CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

page: 13
116
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by Vitruvian
 

Panetta could not put forces at risk. I think the forces know they are at risk on every mission.
This whole thing really stinks to high heaven.

The only people capable of denying support to our troops had to come directly from the Whitehouse.
If I heard correctly, General Petreus was informed of this and did nothing. If that is true, shame on him for not providing support to those Seals instead of following Whitehouse orders.


The CIA has rapid reaction forces on standby. There should have been one no further away than Italy or France or Spain, about an hour away. Securing an area in uncertain circumstances is exactly what their typical mission is. They're armed to the teeth with top notch stuff.

Additionally, if for some reason they were all busy fighting aliens from the future or whatever, there should also have been numerous EU options nearby, with an emphasis on Spain, France, and Italy again because they are all so nearby.

Only the Whitehouse could have and would have called them off. Only the political people would have bungled the tactical call to act when action was called for, and had the authority to stop action from occurring.

Then only later on did they realize what happened, finally understood what had been going down, and that they blew the call when it mattered.




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 11andrew34
 

I have to ask in terms of reality here.... What assets in Spain or France would ever have been relevant here? The first scumbag went over the wall around 9:30. The Ambassador was missing and presumed dead...as I read events..by midnight. 1am at the FAR FAR outside if we really want to give every possible idea that times and reports were mistaken.

So....3 1/2 - 4 hours from "heeeeelp!!!" to dead bodies and 'the rush isn't all that important' for at least the Consulate itself anymore. What would they have been flying in to get from France or Spain to Benghazi by sheer physical distance and time after things like pre-flight and load-up of people?

I agree Italy was in range...and there are some GOOD questions to be asking about why there weren't reaction forces on a real short leash at U.S. facilities there to react to Libya, Egypt or wherever trouble might burst at the moment. For that matter....JUST MAYBE...people like our Diplomats need training in defense too?

No one would ever suggest they carry weapons.....but when it's all going to hell and people are dying, it WOULD be nice if State Department people did more than look stupid when handed a weapon to help survive by.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
First denial by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor...



Spokesman: Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi

The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11 th .

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.



Yahoo news? email? So that's the WH saying they didn't deny assistance, and yesterday the CIA said pretty much the same..

Who does that leave as the bus is bearing down?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Some more rumor mill ponderings..

This one about General Carter Ham...


Has General Ham Been Fired?

Has General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, been fired for defying Leon Panetta on Benghazi?
Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, ran a piece Saturday afternoon titled "Interesting Rumor Concerning General Carter Ham and Stand Down Order." This piece is presented as a rumor. It suggests that General Ham was told to stand down from sending aid to Benghazi, that General Ham on his own decided to proceed, and that he was then relieved of his command. Remember, all rumor at this point.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
First denial by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor...



Spokesman: Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi

The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11 th .

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.



Yahoo news? email? So that's the WH saying they didn't deny assistance, and yesterday the CIA said pretty much the same..

Who does that leave as the bus is bearing down?


Poor Hillary.


She never should have stepped aside for the nomination last time. Had she run I would have voted Democratic for the first time, not because she was a woman, but because I was hoping for some of that balanced budget action we enjoyed under Bill's watch.

And now Obama's gonna throw her to the wolves. No wonder she's hiring lawyers.
edit on 10/27/2012 by TTAA2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
This is just breaking, more details on the Benghazi attack timeline, if true only furthers my outrage over the handling of security in Libya, that in my opinion created the opening and opportunity for terrorists to attack and eventually kill 4 US citizens.


The ONLY reason you are outraged is because Fox News tells you that you should be outraged....and because there's a man named Obama in the white house.

Do you know how many security requests were turned down during the peak of the Iraq war, and how many soldiers died?
It was a lot more than 4.

Not to mention TERRORISTS killed the 4 americans....not Obama. Quit trying to blame Obama for it!
you're trying to turn a sad situation into something political and it is sick.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I am not surprised by this report in the slightest, every government has done things like this in the past, present & future but over the years the USA has taken it to a whole new level.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Wow, more bad news. Is there ANY good news? I just can't believe the Obama administration didn't give a crap like that. I won't be surprised if more information gets released.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Obama did kill them, the attack lasted hours, he was notified the second it started, he denied sending assistance though, there were two marines escorting them, that apparently disobeyed orders, they kept radioing in for backup, but guess who wouldn't send any, resulting in the death of American citizens. It is fully Obama's fault and could have been prevented.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 
Admin Note: Please read this.. -- Majic

edit on 10/27/2012 by Majic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Rand Paul is a frequent guest on Fox



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
AP's latest piece on the Benghazi attack, with some new Libyan witness accounts..


Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack

It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceinvaders
reply to post by elouina
 





And was the president qualified to make the decisions that he did? There is only one person I know that can answer that question. But they are afraid to tell themself the truth. They need to stop running and to and answer our questions honestly. Obama will not release any of the info that can prove him innocent or guilty. Instead he wants an ongoing "investigation" until after the election. Well guess what? It is way too late for that. He dug himself in so deep that only the coal miners can dig him out. But guess what? He fired them all.


What experience does Obama have? Maybe four years of being President and Commander-in-Chief, for starters.

And an investigation until after the election . . . kind of a necessity considering there is less than two months between the attack and election day. How long did the 9/11 Commission take to publish it's findings? Years..
edit on 10/27/2012 by spaceinvaders because: Quoted text.


Er umm... Both the government and the public knew who did 09-01-01 the same exact day it happened. Now what about 9-11-12? Just the government knew. .As for the public, oh we were just lied to, that's all. Also, I wasn't referring to experience, but the fact that he is inept and unqualified for the position he holds.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Some more rumor mill ponderings..
This one about General Carter Ham...

Has General Ham Been Fired?
Has General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, been fired for defying Leon Panetta on Benghazi?

==================================================================================


APPARENTLY SO - several other sources are also confirming other military replacements by BHO because they balked and/or outright disobeyed his orders to "stand down" !

Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 27, 2012, 3:45 PM


The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at Africom after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18.
Tiger Droppings reported:

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”Hat Tip Tom


edit on 27-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
More on General Ham being replaced....from the same source as above

More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 

My personal feeling is that the ambassador was warned about cells and groups with in Bengazi but choose to disregard the information. He appeared to have a positive ( or at least what he thought was positive) relationship with the local people of Bengazi and he seemed to feel very comfy in the surroundings. He probably turned down extra security as the locals would have seen it as anafront to his relationship with the locals. He probably told DC not to send in any extra help. I think he thought he'd be warned bythe locals if anything bad was coming his way. He was wrong.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 

My personal feeling is that the ambassador was warned about cells and groups with in Bengazi but choose to disregard the information. He appeared to have a positive ( or at least what he thought was positive) relationship with the local people of Bengazi and he seemed to feel very comfy in the surroundings. He probably turned down extra security as the locals would have seen it as anafront to his relationship with the locals. He probably told DC not to send in any extra help. I think he thought he'd be warned bythe locals if anything bad was coming his way. He was wrong.


FALSE - and it flies in the face of all the evidence - you a simply making stuff up.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


How can my feelings be false? My comments were subjective so settled down. Now if you said you thought my views were wrong, ok.
There is information that ALL the embassies requested more money, but every government group does this. They need to increase their budgets. It true in the government that if you don't use it,you loose it. They always ask for more knowing they will be cut back. So inferring that not meeting a budget request by the embassy resulted in 4 deaths is a bit of a stretch and simple minded.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


How can my feelings be false? My comments were subjective so settled down. Now if you said you thought my views were wrong, ok.
There is information that ALL the embassies requested more money, but every government group does this. They need to increase their budgets. It true in the government that if you don't use it,you loose it. They always ask for more knowing they will be cut back. So inferring that not meeting a budget request by the embassy resulted in 4 deaths is a bit of a stretch and simple minded.

So you think that the requests for more security in Libya were unfounded? You think that the 'private contractors', Libyans who, as it turned out, were casing the joint for the terrorists, were sufficient to prevent a terrorist attack? The evidence kind of flies in the face of it.

If you are just saying that it is a convenient excuse for the Obama Administration to use, well, that's correct.

It doesn't work as an excuse for them taking zero action that evening.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TTAA2012
This goes WAY beyond dereliction of duty; this was murder on the part of US officials under the direction of the POSUS (that is NOT a typo, figure it out). I am praying that Barack Hussein Obama pays a heavy price for this.
edit on 10/26/2012 by TTAA2012 because: (no reason given)



He wont. Just like Bush and Cheney didn't pay for their part in 911. The people who will pay are the
innocent civilians that will be bombed by US military. haven't you learned by now that the US government
is unstoppable. It's WE the people that pay the price





new topics
top topics
 
116
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join