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

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

What else is there to shout?

For weeks the Right Wing Obama haters have been running with rumors, un-named sources only available to Fox News, and outright speculation to build their own picture of what happened in Benghazi.

And now, the CIA, the agency that was actually there and responded has released a timeline of what happened during the attack which has blown the Right Wing fan faction out of the water. There was no "Stand Down" order, the two ex-Navy Seals didn't go in guns blazing on their own against orders, there were more than just the two of them that responded (there goes the Rambo fan fiction of 2 vs hundreds), the drone wasn't pre-dispatched to that area, one of the ex-Navy Seals came from Tripoli, and the two that died didn't die trying to defend the Consulate, they died back at the CIA safe house trying to defend that.

And after all that, all you have from the Benghaziers is, "That's a lie". LIKE THE FREAKING KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

I'm sorry, but I have nothing else to say to Benghaziers anymore, they have carved out a new sub-species of Conspiracy Theorist who will be sneered at just like Birthers.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Taiyed because: (no reason given)

Here's the thing with this story, and the birther story: that no straight answer was forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time. It has every appearance of time being taken to see if it would blow over, then concocting a story.

Not that I am a birther. Only that their point, about why it wasn't forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, is wholly valid and yet to be answered.

In essence, to demand answers in a timely fashion is how you keep that particular sleight of hand from occuring.

The reason the CIA didn't 'speak up' sooner is because they didn't want to release any information about their operations and logistics in Benghazi, in case that information could wind up being used against them by enemies. Of course it seems they've caved due to pressure from Fox News, who are currently getting away with pushing dangerous hearsay..

And since this isn't a birther thread, I'll refrain from tackling that non-issue as well.

Easy people. This will all go away after the election because *there's nothing to it*.

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

I'm not sure you know what "specifics" means. Pointing to a 3 hour long video is not "specific".

I watched that hearing when around the time it happened. Are you sure you have watched it, because you can't seem to be able to articulate what you got out of it.

The old "I'm not doing your work for you" defense when you can't back up your own argument, that's cute. YOU are the one claiming that you have facts that contradict this timeline, yet you can't seem to provide any examples. That is on YOU, it's not up to me to prove YOUR claims. If you can't back up your claims or are unwilling to, then maybe you should stop making claims.

Im not sure you know what research is..........attacking me isnt increasing your knowledge on this issue.....

This video shows the FACTS.......if FULL........w no media bias and NO interjection by anything other than those involved in the hearing.........You dont get much more straight line then that......NO media spin, NO second hand bullcrap........

You can go back n forth w me on this and try and confuse the issue..........or you can go learn.......

All the facts are in the video......THAT is fact.........YOU are choosing to ignore it........thats your problem.....

Ive provided what you asked for, you wanted sources and facts, I provided them to you, if your attention span or lack of motivation to find the truth keeps you from watching it, that is NOT my problem....

reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

The reason the CIA didn't 'speak up' sooner is because they didn't want to release any information about their operations and logistics in Benghazi, in case that information could wind up being used against them by enemies.

Hmmm, funny that didn't seem to apply in the bin Laden assassination operation.

Did it?

Originally posted by jazzguy
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.

Smart people wait for the facts before reporting what they have. If the other side gets in their initial fake info to spin the story in a different direction, then yeah, any different info will look like damage control. There's already enough new information that makes those initial reports look like politicizing a terrible event to make the current administration look guilty of neglect, but the new information pouring out, which tends to be vetted much more thoroughly is actually saying the opposite. Those folks that are so quick to judge have some apologizing to do when the real facts come to light. They won't, of course, because they'll conveniently "forget" about their comments and hope that everyone else does too. I remember their names though.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Here's the thing with this story, and the birther story: that no straight answer was forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time.

Who defines a "reasonable time"?

This attack took place a month and a half ago, and you are complaining about a reasonable time? Give me a break. You aren't entitled to the intelligence as it comes in, let them do their jobs and then wait for the report.

