Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 26, 2012, 08:58:29 AM
-
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say
Fox News ^ | October 26, 2012 | Jennifer Griffin
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 11:37:22 AM by Snuph
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Slyy will want more proof ::)
-
There needs to be a full INDENDENT investigation into this attack.
I'm just not sure the white house running its own investigation is a good idea.
-
AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire
by
Bob Owens
Bio
October 26, 2012 - 9:50 am
If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not an American:
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.
The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Konduz
It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the Administration had let it fire. As the except above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.
An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.
There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.
The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.
What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists, and saving American lives.
Update (Bryan): Here is an AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise. The crackling sound you hear is its extreme rate of fire.
-
The handling of the actual event was deplorable and incompetent but the handling of the aftermath was even worse.
No one in this Admin. can tell a straight story or give a coherent timeline of events. The lies and odd behavior towards the parents of the two dead hero's and such was even worse.
-
Benghazigate: We Know Now Who Gave the Order Not to Protect the Consulate
Front Page Magazine ^ | October 26, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 2:03:03 PM by Cincinatus' Wife
Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, said in an interview, “And apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. This was my son, he wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call. He heard them crying for help. That’s why he and Glenn risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that she wasn’t the only one that received that distress call: “Come save our lives.”
When I heard that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on, and obviously someone had to say, “Don’t go rescue them.” Because every person in the military, their first response is, “We’re going to go rescue them.” We need to find out who it was that gave that command.”
So who gave that command?
>>>Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”
Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.<<<
Now we know who is taking responsibility for denying support to the consulate and the safe house.
The photo, which is the official one put out by DOD, from the press conference held by Panetta and General Dempsey is horribly eloquent in terms of body language.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the failure to go in by claiming that the issue was a lack of reliable intel, despite the fact that they had multiple distress calls and a drone overhead.
Blaming a lack of reliable intel is fine if you want to pull away from intervening in Syria, but not when a US diplomatic facility and its personnel are under sustained attack. And how much intel was really needed to send two jets to buzz the area and possibly scare off some of the attackers, who would not have posed any threat to the aircraft?
>>>Although forces were on alert and ready to launch an operation if needed, the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and Panetta all decided against any intervention as they had no clear picture of events unfolding in Benghazi, he said.<<<
So the buck has been passed to Panetta and Dempsey and Ham. Dempsey is a soulless administration toady and Ham is deeply invested in Libya. Panetta is a Clintonite who is completely expendable, especially if the charges get pinned to Hillary. But Panetta still seems filled with self-loathing and Dempsey looks disgusted with him.
Not doing something because there is no intel is a common excuse in these circles when they don’t want to do something. Just as with Iran, there would never have been enough intel.
And how much intel was needed really? Benghazi had an extended profile and was the cause of the entire Libyan war. The consulate had an extensive intelligence apparatus and the declassified cables we’ve seen are a fraction of the actual classified cables that would have been at Panetta, Dempsey and Ham’s disposal.
They knew about the Islamist militias and had descriptions of their armament from the RSO’s reports. They didn’t know the exact number of attackers or every single possible detail, but you can never really know everything before going in.
>>> “There’s a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told a news conference.<<<
But there were already forces in harm’s way, who were trying to provide some real time intel from their point of view. What Panetta means is that the decision was made not to send aid to them, and it wasn’t about risking more lives, but about the politics of intervening in Libya and offending the Libyans. It was done for the same reason that US soldiers have at times been abandoned without air support in Afghanistan.
“I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation,” General Dempsey said, which is one of those strange statements that leaders issue after a complete screw up.
The full transcript of the conference was fairly well hidden on the site, but turned up here, it shows the full exchanges.
>>>Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we’ve heard that there wasn’t a more robust response right away is that there wasn’t a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.
But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn’t a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or — or dropping more special forces in.
SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me — let me speak to that, because I’m sure there’s going to be — there’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.
We — we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
But — but the basic principle here — basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.
Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren’t giving enough of a clear picture is what you’re saying.
SEC. PANETTA: This — this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.<<<
-
Dempsey is a soulless administration toady
33, can you post an article citing exact responsibility without calling someone a "soulless administration toady".
I agree completely this shit is disgusting and we need an independent investigation - but your article calling someone a toady who lacks a soul... makes it seem less than credible.
