to the net by the terrorist group that did it, within hours of doing it, are what I term that way. He wasn't tied to a truck bumper and he wasn't dragged anything like Mogadishu. However, the body was dragging along in those photos. He was very very dead, and again, these weren't "pop ups" weeks or months later. They came from the attackers very shortly after the attack ended.

I'm sharing my interpretation of the evidence available on that description. You're certainly welcome to disagree, no doubt, and so am I.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Gregory Hicks quoted a Special Forces commander as telling him, "I have never been so embarrassed in my life, that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military," referring to his willingness to authorize the mission.

Since you mention him heavily, I want to reiterate something I wrote earlier:

originally posted by: Greven
Of course, this same Mr. Hicks was the one who hung up on Ambassador Stevens' attempts to request help, before finally answering the third call (he justifying it by saying it was an unknown number). Frankly, I'm not sure I trust Hicks' testimony on anything.

Perhaps he's being truthful, but I think he carries guilt from what happened that can color his testimony. I wouldn't blame him for not answering a phone number he didn't know, but that's got to haunt a guy.

a reply to: Greven

I'm sure it haunts the Regional Security Officer who backed his statements, too. It wasn't just one man saying some of the most important points, or supporting what happened directly peripheral to them.

He also wasn't a man you could ever say was an 'oops..how did HE get into that position?'. He was a 20+ year vet of State and the Diplomatic Corps.

I'm sure this messed with his mind though, as I'd guess it did for a good many who were rescued from the compound before it fell to the attackers. It doesn't answer what the testimony raises tho, since it wasn't just a single source report from him on the main issues.

a reply to: rickynews

Ok, you want to know everything...I get it. You want to know where the President was, what he was doing, what he was thinking, what he said, what his blood sugar level was (in order to rule out confusion), who he was with, and probably a bunch of other stuff that every other government and terrorist group would like to know about the President every day. He should probably turn over his Blackberry with the nuke codes to so we can all verify it was actually him using the phone. Get real! Secrets and information are for your protection, not his. He's got plenty of protection, so he can protect us.

The fact of the matter is that we as a country have secrets. We as individuals have secrets. You want to keep your personal life secret, but demand that the government hold none, even for reasons that you may never understand. Our government must keep secrets: period. To what degree that satisfies the common citizen will always be debated. Our elected officials (no matter what you think of them) are to a degree "in the know." Should they be completely in the "know." Well, if you look at some of the bills they sponsor, my personal opinion is no. Why? Because they are political, not task focused.

The people in our government do good things and bad, but one must consider the totality of the circumstances. Our government not only has to deal with world-wide threats, but also domestic threats, even at the local level of person on person crime. How do you implement a system of such wide-spread protection using humans and expect there to be no problems. It's not possible.

The reality is that there is no "over there" with regard to countries anymore. Jets, bombs, ships, the Internet have destroyed those physical barriers. What happens in the most remote regions of the world (places where we do not as Americans think will affect us) may in fact affect us. We are actually on the path to becoming one world whether you like it or not. One world government is not about controlling your life and telling you what to think. Look at the internet, it's opened peoples minds up to more alternative thought and exposed them to things more so than any other thing in know human history. It has opened and freed minds, not control them. One world government is about stopping those that want to control and hurt humanity through terror and thought control.

Only with a one world government can we truly move past our instinctive human nature. In Star Trek there is a one world government. We all want a one world government in the future, and we know that some day there will be, but for some reason we don't want it now. Why? You know it will happen eventually, so why not now? Will humans and circumstances change that much in 10, 20, 50 years? Of course not. Welcome the change, and look forward to what your fellow human beings across the globe have to offer you!

I demand the truth from our government. Hell...I demand the truth from everyone if they want my support. And I won't personally tolerate a liar that I'm paying to do a job. No one's job in the elected government is to get re-elected. I'm not paying them for that. I'm paying them to do the job and report back to us...the people. And if they lie...permanent firing, no pension, no security, no paid health-care, etc. And even though that isn't how it works...it should be. Maybe then we will get leaders that do as we wish.

Much like a bad teacher situation. If I'm paying you, you MUST BE able to be fired with no additional compensation. Otherwise, what reason do you have to do a good job? Trust your promise, oath or judgement??? Yeah...look where our government goes when those are the rules.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: rickynews

so it seems you just want to know where the president was?

good question. not a scandal tho.

i liked how you want to hold obama to the fire for promising to bring those responsible to justice. guess bush saying the same thing and never doing it slipped your mind. you did mention that obama finished that job, so good on you.

my question is what questions are left to be asked?

heres a timeline of the attack btw: www.cnn.com... posted aug of last year!

