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

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

now i'm sure we're on the same page ...

How many of those "guards" were Jihadi's in different clothing when not taking a paycheck from the USG to stand around and play like they were trying to help us stay safe?? I'm really not generous about the Feb 17th Martyrs Bridage

exactly.
i am not saying the outpost received quality, quantity or loyal assistance, however, they did receive some.
i am not disputing the possibility that the guards assigned were actually participants in the attack rather the defense.
i am also not questioning the mishandling of prior security threats ... what i am doing, or trying to ... is get more ppl to look deeper themselves, rather take the msm reports with a grain of salt and accepting the forced adage ... that this event is merely the casualties of war.

reply to post by Swills

i didn't summarize without a link ... you ??? not so much.

the first time i posted the Time source, i announced in advance that it was a well-known propaganda generator ... however, did you bother checking the DATE of the story ??
to me, that makes a huge difference.

i have more important things to do thank you.
there is a mystery needing solved, ya know ??

6 men ?? i've done my reading, it's your turn.
that group of 6 was one, then there was a group of 12 and another of 8 who were held back by the Libyan gov, but let's not talk about that, right?
and, what about the 100 who joined in later or didn't you bother reading about that either ?

Swills, participate or not but don't expect me or anyone else to do your research for you.
if you want to believe what the msm spews, be my guest just don't expect me to join you.

reply to post by Honor93


Okay, you and I are clearly not on the same page and I can see no matter how many times I ask to you point out what exactly it is you need a source on you will ignore that request and ramble on.

I still don't know what it is you're arguing about but so long buddy.

And here, if you want some of the sources I used to piece together my so called BS summary then have a look see: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But as I've said, we are only privy to what info any of these MSM outlets give us so neither of us truly know what went down that night, although it seems the big picture is unfolding.

Van Susteren Blames Obama For Fox's Falsehoods On Libya

In this video Greta Van Susteren states a case for reasoning IF FOX NEWS REPORTING IS WRONG, it is the Presidents fault for not arguing it better with them and proving them wrong on their false reporting. As if all the President has to do is pander to lies put out by them. The trick is to keep shooting at his feet and get him to jump in response to their lies. Lies they know will either be disproved or accepted by the gullible as fact. Whether or not they are facts is irrelevant. They LIE FIRST and they make the President prove them wrong. Who would play that game with the opposing party's news station? Not me. It is beneath the office of President as well. Only an idiot argues with idiots. Let FOX report accurately in the first place rather than cover their butts in case they are lying yet again.

Rather than make sure to get her own facts straight, Van Susteren blames the Obama administration for Fox News' falsehoods on its sensationalized reporting on Benghazi. If only Van Susteren had shown even a hundredth of the same zeal in getting to the bottom of the Iraq WMD's story.

reply to post by Honor93

Back up. First.. If you're 'Old Hand' at betrayl from your own Government, where specific omission of action directly led to the deaths of Non-Military Government Officials...What situations have you experienced on that?

In general... Well, I'm new to seeing men staked out like goats and left to die. yeah. That is entirely new.

How can anyone justify this? I figured I'd save people the read and just post what I've been refering to. This is the after-action summary report of the June attack on the Benghazi Mission. Recall, AFTER this, they are still using the same guards and the same procedures. If anything, it's after this, security of U.S. forces is cut further...not added.

THIS is how they were left to die...and the night in question simply fulfilled the foreseeable consequence when even an event like this brought no major changes or actions to protect and fortify that Mission....if not leave entirely.


State Department Reports

Anyone who can read those pages of reports.....see what wasn't done to save their lives....then suggest there aren't MAJOR questions to be answred all the way to the top? Well..I just can't understand that position. Not for the life of me.

reply to post by Honor93

RE:

haven't you got ANY links to back up your BS ?? still waiting for ANYTHING from you except ... you're wrong.

U.S. officials counter reports on Benghazi attacks

www.usatoday.com...

The intelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans.
But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt.
At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said. Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.

At no point was the team told to wait,

Benghazi timeline challenges Fox News story

www.washingtonpost.com...no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar-story/2012/11/02/07e6ab0e-2487-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night — and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.

Fox’s Benghazi story punctured on Fox

www.washingtonpost.com...

Geraldo Rivera, in this entertaining and informative clip from “Fox & Friends,” splits Benghazi into three segments:
1) How well the United States prepared for Benghazi;
2) How well the United States responded to the attack on our assets in Benghazi;
3) How well the United States explained the attack to the public after it went down.
By Geraldo’s accounting, No. 1 and No. 3 provide legitimate openings for accountability and criticism.
But not No. 2: The response to the attack by personnel on the ground, says Geraldo, was strong.
In his inimitable, grandstanding fashion, Geraldo noted that he’d spoken with “four-star General Jack Keane, the former vice [chief of staff] of the United States Army, our premier military analyst. I am convinced that the military did whatever it could have done under the circumstances.” The CIA and the State Department both get high marks from Geraldo as well.