-
Criminal. I'm sure Obama is trying to run out the clock on this one.
-
Criminal. I'm sure Obama is trying to run out the clock on this one.
Obama better pray he loses. Otherwise - his second term will be completely occupied w this and him impeached or hopefully in jail for life.
-
Obama better pray he loses. Otherwise - his second term will be completely occupied w this and him impeached or hopefully in jail for life.
That's a good point. They scheduled Senate hearings to begin after the election. It's going to get ugly.
-
In cases like this you need a free, independent media to go after the story and work to expose the truth. Do we have that today? Or do we have an amen corner that largely wants to provide cover for their candidate?
-
Benghazigate: We Know Now Who Gave the Order Not to Protect the Consulate
Front Page Magazine ^ | October 26, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 2:03:03 PM by Cincinatus' Wife
Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, said in an interview, “And apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. This was my son, he wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call. He heard them crying for help. That’s why he and Glenn risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that she wasn’t the only one that received that distress call: “Come save our lives.”
When I heard that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on, and obviously someone had to say, “Don’t go rescue them.” Because every person in the military, their first response is, “We’re going to go rescue them.” We need to find out who it was that gave that command.”
Did you actually HEAR the interview?
Heartbreaking... :'(
-
Did you actually HEAR the interview?
Heartbreaking... :'(
Where did you hear it
-
Did you actually HEAR the interview?
Heartbreaking... :'(
Yes.
The families of these dead americans have been used like toilet paper for obama and his lies.
-
Slyy will want more proof ::)
Coach,
You state as fact the following extremely serious allegations:
1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.
2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?
Do you have any credible sources based on fact that assert the allegations you claim above?
How can I have proof of my own personal thoughts and observations?
No...no you don't. Just making things up again... :-*
-
REPORTER: OBAMA WOULD NOT ANSWER ‘REPEATED QUESTIONS (today on Benghazi treason)
The Blaze ^ | October26,2012 | Jason Howerton
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 6:10:44 PM by penelopesire
President Barack Obama reportedly refused to provide a direct answer to repeated questions on whether requests for help in Benghazi were denied as the attack was underway during an interview with 9News in Denver on Friday.
Kyle Clark, a reporter with 9News, posted the following message on Twitter:
Kyle Clark@KyleClark .@BarackObama would not directly answer our repeated questions on whether requests for help in Benghazi were denied #copolitics 26 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite As soon as the video is edited, Clark tweeted, the footage will be posted online. We will update this story accordingly.
Colo Peak Politics@COpeakpolitics 26 Oct 12 BREAKING: Local Reporter Says Obama Refuses To Answer Whether Or Not He Was Aware Of Security Request In Benghazi bit.ly/RS25Zx #tcot Kyle Clark@KyleClark @COpeakpolitics To clarify, our question was whether requests DURING the attack were denied. Full writeup/video coming 26 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite Earlier today, ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeted that a CIA spokesperson said “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
Jake Tapper ✔ @jaketapper CIA spox: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 26 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite However, “no one at any level in the CIA” does not cover the entire Obama administration. Check back for updates to this story
Oh boy! CIA not rolling over for Obama on this. i sense a Fredo moment coming soon for Obama.
-
Where did you hear it
http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/talk/charliesykes/175997671.html
Probably about 17 min in
-
Start listening at 17:45
-
Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
Weekly Standard ^ | 6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 | WILLIAM KRISTOL
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 6:20:35 PM by Snuph
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
ddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuu hhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooo ooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama is going to be like Tessio begging for another chance at the end of the day.
-
17:45 leads into it. It begins @ 20:
http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/talk/charliesykes/175997671.html
-
Yes.
The families of these dead americans have been used like toilet paper for obama and his lies.
Sorry, I missed the cue ball thread ...
-
This is some serious shit. This administration lied is ass off to cover this up, heads better roll
-
Let's see if the media actually does its job. Only thing that concerns me is this could fall off the radar before the election if the UE rate drops next week.
-
Let's see if the media actually does its job. Only thing that concerns me is this could fall off the radar before the election if the UE rate drops next week.
Yes because a drop in UE, due to seasonal demands is much more important than letting people die
-
Sickening.
