bbauska

Great question. Who told the station chief? More reasons to have a full investigative hearing

Or read what was provided in the article.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base

If the pause was entirely a product of the station chiefs local authority and judgement its not something that Darryl Issa and his allies would want to be widely known.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Great question. Who told the station chief? More reasons to have a full investigative hearing

Or read what was provided in the article.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base

If the pause was entirely a product of the station chiefs local authority and judgement its not something that Darryl Issa and his allies would want to be widely known.

Great! So let's have the station chief say that. I want the investigation done to ensure we have the truth. Is that what you want? The truth?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Great question. Who told the station chief? More reasons to have a full investigative hearing

Or read what was provided in the article.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base

If the pause was entirely a product of the station chiefs local authority and judgement its not something that Darryl Issa and his allies would want to be widely known.

BTW, I don't want any "suggestions", I want the truth. I don't care if it hurts the Republicans or Democrats or both. Damn it, I want the truth. Enough of this damnable partisan crap. People died and it is a political issue? Screw that!

I would hope we would all want the truth.

bbauska

BTW, I don't want any "suggestions",

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

I think after this book publishes, the notion of continued hearings will go away bbauska. Because this is probably the truth and it doesn't help the poliical reasons for the hearings...
you've probably heard the last of benghazi on fox too.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

BTW, I don't want any "suggestions",

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

I think after this book publishes, the notion of continued hearings will go away bbauska. Because this is probably the truth and it doesn't help the poliical reasons for the hearings...
you've probably heard the last of benghazi on fox too.

Really? So, 10 pm tonight on Fox News--a special called "13 Hours" all about Benghazi, that will be the end?

No. No. No.

Why did this not come out at the hearings? Because they were not witnesses--likely still CIA employees. The Administration has done a lot to stonewall this thing. That you think this is the end is comical.

WHY were they told to stand down? By whom?

Questions that will lead to more questions.

What are you afraid of, RickyP? Who told the station chief to stand down, since you know so much?

bbauska

What are you afraid of, RickyP?

standing on balconies of tall buildings

bbauska

Who told the station chief to stand down, since you know so much

isn't it apparent from the book excerpts?

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support

fate

Really? So, 10 pm tonight on Fox News--a special called "13 Hours" all about Benghazi, that will be the end?

let me know if their story includes the information from this book.

rickyp wrote:isn't it apparent from the book excerpts?

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support

Other than being a smart alek (censorship intended)... No it isn't

Put it into the record that your testimony is true and you can be found in contempt of congress if you lie. Then I will take it at face value unless there is conflicting testimony (that would be under oath as well). In such a case, we would have to weigh the evidence.

Just because someone wrote a book, does not make it true. But I can see why some believe everything they read on the internet.

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:isn't it apparent from the book excerpts?

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support

Other than being a smart alek (censorship intended)... No it isn't

Put it into the record that your testimony is true and you can be found in contempt of congress if you lie. Then I will take it at face value unless there is conflicting testimony (that would be under oath as well). In such a case, we would have to weigh the evidence.

Just because someone wrote a book, does not make it true. But I can see why some believe everything they read on the internet.

Here's a question: why has Congressnot been able to interview even ONE person who was on the ground in Libya that night? Why is the Administration not offering them?

fate

Here's a question: why has Congressnot been able to interview even ONE person who was on the ground in Libya that night? Why is the Administration not offering them

actuslly they have...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/1 ... d-b/196728

aily Beast: Multiple CIA Officers Who Were At The Base During The Attack Testified Before Congress. According to a May 24 report by The Daily Beast, multiple CIA officers who were in Benghazi at the time of the attack have already testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

On Wednesday, Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell -- along with CIA officers who were at the agency's Benghazi base on the night of the attack -- testified at a classified hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the closed hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the proceedings, Morell was asked by Republican members about how the second wave of attackers knew to go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the diplomatic mission. Morell responded that at this point the CIA did not know whether the attackers had known the location of the annex or learned about it on the evening of the attack, according to these sources. [The Daily Beast, 5/24/13]

bbauska

Put it into the record that your testimony is true and you can be found in contempt of congress if you lie. Then I will take it at face value unless there is conflicting testimony (that would be under oath as well). In such a case, we would have to weigh the evidence

