U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack (NO Stand Down!)

Well according to a couple of articles out this morning one from the LA times and one from the NY Times. There was no stand down order and that rumor is bull. So all those stories from the right wing echo chamber are false, so says this news.

snip>

WASHINGTON — CIA security officers in a Benghazi post responded within 25 minutes to a call for help from a nearby State Department compound after it came under attack Sept. 11, officials said Thursday, seeking to refute a Fox News report asserting that CIA managers ordered them to stay put.

In releasing a detailed timeline of CIA actions that night, senior intelligence officials have put aside long-standing concerns about revealing the extent of the agency's presence in Benghazi in order to push back against what officials say are baseless allegations that aid was withheld.

"At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," a senior intelligence official said in a statement. "There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support."

Fox News asserted in a story last week that CIA managers had ordered agency security officers to "stand down" and remain in their own facility, known as the Annex, when the attack on the diplomatic compound began about 9:40 p.m. and that there was an hour delay before officers disobeyed orders and went to help repel the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and State Department officer Sean Smith.

snip>

www.latimes.com...

this sounds more like damage control then truth.
if it was the truth they would have said it much sooner and not when it accidently went viral.

BS my friend, the audio tapes have not yet been released nor will they prior to the election. The annex which was 1 of the monitoring points notified their superiors an attack was underway within minutes of the 1st shots being fired. They were instructed to stand down, after appealing the ordered to stand down 24 mins later the took actions into their own hands. Their are more credible sources than Fox.

Even if your BS is true, the lack of response by the white house is unexcusable as it has been confirmed real time video and audio was being displayed in the situation room at the white house.

Looks like BS to me. Why wait until days before the election to release this news? Oh that's right because it's days before the election. If this was true it would have been corroborated with many other agencies long before now.

Why wait till now make a statement? Had to make sure to destroy evidence? If the C.I.A showed up it wouldn't have been a seven hour siege. Why didnt the President or Hillary say something about this when they were getting mud in their eye? The answer simple they are lying.

A soon as it started there should have been Marines on the ground.

reply to post by GrantedBail

seeking to refute a Fox News report asserting that CIA managers ordered them to stay put.

Well, there we have it.....

Seven weeks later!

I suppose there is no good reason to doubt the CIA.

This is all a bunch of malarkey to quell the angry Americans, pure and simple. It didnt take them twenty something days to come out and say that.

Its nothing more than a ploy to save face.

A squad of our boys would have protected that compound.

more inclined to believe this, instead of FOX NEWS experts.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
more inclined to believe this, instead of FOX NEWS experts.

Why is it taking seven weeks for them to respond?

Probably the same reason it took the Obama Administration over three weeks to get actual investigators onsite in Libya.

At best, it would be because they are bumbling fools. Anything else is criminal.

Probably the same reason it took the Obama Administration over three weeks to get actual investigators onsite in Libya.

At best, it would be because they are bumbling fools. Anything else is criminal.

Its simple as Obama failed to protect american soil......he did not uphold his oath, and its not the first time.

reply to post by butcherguy


Don't know,
the CIA are usually pretty secretive about what they are doing. Maybe they wernt inclined to say anything, but the absolute filth being spewed at fox news for the past few weeks has forced them to say something?

Who knows.. do i think somethings a stray, yes. Do I believe Fox News when they say Obama and co sat there, stood down help and watched as if they were eating popcorn on the couch? hell no!

reply to post by DOLCOTT


That is not what the news coming out this morning says. And I have been reading around today. It appears that there is a large CIA presence in Libya, albeit covert, which would mean that the security at the Benghazi compound was the responsibility of the State Department. From what I am seeing there are also privatized security forces. It is a freakin mess over there. There are different militias and tribes they are very distrustful of the new governments that are currently being formed.