-
Let's see if the media actually does its job. Only thing that concerns me is this could fall off the radar before the election if the UE rate drops next week.
When does the next report come out? The day before or the day of election?
-
When does the next report come out? The day before or the day of election?
I think it's Friday, 2 November? But definitely before the election.
-
The most horrific thing in regards to this event is the fact tha.t just hours after the attack Obama went to a fund raiser with jay z and beyonce.. This says a lot about the man.. Stay in dc and talk with security advisors? No way.. Have to hang with Hollywood.. Even after advisors said that it would awful he still went.. Un real..
-
The most horrific thing in regards to this event is the fact tha.t just hours after the attack Obama went to a fund raiser with jay z and beyonce.. This says a lot about the man.. Stay in dc and talk with security advisors? No way.. Have to hang with Hollywood.. Even after advisors said that it would awful he still went.. Un real..
^
this
-
The most horrific thing in regards to this event is the fact tha.t just hours after the attack Obama went to a fund raiser with jay z and beyonce.. This says a lot about the man.. Stay in dc and talk with security advisors? No way.. Have to hang with Hollywood.. Even after advisors said that it would awful he still went.. Un real..
Agree. Very poor leadership.
-
Honestly..Poor leadership yes., but it also comes down to pure narcissism .. He wants the celebrity more than the presidency.. A president stays behind and works on the issues at hand.. Obama truly wanted to hang out with stars and get the attention he craves.. The attack was just a " issue" that could be dealt with at a later time.. Sick..
-
Cue getbig's only self described pacifist soldier garebear to explain why this is all a huge misunderstanding.
It was the youtube video!
Islamophobia!
Sarah Palin
Jesus!
Look over here!
Stop asking questions!
-
BOMBSHELL: US Troops Wouldn't Have Been Painting Targets on Ground Unless There Was Air Support..
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 26, 2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on October 26, 2012 9:30:35 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BOMBSHELL: US troops in Benghazi would not have been painting targets on the ground unless there was air support overhead. But someone called it off – And the decision most likely came from the White House.
FOX News reported earlier today that security officers on the ground in Benghazi had a laser planted on a target that was firing on the annex.
The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
So there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC. Yet, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this,
“The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over.”
How much more information did they need?
* * * * *
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE. It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth. As Blackfive says,
“This is bigger than Watergate!… The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.“
A caller today discussed this with Rush Limbaugh.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Here is part of that conversation.
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
-
Cue getbig's only self described pacifist soldier garebear to explain why this is all a huge misunderstanding.
It was the youtube video!
Islamophobia!
Sarah Palin
Jesus!
Look over here!
Stop asking questions!
bushes, reps, jesus's fault!!!
-
Wonder why "slyy" isn't commenting on this and instead trolls me on every political thread.
-
Wonder why "slyy" isn't commenting on this and instead trolls me on every political thread.
;D
This is the 2nd post of the thread. Looks like I own your baby brain.
Slyy will want more proof ::)
No one is alleging the stupidity you alleged. Why would I ask for proof in this thread?
-
;D
This is the 2nd post of the thread. Looks like I own your baby brain.
Not really, I just feel compelled when i come on.here and you make it so obvious.
-
Not really, I just feel compelled when i come on.here and you make it so obvious.
What percentage of my posts are directly answering your stupidity? I will question anybody who makes a stupid statement. You just happen to be the leader of stupid, uneducated posts.
-
What percentage of my posts are directly answering your stupidity? I will question anybody who makes a stupid statement. You just happen to be the leader of stupid, uneducated posts.
No...I've called this "president" out and have been correct about 95% of the time since he was elected. You just refuse to think your boy has fucked up since the beginning. I said it once and I'll say it again, libs lack.of commonsense is laughable. When they can't defend their agenda, they attack. They can't defend the obvious.
-
No...I've called this "president" out and have been correct about 95% of the time since he was elected. You just refuse to think your boy has fucked up since the beginning. I said it once and I'll say it again, libs lack.of commonsense is laughable. When they can't defend their agenda, they attack. They can't defend the obvious.
95% of the time?
-
.
-
Let's see if the media actually does its job. Only thing that concerns me is this could fall off the radar before the election if the UE rate drops next week.
