The Bengahzi Debacle

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I have no interest in shielding anyone. I do have an interest in 'facts,' 'evidence' and 'proof,'.

[houghtam]

I hope everyone realizes that these hearings were televised on C-SPAN and that there IS an official version of the testimony.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Ok, so soldiers itching to go in are told not to, and are pissed about it. You want to argue over who chose what verbiage for that.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-to-stand-down



"That's not fair! They may have paraphrased!" says Denbrit.

Try using testimony rather than news quotes. They were told not to get on the plane....by the Pentagon.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Again, this isn't a war theater. They don't need to be ordered not to go. They'd have to be given permission. Most likely by the President.

It's virtually guaranteed he was asked. All he had to do was nothing to get the result he got. And that's the most reasonable explanation that can be drawn for what happened that day.

Really, do you have anything other than wishful thinking?
Got any reason why Obama would willfully stop the CIA or Pentagon from taking action?? A motive??

Another part of the story is that there were not enough 'assets' to cover Benghazi AND Tripoli, and that there had been reports that Tripoli was a target too. I haven't read all the testimony, so I don't know if that was discussed. Was it?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Are you another one who thinks that 'if you're not with us, you're agin us?'

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Try using testimony rather than news quotes. They were told not to get on the plane....by the Pentagon.

I think my point there was that 'stand down' was the effective order, and others took it to mean the same thing whether it was phrased exactly that way by one official or not.

Next you'll start arguing with me about what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Your defense of this administration (for such a seeker of truth) is getting awfully lawyerly.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I think my point there was that 'stand down' was the effective order, and others took it to mean the same thing whether it was phrased exactly that way by one official or not.

Next you'll start arguing with me about what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Your defense of this administration (for such a seeker of truth) is getting awfully lawyerly.

Not at all. The 'stand down' order is a center piece of the inquiry. Who gave it and why?

According to Hicks testimony, they were told not to get on the plane by the Pentagon.

Your assertion is that Obama did it, I'm still waiting to see where you get that from.

Here is another 'explanation.'

Chaffetz told Fox News that "we had people that were getting killed, we had people who are willing to risk their lives to go save them and somebody told them to stand down."

But it’s clear from Hicks’ testimony that four Americans "getting killed" in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. The mortar attack was over. A Defense Department drone watched overhead in Benghazi as Libyan militia members helped Americans get to the airport.

Chaffetz, however, says the team was available to go save "people that were getting killed," calling the order to stand down "sickening and depressing and disgusting." His office clarifies he meant that the team might have prevented additional casualties if attacks had continued — an explanation utterly missing from his national TV appearance.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-ready-save-/

[errand]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Pick another fight, this one is a lost cause, that hopefully allows scrutiny of the salient facts; why wasn't security better managed, was there ever an order to 'stand down' (can you point to the source of that comment? it wasn't Hicks) and could help have arrived in time??

How could he possibly know how long the firefight would last?

They didn't send help......so we'll never know if it would have arrived in time.

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Not at all. The 'stand down' order is a center piece of the inquiry. Who gave it and why?

According to Hicks testimony, they were told not to get on the plane by the Pentagon.

Your assertion is that Obama did it, I'm still waiting to see where you get that from.

No my assertion is that nobody could authorize military force in a non-combat theater other than the President himself. He didn't have to directly order it. He only had to do a Pilate hand wash and walk away.

[errand]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No my assertion is that nobody could authorize military force in a non-combat theater other than the President himself. He didn't have to directly order it. He only had to do a Pilate hand wash and walk away.

Exactly....the President is the guy who makes that call. which is why the president always sends in the Marines first....because he doesn't need Congressional approval to do so.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by errand

How could he possibly know how long the firefight would last?

They didn't send help......so we'll never know if it would have arrived in time.

See post above.

Chaffetz, however, says the team was available to go save "people that were getting killed," calling the order to stand down "sickening and depressing and disgusting." His office clarifies he meant that the team might have prevented additional casualties if attacks had continued

[errand]

Originally Posted by TonyR

You may be right. But then again, do you know this for a fact? Do the Joint Chiefs need the order/permission of the POTUS in this situation?

Yes they do....after all the President is the C-in-C

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No my assertion is that nobody could authorize military force in a non-combat theater other than the President himself. He didn't have to directly order it. He only had to do a Pilate hand wash and walk away.

That's your assertion, or required by US law?

I have found nothing to indicate that the POTUS has to approve sending assistance under those circumstances, or that he denied aid directly or otherwise.

If it is 'law,' or he did deny aid, please link it.

Snopes covers some of these points, and labels them 'undecided.' Which is hardly surprising.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

[errand]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

See post above.

Seems to me the fighting lasted for over 4 hours....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=_UyterFoRGU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=VZ_G24_85ws

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by errand

Seems to me the fighting lasted for over 4 hours....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=_UyterFoRGU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=VZ_G24_85ws

FOX Youtube videos? Really? Dig deeper, it's not difficult.......or shouldn't be.

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the State Department accountability review board on the Benghazi attacks, said he and retired Admiral Michael Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded after their review that “there was no way any military activity could have been put in place to deal with that particular question.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, Pickering said the review focused on security issues, not on what administration officials said about the attacks after they occurred and what sparked them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-the-same.html

[errand]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

That's your assertion, or required by US law?

