Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2014, 12:28 pm

I was just about to edit pathetic out...anyway , I was watching Fox News at my gym (I wonder if 24 hour fitness is owned by a conservative who mandates that Fox News get played 24 hours a day) and they did not seem to question the story of the commandos but just demanded to know if there was someone who was ordering the station chief to tell the commandos to stand down...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Sep 2014, 12:56 pm

freeman3 wrote:I was just about to edit pathetic out...anyway , I was watching Fox News at my gym (I wonder if 24 hour fitness is owned by a conservative who mandates that Fox News get played 24 hours a day) and they did not seem to question the story of the commandos but just demanded to know if there was someone who was ordering the station chief to tell the commandos to stand down...


They are "foot soldiers." How would they know how high an order comes from?

Even Harf doesn't dispute they were delayed. Why? For "back-up?" Back-up never came and was not available in 30 minutes, so again, why the delay?

And, in fact, they apparently disregarded the "stand down" and left on their own 30 minutes later.

I think this whole mystery could be put to rest IF the Administration would be forthcoming. However, that would put someone, probably not Obama or Clinton, in a bad light. Apparently, that is worth slow-walking the truth.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Sep 2014, 7:48 am

Doctor Fate wrote:What's pathetic is the lack of transparency.
The CIA always being well known before 2009 for it's amazing transparency and openness at all times. You'd never even realise it was responsible for spying or anything.

What's pathetic is the attempt to treat this attack as merely a crime.
But it is a crime, right? elevating it to something else just aggrandises the criminals who undertook it. They want to dignify them with the status of warring party.

What is pathetic is the notion that Obama has a clue what he is doing.
I'm not sure you know what pathos really is. That notion does not evoke much emotion in me, but your constant repetition of the same meme certainly does make me feel concern for your well-being.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Sep 2014, 8:18 am

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


ricky
actuslly they have
...

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

Daily 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]


fate
I am shocked, just shocked, that you would cite media matters. After all, any organization that supposes CNN tilts right must be "fair.
"
well it was the first web site that came up when I googled. And they were quoting the Daily Beast... The important thing is whether they are right or not. And since this is in the public record it should be easy to find a contradictory source that says these guys didn't testify, and that the Daily Beast was inaccurate.
But of course they did, making your initial statement profoundly uninformed. Not surprising since it appears you have Fox News broadcast schedule memorized.
fate
So, 10 pm tonight on Fox News--a special called "13 Hours" all about Benghazi, that will be the end?


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

Since its an official hearing there is a record of their testimony. Just as there is an official record of who has testified in the myriad of hearings. Stuff that doesn't seem to get reported in some sections of the media.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Sep 2014, 8:34 am

bbauska
I don't care which side wins. I wan't the truth


I agree.
I just don't think that congressional hearings are designed or operate to get at the truth so much. And when the truth is inconvenient and doesn't fit the agenda of those holding and stage managing the hearings .... its even less likely to be arrived at....
Moreover, I think the truth is pretty clear to see.
The fact that the CIA response team at the annex was delayed by their station chief on his own authority and initiative while he tried to find local assistance is not just plausible. Its likely.
And that the CIA and particularly this station chief would rather not 1) initially try to hide the role of the Annex as a CIA post 2) obfuscate their role in delaying the respinnse team
all fits.
Lost in the attempts to hang this on Hillary (or Obama) is the fact that that the CIA defence team not only evacuated the security and embassey members successfully, but they also adequately defended the Annex and evacuated the Annex when the initial evacuation force arrived. Although two died at the Embassey, its unclear whether the delay doomed them or whether it didn't matter. (It certainly didn't help.) But its quite clear that other measures taken after the initial assault were successful. I think it was 35 of 37 nondefence forces who were successfully and safely evacuated. And it was two members of the CIA contract defence team that died accomplishing this.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 07 Sep 2014, 8:48 am

rickyp wrote:fate
More importantly, where is the account of what they SAID?

Since its an official hearing there is a record of their testimony. Just as there is an official record of who has testified in the myriad of hearings. Stuff that doesn't seem to get reported in some sections of the media.
Well, the report does say that the hearing was 'classified', so while the notes from it will have been written up, they will not be public.