1) I disagree. The job of any media company is to make money for its shareholders. There is no moral or ethical guideline followed by anyone to get to 'the truth'. They cover stories deemed appropriate by their mgmt that will sell commercials/print.
That being said, it's fucking awesome to see AOL news with the embassy attack details as the #1 AOL news story tonight. THey're doing the RIGHT thing covering this - not the it's their job - but it's nice to see anyway. Shit needs to be investigated indepdenetly.
-
BOMBSHELL: US Troops Wouldn't Have Been Painting Targets on Ground Unless There Was Air Support..
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 26, 2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on October 26, 2012 9:30:35 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BOMBSHELL: US troops in Benghazi would not have been painting targets on the ground unless there was air support overhead. But someone called it off – And the decision most likely came from the White House.
FOX News reported earlier today that security officers on the ground in Benghazi had a laser planted on a target that was firing on the annex.
The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
So there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC. Yet, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this,
“The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over.”
How much more information did they need?
* * * * *
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE. It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth. As Blackfive says,
“This is bigger than Watergate!… The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.“
A caller today discussed this with Rush Limbaugh.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Here is part of that conversation.
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
If this can be confirmed...... Holy fucking shit.
-
If this can be confirmed...... Holy fucking shit.
Yet Slyy is still going to dismiss what I've been saying. (and I'm the crazy one)
-
Yet Slyy is still going to dismiss what I've been saying. (and I'm the crazy one)
If you have any confirmed facts from a credible source regarding your allegations in your "Integrity" thread, please share them Coach. I have no clue where you got the idea that I would dismiss confirmed facts from a credible source. I never said the President was right or wrong with regard to the Benghazi incident. I AM saying that thus far, your allegations are baseless and merely a result of your imagination.
-
I wanna know two things...
1) WHO made that call to deny them help, and
2) WHY was that call made?
Hilary/obama/whoever made the call... and it was done in order to prevent an 'incident'? I'd like to know with a little more detail than that. It's easy to say "Obama wanted an attack", but then obama denied it was an attack, so it's hard to argue both ways.
Do we have these answers yet with proof? WHO denied it, and WHY?
-
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121024050041-benghaziemail1-horizontal-gallery.jpg)
Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after first being notified of an attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, a government e-mail to the White House, the State Department and the FBI said an Islamist group had claimed credit, according to a copy obtained by CNN.
An initial e-mail was sent while the attack was still underway, and another that arrived two hours later -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies including the executive office of the president -- identified Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.
The group denied responsibility the next day.
However, the e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September 11 attack that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Two White House officials, speaking on condition of not being identified on Wednesday, said the government e-mails about the attack were not an intelligence assessment. They also noted that there was conflicting information about Ansar al-Sharia denying responsibility.
"They were a part of the many different reports we were receiving that day," one of the White House officials said of the e-mails. "There are always multiple and conflicting reports in the initial hours of an attack. That's why you have an investigation."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advised reporters to wait until a review panel she appointed to investigate what happened completed its work.
"The Independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex an attack like this," Clinton said Wednesday.
"You know, posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be," Clinton said.
She repeated her earlier pledge to "take whatever measures are necessary to fix anything that needs to be fixed, and we will bring those to justice who committed these murders."
Meanwhile, White House spokesman Jay Carney noted the e-mail about the claim of responsiblity "was an open-source, unclassified e-mail referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously."
Carney added that "the whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible."
The day after the attack took place, President Barack Obama referred to it as an "act of terror."
What the administration has said
But in the following days, Carney maintained there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."
In attack aftermath, disagreement over how it began
The administration also suggested that an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States likely fueled a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi as it had in Cairo, where the U.S. Embassy also was attacked.
Clinton, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all cited the video as a motivating factor in the attack.
On September 13 -- two days after the attack -- a senior U.S. official told CNN that the violence in Libya was not the work of "an innocent mob."
"The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack," the official said.
However, it wasn't until September 19 that Matthew Olsen, the nation's counterterrorism chief, told senators that it was a terrorist attack. The next day, Carney also said it was "self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."
The e-mails obtained by CNN provide additional insight into the Benghazi attack.
The first one, sent at 4:05 p.m. ET, or 10:05 p.m. in Libya, described a diplomatic mission under attack.
"Approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well," the e-mail said. Stevens and four other mission staff were in the compound safe haven, it added.
