"Stand Down!!" - Here's Why

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by intrptr

 

Hey!...Stop with that "logic" and "thinking" crap!!...There is a tragedy to exploit and that man in the White House...get on board!!!!

Sorry, missed that hay ride.

Originally posted by Taiyed
What we have is Fox News in full panic mode because Romney is dropping in the polls and not gaining any ground in the important swing states that he needs.

For the record what part of this is Fox News making up to help Romney?

reply to post by ararisq

We now know that they were aware that this was a militant attack (unrelated to a protest) at least two hours in to the attack and I'm sure they knew well before then.

no, all we know is that one piece of information said it was a militant attack. I don't think you know much about intelligence gathering and you are assuming every single piece of intelligence gathered is credible...including facebook and twitter posts. But you are wrong.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. Just because it was a "militant attack" does not in any way suggest it was unrelated to the protests occuring all over the middle east. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

reply to post by Taiyed


Obama and his administration lied.

What's so hard to understand?

reply to post by Indigo5



If was my call (and its not) i would check into the sources for Fox news, Anon on the other hand, if you are talking about the video of them saying that they are going to bomb a building on Nov 5th, to me I find that hard to believe, i would check into all the other videos that they have made and come up with the conclusion that they have never made threats in the past to do physical damage to any buildings or anybody, also note that the quality of the video (hand movements, voice over used), does not match up with their other videos. Sorry went on a bit of a rant. I would not rate them very high, due to poor creditably in the past. BUT THE RESEARCH WOULD BE DONE.

Much love
RangerClark29

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Taiyed

 

Obama and his administration lied.

What's so hard to understand?

What exactly did they lie about?

The very next day they had a press conference about the attack and called it an act of terror.

So where exactly was the "lie"?

Here is some more fuel to the fire. Fox News says these operatives were at a CIA annex near the consulate. Went to engage the consulate and then returned later. It has also reported that there was a machine gun on top of the CIA annex covered in blood by one of the fallen operatives from a mortar attack.

There is from the Los Angeles Times on September 25th:

September 25, 2012|By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —- About a dozen CIA personnel were evacuated from eastern Libya after heavily armed men stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, setting back an important intelligence operation and prompting a debate about how much risk CIA officers should assume in dangerous overseas posts.

The decision to withdraw the team from Benghazi drew criticism from former CIA officers, who called it an overly cautious response to the Sept. 11 attack, which killed two security officers, an information technology officer and the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.

Now it has been reported all along that the two Navy SEALS were body guards to the ambassador, that they were with him. Now we know they were CIA operatives at the annex that engaged the militants and brought the attack back to the doors of the CIA annex where several other agents were stationed.

Those agents were then removed.

The official account sure sounds more fishy to me than the Fox News account.

reply to post by ararisq


The entire thing.

If you don't see this as election propaganda, then I just feel sorry for you.

In 2 weeks, no one is going to care about Benghazi. If Romney is elected, you won't hear Fox News mention it ever again, because it's purpose would have been filled.

You are being led by the nose, and you don't even realize it.

reply to post by ararisq

Now it has been reported all along that the two Navy SEALS were body guards to the ambassador, that they were with him.

That has never been reported to my knowledge.

The story was always that they heard the fighting and gunfire, and went to help. They had no connection to the ambassador except that they knew he was at the consulate at the time.

reply to post by ararisq


From your article you just posted

About a dozen CIA personnel were evacuated from eastern Libya after heavily armed men stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, setting back an important intelligence operation and prompting a debate about how much risk CIA officers should assume in dangerous overseas posts.

The decision to withdraw the team from Benghazi drew criticism from former CIA officers, who called it an overly cautious response to the Sept. 11 attack, which killed two security officers, an information technology officer and the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.

Did you ever stop to think they were told to stand down so they didn't jepordize the important intelligence operation they were a part of?

Originally posted by Taiyed

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Taiyed

 

Obama and his administration lied.

What's so hard to understand?

What exactly did they lie about?

The very next day they had a press conference about the attack and called it an act of terror.

So where exactly was the "lie"?

Um, when they blamed the video on youtube for weeks afterwards.

That lie.

Originally posted by RangerClark29
reply to post by Sissel

 

Being prior military, the term stand down means not to engage, as in; the idea you/we had we will not follow through with. They told those men not to help even though they had prior knowledge.

I understand that...what's it got to do with the title of the thread?

I was only commenting on the title and how it doesn't apply to the concept of it. If they searched before making the thread they would see that.

No military person is going to "stand down," if they are active duty. Unless they want to be a victim of friendly fire or end up in the brigg.

Originally posted by Taiyed
The entire thing.

If you don't see this as election propaganda, then I just feel sorry for you.

In 2 weeks, no one is going to care about Benghazi. If Romney is elected, you won't hear Fox News mention it ever again, because it's purpose would have been filled.

You are being led by the nose, and you don't even realize it.

I can say the same about you. Personally I'm voting for Gary Johnson so I suppose I'm a domestic terrorist according to Obama.