Geraldo makes an accurate accusation, and it’s one that matters to this whole Fox-Benghazi saga

In its suddenly very famous Oct. 26 report on the alleged failures of the CIA in responding to the attack on Sept. 11, Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin acknowledges that security assistance did indeed arrive from Tripoli.

Here’s the text: An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

Perhaps Fox should require its people to read the reporting of Fox journalists.

Maybe I'm crazy (don't think so) but the story doesn't seem all that different than what we've been told from the beginning but certain details have been made clearer by this latest release of information... What this release tells us is that this was much more of a CIA operation than a diplomatic one. This changes nothing as far as this being a tragedy. I'm concerned about what sensitive information is now in the hands of the terrorists that attacked the Consulate.

None of this is pretty, we all know that the CIA does some very shady crap, it doesn't change the fact that Americans died. CIA operatives follow orders same as soldiers do 'in service to their country', whether we agree that those orders are good is something for a different discussion that Americans should absolutely be having and it isn't a partisan discussion. In fact I think that if Americans did start discussing that it's time to stop asking Americans to serve their country in a manner that goes against our moral fiber, that partisanship may very well fall by the wayside.

But that will never happen with FOX injecting poison and lies into American brains through their eyes and ears nor with the other major media outlets with their corporate mandate to keep us ignorant by not fostering investigative journalism.

That is what journalism used to be, our national discussions, our national questioning. How sad that we've lost that. We as a nation should be fighting to get it back. Instead we are truly divided, we are nearly exactly 50/50 on everything... so in the very least we remain divided and nothing ever changes at the worst we get further polarized into a civil war.

Our politicians increasingly speak in a manner designed to disgust and offend those with opposite views and we can't stop being offended long enough to think straight.

I am so sad for us. Sorry for the rant.

reply to post by Swills

in case you hadn't noticed Swills, i'm not arguing with you.
i responded to the assumptions in your post, nothing more.

you chose to reply ... that's on you, not me.

now, as for your question that i am not ignoring.
here are a few examples ...
remember, i suggested you provide a link, a source, something other than cause i say so.

and ambassador Stevens already taken away

but more importantly who saved them when the 2 SEALs fell

It is clear that during the 7 hours the only US military presence was a drone in the skies above and that's it

The militants are said to have posted threats to the compound via Facebook

Do you think I'm just making this up?

not all but at this point with -0- sources, i have my doubts and rightfully so.

The fact is these men did not receive help during their battle with terrorists

as stated, this is an outright lie and multiple sources say so, including the "end all" source you referenced.

now, can we move past the childish nonsense or is that all you're wielding at present ?
ooooooh finally, A source ... thank you

But as I've said, we are only privy to what info any of these MSM outlets give us so neither of us truly know what went down that night, although it seems the big picture is unfolding.

all i will say to this is ... you are confused.
i have provided .gov, .mil, msm, blog, eyewitness and personal inquiry ... far more than "we are only privy to what info any of these MSM outlets give us"
sad to realize that you seem willing to buy what they're selling -- lock, stock and barrel.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

how many do i need to list before you'll get the point ??
VietNam (many fronts)
Grenada
Cuba
Panama
Israel
Iraq
???? do we really need to do this ?
if you want/expect me to list specific occasions, open a thread.
that isn't what this one is about.

i understand this would be 'new' for you.
try to keep in mind, for nearly 70yrs, we have been in a constant state of conflict ... it does get old, really it does.

look, i'm not going to hype these losses as some have tried.
we took the risk, we lost, it happens.

however, to me, that doesn't absolve those in charge.
i have NEVER heard a good reason for being there in the first place, have you ?

thanks for the posting and i agree with you entirely.

If anything, it's after this, security of U.S. forces is cut further...not added.

when someone posted the pics, i found that and yeah, what a FUBAR since.

ETA -- in line with keeping my manners in check ... i offer you an apology.
i kinda sorta take back what i implied but not what i said.

you are correct/right ... this would be the first time i can remember such a situation being exploited by the Office of POTUS in such a manner for so long.
to have publicly pointed to a form of art and a single party as being responsible, would be a new thing, indeed.

reply to post by newcovenant

nc, i can read just fine ... no need to get bent/bold and big cause i asked for them.

how convenient that you didn't bold this part ...

[color=amber] they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.

so, who cancelled the airstrike ?

and the rest is pretty much Official 1, Official 2, Geraldo, blah, blah, blah.
any witness statements from the ground ?
any reports from those rescued to safety ?
since i can read just fine, referencing msm blurbs isn't getting us anywhere, is it ?
i've referenced plenty so i'm not dissing any of them specifically.
but it's the msm ... where's the credibility ??
even the Time.World link i provided ... where are the REST of the stories ???

Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began.

One source said the Blue Mountain Security chief seemed "distraught" and said "the situation here is very serious, we have a problem." He also said that even without these phone and radio calls, it was clear to everyone in the security community on the ground in Benghazi much earlier than 9:40 p.m. that fighters were gathering in preparation for an attack.