Less than an hour later, at 4:54 p.m. ET, another e-mail reported "firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared." It said a search was underway for consulate personnel.
The final e-mail, at 6:07 p.m., noted the claim of responsibility for the attack. The subject line said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
"Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.
The Facebook claim of involvement was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not very convincingly.
"We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet," a spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia said at the time. "The response has to be firm."
It is common for one or more claims of responsibility to follow high-profile attacks on U.S. targets, and intelligence officials analyze them for validity before declaring any legitimate. For example, groups make false claims to seek publicity and raise their profile.
Analysts examine a group's history, whether it made previous claims that were legitimate, whether it has the capacity to carry out such an attack, and whether known members of the group participated in the attack in assessing the validity of claims of responsibility.
-
If this can be confirmed...... Holy fucking shit.
If this can be confirmed, yes, it's a shocker. But so far, all I see is unnamed sources and innuendo; no facts. So I am reserving judgement until I get the facts. I'm pesky like that.
-
If this can be confirmed, yes, it's a shocker. But so far, all I see is unnamed sources and innuendo; no facts. So I am reserving judgement until I get the facts. I'm pesky like that.
Does it matter, you see the email don't you? Do you think it's a fake? BTW, I posted this same thing a day or two ago.
-
Does it matter, you see the email don't you? Do you think it's a fake? BTW, I posted this same thing a day or two ago.
Does what matter, exactly?
All I see is an (apparent photocopy of a mimeograph of a printout of an) "e-mail" that may or may not be authentic. I have no evidence one way or the other, and can't make an informed decision about it's authenticity. I am skeptical, if for no other reason because the language of the e-mail doesn't read like the typical language that would be employed in such communications.
Either way, I have no opinion on whether this is authentic or not.
-
If this can be confirmed, yes, it's a shocker. But so far, all I see is unnamed sources and innuendo; no facts. So I am reserving judgement until I get the facts. I'm pesky like that.
I would tend to trust the words of a former Operator, but I'd need to actually have a source, not just "The words of a Delta Operator".
I might have to get ahold of my buddy, a former Recon Marine and see what he has to say on the matter, he's been on the business end of those laser designator's more than once.
-
I wanna know two things...
1) WHO made that call to deny them help, and
2) WHY was that call made?
Hilary/obama/whoever made the call... and it was done in order to prevent an 'incident'? I'd like to know with a little more detail than that. It's easy to say "Obama wanted an attack", but then obama denied it was an attack, so it's hard to argue both ways.
Do we have these answers yet with proof? WHO denied it, and WHY?
We will never know.
-
I would tend to trust the words of a former Operator, but I'd need to actually have a source, not just "The words of a Delta Operator".
I almost certainly would too, but right now we don't have a Delta Operator making those claims. We have someone claiming a Delta Operator made those claims.
-
I almost certainly would too, but right now we don't have a Delta Operator making those claims. We have someone claiming a Delta Operator made those claims.
Exactly.
-
We will never know.
X2. This is something Coach will never understand.
-
X2. This is something Coach will never understand.
We know SOMETHING is being covered up!
-
We know SOMETHING is being covered up!
I don't know who "you" all are, but I don't think you know it. You assume it. There's a difference.
-
US Troops Would Not Have Been Painting Targets on Ground Unless There Was Air Support Overhead –
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 26,2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 8:12:00 PM by Hojczyk
BOMBSHELL: US troops in Benghazi would not have been painting targets on the ground unless there was air support overhead. But someone called it off – And the decision most likely came from the White House.
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE. It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth. As Blackfive says,
“This is bigger than Watergate!… The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.“
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
-
Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 27, 2012 | Jim Holt
Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2012 7:39:50 PM by bobsunshine
The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at Africom after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18. Tiger Droppings reported:
The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.
Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command. The Stars and Stripes reported:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.
Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.
He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.
In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.
“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Hat Tip Tom
More… The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment. The Stars and Stripes reported:
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.
