Someone's Wrong: CIA and State Dept. Accounts of Benghazi Contradict Gen. Dempsey’s Explanation

Whoa!!! Wait just a minute.. CIA and State Departments Benghazi narrative clashes with the Department of Defense!!! Who's telling the lie. We'll never hear from Hillary in an official capacity again...

Read on and brace yourself

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is telling a different story about Benghazi than the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

If the story Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is telling is correct, then the story the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) and the Central Intelligence Agency have told is not. If the story the State Department and the CIA have told is correct, than Gen. Dempsey is telling an inaccurate story to explain why the Defense Department sent no help to the State Department and CIA personnel who were attacked by terrorists in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11

Contradiction alert

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Dempsey said the reason the Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, was because the attack did not last seven hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart.

That's quite a difference and probably just on of the reasons that we have not heard from a single survivor of the Benghazi attack. NOT ONE!!

So that is why the DOD did send any back up to help fellow Amercan's who were under direct attack from small arms, rpg and mortars... What in the Hell is wrong here and when will Congress finally open up this thing up in an official investigative format. There are certainly enough inconsistencies in the official statements regarding the What?When?Where? and Why? our 4 Americans were killed..

Read on for more info.
cnsnews.com...

Say it ain't so, Jibeho!

You mean to say Criminals In Authority, Foggy Bottom and the Puzzle Palace can't agree on their lies? Goodness... I'm shocked!

You know the funny thing? The photos, videos and timelines I started collecting from all sources starting the day after (including the Jihadis themselves on what they released) tell yet ANOTHER story.

When will they even try to find the truth, indeed?? I take this rather personally too. After all...I left my comfy graphics major for Poli-Sci all the way to the top with a focus on international relations. My ultimate destination is probably a place similar to where Stevens died. I'd rather like to now HOW he was left to die and..if not for some disregarding orders? His whole staff would have died there with him. Over 20 people were in that building and only got out alive because some crazy ex-Seals from the CIA station broke ranks and got their asses out. ..and what happened to those two? We'll never know all that either.

The least they can do is give it a good faith effort, huh?

Interesting, that's what I'm working on in college at the moment.

As for the topic at hand it certainly is out of control. Maybe they are covering something up but I rather think they simply dropped the ball, gave a horrible explanation, and got caught in a lie that's been snowballing the more they talk about it.

I find that easier to accept than any mischief going on but you never know.

reply to post by jibeho

Government is lying to us? No way!

Once again they have the sheeple debating/arguing over details.

Who was there, who wasnt there, what happened, when it happened...

ALL of this is the result of one major flaw: US foreign policy.

Stop bombing, invading and occupying foreign nations, and you wont have to worry about reprisal attacks.

Like the US government gives a crap about a few lives. In Vietnam they sent 60,000 Americans to their graves and killed 2 million Vietnamese and Cambodians over an event that never happened: the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Interesting, that's what I'm working on in college at the moment.

As for the topic at hand it certainly is out of control. Maybe they are covering something up but I rather think they simply dropped the ball, gave a horrible explanation, and got caught in a lie that's been snowballing the more they talk about it.

I find that easier to accept than any mischief going on but you never know.

You know... I'm losing track. Since you started your marathon of posting a bit over 24 hours ago..(you've attacked people on so many threads I've been on now, I cant HELP but notice) You've declared yourself the representative head of your state Tea Party, an accomplished and experienced public speaker and now...well, what do ya know. I mention I'm pushing a major in Poli-Sci and your a dedicated college student too. Now we've all led interesting lives around here...and most I think are even honest about it. However, how many things are you doing at once? After all..You've also claimed to be a Historian. All this, while running non-stop at 100 messages in just over 1 day. (and I thought I posted a bit much at times) When can you ever find time for your other jobs and duties?

Back to topic though......

What do you find hard to accept here? I find it VERY hard to accept that this Consulate was having security issues clear back to March. I'm beside myself to know the wall of this consulate was blown out while the local guards hired to prevent such a thing watched it so closely, the reports read like someone watching a video and taking notes ....yet they did nothing to stop it. The SAME guards one of the dead Americans texted (must have been quick..during that 20 minute attack the general speaks of ) were among the group overrunning the compound that night.