Many of these security contractors and intelligence sources on the ground in Benghazi met twice a week for informal meetings at the consulate with Blue Mountain and consulate staff, and at times other international officials. They were all very familiar with security at the consulate -- and said the staff seemed "complacent" and "didn't seem to follow the normal American way of securing a facility."

Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to "heavily armed troops showing up with artillery." Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only "loosely based on the truth" and "doesn't quite add up."

British sources on the ground in Benghazi said they are extremely frustrated by the attack and are still wondering why they weren't called for help. “We have more people on the ground here than the Americans and I just don't know why we didn't get the call?" one said.

Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of "complete incompetence." The covert team that came in from Tripoli was held up at the Benghazi airport for more than three hours by Libyan officials. Sources said the team notified officials in Washington that they were being delayed within 30 minutes of their arrival.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only "loosely based on the truth" and "doesn't quite add up."

reply to post by Honor93


Like I said again and again, I posted a summary of what MSN outlets have been reporting since the attacks and in case you haven't noticed the story of the attacks is forever changing. You are clearly arguing something but its a moot point because of the fact that the Benghazi story is still changing & evolving. I did post links, see my last post, & I've already said I'm not going through your post history in this thread to piece together whatever it is you think you are saying. So far the only link I recall you posting is from the Time magizine & not .gov, etc, but ill say it again, I'm not going through your post history so if you've got a point to make via a source the just post the source instead of assuming people have read your every post in this 10+ page thread.

Other than that, I'm still unclear as to what your point is so I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

FOXNEWS report Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account

Recent reports published by the N.Y. Times debunked by security forces on the ground:

Read more at Fox:

Looks as though the false information by the Obama spin doctors at the NYTimes has been thoroughly discredited by the great investigative reporting at Fox News.

Despite a carefully narrated version of events rolled out late this week by the CIA claiming agents jumped into action as soon as they were notified of calls for help in Benghazi, security officials on the ground say calls for help went out considerably earlier -- and signs of an attack were mounting even before that.

The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive.

According to the CIA, the first calls for assistance came at 9:40 p.m. local time from a senior State Department official at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, to the CIA annex about a mile away.

But according to multiple people on the ground that night, the Blue Mountain Security manager, who was in charge of the local force hired to guard the consulate perimeter, made calls on both two-way radios and cell phones to colleagues in Benghazi warning of problems at least an hour earlier. Those calls allegedly went to local security contractors who say that the CIA annex was also notified much earlier than 9:40 p.m. U.S. military intelligence also told Fox News that armed militia was gathering up to three hours before the attack began.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by Vitruvian


Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy. I have never seen anyone literally sing praise to a network before. You should look into getting paid for it.

On topic... the poster above you already linked that FOX article.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Stormdancer raises a very good point. If we couldn't get a respectable response team there in a timely manner, why did we not ask the British? They would have done whatever they could to help, I'm sure. Do we have any evidence that the U.S. asked for any assistance from the Brits or other friendlies in the area. I'm not talking Libyan militia's but other allies that helped in the whole Libyan mission? I would have thought we put an "all hands on deck" request once we saw things getting out of control.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy. I have never seen anyone literally sing praise to a network before. You should look into getting paid for it.On topic... the poster above you already linked that FOX article.

The two accounts presented in this thread differ in content -

As for FoxNews they are the only News outlet in America that stands-up against the MSM's oppressive Nazi style propaganda machine that favors the Marxist regime of BHO - an affront and a direct assault on the freedom of the press, so they deserve all the accolades for courage and top notch reporting that might come their way. I will promote and defend them and the Constitutionally protected freedom of the press (as enunciated in the Bill of Rights) in the same manner as I would the Constitution of the United States itself.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


American Right Wing = Children that like to stomp, scream and whine when the actual reality doesn't agree with their own definitions of reality.

Some will do anything to make Obama look bad and yet, won't give us a credible reason to vote Romney.

reply to post by Vitruvian

I will promote and defend them in the same manner as I would the Constitution of the United States.

That is insanity. You would take up arms to defend FOX?

reply to post by Swills

it is you who keeps picking an imaginary argument, not i.
i congradulated your last post for finally including a link ... thanks for not noticing

your lack of interest in my opinion has what to do with this topic ?

NO, i will not re-post the links simply because you are not interested enough or are too lazy to search for them yourself, get a secretary. my post history in this thread is available for all to see and if you bothered to look, you would find 10 separate sources just on the 1st page.

your inability or unwillingness to cooperate does not justify your attitude toward me.
carry on.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I will promote and defend them in the same manner as I would the Constitution of the United States.

That is insanity. You would take up arms to defend FOX?

Stop quoting people out of context - its impolite!

As for FoxNews they are the only News outlet in America that stands-up against the MSM's oppressive Nazi style propaganda machine that favors the Marxist regime of BHO - an affront and a direct assault on the freedom of the press, so they deserve all the accolades for courage and top notch reporting that might come their way. I will promote and defend them and the Constitutionally protected freedom of the press (as enunciated in the Bill of Rights) in the same manner as I would the Constitution of the United States itself.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.