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

Originally posted by elouina
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?

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

Those terrorists attacks prior to Sept 11 are already well known. I've posted them over and over again in this thread and other related Benghazi threads. The consulate was attacked at least twice blowing huge holes into walls. The consulate requested security but was denied. Terrorist continued to make threats to the consulate, westerners, and the ambassador himself via their Facebook page specifically mentioning 9/11 ten year anniversary. The White House still denies security.

See my post here for more info, www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JacKatMtn


So this whole thread is about an article by FOX news claiming a source on the ground during the Benghazi attack?

This is the same FOX news that showed a picture of Frederick Douglass when it had a news segment about the Lincoln-(Stephen) Douglas debate, and is notorious for putting up the picture of the wrong person when a story on a Democratic politician comes up, and even misrepresents the political affiliation of some Republicans.

It is also the same network whose audience is the least informed of all viewers/consumers of news (google "fox news audience less informed" to find a plethora of links on this subject).

So if you expect me or other eschewers of FAUX News to accept this story as fact, think again. If this went down as right-wingers/Obama haters claim and their is some witness to it, then that person should come forward as a whistle blower. Until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim from a "news" network not known for disseminating facts.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

So this whole thread is about an article by FOX news claiming a source on the ground during the Benghazi attack?

This is the same FOX news that showed a picture of Frederick Douglass when it had a news segment about the Lincoln-(Stephen) Douglas debate, and is notorious for putting up the picture of the wrong person when a story on a Democratic politician comes up, and even misrepresents the political affiliation of some Republicans.

It is also the same network whose audience is the least informed of all viewers/consumers of news (google "fox news audience less informed" to find a plethora of links on this subject).

So if you expect me or other eschewers of FAUX News to accept this story as fact, think again. If this went down as right-wingers/Obama haters claim and their is some witness to it, then that person should come forward as a whistle blower. Until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim from a "news" network not known for disseminating facts.

I'm not a fan of Faux or MSNBC but given your logic I must assume that CBS News’ Bob Schieffer who moderated the third debate must be angling for a job at Fox News because during the debate he referred to Osama bin Laden as “Obama bin Laden”....

Please people enough already with overlooking a major blunder by the Executive branch simply because one of the countless media outlets reporting this story and investigating the facts happens to be Fox News. It is not always a left or right thing. Goodness!!!

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

So this whole thread is about an article by FOX news claiming a source on the ground during the Benghazi attack?

This is the same FOX news that showed a picture of Frederick Douglass when it had a news segment about the Lincoln-(Stephen) Douglas debate, and is notorious for putting up the picture of the wrong person when a story on a Democratic politician comes up, and even misrepresents the political affiliation of some Republicans.

It is also the same network whose audience is the least informed of all viewers/consumers of news (google "fox news audience less informed" to find a plethora of links on this subject).

So if you expect me or other eschewers of FAUX News to accept this story as fact, think again. If this went down as right-wingers/Obama haters claim and their is some witness to it, then that person should come forward as a whistle blower. Until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim from a "news" network not known for disseminating facts.

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

Wow , no actually its also based on the hearings that were aired publicly (and are still on going) for everyone to see......

DO ANY of you detractors of any of this ever even watch the hearings? Im guessing not, because if you did, you wouldnt be combating this thing with nonesne and obfuscation.....

The facts are out, I don tcare if you like FOX news or not......

WATCH THE DAMN HEARINGS..........its there in black and white, the testimony from numerous people are there in black and white..........the attempted on the fly back tracking is there in black and white....

But im guessing people who really dont want the truth and want to keep cheer-leading..........probably wont do that

reply to post by MrInquisitive


The source on the ground were the 2 CIA ex USN SEALs who died during that battle on September 11, 2012. The CIA agents are already known to everyone but the twist here is Fox is reporting these men were not at the consulate the night of the attack but at their own annex building blocks away. Original reports states these CIA agents were at the consulate that night as a part of the diplomatic team. Fox says otherwise and reports these men heard shots fired and reported it in to request back up but were denied and told to stand down. Being that they both are USN SEALs they disobeyed the order and engaged in battle. This may help understand why the VP, Joe Biden, told one of the deceased SEALs father his son had huge balls. A couple of US SEALs verses a platoon of terrorists.