There was an independent investigation into Benghazi that layed blame for short comings at Ben Ghazi. The notion that what led to the deaths at ben Ghazi is not understood is nonsense.
The Congressional hearings aren't really intended to get at the truth. But now that this book is out, the use of hearings and subpoenas to try and destroy Hillary Clinton will probably end.
Because,if the CIA operatives quoted in the book repeat their stories as written, as they are likely to do considering the quality of the journalism , it will not aid Issa's and his collegaues in their quest.
If they aren't able to stage manage the events to try and damage Hillary the affair becomes worthless to them and they will abandon the effort.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Put it into the record that your testimony is true and you can be found in contempt of congress if you lie. Then I will take it at face value unless there is conflicting testimony (that would be under oath as well). In such a case, we would have to weigh the evidence

There was an independent investigation into Benghazi that layed blame for short comings at Ben Ghazi. The notion that what led to the deaths at ben Ghazi is not understood is nonsense.
The Congressional hearings aren't really intended to get at the truth. But now that this book is out, the use of hearings and subpoenas to try and destroy Hillary Clinton will probably end.
Because,if the CIA operatives quoted in the book repeat their stories as written, as they are likely to do considering the quality of the journalism , it will not aid Issa's and his collegaues in their quest.
If they aren't able to stage manage the events to try and damage Hillary the affair becomes worthless to them and they will abandon the effort.

Did the station chief testify? Don't you think he would have pertinent information to an attack in his sector? You sidestepped again. I don't care which side wins. I wan't the truth.

I heard it was Obama who got on the phone with the station chief and told him to have those commandos stand down...no, that's not right , maybe it was Hillary...Maybe it was Biden? Normally, I am all for transparency in government but Benghazi hearings are a pathetic attempt to gain political advantage. And I don't think it's such a great idea that the whole world know so much about we go about protecting our diplomatic personnel overseas.

rickyp wrote:fate

Here's a question: why has Congressnot been able to interview even ONE person who was on the ground in Libya that night? Why is the Administration not offering them

actuslly they have...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/1 ... d-b/196728

aily Beast: Multiple CIA Officers Who Were At The Base During The Attack Testified Before Congress. According to a May 24 report by The Daily Beast, multiple CIA officers who were in Benghazi at the time of the attack have already testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

On Wednesday, Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell -- along with CIA officers who were at the agency's Benghazi base on the night of the attack -- testified at a classified hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the closed hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the proceedings, Morell was asked by Republican members about how the second wave of attackers knew to go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the diplomatic mission. Morell responded that at this point the CIA did not know whether the attackers had known the location of the annex or learned about it on the evening of the attack, according to these sources. [The Daily Beast, 5/24/13]

I am shocked, just shocked, that you would cite media matters. After all, any organization that supposes CNN tilts right must be "fair."

More importantly, where is the account of what they SAID?

What is the motive of the three who wrote 13 Hours to lie? They say they were told to wait. The State Department professional liar, er, spokesperson, admitted they were delayed. Media Matters to the rescue! http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/05 ... eep/200669

Why do I say "to the rescue?" Because they insist Fox is changing the meaning of "stand down." Really? If they want to go, deem themselves ready to go, and are trained professionals, what is the difference between "wait" and "stand down?" There is no difference.

Further, they waited 30 minutes, then went anyway, ignoring the "stand down" order.

Media Matters is a non-government-paid arm of the Obama Administration.

Meanwhile, those 3 guys who were willing to risk their lives . . . why do you suppose they would be motivated to lie? It's not hard to guess why Ms. Harf is lying--it's her job.

Oh, btw, Obama's approval . . . 38%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallu ... roval.aspx

freeman3 wrote:I heard it was Obama who got on the phone with the station chief and told him to have those commandos stand down...no, that's not right , maybe it was Hillary...Maybe it was Biden? Normally, I am all for transparency in government but Benghazi hearings are a pathetic attempt to gain political advantage. And I don't think it's such a great idea that the whole world know so much about we go about protecting our diplomatic personnel overseas.

What's pathetic is the lack of transparency.

What's pathetic is the attempt to treat this attack as merely a crime.

What is pathetic is the notion that Obama has a clue what he is doing.