I find it absolutely impossible to accept that the State Department played games about basic security and argued about how we HAD to use locals for security as every OTHER nation had been packing up their entire presence in Benghazi over the months prior to this attack specifically for security reasons. The US stayed...and stayed with a deliberately maintained SOFT security stance in a ripe target. Those men were staked out like goats for feeding time...and the jackals came to eat. No big surprise except that the US ALLOWED it to happen.

Here are photographs of the U.S. Compound in a city that, again, every other nation was leaving......Look secure to you? I've seen impound lots with more security that this.

Photo Series of the Benghazi Compound

Here is the document dump of the cables between the U.S. State Department, the Consulate compound in Benghazi, Tripoli and related agencies for the period leading UP to our people being murdered.

Be nghazi related cables and security communications

The data and picture painted by the official record contained above is why I find it impossible to accept. I don't get my information or opinions from the media. I haven't even watched TV/Cable news for more than a few minutes in any few day period for a couple months now. It's refreshing to be FORCED to seek original source material and make my own judgments by my own interpretation of the straight facts. The above is 100% original source material or as close as the public gets to it. You may find it ...helpful.

Originally posted by jibeho
Whoa!!! Wait just a minute.. CIA and State Departments Benghazi narrative clashes with the Department of Defense!!! Who's telling the lie. We'll never hear from Hillary in an official capacity again...

Read on and brace yourself

Gen. Dempsey is telling an inaccurate story to explain why the Defense Department sent no help to the State Department and CIA personnel who were attacked by terrorists in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11

CNS News? I think that is where your confusion originates.

Gen. Dempsey did NOT SAY that the reason "no help" was sent was that it was two twenty minute battles.

CNS (Conservative News Station) infers Question = Answer ...to a misleading effect.

Why not cite transcripts?

CROWLEY: But when did you learn, if this was a seven-hour battle, we don't know when people died, and there when the ambassador died, but if this was a seven-hour battle, a U.S. strike force couldn't have gotten there in time to be of some service?

DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. It was two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours. The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect.

And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles.

There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.

transcripts.cnn.com...

FIRST...He corrects Candy on the false assumption that this was a 7 hour continuous battle..

THEN...he answers the question why a strike team wasn't able to arrive before the event was over.

This OP is a good example of creating a false inconsistency.

PLEASE show me where Hillary Clinton claimed it was a continous 7 hour battle?

Timeline that the pentagon released a couple weeks ago..
www.cnn.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Everyone who wasn't listening to Right Wing media already knew that this was two attacks 6 hours apart.

Where do you see any official saying differently?

It was Fox News and other Right Wing media (and politicians) trying to make this sound like this was a long battle where two Americans rushed in Rambo style to hold off the "terrists"...when all along there was an official time line showing that the two ex-seals who died weren't even together during the initial attack. One was in Benghazi, the other came in for support later...they didn't die at the embassy, they died at a safe house that was hit with a mortar.

If you are surprised by this information...you just haven't been paying attention.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jibeho
Whoa!!! Wait just a minute.. CIA and State Departments Benghazi narrative clashes with the Department of Defense!!! Who's telling the lie. We'll never hear from Hillary in an official capacity again...

Read on and brace yourself

Gen. Dempsey is telling an inaccurate story to explain why the Defense Department sent no help to the State Department and CIA personnel who were attacked by terrorists in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11

CNS News? I think that is where your confusion originates.

Gen. Dempsey did NOT SAY that the reason "no help" was sent was that it was two twenty minute battles.

CNS (Conservative News Station) infers Question = Answer ...to a misleading effect.

Why not cite transcripts?

CROWLEY: But when did you learn, if this was a seven-hour battle, we don't know when people died, and there when the ambassador died, but if this was a seven-hour battle, a U.S. strike force couldn't have gotten there in time to be of some service?

DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. It was two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours. The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect.

And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles.

There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.

transcripts.cnn.com...

FIRST...He corrects Candy on the false assumption that this was a 7 hour continuous battle..

THEN...he answers the question why a strike team wasn't able to arrive before the event was over.

This OP is a good example of creating a false inconsistency.

PLEASE show me where Hillary Clinton claimed it was a continous 7 hour battle?

Timeline that the pentagon released a couple weeks ago..
www.cnn.com...

