"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

reply to post by butcherguy


Howdy butcherguy, don't be too hard on them. Their MSM outlet of choice isn't reporting on this so how could they be expected to know?

reply to post by MsAphrodite
Most of the stuff on that list has been found to be false, by the administration's own admission.

Oh, well.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Not only did Obama likely not know what was going on in Benghazi on Sept. 11; neither did anyone else, including AFRICOM and the Pentagon. In fact, we still have barely any idea what happened. Immediately after - or even concurrently with - the planned attack by Ansar al-Shariah, a spontaneous group of Benghazi protesters arrived at the embassy. Eyewitnesses said members of Ansar al-Shariah told those protesters that they were attacking the embassy because of the Innocence of Muslims video. Moreover, it appears that the attack had only been planned a few hours before its execution. There is still so much confusion about the exact timeline that three Congressional investigations and a State Dept investigation are underway.

You should probably catch up with the story.
Most of what you said about has been discounted now, by (non-Fox) MSM sources.

The video was not involved.
There was no protest.
Obama and the Secretary of Defense had a meeting 5 and a half hours before the attack was over, the info was available for them about the attack an hour before the meeting.
Real time video of the attack was available during the meeting.
They only planned a few hours before? They showed up and made raodblocks with vehicles 40 minutes before they began the attack. They brought trucks with heavy machine guns mounted on them. They also brought RPG's and mortars....Yeah, it was spontaneous.

Thank you for providing a list of sources, so I can assess your claims.

1) I didn't say the video actually motivated the attack. I said that Ansar al-Shariah told protesters (whom they possibly convinced to "fake" a protest) that they were attacking the embassy because of the video. U.S. intelligence has further said the attack was likely timed for the "opportunity" of taking advantage of the Cairo protests over the video.
www.nytimes.com...

2) A crowd of Libyans gathered around the embassy, consistent with the protests in Cairo, either right before the attack began or as a result of the attack.
www.miamiherald.com...

3) The consulate attack occurred at 9:40 p.m., and I assume you're not claiming Obama and the SoD met 5.5 hours before that. The attack on the CIA annex (a building that security officials specifically went to because it was an "unknown safe house") occurred at 3 a.m. and lasted at most 15-20 minutes. As soon as a member of the Libyan militia called for back-up, 100 security officials showed up within 15 minutes.
world.time.com...

4) As far as I know, the single source for the claim that the White House had access to real-time video of the event is a retired lieutenant-colonel who refers mysteriously to his "sources." Panetta has said there was no drone directly over the building at first and that when they redirected it over the compound, it was difficult to determine the nature or extent of the situation. The attack on the consulate involved multiple sides of the building and ended in setting the living areas on fire, which is why Stevens died of smoke inhalation.
security.blogs.cnn.com...

5) I said that the attack was planned a couple hours before its execution (probably incited in part by hearing of the Cairo protests), not that Ansar al-Shariah were walking outside the consulate eating ice cream when the thought struck them.
abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by butcherguy


Oh, and 49 minutes after the White House and Pentagon were informed of the attack, they received a second e-mail telling them that the shooting had stopped.
thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

I fully expect some of this information will change as the various investigations study the events, and it may very well turn out that the attack was planned weeks in advance or that other security personnel contacted the White House with more accurate (and incriminating) information. But there are two very different questions here. What actually happened, and what Obama, the Pentagon, and anyone else at the time knew was happening. Even months later, the media (MSM or otherwise) still has not provided a comprehensive timeline of events.

We need to be careful in analyzing this entire situation, because we cannot be certain what is fact and what is fiction. But I think this particular aspect of the story is trustworthy. Now we must ask ourselves who we will side with. Should the general have gone against orders?

There are protocols in place for things like this, and if they truly did not have enough information available to them, sending in a specops force is extremely foolish, because essentially you are risking MORE lives to save those who cannot be saved. But then again, this general obviously felt that either he had a grasp of what was going on, because he ordered a team into the fray.

I think what it comes down to is the information available to the general at the time he gave the order to mobilize a specops team. If he truly was sending men into a situation they had very little chance of coming back from, I feel that going against orders was not warranted. If he had more information than those who gave the order however, I feel he should not be punished.

reply to post by buckrogerstime


Oh, and they had realtime video from not just one unarmed drone that was watching from the air, but also a second one that relieved the first one when it ran low on fuel. Remember when they killed Osama bin Laden? They didn't waste any time showing us how the Predisent and Hillary were right there watching the action unfold in the situation room. They could have been watching the action at the embassy unfold too. More than a few did, you can be certain of that.

As far as the emails that were released, those were just two of MANY messages that were sent from Benghazi. We haven't been privy to all of them. Like the flash traffic that announced what was happening as it happened. Like when the shooting lulled at the compound the first time and NO ONE COULD LOCATE THE AMBASSADOR.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

Drones: New York Post


Time of Obama/Panetta meeting in relationship to the attack:

The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack. The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. “The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony
submitted Oct. 10.