The law is that the President as C-in-C is the one who makes the call to send in the troops....he doesn't have to, but the Pentagon can't do **** without his approval.

I have found nothing to indicate that the POTUS has to approve sending assistance under those circumstances, or that he denied aid directly or otherwise.

You're right, he doesn't have to do anything if he chooses not to...evidently he chose not to. If the Pentagon denied aid, it was because that's what they were ordered to do by the C-in-C

If it is 'law,' or he did deny aid, please link it.

The major military power of the president is the power to act as commander in chief of the nation's armed forces. This power is almost without limit. The president always has the final authority over and responsibility for any and all military matters. But the Constitution does not assign all and absolute war powers to the president. Military power in the United States is held by both the president and Congress, with the president in the dominant position. Also, the president may use the armed forces to keep the domestic peace.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution followed a period of growing congressional concern over the presidential use of military force. Among other things, the legislation, which withstood a veto by President Nixon, required that a president terminate combat in a foreign territory within sixty to ninety days unless there was congressional authorization to continue. It also sought to provide presidents with the leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies. The measure was intended to provide more coordination between the executive and legislative branches on the use of force. .

in bold

[errand]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Try using testimony rather than news quotes. They were told not to get on the plane....by the Pentagon.....who get their orders from the President

FYP

See. there's this thing called "a chain of command" ....it all starts with the President who tells the Chiefs of Staff who tell those below them, and so on and so on......

these lower level troops etc. don't get calls from president himself....they receive orders to go in or stand down as they're passed down from him though.

you recall the Somali pirates who were shot by our troops to rescue that ship's captain? Obama is the one who gave the order to "take them out"...and that order was passed down to the sniper who squeezed the trigger.

[errand]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

FOX Youtube videos? Really? Dig deeper, it's not difficult.......or shouldn't be.

So because it's a FoxNews report it's a lie? 2x2=4 is a lie if FoxNews says it.....ok, got it!

Whatever dude...it doesn't change the timeline of events, and if you bothered to watch it you'd have noticed the fighting didn't stop until approximately 6-7 hours after the attacks started........plenty of time to have flown a jet or send a platoon of Marines in.

We have military base in Italy less than 500 miles away.....we have US naval ships aircraft carriers patrolling in the med all the time....with Marine Amphibious Units on them.(MAU)

As a former Marine who was on several med floats in my time...I can honestly say that help could have gotten there in time to have saved the lives of those guys who were killed by mortar fire on the roofs.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by errand

So because it's a FoxNews report it's a lie? 2x2=4 is a lie if FoxNews says it.....ok, got it!

Whatever dude...it doesn't change the timeline of events, and if you bothered to watch it you'd have noticed the fighting didn't stop until approximately 6-7 hours after the attacks started........plenty of time to have flown a jet or send a platoon of Marines in.

We have military base in Italy less than 500 miles away.....we have US naval ships aircraft carriers patrolling in the med all the time....with Marine Amphibious Units on them.(MAU)

As a former Marine who was on several med floats in my time...I can honestly say that help could have gotten there in time to have saved the lives of those guys who were killed by mortar fire on the roofs.

While I respect your service to the country, you're expertise seems at odds with.....the experts.

As I suggested, dig a little deeper than FOX.

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the State Department accountability review board on the Benghazi attacks, said he and retired Admiral Michael Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded after their review that “there was no way any military activity could have been put in place to deal with that particular question.”

Mr. Gates, who served several Republican presidents in various capacities before staying on under Mr. Obama for two and a half years, rebutted suggestions that the Pentagon could have scrambled jets or special forces during the attack, calling that a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.”

[ant1999e]

You forgot to mention the future telling machine they used at the time of the attacks to tell them how long the attacks would last.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

You forgot to mention the future telling machine they used at the time of the attacks to tell them how long the attacks would last.

Well, my crystal ball is broken, so I'll borrow the Pentagons'.

Assuming it's accurate, the attack lasted less than two hours.

Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack

The Pentagon released Friday an hour-by-hour timeline of the September 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, highlighting when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and senior commanders were informed of the attack and when decisions were made to move forces to assist. The release comes as the Obama administration is facing increasing questions over its response to the attack.

9:42 p.m. -- Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

9:59 p.m. -- A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.

10:32 p.m. -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

11 p.m. -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/...ghazi-timeline

[Rohirrim]

Why did the Republicans alter the emails?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...lier-reported/

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

[baja]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Why did the Republicans alter the emails?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...lier-reported/

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

Give it up they are all evil doers

Originally Posted by errand

you recall the Somali pirates who were shot by our troops to rescue that ship's captain? Obama is the one who gave the order to "take them out"...and that order was passed down to the sniper who squeezed the trigger.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. The proggies used to felate him over it and how it proved his Commander's prowess...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op...pagewanted=all

Now all the sudden they want to pretend like all this **** goes on on autopilot while forces get put on the sidelines during an assault on an American Embassy without any input from him.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by errand

FYP

See. there's this thing called "a chain of command" ....it all starts with the President who tells the Chiefs of Staff who tell those below them, and so on and so on......

these lower level troops etc. don't get calls from president himself....they receive orders to go in or stand down as they're passed down from him though.

you recall the Somali pirates who were shot by our troops to rescue that ship's captain? Obama is the one who gave the order to "take them out"...and that order was passed down to the sniper who squeezed the trigger.

So did Obama make the call to take Osama out or was that really someone else?