Thanks! I watched the video clip and heard everything he had to say from my CNS source. The short conflict was not worth the effort needed to dispatch help.... Even though we knew trouble was brewing for weeks..

You honed in on that one aspect of the OP and ignored the inconsistency of stories between DOD, and the official ARB report, the State Department and the CIA.

Amazing how you so adeptly ignore the simple facts of this OP and yes based on his statement I can surmise why our Americans on the ground received no support based on Dempsey's time line.

However, both a CIA timeline provided last fall by a senior U.S. intelligence official and the report published by the State Department ARB, published in December, contradict Gen. Dempsey’s claim that the Benghazi terrorist attack was two discrete 20-minute battles separated by six hours.

Additionally, an account presented by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in its report on Benghazi also does not comport with General Dempsey's version of events.

I also find it odd that Dempsey failed to mention support from Sigonella Air base that was just 480 miles away. Why is that? Why did he mention a support base that is the distance from DC to LA when there was another much closer base that could have easily provided support.

Try sticking to certain facts when it is obvious that your intent was to discredit me personally with your little sidebar. As usual.. Better yet, read the rest of the OP article and you could have saved yourself some effort. All points touched and quoted in the source...

Furthermore, I never made the claim that Hillary said it was a seven hour battle (that would be Candy Crowley :lol. I said she will never testify in an official capacity again. They had their chance with her and blew it. Please refer to the official ARB report from the State Department. You know, the department that she used to run.... Accountability starts at the top and runs down hill. Not the other way....

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by jibeho

 

Everyone who wasn't listening to Right Wing media already knew that this was two attacks 6 hours apart.

Where do you see any official saying differently?

It was Fox News and other Right Wing media (and politicians) trying to make this sound like this was a long battle where two Americans rushed in Rambo style to hold off the "terrists"...when all along there was an official time line showing that the two ex-seals who died weren't even together during the initial attack. One was in Benghazi, the other came in for support later...they didn't die at the embassy, they died at a safe house that was hit with a mortar.

If you are surprised by this information...you just haven't been paying attention.

Read the ARB report.... which contradicts the the DOD account...

An accurate summation of the Sept. 11-12 event in Benghazi, based on the CIA and State Department accounts, is that it was a three hour and 20 minute series of attacks followed four hours and fifteen minutes later by an eleven minute attack. That is significantly different than Gen. Dempsey's claim--while trying to defend not sending any military assets to the rescue--that Benghazi was two 20 minute battles separated by six hours.

Who's on first... there have been so many stories crafted about this event that no one knows what to believe any longer. Probably why they call it disinformation. That's why we have ATS to sort it all out. Glad you're ahead of the game and have it all figured out. Perhaps you should head up the investigation in DC..

Don't forget the Dempey is stating that these attacks separated by 6 hours were each only twenty minutes long. Please provide your source indicating that that knowledge has been shared before. 2 20 minute attacks... I don't remember hearing that from MSNBC....

Originally posted by jibeho
You honed in on that one aspect of the OP and ignored the inconsistency of stories between DOD, and the official ARB report, the State Department and the CIA.

Amazing how you so adeptly ignore the simple facts of this OP and yes based on his statement I can surmise why our Americans on the ground received no support based on Dempsey's time line.

However, both a CIA timeline provided last fall by a senior U.S. intelligence official and the report published by the State Department ARB, published in December, contradict Gen. Dempsey’s claim that the Benghazi terrorist attack was two discrete 20-minute battles separated by six hours.

Additionally, an account presented by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in its report on Benghazi also does not comport with General Dempsey's version of events.

I am confused...see, you are posting a CNS (Conservative News Service) article making a claim, while not providing any evidence or even specifics...and treating the excerpt as some kind of proof?

I can find you an article that claims that Mitt Romney is a grey alien or a lizard man hiding in a human body.

I provided the Transcript that the Pentagon actually released...along with the actual transcript of General Dempsey's interview.

Here I'll keep helping you out...
CNS and yourself claimed that the timeline of two seperate attacks contradicted the State Department ARB report.

The State Department ARB report didn't provide a timeline...the pentagon did...the review board doc (unclassified) wasn't a timeline, it did mention this though..

The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gunfire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilitiesand property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated theattacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks,which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

foxnewsinsider.com...

So fail there...next up

Contradicts CIA timeline?