That is approximately one hour and twenty minutes after the attack began when they had their meeting. That is what I said and that is what I meant.
Source

I have posted non-Fox links through three different threads on this subject and I am sorry I didn't post them again for you, but I am trying.

The administration spread the lie that this terrorist attack was spawned from a demonstration for as long as two weeks after the attack happened. They now admit that it wasn't. They knew this within twenty-four hours of the attack. Read the transcripts of the House hearings on this matter, I have been doing that and it is enlightening.

reply to post by butcherguy


To back up your info an ABC repporter is now telling the white house they need to answer the questions being raised prior to the election next week.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

I am sorry I didn't address this properly enough:

3) The consulate attack occurred at 9:40 p.m., and I assume you're not claiming Obama and the SoD met 5.5 hours before that. The attack on the CIA annex (a building that security officials specifically went to because it was an "unknown safe house") occurred at 3 a.m. and lasted at most 15-20 minutes. As soon as a member of the Libyan militia called for back-up, 100 security officials showed up within 15 minutes.

The attack at the consulate occurred at 9:40 pm local time. that means it was 9:40 pm in Libya.
It was 3:40 pm in Washington D.C. The meeting between Obama and Panetta occurred at 5 pm in Washington..... One hour and twenty minutes after the attack began.

reply to post by Xcathdra

To back up your info an ABC repporter is now telling the white house they need to answer the questions being raised prior to the election next week.

Thank you, X.

They are right, and it is about time they did this.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
OMG..... Okay..I thought I'd heard everything on this story. He was outright ARRESTED? For refusing to ignore the cries for help...and deliberately leave those men to die?! He was actually ARRESTED ON THE SPOT like a bad friggen movie?!

(chomps a carrot so hard it sounds like wood breaking)

edit on 30-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Disobeying orders from a superior officer is grounds for arrest, a dishonorable discharge, and possibly treason.

The order was illegal.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

The attack at the consulate occurred at 9:40 pm local time. that means it was 9:40 pm in Libya.
It was 3:40 pm in Washington D.C. The meeting between Obama and Panetta occurred at 5 pm in Washington..... One hour and twenty minutes after the attack began.

At 4:05 p.m. EST, a State Dept official e-mailed the Pentagon, the White House, and the FBI to notify them that they were being attacked, that Stevens and four other embassy personnel were in a "safe haven" in the compound, and that the Libyan milita was providing additional security.

At 4:54 p.m. EST, the official sent a second e-mail stating that firing had stopped, that the compound had been cleared, and that a response team was on the site.

At 5:00 p.m. EST, just as a previously scheduled Obama-Panetta meeting was starting, the Libyan militia told the State Dept that they could no longer hold the compound and proceeded to evacuate the area.

Has anyone pointed out that this entire "news" story derives from an anonymous post on the LSU Sports forums?

They think you guys are hilarious:
www.tigerdroppings.com...

reply to post by buckrogerstime


You registered today to post that?

reply to post by buckrogerstime


You were trying to say that I thought the Obama/Panetta meeting occurred 5.5 hours before the attack began.

I think we are past that now, at least.

Flash messages were sent out from the compound immediately after the terrorist attack began.

The emails that the White House allowed to be released were to the administration's benefit, you do realize that is why they were released?

Most of the communications and videos have been classified. Funny thing, when it came to the bin Laden assassination, they told us a whole lot, right away. Since this is not a feather in the President's cap, they are hiding the information.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Actually, yes. I have been a lurker fan of ATS for many years now; it was always a good place to find unbiased information. But the increasing political polarization of the site has really made its utility much worse in my opinion, as evidenced by a ten-page thread based on an anonymous post from the LSU Sports forums. Couldn't take it anymore and decided to register.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime

 

Flash messages were sent out from the compound immediately after the terrorist attack began.

The emails that the White House allowed to be released were to the administration's benefit, you do realize that is why they were released?

Most of the communications and videos have been classified. Funny thing, when it came to the bin Laden assassination, they told us a whole lot, right away. Since this is not a feather in the President's cap, they are hiding the information.

Mostly agree with this. Flash messages were sent to the State Dept; beyond those three e-mails, it is unclear what people on the ground or the State Dept told other government agencies. Everything else is total speculation at this point, including whether any information is being hidden.

I agree that human beings generally emphasize victories, not terrorist attacks, particularly when they are up for reelection.

reply to post by buckrogerstime


The flash messages went to more than the State Dept.
They went to DoD.
They went to the White House.

Since you are up on the article that this thread is based on and tiger droppings, do you think that you could do us a favor and post 'ambassador's' original post in tiger droppings that was cited in the newspaper article?

reply to post by butcherguy


The flash messages also went to MI6, Mossad, ISI, BND, and FSB.

Actually, I made all that up.

Here's the source:
www.tigerdroppings.com...

"Ambassador" is self-employed in the restaurant and catering business.

reply to post by buckrogerstime

I was hoping that you could actually post the quote from 'ambassador' of tiger droppings itself. We already had the link.