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

reply to post by antonia

And how can you be so sure the sources you cite aren't lying?

I posted a CBS link that says he is lying. Can you give us a list of sources that are acceptable, if they are not?

reply to post by butcherguy


Maybe we could quote Panetta to prove his integrity? Oh and I found a reputable source that can't be denied. This is a US dept of defense transcript. A few hours? Caught lying right there alone!

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.
SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

US Dept of Defense Official Transcripts

reply to post by elouina


Here's what I saw from the transcript..

www.defense.gov...

Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we've heard that there wasn't a more robust response right away is that there wasn't a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.

But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or -- or dropping more special forces in.

SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me -- let me speak to that, because I'm sure there's going to be -- there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But -- but the basic principle here -- basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.

SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

more from the same transcript:

Q: The attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, whether or not it -- that anniversary had anything to do with the attack. Did you have forces on any heightened alert in that area because of the approaching anniversary?

SEC. PANETTA: We did.

GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah. And let me point out, it was -- it was 9/11 everywhere in the world.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by antonia

 

Post the article again. He is the only one denying it and I betcha this is brand new news. Multiple sources state the drones (plural) were there.

No, you scroll back. I'm tired and I'm not repeating myself.

He is lying. Is it hard for you to believe he's lying? They've been lying left and right since this attack was first reported.

And how can you be so sure the sources you cite aren't lying?

You need proof that the two CIA ex USN SEALs who died that night fighting off a platoon of militants that they would have radioed in for help during the SEVEN HOUR battle?

I have to ask you, you seriously think these men didn't ever try to communicate with the DOD during this time? Like seriously?

edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

The attack was not seven hours. there were two separate incidents, the first taking place at 9:40 PM and the second at 4 AM. All told it was 2 hours of fighting according to most accounts. The CIA is denying the claims being made as well. Furthermore, the denial was not made by Obama according to that article but rather by the CIA's chain of command. Was obama made aware of that denial? You are assuming quite a bit if you believe that.

I'll assume he's lying since they've been lying from the beginning but you go right ahead and believe what these people are telling you. Like I said, he is the only one saying there were no drones and I betcha this is new news.You think you're tired of repeating yourself?

The attack from start to finish lasted 7 hours. Yes there was "down time" during the 7 hour engagement and I couldn't think of a better time to send out message for help than during the down time. As far as Obama denying this or that, the fact is POTUS knew the attacks were happening in real time. All of Washington DC is to blame. At this point I've laid out the facts so you can believe what ever you want but I think you and I are done here.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by elouina

 

I wonder... When did it become common practice to rely upon local civilian security for United States Diplomatic Compounds?

edit on 28-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

That would be the Iraqi invasion. You need only look up blackwater/xe. It's done this way as if frees up troops for actual ground fighting. It certainly can't be cheaper though as they always got paid more than normal soldiers.

I'd give anything for you to be right. Know that I would. I've been reading your posts on this and been skipping over them because, frankly, I'm in a downright vicious mood that isn't real conducive to debate. Fight..is far more like it..with no targets. I made one enemy tonight already whom I'll deeply regret...I don't want to make more where I never meant to. Arg!

I decided to reply to this one though because I do have something I want to say. I speak for myself but hope others feel the same.

I don't WANT to see this all be true. I do not WANT to see Obama OR his immediate White House staff tagged as having been on the other end of the Communications in and out of the White House during this event. I'd give anything for everything I've read tonight about events at Benghazi, Tripoli and Sigonella Italy to be totally false and baseless. Anything.

Why?? I recall the Iran Contra hearings. NO ONE who lived through that can forget it. It was on TV without end and NON-STOP. That was over nothing. Garbage.. Some weapons deals and Rebel fighters most of America didn't mind that much to begin with if it wouldn't draw us into another fight so close after Vietnam.