11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.



5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

articles.washingtonpost.com...

Ok...again...Two attacks...

Saying the stories don't match up...is just saying stuff...Anyone can just say stuff, doesn't make it the truth.

reply to post by Indigo5


So which account do you believe...? Again Dempsey stated it was 2 twenty minute attacks separated by 6 hours. Which contradicts the CIA timeline.... that you so helpfully provided... also detailed and referenced in my source article. Read it. Apparently you didn't

I pureed this information for you so it will be easier to swallow..

Listing the incidents as they occurred in Benghazi time (which is six hours ahead of Washington, D.C. time), here is how the CIA timeline, provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official, described the series of events that Gen. Dempsey, this Sunday, told CNN was “two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours”:

“Around 9:40pm (local) the first call comes in to the Annex that the Mission is coming under attack. Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team left the Annex for the Mission. Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire. At 11:11pm, the requested ISR arrives over the Mission compound. By 11:30pm, all US personnel, except for the missing US Ambassador, depart the Mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire. Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the Annex receives sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse (approx 1am). At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport, negotiates for transport into town, and upon learning the Ambassador was missing and that the situation at the Annex had calmed, focused on locating the Ambassador, and trying to secure information on the security situation at the hospital. Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and--having learned that the Ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain--heads to the Annex to assist with the evacuation. They arrive with Libyan support at the Annex by 5:15am, just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the Annex. The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy. That attack lasted only 11 minutes then also dissipated. Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate the compound of all US.”

From the OP

cnsnews.com...

Again we are talking about how Dempsey stated that these were 2 20 minute battles separated by 6 hours. And that he could not logistically get support from Djibouti, which is the distance between LA and DC. He failed to mention support from Sigonella Air base that was just 480 miles away. A two hour trip. Sigonella is home to spec ops and Delta force operators...

What are you trying to disprove that has not been covered in the source article? There is a definite contradiction. If you can't see then God help you...

ETA
funny how you have not even addressed Dempsey's statement.. It's all about me and CNS.. When you failed to read the article in its thorough entirety. You are hilarious and so predictable..

reply to post by Indigo5


cat got your tongue?

What is the point?
Are you sayin that the Military was able to send forces in strength to Benghzai in time to save the Ambassador?
As i take it, the Ambassador was dead before anyone could do anything...??
As regards to the other dead and wounded, these apear to be mortar fire related...as i believe five rounds were fired, three of which hit the roof and killed the operators there as well as wounding two others.....
This moratr incident probably lasted only mere minutes at best.....
As regards to having lasers on attackers and not firing , i dont get that either...??
I the meantime, this is just one little event which is covered up with lies told frquently and loudly by all parties....that way the blame never does find a home....and everyones a hero...(which seems to be a demand that
is fullfilled with every dead American...they ALL die heroes...)
I think its about keeping the killing and dying as palatable to the public as possible....
Ask me and ill say they all EFFED UP a big time SNAFU.
Very likely due to the superior attitude US firepower has towards its opponents most times.
Look for many many more "African Adventures "by the US military,the State dept, and sundry Intel agencies....
The continent is ripe for picking and the US needs above all, to keep moving forwards....
Any prolonged hesitation in the overall headlong rush to domination of Africa and the middle eas would bring the whole schmeer to its kees.......
The clock has been ticking for some time.....

reply to post by jibeho


CNS and your OP

Originally posted by jibeho

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Dempsey said the reason the Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, was because the attack did not last seven hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart.

A) He DID NOT SAY THAT WAS THE REASON….He corrected Candy Crowley
B) He said “BATTLE”…Not “ATTACK”…Can you tell me the difference?

It is deliberate BS by CNS.

CROWLEY: But when did you learn, if this was a seven-hour battle, we don't know when people died, and there when the ambassador died, but if this was a seven-hour battle, a U.S. strike force couldn't have gotten there in time to be of some service?

DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour BATTLE. It was two 20-minute BATTLES separated by about six hours. The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect.

And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles.

There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.

When did those BATTLES (VS. ATTACKS) occur in the context of the CIA provided timeline…not official BTW, but from a CIA source?