The attacks on Benghazi and the four Americans that were murdered have absolutely nothing to do with former President George W. Bush, so let's not divert or otherwise lose focus here.

Here is what the American People, including the families of the murdered Americans in Benghazi, are entitled to, and want to know from their President and Commander in Chief, and the then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

+ Where was President Obama during and after the attacks on the Embassy in Benghazi?

+ What did the President and Secretary of State know?

+ When did they know it?

+ What Did the President and Secretary of State order?

+ What did they not order?

+ What were their reasons and their calculus for their decision making process an subsequent orders?

+ Did the C.I.A. or other U.S. Intelligence agencies attribute the attacks to a spontaneous protest? A "anti-muslim" youtube video? Or, a terrorist attack?

+When did the President and Secretary of State receive the updated assessment from the U.S. Intelligence estimates that the attacks were in fact pre-planned, and not related to any such "anti-muslim" video or a "spontaneous demonstration" by protestors?

+When did the President and Secretary of State update the American people that it was indeed a pre-planned terrorist attack led and coordinated Al Qaeda ?

+Did the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election or politics play any role in either (i) their decision making process, or (ii) the narrative of the attacks which was told to the American People?

Direct answers to these questions would be a good start to get to the Truth and Facts.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Great points. Where there is smoke, there is fire. This story has much more to it than the American People have been told by the Administration, and Congress has a Constitutional oversight obligation for findings of fact.

a reply to: HaveYouConsidered

Secrets are necessary only when it involves the narrowest limits of national security, but misleading or otherwise providing a false narrative to the American People is unacceptable, if that is in fact what occurred by the Obama Administration or others involved in the cover-up of facts relating to the Benghazi attacks.

One world government may be an agenda of some, but the incredible dangers of global government controlling the entire world far outweigh any false or perceived benefits. The control over All by the very Few is the goal of only the few, and not the many. The founding fathers made it clear, and built in protections for the American People through the U.S.A.'s founding documents that the U.S. is and always will remain a sovereign nation, and our rights, endowed upon us by our Creator (and not the government), are never to be turned over to any other so called "World Authority" or 'Global Government". God help us all if that were ever to happen.

a reply to: Flatfish

yes there have been other attacks against US diplomatic facilities, yes other folks have died, but a majority of those attacks are quick attacks with car bombs which kill people out side of the facilities gates... Benghazi was a sustained 7 hour attack, in which we could/should have sent some response.

This adminstration knows the future of the Democratic party hedges on how they control this story. When and if the whole, truthful story comes to light, Hillary's "what did she know and when did she know it" role will be revealed and it won't be to her advantage for the 2016 POTUS process. The Dems know she is the one and only candidate if they have any chance to retain the WH. Who else can they put up? Joe Biden? Martin O'Mally? Elizabeth Warren? They would get trounced by any mid-level Republican candidate.

originally posted by: displacedTexan
a reply to: Flatfish

yes there have been other attacks against US diplomatic facilities, yes other folks have died, but a majority of those attacks are quick attacks with car bombs which kill people out side of the facilities gates... Benghazi was a sustained 7 hour attack, in which we could/should have sent some response.

Correct.
It was a combat situation where the attackers had small arms, heavy machine guns, mortars and heavy trucks. There was time for a pair of former Navy SEALS to go to the compound... (even though they were ordered to stand down) and engage the terrorists. They had a laser designator and were able to paint targets as they called for and fully expected air support to arrive. Somebody dropped the ball higher up.
There was a previous attempt to breach the outer wall of the compound in June and all of that went unheeded. Again, somebody dropped the ball higher up.

Oh, and this was being watched at this point in real time via drone in the White House situation room. They got a drone on site to loiter and observe, then had another drone take over when the first was low on fuel.... but they didn't have time to mount any type of support? Evidence shows that military personnel were ordered to stand down in separate cases that night.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Flatfish

in your haste to compose a snappy and crushing comeback, you missed the operative part of the quote..here, allow me to show you..