-
Posted on October 27, 2012 by John Hinderaker in Benghazigate
Benghazi: A Reader Assesses the Evidence
A reader, relying on publicly available information, has reconstructed what we know and can infer about what happened in Benghazi. I haven’t tried to verify all of his facts nor do I necessarily vouch for his inferences, although in general they seem reasonable. But his analysis is, I think, a valuable contribution to our understanding, and I reproduce it here in slightly edited form:
This last week may have finally broken the protective wall around the POTUS. Between the comments of Hillary Clinton, Gen. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Panetta and the FOX News report, the picture of what really transpired in Benghazi is starting to emerge. The trail is leading straight to the POTUS….
I have no military service, security clearance, or contacts in the middle east. I don’t speak Arabic and have no special skills that would allow me to have a special insight into how the travesty in Benghazi happened, and who is responsible for letting our people die.
All I have are my instincts and google. They allowed me to ascertain within a couple of days that there was no protest outside the consulate before it was attacked. For the administration to attempt to sell such a story infuriated me, especially when Ambassador Rice appeared on five Sunday talks shows on September 16th to spin an obvious lie.
The latest bombshell revelations by FOX News about our people being denied assistance while under attack fits in with my theory of what transpired on 9/11 in Benghazi. I developed my theory by using google to find as many disparate sources of information as I could, and I am presenting you more of what I discovered in hopes you can shine a brighter light on the obvious falsehoods of the Administration’s storyline about what they knew and when.
Rather than include links within the story, I footnoted them and include them at the end of this document.
The timeline of the attack is very important in understanding what happened at the consulate, the “rescue” by Tyrone Woods and other members of the annex staff, the subsequent assault on the annex, and ultimately, the evacuation of the staff to the Benghazi airport.
First we have the attack, which everyone now agrees happened at 9:40 and was not preceded by a protest of any nature. Charlene Lamb said she was at the situation room monitoring the attack in real time, and that the consulate staff sounded the alarm at about 9:40. By monitoring the attack in real time by watching the video feed from the cameras at the consulate, the State Dept situation room staff … would have seen a large number of armed men.
In the State Dept timeline briefing (1) given on October 9th, the briefer describes their version of what happened that night. Here is how they describe the “rescue” of the Americans at the consulate:
At this point, the special security team, the quick reaction security team from the other compound, arrive on this compound. They came from what we call the annex. With them – there are six of them – with them are about 16 members of the Libyan February 17th Brigade, the same militia that was – whose – some members of which were on our compound to begin with in the barracks.
Here is how FOX News (2) describes the same event:
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
Question 1: Tyrone Woods and his group were described by the State Dept as “the quick reaction security team.” This implies they were in Benghazi to provide precisely the kind of protective force that would be needed if a situation like this arose. WHO TOLD THEM TO STAND DOWN? Did the order come from their superiors at the annex or from Washington DC? Were their superiors CIA officers or State Dept staff?
So we now have everyone but deceased Ambassador Stevens at the annex at about midnight local time. Again, according to FOX News (2), they called for military assistance because the annex had begun to take fire from the terrorists:
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
The State Department on Oct. 9th (1) describes it this way:
Once at the annex, the annex has its own security – a security force there. There are people at the annex. The guys in the car join the defense at the annex. They take up firing positions on the roof – some of them do – and other firing positions around the annex. The annex is, at this time, also taking fire and does take fire intermittently, on and off, for the next several hours. The fire consists of AK-47s but also RPGs, and it’s, at times, quite intense.
As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.
Question 2: Leon Panetta said this (3) about sending military assistance to the annex:
We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of our deploying forces to the region. We had fast platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here – the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.
The fact is, American assistance WAS sent from Tripoli that night, but it was not military assistance. Who were the 8 guys sent from Tripoli working for? It is logical to assume they were CIA agents or on their payroll. Notice, in the State Department briefing of Oct. 9th, they do not describe the Tripoli contingent other than this:
As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound.
So what we have here is the first huge contradiction between Panetta and the military and the CIA. SOMEONE sent those guys from Tripoli, but it was not the military. Why was it ok to send 8 lightly armed American guys from Tripoli into harm’s way to rescue 30+ people in Benghazi, but not ok to send a heavily armed special forces contingent who have trained for just such a scenario?
The State Dept. was asked about the Tripoli 8 on Oct. 9th and here was their response:
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The calls were made to Tripoli at the moment that the – at the same time the agent in the [Tactical Operations Center] sounded the alarm and then proceeded to make calls. I’m not going to go into any details about the number of security personnel who moved.