The problem with this story is that there are a group of people, the Benghaziers, that had already decided what the correct answer was before they had all the information. And so it doesn't matter on what timeframe the actual intelligence comes out, if it doesn't match with this groups pre-conceived answer, then they will dismiss it as false.

The same goes with Birthers. No other President has been dogged as much as Obama about his Birth Certificate. When he finally releases both the short (the one we are all familiar with) and the long, did the Birthers accept it? No, they didn't, they will only accept one answer and that is what they have already decided. It doesn't matter about the time frame, it is all about their own pre-conceived version of the "truth".

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

*** sheepishly raises hand ***
i have a question ...
if your video is of "hearings" of an official order, is there a transcript that you could/would link ??
i cannot view video but am rather interested to review what you've offered.
any help on the horizon ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

*** sheepishly raises hand ***
i have a question ...
if your video is of "hearings" of an official order, is there a transcript that you could/would link ??
i cannot view video but am rather interested to review what you've offered.
any help on the horizon ??

Thats a good question, ill see if i can find ya one bud.......

Eh i found some stuff from the state department in part

From state dept

You can make an account here (nothing to pay) and recieve full transcripts
Federal News Source

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You have provided nothing because I don't believe you know what you are talking about. You don't have a firm command of this issue, you are blindly repeating talking points with nothing to back them up with. This is called falling for propaganda. You are so sure you are right, but you have no idea how to defend your position.

Here, let me show you how it's done.

There was no Stand Down order.

news.yahoo.com...

"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," said the official. The official's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to "stand down" from providing security support to the consulate.

Direct quote from a Senior Intelligence official.



The two ex-Navy Seals didn't go in guns blazing all by themselves against orders. In fact, they weren't even on the same "team".

According to the official, upon learning of the attack at the consulate, the security team at the annex responded "as quickly and effectively as possible." The official described how the security team tried to rally additional support from local Libyan forces and heavier weapons, but that when that could not be accomplished "within minutes" they moved out to the compound. The official called the security team "genuine heroes" who risked their lives to save those at the compound
...
At around 1 a.m. an additional CIA team of about six security officers from the embassy in Tripoli had arrived at Benghazi. U.S. officials have acknowledged that the embassy in Tripoli had chartered an aircraft to take the team to Benghazi. The official disclosed the new detail that two U.S. military officers were part of the team that flew in from Tripoli.
...
The attack killed two security officers, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who were located on the annex's roof. Doherty had been part of the security team that had flown in from Tripoli. The new attack on the annex lasted only 11 minutes.

There was no drone pre-dispatched to the area, and it wasn't armed to be able to respond.

At 11:11 p.m., an unarmed U.S. military surveillance drone arrived over the compound. U.S. officials have told ABC News that the drone had been redirected to Benghazi from an ongoing mission elsewhere in Libya.

That's how it's done.

Now if you have information that contradicts all of that, please show it. Or just continue to deflect and look like you have no idea what you are talking about. Again, the old "i'm not going to do your work for you" is just a excuse that means "I really have no idea what I'm talking about and can't prove anything I'm saying".

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!

 

The reason the CIA didn't 'speak up' sooner is because they didn't want to release any information about their operations and logistics in Benghazi, in case that information could wind up being used against them by enemies.

Hmmm, funny that didn't seem to apply in the bin Laden assassination operation.

Did it?

And the difference being???

Come on, think a little, I know you can do it.

Ah, nevermind, I'll give you the answer. The difference is that the Bin Laden raid was a US Planned operation, so we had all the details BEFORE the event happened. The Benghazi attack was a surprise attack where the US didn't have any information on until after it happened and then the intelligence gathering started.

See the difference?

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

*** sheepishly raises hand ***
i have a question ...
if your video is of "hearings" of an official order, is there a transcript that you could/would link ??
i cannot view video but am rather interested to review what you've offered.
any help on the horizon ??

Thats a good question, ill see if i can find ya one bud.......

You won't find it, becaue the "Stand Down" rumor came ONLY from Fox News and their source was an anonymous source "on the ground" in Libya. There is nothing in your "hearings" about the Stand Down order, you would think you would know that if you claim this video of the hearings is your "proof". But I guess you don't.