If you don't see this for what it was (an attempt to sway the election) one way or the other than I feel sorry for you as well. I can certainly see this as a false-flag where Obama thought he was going to reap the rewards only to be left standing in the corner.

Originally posted by Taiyed
Did you ever stop to think they were told to stand down so they didn't jepordize the important intelligence operation they were a part of?

Was this supposed to make me feel better about the Obama administration? Last I checked we weren't the Soviet Union and we didn't lose the battle to win the war.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by Taiyed
What we have is Fox News in full panic mode because Romney is dropping in the polls and not gaining any ground in the important swing states that he needs.

For the record what part of this is Fox News making up to help Romney?

(A) Fox's article forwarding the claim that Spec Ops at the CIA - Safe House annex were denied approval to go and assist the embassy is cited as "sources familiar with the exchange"...Anonymous, unverifiable. I take anonymous sources as "suspect" even when it is not two weeks before voting day.

(B) That same CIA safe house came under attack, which is no small thing. It's possible that IF...big IF...the Spec Ops actually were told to not assist, it was because the CIA realized that it could turn into a "out of the frying pan, into the fire" scenario if they intervened? While also having a fast-reaction Spec. Ops team enroute already?

Either way...lots unknown...and appropriately so. CIA operations and what operations are BLOWN and fully disclosed should be dependant on National Security...not political campaigns.

What that leaves us with is a President who seals his lips and says nothing...cuz he doesn't want to mix political agenda, campaigns etc with CIA operations...AND a GOP who will exploit that silence to tell a story to serve thier political agenda despite the risk to active operations...

Example here...
Issa’s Benghazi document dump exposes several Libyans working with the U.S.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday

thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

reply to post by beezzer

Um, when they blamed the video on youtube for weeks afterwards.

That lie.

It wasn't a lie. It was the best credible information they had available. And recent information that has come out has still backed up that the video did play a role.

Giving out the information you currently have available isn't a lie, it is called being transparent. I know this is the current Right Wing talking point, but it simply isn't true.

Do you have 100% proof that the video played absolutely no role in the attack? If so, please share it with everyone.

Originally posted by Taiyed
It wasn't a lie. It was the best credible information they had available. And recent information that has come out has still backed up that the video did play a role.

It was a complete farce and we know they had other credible information. You are really picking and choosing what you believe out of this. The truth had no credible evidence but all of the lies were backed up with credible evidence?

Giving out the information you currently have available isn't a lie, it is called being transparent. I know this is the current Right Wing talking point, but it simply isn't true.

For TWO weeks when there was drone surveillance, first hand accounts, and evidence documented within 2 hours? You never have to worry about the sun with those blinders on.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by Taiyed
It wasn't a lie. It was the best credible information they had available. And recent information that has come out has still backed up that the video did play a role.

It was a complete farce and we know they had other credible information. You are really picking and choosing what you believe out of this.

One part evolving intelligence, two parts the media's rush to construct a story and one-up one another.

The agency responsible for briefing the President

As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving. As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.

www.dni.gov... -s-consulate-in-benghazi,-libya

Mind you even the earliest assesments felt it was likely a terrorist attack BUT used the protests as cover...which remains mostly true. The attackers were assumed to be protestors until the heavy fire began.

As for UN Ambassador Rice's oft qouted explanation...informed by the agency I qouted above...what is left out of those qoutes used by FOX and others are the begining and ending of her commentary...

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

abcnews.go.com...

At no time did she dismiss it as a simple protest, only the idea it could have begun as a protest, and said clearly it involved extremists with heavy weapons...AKA terrorists....AND qualified it all as uncertain at the begining and end of her statement....what you are seeing is media frustrated that the story they created was not accurate

Originally posted by ararisq

There is from the Los Angeles Times on September 25th:

September 25, 2012|By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —- About a dozen CIA personnel were evacuated from eastern Libya after heavily armed men stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, setting back an important intelligence operation and prompting a debate about how much risk CIA officers should assume in dangerous overseas posts.

The decision to withdraw the team from Benghazi drew criticism from former CIA officers, who called it an overly cautious response to the Sept. 11 attack, which killed two security officers, an information technology officer and the U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.

That makes sense. The CIA safe house/ops center was blown, it actually came under heavy attack, and apparently near immediately. They do not know the how of it or how many agents might have had thier cover blown. yes of course get them out or at least swap teams and hit reset...which you would never hear about.

Part of the BS here is assuming that we the public have and should have an understanding of what is occuring with the CIA ops.

Again...Mitt Romney is getting intelligence briefings now...and suddenly chose to abandon his #1 cudgel with regards to foriegn policy...not once mentioning Benghazi during the debate on FORIEGN POLICY.

That tells me everything I need to know for now as to how the GOP n Media are getting the story wrong.

reply to post by ararisq

It was a complete farce and we know they had other credible information.

No you don't, you are assuming they did based on what Fox News is telling you.

If you have 100% proof that they have evidence that the video played NO ROLE at all, please provide it.