Notice the State Dept. refers to them as “security personnel.” Whose security personnel? Why only 8 sent (notice State Dept won’t give number sent)?
The best description of what happened that night with the rescue mission from Tripoli I found on 9/13, but was skeptical because part of the story conflicted with my “no protest” theory. After re-reading the story (4), and comparing it with the FOX News report and State Dept briefing, I am sure the part of the story having to do with the rescue of the annex personnel is 100% accurate. Here is how that story describes the rescue:
Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, commander of a special operations force for the February 17 Brigade, told Reuters that he took a call about 1:30 a.m. from Tripoli telling him that a helicopter was on its way from the capital’s Mitiga airport with a rescue squad of eight U.S. troops – he described them as marines.
After he met them at Benghazi airport with a convoy of 10 vehicles, mostly pickup trucks, one mounted with an anti-aircraft cannon, the U.S. force directed Obeidi and his men to the GPS coordinates of a farmhouse to find the survivors there.
Here, two more things went wrong. First, Obeidi found four times as many Americans at the single-story, fortified house as he had been told expect – 37, not just 10. So he did not have enough transport. Then, the villa came under massive attack.
This time, there was little doubt in the minds of Libyans who experienced it that this was a well-organized assault by men who had mastered the complexities of military mortar fire.
“This attack was planned,” Obeid said. “The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries.”
While some Libyan officials suggested that former soldiers from Gaddafi’s army may have been involved in Benghazi, some of the Islamist fighters also have substantial military experience from years spent fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Though Libya’s deputy interior minister described the locating of the safe house as a “critical security breach,” the attack may not have been planned for long in advance. The assailants would have had some hours to follow the fleeing Americans and set up an ambush after the consulate attack.
“It began to rain down on us,” Obeidi said just as the rescue force was preparing to leave. “About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa,” he said. One American fell wounded by him. A mortar struck the building itself, throwing from the roof another American posted there onto the men below.
“I was being bombarded by calls from all over the country by Libyan government officials who wanted me to hurry and get them out,” he said. “But … I needed more men and more cars.”
Two Americans, including one of the eight security personnel sent from Tripoli, were killed and several wounded.
Finally, dozens more vehicles from the Libyan security forces arrived, the attackers melted away and, as the sun came up over the desert, they reached Benghazi airport, from where the surviving Americans and the bodies were flown out.
So we now know Tyrone Woods was part of those on staff in Benghazi and Glen Doherty was part of the rescue group sent from Tripoli.
Question 3: According to FOX News, one of those killed (Tyrone Woods) was “painting the enemy mortar team with a laser” and calling for air support to take it out. He was killed when a mortar shell hit the roof. The question is: Was any air support available in the area? Were either of the two drones on station armed? Was there an AC130 gunship in the area? Why was no airpower deployed to assist those in the consulate? Even if Panetta did not want to send men, airpower could have been used to provide cover for those in the annex.
Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:
The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.
Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.
There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.
Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.
Now back to our original correspondent:
Gen Petraeus through the CIA spokesperson said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” Interesting choice of words, “nobody told anybody NOT to help.” That is a little different from saying they did tell somebody to help. If an order is NOT given to help, you did not tell somebody not to help, you just ignored their plea.
On to Hillary and her claim that Facebook and Twitter postings (2) during the attack don’t constitute “evidence that Ansar al-Shariah (and by association Al Qaeda) was involved.” When I saw that quote, it immediately brought me back to the most iconic photo of the attack.

When I saw this picture, the thing that instantly struck me was the way the guy was wearing his pants. I started doing some research and came across this (5) — another interview from one of the injured Blue Mountain guards at the consulate:
He himself was hit by grenade shrapnel, and then was shot through the knee when the first wave of attackers came in. He said those he heard speak had local, Benghazi accents, though he added that two men “looked foreign.”
He said some of the attackers wore masks, and many had their trouser legs rolled up – a mark of Salafi, or purist, Muslims and a common feature in members of Ansar al-Sharia.
Does Mrs. Clinton or the CIA have anybody with expertise on Ansar al-Shariah? Between the Facebook and Twitter posts and this picture, the evidence that Ansar al–Shariah was involved should have been clear as day. If I can figure it out, those paid to be “experts” in the Middle East had to know right away who was responsible.
