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

Originally posted 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.

Would have been a ton of political gain if no one knew the president knew about it....and as I have mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a lot of money to be made in Libya

Originally posted 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)

There was nothing vague about Deep Throat. He gave real information that could be verified. You never read "All the president's men" I take it? Everything they were told could be verified thu documents and other people. It was verified in the House as well. You can't compare the two.

Honestly, both sides stink to high heaven here. There is an old quote-Don't contribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer stupidity. I suspect many people here are overjoyed this happen as they think they finally have an axe to put in Obama's back. I personally can't figure it out. Were all the parties involved thoroughly confused by what was happening or was it something else? Well, if Romney gets in office it will be dropped and no one here will care. If obama wins then we'll have a long investigation in which more confusion will ensue. Obama will go back to being a lame duck president and the Earth will still turn.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Absolutely there's money to made and I'm sure there were other reasons as well. Kill two birds with one stone kind of thing. If the media continues to focus on this attack then maybe more information will come out. Now the hard part is sifting through all the lies and disinformation to find the truth.

reply to post by antonia

He gave real information that could be verified

Who says that the info Fox has is not real and can't be verified? You have some info? I am sure the President does, but he isn't talking.

I seem to remember some Democrats saying, with regard to a Republican President, 'We don't have any evidence, that's why we need to investigate.'

I was asking how long it took to reveal the identity of 'Deep Throat'. He was a little vague with regard to identifying himself, was he not?

Regarding 'All the Presidents Men', I watched Watergate hearings live on TV.

Originally posted by butcherguy
It is curious that of the four people that died, one was the Ambassador, one was the IT guy (he would have necessarily been privy to certain info), and two former Seals working for the CIA that came to help save them.

Doesn't seem like these terrorists were there just to kill Americans in general, or it was a fluke that these people were the ones that ended up dead? Just a thought, it could all be coincidence.

It should be noted that the annex was the CIA post in Benghazi which may have yielded a treasure trove of information:

www.foxnews.com... cia-installation-hit-in-libya-terror-attack/#ixzz2AYf83zlb

The Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi targeted more than just a State Department consulate. One of the buildings hit was a covert CIA installation, U.S. officials told Fox News. The now-abandoned American consulate in Benghazi was set a little more than a mile away from the CIA base. Up to this point, that separate base was described by administration officials only as a "safe house" or "annex" to the nearby consulate. In reality, CIA agents and other intelligence officials were operating out of Benghazi conducting delicate missions, including the search for over 20,000 deadly shoulder-fired missiles previously owned by Muammar Qaddafi's Libyan forces.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said tonight that his sources tell him that Obama was one of the people in the room watching the Benghazi attack go down and both he and Col. David Hunt agree it would have taken an order by the president to intervene. Further, Col. Hunt said that we were only 20 min away by jet and a couple of hours away by AC-130 gunships and special forces, and the decision not to intervene had to be political.

www.therightscoop.com...

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by antonia

 

Who says that the info Fox has is not real and can't be verified? You have some info? I am sure the President does, but he isn't talking.

You don't write a story you can't verify. That's the problem, everyone does it now, years ago you'd lose you job over it. You can't compare these two situations. Honestly, I don't think there is one thing Obama can say that would satisfy most of you.

I was asking how long it took to reveal the identity of 'Deep Throat'. He was a little vague with regard to identifying himself, was he not?

His identity was immaterial, it was the information that mattered and it was that information that was the story, not the source. Again major difference here.

Originally posted 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)

LOL.

Yeah...but Woodward and Bernstein were ALSO able to produce actual documentable evidence. It's one thing to have an anonymous source...it's another thing to just come up with a big bullsh^t story that you WISH was true and then pawn it off as "news".

Not certain if folks know this, but today, while watching the news, I found out there was not one, but 2 drones They needed the second drone so the first could refuel.

So, they made certain that their live coverage was nonstop! This alone totally disproves their comment that they had no clue what was going on there. And thus could not send anyone to help.

reply to post by elouina


Being able to see something doesn't mean you have the full grasp of what is happening on the ground. Seeing mayhem and actually being in the middle of it are two different things. If they did attack the consulate with a drone they would have likely killed everyone they were trying to save.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Yep, and everyone said that Drudge was a liar, including Bill Clinton, until Monica produced the blue dress.

This story may not have played out completely, believe it or not.

ETA: Maybe a special prosecutor and House hearings would produce some evidence?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by elouina

 

Being able to see something doesn't mean you have the full grasp of what is happening on the ground. Seeing mayhem and actually being in the middle of it are two different things. If they did attack the consulate with a drone they would have likely killed everyone they were trying to save.