My God... This? This is a nuclear bomb to Iran/Contra's firecracker. IF true.....Obama can resign or go through the system. *IF* ..and always..IF...this is how it seems..he won't be GIVEN another choice eventually. He won't quit. I don't see it in him. Which means...the WORST of the Clinton impeachment...the WORST of Watergate and the WORST of Iran/Contra for a year or two to come and in a nation 10,000x's beyond anything like it was for hate, fury and partisanship under those past debacles.

It was romper room vs. a cage fight to compare them to this.

So, Antonia, as much as we disagree sometimes...just once? I hope while I disagree with ya, that you turn out 100% correct in the end. I hope with all my heart. I don't think our nation can endure what comes if not.

Did anyone know that there was already at least one oversight committee hearing on Oct 10th? Here you will find the video in 2 parts. This is where you find the truths in statements. Even down to hiring the locals.

Oversight Committee Hearing

This below text is from a USA today article:

•The State Department, in a break with other administration offices, now says it never believed the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a film protest gone awry, as early accounts by the administration suggested, the Associated Press reports.

ABC News reports that Nordstrom has told congressional investigators that security at the Benghazi post was "inappropriately low" -- and he thought State Department officials stood in the way of his attempts to change that.

House opens hearing on consulate attack in Libya


The closed Senate Hearings are set for after the elections on Nov 15th. This is a sad day for justice. Since I feel Americans deserve the truth beofre they vote and not after.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has scheduled a series of hearings to investigate the intelligence and security surrounding the Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three diplomatic aides.

The panel, chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), will hold a closed hearing on Nov. 15, with more hearings to come after that.

Senate hearings on Benghazi set for after election

It's September 11th..... Protesters are scaling the walls of the embassy in Egypt.....Violent protests infront of other embassys in North Africa/Middle East.

Reports start coming in within minutes of the attack saying our consulate in Benghazi is under fire. It's late afternoon in the US then.

The attack in Libya lasts for seven hours. Whatever happened to "No one gets left behind"?

How could the President not be watching the feed from the drones?

This article has a bit of advice for the President:
Newsday

President Obama has one last chance to put this story to bed Monday. If he can do that candidly and convincingly, he will have a small window with which to try to regain the initiative in the final two weeks of the campaign. If he blows it again -- if he leaves any questions on the table -- he'll find himself on the defense through the election, and that means he won't be on offense.

In the story, it is being called a cover up. The word 'Watergate' is used to describe what Obama has on his hands here.

Originally posted by Americanist
Here's a great analogy: CIA are your gunmen - Barack is Tupac (i.e. hologram). I'll let you figure out which song and dance is next. My only interest is canceling this racket they put on as a show for us.

Not very far from the truth!

When ya really think about it BHO is very much like a Photo-shopped President. Nothing about him is true. Am I too critical? So be it!

reply to post by Ghost375

Stop blaming Fox News. Give the people here more credit than that. I thought you all prided yourself on doing research and backing up news info. If you don't believe that Fox News is right, prove it. Its an easy out for those of you that voted for Obama. What about CNN Huffington Post, etc. Talk about leaning left.

Just watched the end of Good Morning America where they allowed for equal time for Conservative and Liberal. Face the Nation is now reporting both sides of Benghazi. This is so big guys! Finally the news organizations are covering it. As it should be.

Now I hope some wont discredit Face the Nation and Good Morning America.

Ok so I posted the videos of the committee hearing.. Can someone here honestly tell me that they watched them? Much new evidence came out in the hearing. This tidbit is what alarmed me the most. There were terrorists attacks at Benghazi, a month or so earlier than Sept 11, that were covered up They called them tests of the security. On one of those occasions a wall was blown out. Now how outrageous is all of this?

reply to post by butcherguy


The Newsday article had me all excited until I realized that the it was over a week old. And the Monday they were referring to was the day of the foreign policy debate. Sadly I still see nothing about the most recent revelations on CNN. I just pray that Good Morning America and Face the Nation are enough to get momentum going again. We just may see the cover-up succeeding until after the elections.