So what do we think is the bottom line? Who were the 8 guys from Tripoli working for and who ordered them to Benghazi? Why was the military not used in terms of special forces or airpower?
The answers to the above lead directly to the White House and POTUS. The time difference between Benghazi and Washington DC is 6 hours. We also note that at 5 p.m. on September 11 2012, President Obama, Vice President Biden and the Secretary of Defense were meeting in the Oval Office. … The attack was going on for more than an hour, the Ambassador’s whereabouts were unknown, and you have to assume Obama, Biden, and Panetta were talking about what to do.
Instead of calling up the military resources at his disposal, the POTUS went “small.” The protection and rescue operations were outsourced to the Feb 17th militia, who had failed already in their responsibility to protect the consulate, and most of whom fled when the fighting at the consulate started. The ONLY US assets that could be spared were EIGHT brave Americans in Tripoli who most likely were CIA contract employees (including Glen Doherty).
The final call was by the POTUS. No military action to Libya from Italy or elsewhere could have been undertaken without the POTUS signing off. In the end, his “leading from behind” strategy and failure to realize the nature of the situation in Benghazi led to the deaths of at least Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. His meeting at 5 p.m. was 5 hours before they were killed. That is why there is a cover up, the POTUS failed to act. The screw up of not having enough security on the ground in Benghazi can be passed off to Charlene Lamb, Hillary, etc., but in the midst of the crisis, when the lives of the 30+ Americans were on the line, the POTUS froze, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed as a result. He can’t pass that blame off on anyone, he was informed of the attack and as a result of the decisions he made in the Oval Office with Biden and Panetta, those two brave Americans died. The Panetta smokescreen does not hold water because US personnel WERE sent into harm’s way, they just weren’t US military personnel. If there was enough info to send the 8 men from Tripoli, why was that not good enough for our military? This is 100% on Obama.
One related point that may be relevant was this. (6) Sending the military into another country can be a sensitive and delicate decision. CBS News has been told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did seek clearance from Libya to fly in their airspace, but the administration won’t say anything further about what was said or decided on that front.
How do you request clearance from a government which really only exists on paper? The prime minister was not even sworn in yet, and the country was and is ruled by armed militias. When Americans are dying, and someone attacks an embassy or consulate, we do not require permission to do everything in our power to protect out people. In a lawless country like Libya, protocol should take a back seat to saving our Ambassador.
1. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
3. http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981725499
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-libya-ambassador-assault-idUSBRE88C02Q20120913?feedType=RSS&feedName=wtMostRead&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FMostRead+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Most+Read+Articles%29
5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9549126/Benghazi-consulate-attack-was-targeted-assault-says-security-guard.html
6. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/
Will all of our correspondents’ inferences hold up as we learn more about what happened in Benghazi? I don’t know. Readers who have additional insights are invited to share them in the comments.
Someday a proper investigation will be done and the truth about Benghazi will emerge. In the meantime, Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard have posed a series of questions to President Obama:
Friday, in response to questions regarding the events of September 11 in Benghazi, President Obama said this: “Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”
The interviewer followed up: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”
The president responded: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to “gather all the facts” about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washington—or, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives”—that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?”
2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?
3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?
4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?
5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?
6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?
8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a C-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
-
Obama Did Not Deny Requests For Help In Benghazi: Aide
The Ticket - Yahoo News ^ | 27 Oct 2012 | Oliver Knox
Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:07:27 PM by edpc
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com
-
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack
The Right Scoop ^ | Oct. 27, 2012 | The Right Scoop
Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:18:05 PM by
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said tonight that his sources tell him that Obama was one of the people in the room watching the Benghazi attack go down and both he and Col. David Hunt agree it would have taken an order by the president to intervene.
Further, Col. Hunt said that we were only 20 min away by jet and a couple of hours away by AC-130 gunships and special forces, and the decision not to intervene had to be political.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
-
Obama Did Not Deny Requests For Help In Benghazi: Aide
The Ticket - Yahoo News ^ | 27 Oct 2012 | Oliver Knox
Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:07:27 PM by edpc
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com
Strange how no one denied request for help, but somehow they were denied. Then who did? I mean what the fuck this administration doesn't know if it's coming or going. No one takes responsibility, then everyone takes responsibility and so on. Time to wake up people