This is a Daily Beast report that mentions such closed sessions. How they know the content, I could not say:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ghazi.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Sep 2014, 2:43 pm

danivon
Well, the report does say that the hearing was 'classified', so while the notes from it will have been written up, they will not be public

True. But republican members of the committee do know what was reported.
Now they might not be able to desemminate the specifics, but they could support the findings of the hearings by communicating within their party that the truth the otehr public hearings seek, has been discovered.
But the political weapon of public hearings is too attractive I suppose.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Sep 2014, 1:10 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:What's pathetic is the lack of transparency.
The CIA always being well known before 2009 for it's amazing transparency and openness at all times. You'd never even realise it was responsible for spying or anything.


You've got a real future in comedy. Give it another 20 years or so and who knows?

I was speaking of the Administration. They have continuously lied and mislead on this.

What's pathetic is the attempt to treat this attack as merely a crime.
But it is a crime, right? elevating it to something else just aggrandises the criminals who undertook it.


You could be Eric Holder's right hand man. You're both equally foolish. Like the murders of ISIS, these are not mere crimes, but matters of war. The Holder/Obama position is "As long as we don't agree we're at war, we're not at war." Meanwhile, they keep committing acts of war while the Administration wrings its pretty little fingers.

They want to dignify them with the status of warring party.


War is not dignified.

What is pathetic is the notion that Obama has a clue what he is doing.
I'm not sure you know what pathos really is. That notion does not evoke much emotion in me, but your constant repetition of the same meme certainly does make me feel concern for your well-being.


That's amazing. Thank you. Given that those are Brits I see hacking the heads off Americans, perhaps I understand and even appreciate your concern. Then again, they saw heads off in broad daylight in Britain, don't they?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Sep 2014, 1:17 pm

rickyp wrote:Since its an official hearing there is a record of their testimony. Just as there is an official record of who has testified in the myriad of hearings. Stuff that doesn't seem to get reported in some sections of the media.


Those men were willing to risk their lives for Americans who, technically, were not their responsibility. They were told not to go. Eventually, they ignored the order and went.

Why were they held up? Ostensibly so more people could go with them. Where were those people coming from?

There are many basic issues.

Why was the Administration caught flat-out unprepared on 9/11? Why was there no response ready? Why had American security been cut drastically? Why were the locals being relied upon to protect against . . . the locals?

Eventually, the truth will come out. When it does, it will show something unpleasant for the President.

How can I say that with any authority? History. Every time the President does something "good," there are pictures of him doing it and we're permitted to "think deep thoughts with Barack." When he screws up or fails to make a decision, we get stonewalling and lies (see his comment about ISIS being "JV" and how they are lying about it still).
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Sep 2014, 4:05 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-trey-gowdys-unexpected-twist-in-the-benghazi-saga/2014/09/17/46673f56-3ea2-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

Perhaps this would be the kind of hearing we should be having? Cooperation and truth finding might actually come out of this.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Oct 2014, 4:53 am

Just in case anyone still believes the video fairytale:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department today filed 17 additional charges against the Libyan man suspected of being the ringleader in the 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.

Some of the charges make the man, Ahmed Abu Khattala, eligible for the death penalty. Shortly after Khattala was apprehended in June by American commandos in Benghazi, he was charged in Washington on one count of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists that resulted in a death. He pleaded not guilty to that charge, but a federal judge ordered that he remain in custody because he posed a threat.

The indictment made public today had a few new details about what occurred when militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. It said that after Khattala had “actively participated in the attack” on the mission that killed the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and another American, he turned away emergency responders.

Khattala then entered the mission and “supervised the plunder of material from the mission’s office, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information about the location” of a CIA annex. That annex was attacked about a half-hour later, resulting in the deaths of two Americans.

The indictment said that Khattala had launched the attack because he believed the diplomatic mission was really being used to collect intelligence. “He viewed U.S. intelligence action in Benghazi as illegal, and that he was therefore going to do something about the facility,” according to the indictment.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Dec 2015, 4:49 pm

Oh, and there were troops that could have reached Benghazi!

Newly released emails show that a senior Defense Department official offered the State Department “forces that could move to Benghazi” immediately during the deadly 2012 attack there on the American consulate.

Jeremy Bash, the former Pentagon chief of staff, offered to provide forces at 7:19 p.m. on the evening of the attack, “only hours after they had begun,” according to Judicial Watch, which disclosed the email on Tuesday.

“We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak,” Bash wrote.

Portions of the email remain redacted by the Obama administration.


Great job, Obama!