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.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the
attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the
CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
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."
edit on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:00:12 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: fix link
A lot of people are directly blaming the President for this tragic event. The President was not directly responsible for either the attack, the
deaths and security failures. The US has bases, consolates and embassies around the world. They have been attacked, and people have been killed
(many more than the recent four) all over the world by terrorists. No one blamed any of the last four presidents for the deaths. Were the security
failures of the USS Cole the fault of that president? What about US embassies in Africa that were bombed over the last decade or so? No one tried to
pin those on Clinton, Bush, etc. Or if so, not with so much wide publicity, fervor and hatred as they have with President Obama. The mere mention of
his name on Fox News sends their hosts (especially the females who speak of sex, fashion, attraction and "what turns women on" as their primary
voting filters) into a hateful tirade.
Here is one of the bottom lines: if the President has a success, they minimize it and claim he cannot take credit; if the President has a failure,
then they aggrandize it and claim it was entirely his fault. To have it both ways is hypocritical to the maximum. Back to the consolate attack.
Does anyone really think that the President of the United States (any President) directly oversees the security plan for each and every US
installation around the world? Do you think he even is responsible for the oversight of his own security? If the answer is anything other than
"NO" then a greater understanding of government, logistics and security is needed. The State Department is largely responsible for setting such
policy, and I'm sure many other agencies have their hands in the process. But to the President, the details are invisible and far below his
paygrade. OTHER PEOPLE ARE PAID TO OVERSEE SECURITY. And there is a reason for this. In economics, it is called "comparible advantage." Simply
put, you do what you do best and other people do what they do best ---this maximizes an efficient use of skill and time.
Presidents are not supposed to waste their time on security matters. They are paid to lead our country and the free world. Security specialists are
supposed to spend their time on security matters. To make a direct connection to President Obama and consolate security is *absurd.* If the people
who make these assertions are picking at those feeble straws, then perhaps it shows a bit of desperation.
The events were a terrible tragedy for our country and everyone involved. However, placing blame on the President is misguided, unfounded and in
extremely poor taste.