It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
, my focus started to shift pretty quickly again into what
capabilities do we need to find the perpetrators
reply to post by Helious
Where is it quoted and documented? Show me? Find a direct quote if it is so freely available and post it. surely I am not the only one who actually bothered to read the declassified documents?
So now you're trying to spin partisan politics into factual statements made by those involved? Fair enough if you honestly believe that. Stay with with me for one more thing.
Please show me, based on what you are claiming that the two following statements are not true. If you can do this, I promise to take your argument more seriously.
1.) The Obama administration and Pentagon were briefed that there was an active terror attack on their Benghazi embassy in the earliest hours of the attack and despite advice from military assets more capable of assessing response time, military effectiveness and capability, the Pentagon (AKA White House) would not authorize the recommended military action to try and preserve American lives.
2.) Obvious, proven lies were told by the Obama administration to not only cover up the true scope of the attack but the very nature of what the attack was, despite having credible knowledge that it was something completely different. The attack was terrorism, something this administration and the last has sworn a war on at all costs including our personal freedoms yet this administration would have you believe it was something else, despite being told terrorism was exactly what it was, from the very beginning.
Now, tell me what about those two statements is disingenuous or partisan.
n a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
reply to post by Helious
okay so you say "the Pentagon (AKA White House) would not authorize the recommended military action to try and preserve American lives." You provide no evidence of this.
Here is evidence refuting this statement, coming straight from the department of defense website:
"The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound...
The DOD timeline records that in the first hours following the initial attack, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred first with the president, and shortly after with senior officials including Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who leads U.S. Africa Command. Africom’s area of responsibility includes Libya.
During those meetings, the official said, Panetta verbally ordered two fleet antiterrorism security team, or FAST, platoons to prepare to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain. The secretary also issued verbal prepare-to-deploy orders for a U.S. European Command special operations force then training in Central Europe and a second special operations force based in the United States.
At 6:30 p.m. EDT, according to the timeline, a six-person security team, including two DOD members, left the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for Benghazi.
The official noted the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center staff, within hours of the attack, began planning support and contingency operations with transportation and special operations experts, as well as with representatives from the four services and Africa, Europe and Central commands. By 8:39 p.m., the official said, the command center had started issuing written orders for the forces the secretary had alerted....
As the timeline makes clear, the official said, the evacuation took place before the FAST platoons or special operations forces arrived, although all were converging on Libya -- noting repeatedly that DOD leaders lacked a clear picture of enemy, civilian and American positions in the area."
IF you read this, you will see that not only did the Pentagon make a response, but that that response was elaborate in scope.
Your 2nd statement says: "The attack was terrorism, something this administration and the last has sworn a war on at all costs including our personal freedoms yet this administration would have you believe it was something else, despite being told terrorism was exactly what it was, from the very beginning. "
I will admit that in the two week aftermath the administration did put forward the idea that that the attack was actually a response to the anti islam video. But after those 2 weeks were over the administration changed course and accurately portrayed that it was a terrorist event:
Even recently the administration has put forth numerous statements suggesting that it was a terrorist attack.
Is that good enough for you?
reply to post by Helious
Okay will you show me where to find information or quotes from those "personally involved"?
And I'm certainly not blaming republicans for Benghazi if that is what the previous poster is insinuating. No I absolutely believe it was Islamic extremists. And as for the events of May 2012, months before the attack. The war was over and America had no interest in leaving a large roving security force inside Libya.
Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away. They said they were trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge.
Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly.
Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
reply to post by Sublimecraft
Well, at least the economy is improving and we aren't spending trillions on useless wars anymore. Compare that to the last administration officials who walk freely after they were actually proven to have lied about the intel leading to the Iraq war and propped up the banks that crashed the economy. Just sayin
If Obama didnt mobolize forces, then why does it say that he gave the ok?
If you read the declassified documents you will clearly find that the President not only DID NOT order a stand down, but that he ordered a swift and strong response
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
Where are the links to these declassified documents?
The term "terrorist attack" is rather vague at this point. The Bush administration overused it in order to spread fear, now when it is underused by the Obama administration people call foul.
Intelligence goes awry in the heat of the moment, but I have yet to see any proof that the Obama administration deliberately mislead the public or congress regarding the Benghazi issue.
Lets keep this simple...a "Terrorist Attack" of any type and by any definition isn't simply people "upset about a video". That is the only proof needed of the lie. Obama was told "Terrorist Attack" and change it to be about a video by non-terrorists. Simple. As far as where the document are...I'm sure we will see them shortly.
ambassador Stevens was repeatedly warned of the instability and danger of making trips to Benghazi, he was even warned about the more heavily fortified embassy being at risk in Tripoli, but his arrogance and cavalier attitude pushed aside cautious restraint. his instincts and better judgment failed, and it cost him and the others their lives