●10:10 p.m.: The rescue team reached a chaotic intersection a few blocks from the consulate. Militias gathered there have several .50-caliber machine guns, which the CIA team tries unsuccessfully to commandeer; three militiamen offer to help. The rescue party now includes 10 people: six GRS officers, a CIA translator and the three Libyan volunteers.
●10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes.

●11:15 p.m.: The CIA team puts a group of State Department officers into a vehicle and sends it to the agency base; at 11:30, the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later.

●11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.

AND THEN AFTER SPEC OPS ARRIVE FROM THE AIRPORT...2nd battle.

5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

Did the ATTACK last several hours to various degrees…ranging from silence to small arms fire? YES….Did the “BATTLE” with BOTH parties heavily engaged last that period of time? No. The heavy engagement occurred at two different times. Two different locations. If you look at the timeline...those ebngagements were roughly 15-20 minutes.

Changing the word “battles” to “attacks” when quoting the General afforded CNS to falsely claim contradiction...think they just were confused when qouting the general?...right wing BS is CNS bread and butter

Originally posted by stirling

As regards to having lasers on attackers and not firing , i dont get that either...??

As best I can tell Spec Ops on the rooftop laser sighted folks on the street by the CIA annex to let them know they were a trigger squeeze away from dying. They must have been having difficulty sorting out onlookers from militants. Awfully heroic of those guys IMO...to not adopt kill em all attitude in the midst of the firefight. They never lasered the folks that landed the mortars on the roof and the drone never spotted the militants that launched the mortars.

reply to post by Indigo5


So now you shift your argument to semantics. Alrighty... Keep moving those goal posts.. You forgot to add the word "assault" to your new argument...

Buh Bye! Brick wall, meet head...

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So now you shift your argument to semantics. Alrighty... Keep moving those goal posts..

I assumed you spotted that BS from the begining? That's why I ceased responding...It appeared intentional ignorance...You didn't notice that CNS changed the wording?

And you are welcome for me clarifying your confusion...I won't wait for a thank you...since you have de-evolved once agian to non-replies and BS rather than contesting the debunking I provided.

reply to post by Indigo5


If you actually read the article sourced, which you didn't you have read this. I already quoted this once. Note the quotation marks in the source. The attack you are trying to pick apart was not "" quoted" it was just a paraphrase of the conversation.

Listing the incidents as they occurred in Benghazi time (which is six hours ahead of Washington, D.C. time), here is how the CIA timeline, provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official, described the series of events that Gen. Dempsey, this Sunday, told CNN was “two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours”:

Just admit that your initial argument failed miserably so you just invented another one along the grounds of semantics.

It was a long article and I was certainly not going to post the entire article in my brief OP..

Wonder why the Generals story is different from the accounts of the CIA and the State Department. Story/Accounts/Details of the event etc etc Choose your word as you wish. Anything to stick it to CNS because they use the word "conservative" in their name... You do this every time I use CNS as a source....

Originally posted by jibeho

Just admit that your initial argument failed miserably so you just invented another one along the grounds of semantics.

9-11 was an attack...Fullujah was a battle. The general specified the Battles...not the attack. Still don't know the difference? If you think that an "attack" and "battle" are the same thing...then I can't help you.

CNS and you by extension "para-phrase" aka change his words..then shout about how those words don't match with other timelines...I showed clearly his ACTUAL words did.

Originally posted by jibeho

Wonder why the Generals story is different from the accounts of the CIA and the State Department.

Thats cuz it's not different...only different when YOU change what he actually said...get it? Of course you do...

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jibeho

Just admit that your initial argument failed miserably so you just invented another one along the grounds of semantics.

9-11 was an attack...Fullujah was a battle. The general specified the Battles...not the attack. Still don't know the difference? If you think that an "attack" and "battle" are the same thing...then I can't help you.

CNS and you by extension "para-phrase" aka change his words..then shout about how those words don't match with other timelines...I showed clearly his ACTUAL words did.

Originally posted by jibeho

Read the article. You are wrong again. The opening part of the article which I sourced in the OP did not quote anything directly. It was a summary. If you read the entire article you would see the proper citations of the good general's "battle" comment.. Which I included in two of my posts now...

Just amazing...Just give up when you know you've lost...

Wonder why the Generals story is different from the accounts of the CIA and the State Department.

Thats cuz it's not different...only different when YOU change what he actually said...get it? Of course you do...

edit on 5-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)