CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say , page 14

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 116 times

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 07:24 PM by milominderbinder

reply to post by JacKatMtn

No worries.

It still blows me away that people take nondescript, vaguely defined, "sources" seriously.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:01 PM by Swills

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by NickDC202

Can't say I disagree with any of that. The only thing I disagree with is focusing on Obama and his willy gang of misfits. This betrayal goes much deeper.

Swills, I'm curious to learn your take on the attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong but from your posts I decipher that you feel that the US government either allowed for or enabled the attack to happen. Am I correct? If so, in your opinion what benefits/net gain would the Executive branch get for doing this? How would the President gain politically from such an event happening on his watch?

Yes they allowed the attacks to happen, it's that obvious. What were the political gains? Well I'm sure there is more than just 1 reason why they allowed this to occur but to know exactly what their end goal is can only be speculated at this point, but in time I'm sure more and more information will come out as well as more whistle blowers.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:14 PM by 11andrew34

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

There were definitely rapid reaction forces in range and Italy is likely where an initial CIA rapid reaction force would have come from.

The point about Spain and France is not so much that they'd be the first responders(unlikely, sure), it's that the first responders would have even more backup available just a little bit further away.

I.e. Panetta is claiming they couldn't have sent a rapid reaction force in because of uncertainty, but they could have sent one in, and then followed it up with as much support as needed, both in troops and/or air support. The initial force could have been 'on its own' for a couple of hours max. It was not like they'd be sending them in and then no other help would be available for days and days.

edit on 27-10-2012 by 11andrew34 because: it's --> its

edit on 27-10-2012 by 11andrew34 because: verb tense

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:17 PM by butcherguy

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by JacKatMtn

No worries.

It still blows me away that people take nondescript, vaguely defined, "sources" seriously.

Vague sources.... Like 'Deep Throat'?

How long did it take to verify that source that took a President down?

Woodward and Bernstein should have known better than to listen to him.

edit on 27-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:18 PM by galadofwarthethird

reply to post by Americanist

I made a decent analogy with it being a Tupac kind of day... Here's the recap inside a more recent thread: MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response

So is tupac alive, I mean he must be if he was putting out records after he supposedly died.

I What can I say, I once thought that the net would be a good form of communication and of getting info, but that to has become as obsolete for me as the town crier ringing his bell and screaming in the middle of town "here ye, here ye" has for people centuries ago. Whatever really happened and why, one thing is still pretty sure, war and the gun running business is still pretty profitable and it seems to bring out all sorts of wacky characters.

As for what really happened and the things you hear and see, believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:23 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by live2beknown
This is very shocking for this to happen, to tell your guys to "stand down". We all kn ow this is shocking for the CIA to say this..With everything that's been happening, I'm surprised they didn't have the army there in minutes backing up the embassy. So there has to be a legitimate explanation for not going in.. But than again, We will never know the truth as always..SO it just becomes a mystery..

Is that because we feel that the CIA is most off all rabid zelots, even if we have other misgivings about then, who would never stand by or give an order like this?

After the long battle of Hue City durring the Tet Offencive and durring the Viet Nam War, the Marines raised the American Flag over the Citadel. Someone that didnt identify themselves came over the unit radio and told the Marines to take down that flag as it was a violation of international law. The Marine comander told them to just come up and try to take it down. The voice was American.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:32 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by 11andrew34

Ahh... Thank you for the clarification. Spain and France struck me as so far afield, I was really baffled. lol... What you're saying makes sense now though. Forces there could have been alerted and starting to move for possible follow-on support to initial teams out of Italy or elsewhere that were close enough to get there.

@Jackatmtn

What in the world is going on??? Replacing the commander of North African forces is odd..and I'd ask first above all else, was that possibly part of a rotation? I know Officers only sit in each post for a given time right? Was this totally out of place for rotation to that one?

Then I get further down...and WHAT the HELL? The Commander of a Carrier Battle Group was rotated during the deployment?? DURING a very tense and possible combat deployment?? Oh, that just screams intelligence..doesn't it? Lets toss up morale, cohesiveness and general function of the entire CVBG for a command change.

Did that one have personal or medical or ANY problems making it necessary?

Call me paranoid, but I get real uncomfortable when major changes are made at the top levels of Military command...during uncertain times...and there is even a little reason to wonder why or what caused it?

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:36 PM by Propulsion

And of course, OBAMA-JAD new NOTHING about it. Isn't it the presidents job to know stuff?

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:41 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Oh and another thing where are our Military leaders?

What the heck is going on?

