Official: US Special Forces [team wasn't] allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Well, the plot thickens and these hearings are getting more and more interesting for something to catch and pay close attention to. Some key questions may be answered, after all.

A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday.

Oh?

Gregory Hicks, then deputy chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, told investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that U.S. officials had persuaded the Libyan government to allow the Special Forces operatives to board the rescue flight from Tripoli to Benghazi. But an officer received a phone call telling them to stand down before they left for the airport, according to excerpts of his account made available to NBC News on Monday.

Now, this is unacceptable in my view and gets to the heart of why so many of us were absolutely infuriated. Tripoli wasn't that far by air and they could have had meaningful assistance on site well before things ended as badly as they did. It has been a suspicion, until now. By these early statements of testimony to be given under sworn oath? It's about to become part of the official record......and from those who were there and DO know.

That conversation occurred after the U.S. ambassador to Libya and another American had been killed in the initial attack, but hours before a second attack that killed two other Americans.

Source

I believe there is a full forest fire burning under the smoke we see on this one. It's been a nearly lost hope that anything would be investigated in a truly meaningful way, too. Now, it looks like that at least has some hope of changing.

Recall, after all, Nixon's fall from the White House started, not by the burglary, but by the cover-up. Ronald Reagan almost lost his Presidency over the acts themselves, but ALSO, the outrage over cover-up attempts. Both incidents cost a good many people their careers and previous good names.

Time will tell how this shakes out, but this early look tells me we need to pay close attention to events this week. We could be seeing the early stages of another event our children read about the way kids today read about Iran/Contra.

All political bias aside. This is a far bigger scandal then the Main Stream Media has reported it to be. People need to be held accountable for conscious action and inaction that cost American lives. What happened in Benghazi was governmental terrorism, people need to be prosecuted and sentenced to jail time.

I fear if that doesn't happen, American dissent is only going to increase exponentially as people already view the government as lawless and taking a position of being above the law. Why should the population follow law if our own government has such little regard for it?

My opinion anyway.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Why? I mean, really. Why?

Regardless of political affiliation, why would you want Americans to die?

What purpose did it serve?

What political gain, political capital was earned from this?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Names of the officials in the conversation or it didnt happen.

Enough is enough with the 'unnamed official' yet again BS being spewed around.

If 'they', if they even exists, have the guts to make such statements, then have the guts to have their name spelt out and FULLY investigated on. Phone and any communication records can be easily traced in this day and age.

Hatred of the govt or the President is one thing, but truth is quite another.

reply to post by beezzer

I believe that is the 64 trillion dollar question. What was at the center of this? Why did they attack and over-run a US Consulate Compound and then attack a CIA Station to follow whatever left the Consulate with the evacuation?

I have NO doubt they knew full well which was State Department and which was CIA long before the attack started. They CHOSE to hit the State Dept. first ...and only afterward, shift fire and focus to the CIA station.

I have a bad feeling there is a deep black core to this thing and it's going to turn out to be a bad one, whatever this had all been about. The nerve it took to do what they did is off the charts, given what PAST history would suggest they could expect as retaliatory action.

The fact it didn't happen, set new precedent....but they couldn't have known that as the attackers that night. The terrorists who hit the compound thought the possible retaliation was worth whatever the prize was they were after.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Names of the officials in the conversation or it didnt happen.

Enough is enough with the 'unnamed official' yet again BS being spewed around.

If 'they', if they even exists, have the guts to make such statements, then have the guts to have their name spelt out and FULLY investigated on. Phone and any communication records can be easily traced in this day and age.

Hatred of the govt or the President is one thing, but truth is quite another.

Read the source, please.

What name aren't you seeing? The Special Forces commander is the only one I don't see named specifically. He would be a matter of looking up the duty sheet. Everyone being quoted *IS* named in that story. :shk:

A record of transcripts is in order here for the exact wording,and another question don't operators go any way all the time,or they used to any way.What changed in the community?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Who was the supposed 'regional commanders' who told the specs offr to stand down and why?

Were authorization protoccols adhered to?

These are the keys to the issue. No need to speculate. No need to blame anyone else even before the facts are all made known.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


I'll tell ya what, Cav... I've had something of a personal interest in this thing since the day it happened, for reasons that are my own. I'll promise the thread here, if others don't beat me to it, I will make a point of sharing everything of an official nature I can get, while fitting it in around my school and finals week, as it becomes available.