Good luck on your wild goose chase that you set yourself on.

reply to post by Taiyed

You have provided nothing because I don't believe you know what you are talking about. You don't have a firm command of this issue, you are blindly repeating talking points with nothing to back them up with. This is called falling for propaganda. You are so sure you are right, but you have no idea how to defend your position.

Thats just it..........there are no talking points.........these are from the hearings.......i watched them live and have been investigating this case and eating up all info that has come out since the incident.....

Youre trying to pass off this blame on my that im using talking points etc.......when ive done nothing but provide you with information , W OUT and MEDIA involvement......

know what that means? Do you know what the hearing video means? It means......NO TALKING POINTS because its in full........

Debate further with you futile.......

Originally posted by Taiyed

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

*** sheepishly raises hand ***
i have a question ...
if your video is of "hearings" of an official order, is there a transcript that you could/would link ??
i cannot view video but am rather interested to review what you've offered.
any help on the horizon ??

Thats a good question, ill see if i can find ya one bud.......

You won't find it, becaue the "Stand Down" rumor came ONLY from Fox News and their source was an anonymous source "on the ground" in Libya. There is nothing in your "hearings" about the Stand Down order, you would think you would know that if you claim this video of the hearings is your "proof". But I guess you don't.

Good luck on your wild goose chase that you set yourself on.

again proviing you arent comprehending what you are reading.........
He asked for a transcript of the actual hearings .........because he cant watch the video

reply to post by butcherguy


Duh.

Because in the end, we got our man in that operation. Details are still being witheld about the "classified chopper".

Just because not enough details to satisfy YOU haven't been released, doesn't mean they won't.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I really don't think you ever watched the hearings or know what they were about.

They focused mainly on one thing, a security team that was not extended at the Embassy at TRIPOLI, not the Benghazi Consulate. This was one of Issa's and the Republicans many attempts to put out mis-information, and it seems you bought it.

Nothing about Benghazi, nothing about Stand Down orders, nothing discussed that would contradict ANYTHING in the latest released timeline.

If you have other information, please provide it, because so far you have given nothing. And yes, you are using talking points. Not from the media, but straight from the Republicans. And it seems you don't even have those straight.

So we are all waiting, let's see your super top secret information that only you have uncovered due to your extensive research and study that contradicts this timeline.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


They asked for the transcript where the hearings talked about a specific "ORDER", maybe you should go re-read the post.

There is nothing in those hearings about any "order", and the only "order" that has been talked about is the "Stand Down" order that was never given. Two teams responded to the attack, they weren't told to stand down, they were told to respond and they did.

I know you desperately want this to be some grand conspiracy, but the facts prove otherwise.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

Your wrong, for starters General Carter Ham a was arrested for trying to intervine. He was stopped because they wanted this to happen but it backfired in their face this time.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

Your wrong, for starters General Carter Ham a was arrested for trying to intervine. He was stopped because they wanted this to happen but it backfired in their face this time.

edit on 2-11-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)

General Carter Ham was never arrested.

This was a rumor from a blog with no other proof.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Seriously, watch a 3 hour video?? &^%$ that! I saw some emails posted yesterday. 3 from the "actual" embassy in Tripoli, and 3 from the "diplomatic mission" in Benghazi. None of them purported to say really anything damning. They did identify the security situation PRIOR to the attacks. The friggin country is a mess and ungovernable at this date and time. Play with fire you are gonna get burned. It is a direct result of THIS country destroying Libya. Maybe that was their goal from the beginning. CHAOS.

What are your key points and evidence you would like to make clear. At least point to the times in the video where something that you allege to have taken place was in the testimony, so at least you can scroll to certain times for the love of whatever.

I am not taking a side here. Well my side is ???? I don't know what happened. DO not quote FOX news, or Daryl 'I'm gonna cry cuz I didn't get the governorship in California after I bankrolled most of the recall Issa. That guy is as slimy as they come. Give me something, ANYTHING, besides that.

reply to post by Taiyed


This is the stuff I am talking about. Some bs blog somewhere says this happened, that happened.