I think this admin is at cross purposes with traditional military advice and are running amok while the military has to sit around and take idiot orders from the traitors who are selling us down the river, or they have been replaced by people who do not care about the US.

Consider that over 50 americans working with afgan force have been killed by the afgans this year. There has been no large scale military movements over this as it is clear that these deaths are the cost of "transition" in that country. We are sort of letting them settle down and get it out of their system......or something like that.

What happened in Lybia is just some of the fruit of this approach. Or shall we say an acceptable damage as Lybia unwinds from years of one man rule and the understandable heat coming from nationalist firebrands i.e the damage that may have been done defending these guys would be far greater than any death or embarrassment the nation suffered.

edit on 27-10-2012 by Logarock because: b

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:47 PM by Logarock

reply to post by Propulsion

The thought of turning several companies of marines lose in there with air support MUST have been far more horrifying than what was taking place.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:53 PM by IAMTAT

This thing stinks to high heaven!
Obama told them to stand down...probably because these terrorists were actually part of a secret Obama October surprise scheme to 'bloodlessly' kidnap the ambassador in order to trade him for the blind sheikh....get the ambassador released before the election and look like a hero with the Muslim Brotherhood and the American electorate.
It fell apart and failed miserably (like all of Obama's schemes)...and we lost four good Americans.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:54 PM by Swills

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?

Oh don't worry about that. That's just the White House lying to the American public again. Never take these people seriously, especially responses via email

Seriously though, they're killers.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:54 PM by Propulsion

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Propulsion

The thought of turning several companies of marines lose in there with air support MUST have been far more horrifying than what was taking place.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, it wasn't "optimal"..

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 08:58 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Swills

Why did they kill the Ambassador instead?

WANTED FOR MANSLAUGHTER AND TREACHERY

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.” Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire

frontpagemag.com...

By not obeying the order to "stand down" these seals might have screwed up a kidnap attempt.

The CIA may have had OPERS in the very group that attacked the compound.

Think back to how the government and others sat back and watch "law inforcment" burn WACO to the ground on live national TV. (not that the 2nd stament had anything to do with the 1st).

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 09:03 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by Propulsion

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Propulsion

The thought of turning several companies of marines lose in there with air support MUST have been far more horrifying than what was taking place.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, it wasn't "optimal"..

Yea "not optimal" simply means that it was an unfortunate part of the drama. One of those tragic things that happen under these conditions. Like alcohol related misery.....but we wouldnt dare try to outlaw it again.

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 09:03 PM by SplitInfinity

It Burns my Ass to no end if this Topics info is true...that the CIA is screaming for help and no help is given! This whole think STINKS of U.S. Executive Branch MEDDLING in the Companies Affairs! If you put our Guy's in that position then you BACK THEM UP no matter what the effect!

I on occasion do JOBS for my Country. It seems of late that things are being MICRO-MANAGED TO DEATH and I am SICK OF IT! They should spend time FIXING THE ECONOMY and stay out of decisions that place American Lives at stake! Split Infinity

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 09:09 PM by Logarock

POTUS watched, all of America watched......no one was ever told to stand down.

YD Dandy

edit on 27-10-2012 by Logarock because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2012 by Logarock because: n

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 09:18 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Propulsion

You make a good point at the end of your note. (Thanks for the poster too...hadn't seen that)

The Government, as Biden himself personified at his own debate, is using ignorance as an excuse. It strikes me as incredible to hear, since knowing about a thing like the over-running and destruction of a U.S. Diplomatic Mission *IS* their job to know. It's the whole purpose they are elected. It's damn sure not to get so tired from running to be RE-elected for 4 years, one has to head to bed instead of knowing how such a crisis in progress turns out.

They use ignorance as the excuse, not even considering that IGNORANCE is actually MORE infuriating and WORSE for a real situation...if we believed it....than what actually appears to have happened. If they really COULD be ignorant of something of this magnitude, what else of similar magnitude can we trust or NOT trust they'll even know about ...WHILE it's happening?!

Now..If I were President, and I were HONEST..Honorable...and actually HAD been kept in the dark, I'd have a row of HEADS stuck on PIKES across the front lawn of my White House. Each head would be from one man who decided I DIDN'T need to know one of MY Ambassadors was being brutally murdered with 3 other Americans across the world.

Obama just says "Doh! We didn't know" and expects that to be the end of it. Oh..if I believed him, as I said, I'd be MORE pissed about it, not less so. They don't even make much sense in their cover-ups.

edit on 27-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-10-2012 @ 09:19 PM by NickDC202

Originally posted by elouina[/url]

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

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.