This video make the point that terrible decisions were made regarding Stevens security staffing. The comparison between the security and Libya and Iraq Ambassadors is huge. This is criminal negligence IMHO.

The problem is not just how the government responded on 9/11/2012, but also why this could ever have been allowed to happen in the first place.

reply to post by girlofmountain1

This is so big guys!

It's great when media suppression of important stories is blown away. I understand your happiness. Any coverage at all is a victory for the republic. We will never be free if we aren't given an opportunity to know the truth. There will never be justice if the truth is covered in lies or thrown in the trash.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Americanist
Here's a great analogy: CIA are your gunmen - Barack is Tupac (i.e. hologram). I'll let you figure out which song and dance is next. My only interest is canceling this racket they put on as a show for us.

Not very far from the truth!

When ya really think about it BHO is very much like a Photo-shopped President. Nothing about him is true. Am I too critical? So be it!

edit on 28-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: pic

Let us not forget that we were told by the Administration that the man in the original version of that photo and all the people photographed that were dragging Ambassador Stevens' lifeless body through the street and posing for photos with the corpse were heroes who were desperately trying to get the Ambassador to the hospital to try to save his life.

Please don't forget that fact because it only highlights the extent they have lied to us because national security and the truth is MUCH LESS IMPORTANT than one man's own need to be elected to a second term.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by butcherguy

 

The Newsday article had me all excited until I realized that the it was over a week old. And the Monday they were referring to was the day of the foreign policy debate. Sadly I still see nothing about the most recent revelations on CNN. I just pray that Good Morning America and Face the Nation are enough to get momentum going again. We just may see the cover-up succeeding until after the elections.

edit on 28-10-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)

That's funny elouina because when I initially read the post I didn't realize the op-ed was over a week old and (as a kid who read Newsday growing up) immediately thought "How much dumber can Newsday get-- they're encouraging Obama to come clean about Libya on the same day the Island is getting hit by the storm of the century... If he did come clean, your own paper wouldn't cover it due to storm coverage... Silly geese."

Then I realized it was a week old... LOL

reply to post by NickDC202


You know I just had a revelation... That Candy Crowley business during the previous debate seems like it was meant to intimidate Romney from bringing up Libya again at the later foreign policy debate. Was she in on the cover-up? All along it almost seemed planned to me. But I kept saying nah.... Now I am not too certain. CNN's lack of coverage is just a bit too much right now. This cover-up may end up being even bigger than we imagined. Is it possible that CNN has turned into Obamas Pravda?

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by NickDC202

 

You know I just had a revelation... That Candy Crowley business during the previous debate seems like it was meant to intimidate Romney from bringing up Libya again at the later foreign policy debate. Was she in on the cover-up? All along it almost seemed planned to me. But I kept saying nah.... Now I am not too certain. CNN's lack of coverage is just a bit too much right now. This cover-up may end up being even bigger than we imagined. Is it possible that CNN has turned into Obamas Pravda?

I've followed Candy's reporting closely since 1995 and can say without reservation that she has absolutely no agenda. She is a fine journalist whose biggest flub came at the worst possible time because she was in front of the largest viewing audience in her career. She was admittedly wrong in terms of her statement on Libya and has rightfully so been criticized for this; but by no means is she partisan.

My takeaway from that debate was a complete disgust with the behavior of both men who behaved like children with their constant interrupting of each other and countless comments by both which can be boiled down to "Liar, liar pants on fire!" Remember in a 1992 debate President Bush looked at his watch and was vilified for that action which some directly attribute as responsible for his loss? Now we live in a bizarro world where disgusting behavior by both candidates is not scrutinized.

How does this relate to Libya? Well while American's in Benghazi were calling for help to deaf ears, the President had no problem getting a good night sleep (this has been widely reported) so he could rest up because he had an important fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas. If a President is scrutinized for looking at his watch during a debate, twenty years later why doesn't a President get scrutinized for finding a fundraiser for his campaign more important than the first time since 1979 that an American ambassador had died in a violent assault?!?!?!