I have no horse in this presidential race, frankly I supported Obama in 2008 but feel that both major candidates do not merit my vote.

That being said, based on your posts I am curious if you saw President Obama murdering a complete stranger would you still be able to defend his actions or come up with reasons to explain it away?

I am a fan of the truth and holding all politicians regardless of party accountable for lying to the American public. I find it important to learn the arguments from both sides of the aisle and doing my own independent research before taking a position.

It just seems that in your eyes this President can do no wrong and the remote is broken so the television is stuck on MSNBC...

reply to post by antonia


You know just as well as I, that the drones didn't have to do a thing since there were forces close by. Didn't they also have some other ground video that was released? I will look for it.

So no one is surprised that the US could organize flying drones in shifts. But didn't organize a darn thing for our men? They had 7 hours before they were killed!

Originally posted by NickDC202


It just seems that in your eyes this President can do no wrong and the remote is broken so the television is stuck on MSNBC...

You don't know me and you can't lay claim to that. I don't have cable, I didn't vote for Obama this year and I don't think he's an angel here, but I do think most of you are willing to believe anything. I have not seen enough information to make a choice on this matter. I'm getting a lot of hot air here, but that's about it. Show me some actual proof and I'll be willing to concede Obama is a malicious murderer who left all of them to die. I have seen the e-mails and flash messages, they are confusing to say the least. It's fairly obvious most of the people on the ground couldn't figure out what was going on.

The main difference here is I don't have an ax to grind here, I'm just calling it like I see it. I'm not seeing a lot here.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by antonia

 

You know just as well as I, that the drones didn't have to do a thing since there were forces close by. Didn't they also have some other ground video that was released? I will look for it.

So no one is surprised that the US could organize flying drones in shifts. But didn't organize a darn thing for our men? They had 7 hours before they were killed!

Panetta disagrees with you.
security.blogs.cnn.com...

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Yep, and everyone said that Drudge was a liar, including Bill Clinton, until Monica produced the blue dress.

This story may not have played out completely, believe it or not.

ETA: Maybe a special prosecutor and House hearings would produce some evidence?

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

Sure. Go ahead...investigate your ass off. I strongly encourage it.

However, I just lament the fact that about 2/3 of the American population is simply too stupid to understand the difference between "news" and "hyperbolic rhetorical bullsh^t questions about purely imagined scenarios".

Here is my first find and is a video showing the "protestors" and their shoulder fired rockets. It gets brighter about midway.

Breaking: Benghazi Attack Video: NO DEMONSTRATIONS, NO GUARDS, JUST ATTACK SQUAD

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by NickDC202


It just seems that in your eyes this President can do no wrong and the remote is broken so the television is stuck on MSNBC...

You don't know me and you can't lay claim to that. I don't have cable, I didn't vote for Obama this year and I don't think he's an angel here, but I do think most of you are willing to believe anything. I have not seen enough information to make a choice on this matter. I'm getting a lot of hot air here, but that's about it. Show me some actual proof and I'll be willing to concede Obama is a malicious murderer who left all of them to die. I have seen the e-mails and flash messages, they are confusing to say the least. It's fairly obvious most of the people on the ground couldn't figure out what was going on.

The main difference here is I don't have an ax to grind here, I'm just calling it like I see it. I'm not seeing a lot here.

edit on 27-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

Exactly.

It's really not hard for me to imagine that ANY presidential admin. might lie after f^cking up badly during an election year.

However...please note the word "imagine". Being a responsible adult means that you don't just buy into whatever bullsh^t you WISH to be true and instead demand some sort of actual evidence besides hearsay to form your conclusion on.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by antonia

 

You know just as well as I, that the drones didn't have to do a thing since there were forces close by. Didn't they also have some other ground video that was released? I will look for it.

So no one is surprised that the US could organize flying drones in shifts. But didn't organize a darn thing for our men? They had 7 hours before they were killed!

Panetta disagrees with you.
security.blogs.cnn.com...

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

Well if they are to busy to talk.....what does that tell a person. And were they lighting up targets with laser?

The president was watching the attack in the situation room at the White House. He was informed. He was the only one who could have ordered an attack, but chose not to.They probably had popcorn and sodas while they watched the video. While the attack was still occurring, he went to bed so he could get his beauty rest for his fundraiser in Las Vegas. He seems to have calculated that if a rescue attempt failed he would be ridiculed, so why take the chance. He must have thought that the news media wouldn't cover it and he was right about that. They have largely been silent. Whether you're pro-war, anti-war or indifferent, you should be outraged that they stood by and did nothing.