Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gowdy appears very serious and I think this committee will be a good thing for this issue. This scandal must be resolved. America deserves to know what happened and deserves to see justice for Ambassador Stevens and everyone else who was killed or wounded in the attack. Who gave the stand down order to the military...that's huge. This committee is going to find out what happened and why. I can't see any stonewalling happening. It's not worth the reputation damage to the Democrat Party in general.
There was no stand down order. This has already been investigated and testimony taken.
V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who
sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack
were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and
responsibilities of these individuals.
After the Benghazi attack began, six U.S. security personnel left the embassy in Tripoli
on a chartered Libyan aircraft to lend assistance.
94
Two of these individuals were U.S. soldiers
on a specialized assignment who took orders in such circumstances from authorities outside of
AFRICOM and Special Operations Command-Africa (SOCAFRICA).
95
These were the only
U.S. military personnel who got to Benghazi before survivors arrived in Tripoli on a chartered
plane, and they performed heroically.
Four other military personnel remained behind in Tripoli. They comprised the reduced
and revamped Security Support Team and were assigned to AFRICOM.
96
Army Lieutenant
Colonel S.E. Gibson, who led the reconfigured SST, told the committee that when he learned of
the attack in Benghazi “[t]here were concerns this might be part of a larger coordinated attack . .
. with the U.S. Embassy [in] Tripoli being targeted.”
97
Indeed, Colonel George Bristol of the
oint Special Operations Task Force – Trans Sahara briefed the committee that he told
ieutenant Colonel Gibson in a quick telephone call from another country in Africa “that the
U.S. embassy in Tripoli was his priority” and he must “ensure that it was protected.”
herefore, because of concern about the possibility of a follow-on attack in Tripoli, the four SST
oldiers, including a medic, joined “less than a handful” of State Department security personnel
n helping to safeguard embassy staff and facilities.
99
However, after the diplomatic staff had been moved to what Lieutenant Colonel Gibson
considered a “secure” location in Tripoli, he informed AFRICOM that he was about to take his
three special operators to Benghazi on a Libyan transport plane. At that time, Rear Admiral
Brian L. Losey, SOCAFRICA’s commander, conveyed an order to Lieutenant Colonel Gibson to
remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there.
100
Rear Admiral Losey said he was concerned
about the possibility of follow-on attacks in Tripoli or a potential for attempts at hostage
taking.
101
Preferring to move, however, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson told the committee he was
“visibly upset” at the time.
102
But, Rear Admiral Losey explained to the committee that it was
rooted in his belief that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s team was “the only military element . . . in
Tripoli that had any security experience whatsoever” and “it seemed prudent” to divide the few
military personnel in Libya between Tripoli and Benghazi rather than concentrate them in one
location.
103
He said his decision was based on consultation with two other officers and the three
had “about 90 years of collective Special Operations experience” between them.
I thought Hillary already addressed why they had to do with less because funding had been cut.
Still, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.
Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No."
She added: "This was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that.
Delivering a campaign speech is not the only thing Obama did on 9/12. A speech BTW where he referred to the attack as an act of terrorism.
Are you serious? He held a 15 minute press conference on Benghazi. The bulk of it was about the Ambassador and Libya. He never said that the attack on Benghazi was an act of terrorism. He never even used the word terrorism. He used the word terror once and it wasn't used in reference to Benghazi.
On the 13th he again gave a campaign speech in Colorado.
The attack took place on a Tuesday. It wasn't until the following Sunday when Susan Rice made multiple appearances on television claiming it was because of a video, or are you not aware of that? It took Obama TWO WEEKS to officially declare the attack was an act of terrorism.
Are you serious? He held a 15 minute press conference on Benghazi. The bulk of it was about the Ambassador and Libya. He never said that the attack on Benghazi was an act of terrorism. He never even used the word terrorism. He used the word terror once and it wasn't used in reference to Benghazi.
The whole speech was about the attack, so it's quite a reach to claim he was somehow talking about some other event when he said "act of terror".
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 05-06-2014 at 12:30 PM..
The whole speech was about the attack, so it's quite a reach to claim he was somehow talking about some other event else when he said "act of terror".