"the loss of a full rank Ambassador and the whole facility is ALMOST unprecedented."

he didn't say the fact that the embassy was attacked was almost unprecedented, he said that the loss of a full rank ambassador, and the whole facility is almost unprecedented...and he's right...

the last time the U.S. lost an ambassador, before benghazi was 1979...and i can't even remember the last time an embassy was overrun by hostiles, and completely destroyed...

Actually, I think I did address that point but in case you missed it, I'll try again.

For starters, let's get some facts straight; The Benghazi incident didn't take place at a "U.S. Embassy." The U.S. Embassy for Libya is located in Tripoli, not Benghazi. The attacks took place at a "diplomatic mission" or "consulate" in Benghazi that more than likely, was a CIA outpost operating under the cover or disguise of a diplomatic mission or consulate.

While I'm no huge fan of the CIA, I do realize that much of what they do is necessary in order to thwart or prevent future attacks against american interest at home and abroad. Based on that belief, I think it would be pretty naive for me to expect that they reveal to the world exactly what they're doing and how they're doing it without completely destroying their effectiveness. Kinda like when the MSM exposed the fact that the CIA was tracking Bin Laden as he used his satellite phone and then he immediately quit using it.

With respect to how rare it is that we simultaneously lose both, a "full ambassador and his embassy," I have to agree that it is indeed rare and it should be.

There are currently only 169 "full ambassadors" representing America throughout the globe while there are some 15,000 professional diplomatic support personnel, (not including thousands of security personnel, both military and private security as well as military from the host country in question) so it would be reasonable to expect that the loss of "full ambassadors" would be much rarer than the loss of other personnel during one of these attacks.

Furthermore, in almost every case we have diplomatic agreements with the host country which dictate that the first line of defense for these embassies and consulates be provided by the military of the country where the diplomatic mission is located. This is exactly why those "most frequently" killed in these types of attacks are members of the host country's military.

Needless to say, in the Benghazi case the entire country was going through a revolution in an attempt to oust their dictatorial leader and lifelong enemy of the U.S.. I think it would be reasonable to assume that during this volatile period, the Libyan military were also split between those who still supported Gaddafi and those who wished to see him eliminated, thereby substantially reducing their ability to protect outlying diplomatic missions like the one in Benghazi.

The fact that entire embassies are rarely destroyed is IMO, a testament as to how well the system usually works. While I'll agree that it's not foolproof, few things seldom are. No different than the security around the White House, while it usually works pretty damned good, it's not foolproof and every once in a while some nut-job is successful at crashing a plane on the lawn or taking shots at the windows, etc...

Attacks on the World Trade Center were also very rare but people died each time. Even rarer is an attack on the Trade Center capable of completely destroying the towers and even rarer than that is an attack that actually destroys the towers and kills the WTC head of security, but it happened now didn't it?

If you're interested in exposing the real hypocrisy and scandal behind the endless Benghazi blame game going on in right-wing circles and MSM, you may want to find out why it is that the GOP in Congress are continually voting to slash overseas diplomatic security funding while simultaneously screaming at the top of their lungs about how Obama and Hillary are to blame for Benghazi. What an absolute joke they have become!

www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.dailykos.com...#
thehill.com...
www.nytimes.com...
americablog.com...

a reply to: soundguy

I did ,I joined the army and looked for myself, funny how you guys don't get it.The Bush family is a cartel yes THAT is old hat we don't like them EITHER.Thus blowing two "pigeon holes" out of existence.
You also didn't mention Nicaragua under Reagan, I know from an operator who was there, there is info out there ,so yes Reagan is no angel,we got that too.What isn't going to happen is allowing the overstep of authority that is happening all around us,with out resistance by any means. They fix it or we have to.
We have NEVER seen a more incompetent effort of corruption held to gather by lies and obfuscation as this administration. And ,I couldn't care less about epidermal features. BOTH parties are at fault BOTH have to be gutted before this gets nasty.

a reply to: MOMof3
Just a question here :You DO know these people are ORDERED by the state Dept right? The decision of WHERE or why is strictly a PRESIDENTIAL decision(Assuming you actually are running it instead of just letting others do it) ,it isn't a democracy when one is in service.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

We are not a democracy. Every decision is from and for the Oligarchy. And they are using this story for their own benefit. Ambassadors getting killed in the line of service is nothing new. Suddenly, republicans have forgotten that we have two wars to pay for and people who need jobs. The Oligarchy has done their job well. They still need your support somewhat to make the legislators look like they care about you and Ambassador Stevens.