Big balls indeed.

May they rest in peace and never be forgotten.

Honor, Courage, and Commitment

reply to post by Swills


It sounds like someone planned their mini 9-11 for them and like Bush (unless he knew) they were left holding a book in kindergarten while planes hit buildings and other lovely stuff hit the fan.

They got played if this is true. I've never heard of something like this happening and being reported so quickly.
How could it not be political?? Right before the election, right after Gaddafi murdered last year, 9-11 date,

they needed excuse to resurrect AQ and stay in Libya which was fine without USA!!!

No longer on track to be richest on earth, in Libya, killed the only man interested in a strong libya ehhh??

Originally posted by girlofmountain1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Well if the other news agencies would cover the story we might see it there too. But noooooooo, they cant talk about something that might not make the President look good. Thats their GUY!!

And Romney isn't?

Both are corporate and we have to wonder why billions are being spent to put Romney in.

reply to post by Swills


The stand down order has been contested and the hearings should bring out the truth. I noticed a big part of this is based off of threats that were made on Facebook. My question would be how often are threats made on Facebook and how reliable would that be considered. Are there threats made constantly through more reliable sources or is this an isolated instance. I find perspective is key when looking at these things. I would imagine there are threats made constantly across the world especially in the month of September I would be surprised if there weren’t. So the question I have is should every singular threat being made bring us to high alert or do we filter them in accordance by reliable Intel because if we jumped for every threat made wouldn’t that cripple our ability to accomplish our goals.

With the part about the drones there were two one arrived on scene 2 hours after the attack began the second arrived over 4 hours later and was unarmed they also had conflicting reports coming in one stating they were under attack and people were missing the other that the attack was over. Even with drones there is no way to get a complete picture of what is going on I would think they could see fighting and fires but as far as what was going on inside and being able to identify individuals would be near impossible. Urban combat is one of the most confusing things to be in and I speak from experience. I am not going to jump to conclusions on this issue because of what some armchair generals have to say.


Edit to add

If it comes out that the two generals that were with the POTUS during the attack recommended a strike and were turned down I will take serious issue with that but from what I understand both Generals were not willing to send more Americans into harm’s way without better Intel.

reply to post by Grimpachi



The stand down most likely did happen. The POTUS, and Washington, was well aware of the battle in real time. They did nothing to help so they absolutely did give a stand down order. Some are defending this order claiming they don't just send in Americans into harms way and that's probably the best defense you're gonna hear. Truth is we do indeed send Americans into harms way because they signed up for that duty and gladly carry it out.

As far as the Facebook page they knew the group who was making the threats. When the group made threats on FB and then carried them out you can bet your last dollar they are real and they mean business. There are absolutely threats made on FB and Twitter all the time and if its against our Gov't the secretly service/FBI can and will investigate them. Right now morons are calling for the death of both Obama and Romney. But these threats are coming from lazy ass and stupid Americans, or shills, but the threats made by terrorists in Libya is a completely different threat altogether.

As far as the drones are concerned you're only gonna be reading conflicting reports but either way the battle lasted for seven hours so if the drone did come 2 hours into the battle it still had 5 hours of footage. What you need to know is this, the Gov't knew the attacks happened in the past and more to come, especially on 9/11/12. So in my opinion, the drone(s) were filming the attack from start to finish.

reply to post by Swills


I posted a article back in Sept about the security of the Post but it never recieved any attention you may want to look at it.

The U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was operating under a lower security standard than a typical consulate when it was attacked this month, according to State Department officials.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

"Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine," said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.


While standards were lower at the compound, security had been enhanced at the post after a number of incidents this year that included a failed bombing attempt against the compound in June, according to sources.

Several security changes were made over the past few months, the officials said. These included additional barriers and barbed wire, increased lighting, chain link fences, additional sand bags and closed circuit television.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

As far as the drones are concerned you're only gonna be reading conflicting reports but either way the battle lasted for seven hours so if the drone did come 2 hours into the battle it still had 5 hours of footage. What you need to know is this, the Gov't knew the attacks happened in the past and more to come, especially on 9/11/12. So in my opinion, the drone(s) were filming the attack from start to finish.

