Benghazi: Where is the lie? (lawyer, extremist, crime, propaganda)
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.
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
Joint Special Operations Task Force – Trans Sahara briefed the committee that he told
Lieutenant 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.”98
Therefore, because of concern about the possibility of a follow-on attack in Tripoli, the four SST
soldiers, including a medic, joined “less than a handful” of State Department security personnel
in 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.104
M
So in their own words they are nothing but a bunch of bozos running the country and Obama is the chief bozo .
However, because official reviews after the attack
were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and
responsibilities of these individuals.
They had zero intelligence indicating that the youtube video had anything to do with the attack and even on the day of the attack they absolutely did have intel indicating a terrorist group with links to Al Qeda.
I honestly don't know why Clinton and Obama sold out 100% on the video, but I suspect that it was because it all happened right before the election. If it was an act of terrorism, then it would cast a bad light on Obama's record on terrorism. Considering the redoubled focus of Obama on Al Qeda, having Al Qeda assassinate a United States ambassador on his watch wouldn't look good. As close as the election was, it might have been enough to change the outcome, depending on how the GOP spun it. Only 2-3% of Americans voting differently and Obama loses the election.
This is a lot like Watergate. It seems like much ado about nothing, but for some reason the POTUS and former Secretary of State have been lying and stonewalling and doing everything within their power to deflect on this issue. Tends to make me all the more curious to know why they lied.
The CIA linked the attack in Benghazi to the events in Cairo. The events in Cairo were inspired by the video.
This is important. No one in the administration ever thought it was a video. They have been attempting to feed the gullible this story ever since it happened. It is very clear, no one in the administration ever thought it was about the video. Every fabrication since the attack has been to cover up that lie.
another:
From this link,is an excerpt of the Rhodes email that the administration refused to turn over after several requests. The democrats are complaining that there have been several investigations, well, why hasn't the administration turned over what they have been asked to. It took a court order to finally get it released. And, from what I understand, it isn't the last of it. Smoking gun: Shock #Benghazi email reveals that Obama White House agreed with CIA talking points.
The second point is key here, Ms Rice is to underscore the point that this was about a video. Even though the administration knows it isn't. Remember they NEVER thought it was about the video. They want her to lie to the public, yes that is you.
Of course, the press is willing to help distract you by giving more coverage to bridgegate. Democrats in congress are more than willing to downplay this by suggesting there are more important things to worry about. Here is one, Waxman (CA-D) wants a hearing on the football team named the Redskins. Henry Waxman wants hearing on Redskins - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com
It is a common strategy of this administration. Delay, obfuscate, distract as long as you can and then when the facts finally come out, try to trivialize it because it happened so long ago. I hope they don't get away with it this time. This is so blatant it is insulting to us
I read the link.
There was only one reference to Benghazi in the Rhodes email and that was about a question regarding whether or not there had been a specific warning about the attack in Benghazi.
The references to the video in the Rhodes email are not Benghazi specific. By that point there were lots of demonstrations and attacks occurring related to the video, including attacks against US embassies and diplomatic facilities.
The CIA had already sent the initial CIA talking points to the White House and State Department for review by the time the Rhodes email had been sent. Therefore it would be impossible for the Rhodes email to have influenced the CIA talking points.
The linked opinion piece in the WSJ quotes Clinton as saying "We have seen rage and violence directed at American Embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." How does that statement have anything to do with Benghazi. The US embassy in Libya was in Tripoli not Benghazi.
The author of the opinion piece is confusing statements and actions concerning events around the world with the attack in Benghazi.
The CIA talking points linked the attack in Benghazi to Cairo. The events in Cairo were tied to the video. Susan Rice on the Sunday Talk shows mentioned the video in relationship to events in Cairo. Rice's comments were consistent with the initial CIA talking points.
It's Obama's and Clinton's problem, not mine. You can't really believe they've revealed all the documents about what they knew and when then knew it. A big to Judicial Watch for getting a few of the never before seen docs.
I see you are at the point Obama wants you to be. He has delayed this long enough it seems so trivial now, doesn't it? We should all just dismiss it and move on, right?
Well, let me ask you this, if it is so trivial, why doesn't he just fess up? Carney is still saying it is the best information they had at the time even though there is proof it is not. The administration really thinks we are idiots
What evidence is there that it was not the best evidence that they had?
So in their own words they are nothing but a bunch of bozos running the country and Obama is the chief bozo .
However, because official reviews after the attack
were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and
responsibilities of these individuals.
There were wild and irresponsible accusations claiming something was true that never happened. Because of that we've had countless investigations, testimony taken and evidence produced.
Yet, some still claim that there was a stand down order.
Not once in the video did Obama reference Benghazi in relationship to the video. By the time of the speech there was wide spread attacks and unrest related to the video.
It's Obama's and Clinton's problem, not mine. You can't really believe they've revealed all the documents about what they knew and when then knew it. A big to Judicial Watch for getting a few of the never before seen docs.
There is almost zero new information in the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
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.
to Judicial Watch for getting a few of the never before seen docs.