Now what looks REAL bad is how they lied and tried to spin this attack as a response to that stupid anti-muslim film. That blew up in their faces. I don't claim that no one in the administration is fudging on this for all I know it could have been an orchestrated hit on Stevens by members of his own government.

snip>

Around 9:40 p.m. local time, the C.I.A. base received the first of several calls from the mission saying it was under attack. During the 25 minutes between the first call and when the officers rolled out the door, half a dozen security officers were readying their gear and weapons, while the base chief called several Libyan militias, seeking fighters with heavy weaponry to defend the mission. His appeals failed.

Over the next 25 minutes, C.I.A. officers approached the walled diplomatic compound, tried to secure heavy weapons, and made their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.

At 11:11 p.m., the Predator drone arrived over the mission compound. Within 20 minutes, all United States personnel, except for Mr. Stevens, whom the American security officers could not find in the chaos, left the mission, coming under fire as they did.

snip>

www.nytimes.com...

I am still somewhat mystified why people are so upset about a CIA gun-running post being over run by people with guns. It's not like it was an embassy or something. I guess any reason for a party, right?

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Not to be rude or anything but there are NO experts at Fox news. That is a propaganda outfit, PERIOD!

reply to post by shaneslaughta


American soil? What are you talking about?

reply to post by GrantedBail

AND TO POST HERE --->-

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Not to be rude or anything but there are NO experts at Fox news. That is a propaganda outfit, PERIOD!

=====================================================================================
AND HERE-->

Originally posted by Agit8dChopreply to post by butcherguy

 

Don't know, the CIA are usually pretty secretive about what they are doing. Maybe they wernt inclined to say anything, but the absolute filth being spewed at fox news for the past few weeks has forced them to say something?

====================================================================================

Nice try............classic damage control...........LATimes NYTimes ???? c'mooooooooooon MORE LEFTIST LIES DESIGNED TO PROTECT "HIS MAJESTY" .........It would be laughable were it not such an ominous sign of moral corruption and degradation of the press - which must not be overlooked following Romney's victory on the 6th

FOR THE TRUTH ON BENGHAZI GO HERE
Fair and Balanced - All the news that fit to report - un-biased - objective - truthful.

reply to post by GrantedBail


What a load of horse #ake mushroom soup. The reason they are doing this now, in my opinion, is that they can say whatever they want right now, Friday, and let the news shows debate it all weekend. All this does is get the statement repeated over and over and drilled into the sheeple's heads that this is the official story and then they quit listening.Repeat a lie over and over and, well, you know the rest. Now on Monday, everything else will be in the news EXCEPT the argument against this official statement and it will be too late to do anything about it before the election. Therefore, Obama is exonerated.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Oh really? Fox news is a mouth piece for the right wing and a propaganda outfit, PERIOD! This story and report just came out yesterday.

snip>


Fox News chief Roger Ailes offered to give Condoleezza Rice off-the-record advice in a 2005 letter.

The document was obtained by Gawker's John Cook through a Freedom of Information Act request. In the handwritten note, Ailes complimented the then-Secretary of State for having a "great" first month. "You handled hearing beautifully. If I can be of help off the record—just call," he wrote.

A Fox News spokesperson responded to the obtained document in a statement:

snip>

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Vitruvian


AND...

snip>

Fox News Boss Ordered Staffers To Echo GOP Talking Point About Public Option In Health Care Coverage

snip>


Media Matters has obtained leaked emails that show how a top Washington editor at Fox News directed his journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Bill Sammon, Fox News' Washington managing editor, told staffers to use the phrase "government option." This happens to be the exact phrase that Republican pollster Frank Luntz had advised Republicans to begin using to describe the public option -- on Sean Hannity's show, no less.

Speaking to Hannity in August 2009, Luntz said that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it."

Media Matters obtained an email that Sammon sent the day after Harry Reid introduced the health care bill in the Senate. The bill included a public option. In Sammon's email, sent on Oct. 27, 2009, he reminds journalists not to use the term:

snip>

www.huffingtonpost.com...