The whole speech was not about the attack per se. He never directly said that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. That is what the poster declared. And you yourself pretty much say it was an assumption, not a statement. And I would say 99% of Americans and the rest of the world assumed it was an act of terror, but on 9/12 Obama never declared the attack on Benghazi was an act of terror. Do you not recall that protests where held over several days at numerous embassies over the video, some of the embassies being breached, fires were set off, and for two weeks it was basically a protest that got out of control because of a "video". He declared it an act of terror two weeks after the 9/12 speech.
What is wrong with you people that you refuse to acknowledge facts??
The whole speech was not about the attack per se. He never directly said that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. That is what the poster declared. And you yourself pretty much say it was an assumption, not a statement. And I would say 99% of Americans and the rest of the world assumed it was an act of terror, but on 9/12 Obama never declared the attack on Benghazi was an act of terror. Do you not recall that protests where held over several days at numerous embassies over the video, some of the embassies being breached, fires were set off, and for two weeks it was basically a protest that got out of control because of a "video". He declared it an act of terror two weeks after the 9/12 speech.
What is wrong with you people that you refuse to acknowledge facts??
I have to ask, if the attack was triggered by outrage over a video, of if the attack was planned by a group bent on the destruction of the United States, isn't the attack still an act of terror either way?
A group of angry, hate-filled men attacked an American diplomatic mission. Whatever their incentive, it's still an act of terror.
Whether Obama declared it such is irrelevant. President Obama doesn't need to declare that the sun has risen, either. He can talk about an attack in any manner he wishes.
I have to ask, if the attack was triggered by outrage over a video, of if the attack was planned by a group bent on the destruction of the United States, isn't the attack still an act of terror either way?
A group of angry, hate-filled men attacked an American diplomatic mission. Whatever their incentive, it's still an act of terror.
Whether Obama declared it such is irrelevant. President Obama doesn't need to declare that the sun has risen, either. He can talk about an attack in any manner he wishes.
You seem to have lost track of the posts.
Yes it was an act of terror. It took Obama two weeks to acknowledge it. And when he finally did, his supporters went from believing it was over a video (because Obama said it) to believing it was an act of terrorism (because Obama said it). It took minutes for the rest of the world to see that it was an act of terrorism. And those are the people who didn't by into the 'it was because of a video'.
Who needs Obama to tell us that the sun has risen? Oh, wait.................................
He can say the sun shines out of his arse and there ARE people who will believe it.
Yes it was an act of terror. It took Obama two weeks to acknowledge it. And when he finally did, his supporters went from believing it was over a video (because Obama said it) to believing it was an act of terrorism (because Obama said it). It took minutes for the rest of the world to see that it was an act of terrorism. And those are the people who didn't by into the 'it was because of a video'.
Who needs Obama to tell us that the sun has risen? Oh, wait.................................
He can say the sun shines out of his arse and there ARE people who will believe it.
Despite your animosity toward Obama, he doesn't have to say it was an act of terror for it to be an act of terror. And just because he doesn't call it an act of terror doesn't mean he's saying otherwise. Whether it was the result of a protest over a video, or it was part of some larger effort, and the protest played beautifully as cover for that larger effort, the fact is that those of you who nitpick over every syllable that comes out of Obama's mouth are nitpicking. And it's pettiness, not substantive. Diplomatic missions in countries that are undergoing political upheaval are always at risk. Military installations in countries that are undergoing political upheaval are always at risk. Americans are targets. Reality sucks.
Yes it was an act of terror. It took Obama two weeks to acknowledge it. And when he finally did, his supporters went from believing it was over a video (because Obama said it) to believing it was an act of terrorism (because Obama said it). It took minutes for the rest of the world to see that it was an act of terrorism. And those are the people who didn't by into the 'it was because of a video'.
Who needs Obama to tell us that the sun has risen? Oh, wait.................................
He can say the sun shines out of his arse and there ARE people who will believe it.
There is no evidence that has been produced so far that they misled anyone on Benghazi for political reasons.
As per the FactCheck link, Obama, Rice and Hillary were saying things that personnel in the WH knew were inaccurate at the time. Maybe they were left in the dark for days and did not know they were intentionally misleading.
Obama could solve this by releasing intelligence memos or the video of the attack to congress.
Also, how is it not misleading for Obama to not have initially released an email titled Benghazi? I am sure that it had nothing to do with its appearance that it is asking to deceive.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-07-2014 at 02:02 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