You're right. Transcripts to see precise wording are critical for those who know enough about what the word choices mean to read that deeply.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Uh, maybe, just maybe they are in fear for their lives. Just incase you you haven't noticed, Obama's "dead pool".

Pladuim

Would the presence of the Spec Forces made any differences, more so after the ambassador had been found dead and the other 2 only hours away from death, which the trip from Tripoli would have taken the same or not longer time?

If it was the FBI or investigators that were hampered, then it would be highly questionable, as the crime scene will hold very much vital clues to the deaths of precious american lives for the pepertrators to be found and apprehended.

It was a tragic fate, not only for those in the embassy, but even for the small group of spec offrs whom would not have been able to deal with that highly charged and inflamed radicalised heavily armed mob with an intent by the hundreds there.

Crime scene in a foreign country originally hostile to the US? I would say its tainted at best.No the crime can be found by tracing the order back to it's origin.These idiots can cover up a damn thing apparently.It shouldn't be hard with the Community co operating as it is. It all begins with those transcripts.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


So you justify the inaction due to "collateral damage" and brush away action by stating that it wouldn't have been worth it?

I do not understand, AT ALL, what the big deal is here.

What were they doing there? Really, what were they doing?

CIA-Embacy-Benghazi-armaments distribution- competing groups- before and after revolt-choosing sides, someone's pissed. Pretty straight forward, am I wrong?

Obviously there was going to be some incredibly angry people, feeling like the entire process was swept away from them by the US. Not that they were powerless, but if you don't have the US on your side, it's a little more difficult...

Any reaction by the US, in regards to attempts of 'going in and saving these people' would have been disastrous.

What is the 'official' backdrop story to all of this? Any good links or sources? Everything I've heard and know about this is from spoken word, and I haven't checked anything I've been told. So I could be way off...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

So you justify the inaction due to "collateral damage" and brush away action by stating that it wouldn't have been worth it?

That's exactly what this is, 'collateral damage'... and no, it wouldn't have been worth it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Still stuck in Benghazi huh?

I thought we already knew this?

In the weeks after the incident didn't it come out that there had been orders to not allow help? Not really sure why this is "news" to anyone.

The problem is, when you throw in extra men on the ground, without knowing the size and disposition of your enemy -- you may just end up with more bodies and blood on your hands. This was also discussed months ago.

I have a friend harping on about this.

And I'll tell you what I told him.

This was a CIA op.

Whatever the reasons behind this. It involves the CIA so there will be some secrecy behind this.
More than likely if the truth were to come to light. We'd be in some deep crap with the international community.

And if the administration even accidently outs an operative by accident. Someone would be guilty of treason.

So I expect to hear nothing from the administration. And even those crying foul now will be soon letting this one slide after the hype dies down.

reply to post by grey580


Yes, and sometimes within the CIA the left hand doesn't even know what the right hand is doing. There are lots of assistant directors and people below them that have immense capabilities and assets at their disposal. Some of these people may be pursuing unofficial operations they feel further their own agenda. Compartmentalization is how these things happen, and the government/military is excellent at it.

It would be extremely embarrassing to admit that rouge compartmentalized sections of our own intelligence community are carrying out whatever they want with non appropriated/budgeted money sourced from the illegal drug trade.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Would the presence of the Spec Forces made any differences, more so after the ambassador had been found dead and the other 2 only hours away from death, which the trip from Tripoli would have taken the same or not longer time?

Any reaction that showed the will to respond would have been better for the nation than - "aw shucks it's too late", "let's arrest the unrelated film maker guy".

On a more direct note the operators responding could have secured the area detained actors (wounded or living) killed some HVT's, the planners, the raid leader, recovered items of intelligence value, cell phones, weapons serial numbers, video of dead Hajjis is almost as good as catching them alive at least you can reconcile them to the lists and determine which cells are active in the AO.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101It was a tragic fate, not only for those in the embassy, but even for the small group of spec offrs whom would not have been able to deal with that highly charged and inflamed radicalised heavily armed mob with an intent by the hundreds there.

The two operators that did respond killed over 150; in Mogadishu we (I was there yes) killed at a ratio of something like (estimated) 250:1 for every shooter. At least they'd know that there are some consequences to their asshattery.