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

Please clarify. You think the drones were there specifically and for the direct purpose to record this attack from start to finish???!

reply to post by Swills


I guess we will have to disagree on some of those assertions. Like I said the stand down order has been contested and I will wait and see what the truth is. On the subject of sending in troops blindly we are too far apart on that issue. I have been in a few situations where I felt it was a suicide mission so I am glad to know we aren’t all just pawns and some thought actually goes into risking people’s lives.

It would be interesting to know just how often threats are made on Facebook.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills

 

I guess we will have to disagree on some of those assertions. Like I said the stand down order has been contested and I will wait and see what the truth is.

Well, they did stand down didn't they? So how can it be contested?

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by antonia

 

Do you deny the US Gov't denied them security and knew the attacks were coming?

They knew the consulate was under threat, but diplomats in the area were always under threat. This does not prove they knew there was going to be an attack on that day.

You are aware of the date of the attacks? Just in case you forgot it was on the anniversary of 911.

When I think of what could have happened and gone wrong I think of the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) or better known as Black Hawk Down and that was with decent Intel and planning. This sticks out to me because it happened just a year after I enlisted. Like I said I am sure things could have been done differently but the results may have been unacceptable.

en.wikipedia.org...(1993)

I hope some people read up on the link I provided because it is a lesson we shouldn’t forget.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Looks like that article is down playing the lack of security at the consulate. The only security there was 5 Libyan towns people who are not at all professional security men and security cameras. The article recognizes that there have been many terrorist attacks in Libya, which is obvious because Libya is over run with terrorist, and even attacks at the consulate but I will not at all believe that because their mission was so important that's the reason they were denied security. Holes were blown into the compounds walls (ranging from 12 to 40 feet) that surrounded the 6 acre consulate. People wonder how the terrorist were able to penetrate the compound so easily, well it's because huge holes were already blown into the walls prior to the attacks. The consulate requests security, security denied. Terrorist post warnings of future attacks come 9/11, security still denied. CIA agents fighting against the terrorists that night on September 11th called for back up, security denied.

So what are you're thoughts exactly? Are you defending the US Gov't? Do you not believe the US Gov't had real time information about the attacks the night they were happening? Do not believe the US Gov't had advanced warning future attacks were coming? I just wanna know where exactly you stand in all of this.

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

As far as the drones are concerned you're only gonna be reading conflicting reports but either way the battle lasted for seven hours so if the drone did come 2 hours into the battle it still had 5 hours of footage. What you need to know is this, the Gov't knew the attacks happened in the past and more to come, especially on 9/11/12. So in my opinion, the drone(s) were filming the attack from start to finish.

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

Please clarify. You think the drones were there specifically and for the direct purpose to record this attack from start to finish???!

Oh yes. In my opinion the drones were there that night to specifically film and transmit the feed of the terrorist attack. The drones were there that night because the US Gov't know full well an attack was coming. I do not believe the reports that the first drone arrived 2 hours into the 7 hour battle. I believe the drone was there the entire time, well before the battle watching and waiting for an attack.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills

 

I guess we will have to disagree on some of those assertions. Like I said the stand down order has been contested and I will wait and see what the truth is. On the subject of sending in troops blindly we are too far apart on that issue. I have been in a few situations where I felt it was a suicide mission so I am glad to know we aren’t all just pawns and some thought actually goes into risking people’s lives.

It would be interesting to know just how often threats are made on Facebook.

You can disagree all you wish but the fact is the White House was well aware of the battle in real time and no aid was given to the CIA ex US SEALs who requested it.

No troops would have been sent in blindly and that's because there were 2 CIA agents reporting live from battle as well as 2 drones over head. You can't get better intel than that. Not too mention the civilian Libyan channels/frequencies that were being monitored.

www.thedailybeast.com...

For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.

In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that “after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.”

reply to post by elouina


You know I googled looking for confirmation that stand down orders were given but even in the Fox articles they are referred to as being alleged orders. Does anyone have the recordings or transcripts that can put this issue to rest one way or another?

My main question is did the POTUS disregard recommendations from the two Generals that were with him and so far the only thing I have heard is that the two Generals were not willing to put more American lives at risk without better Intel. This may not mean much to some but I believe in listening to your military advisors in situations like these.