US Ambassador killed in Libya

[lj101]

I guess we shall continue to fund the Paki's....despite their now being a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

SASless

Out of order

[Robert Cooper]

Pakistan is not necessarily our friend.

Pakistan's military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), has long faced accusations of meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. A range of officials inside and outside Pakistan have stepped up suggestions of links between the ISI and terrorist groups in recent years. In fall 2006, a leaked report by a British Defense Ministry think tank charged, "Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism--whether in London on 7/7 [the July 2005 attacks on London's transit system], or in Afghanistan, or Iraq." In June 2008, Afghan officials accused Pakistan's intelligence service of plotting a failed assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai; shortly thereafter, they implied the ISI's involvement in a July 2008 attack on the Indian embassy. Indian officials also blamed the ISI for the bombing of the Indian embassy. Pakistani officials have denied such a connection.

Numerous U.S. officials have also accused the ISI of supporting terrorist groups, even as the Pakistani government seeks increased aid from Washington with assurances of fighting militants. In a May 2009 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "to a certain extent, they play both sides." Gates and others suggest the ISI maintains links with groups like the Afghan Taliban as a "strategic hedge" to help Islamabad gain influence in Kabul once U.S. troops exit the region. These allegations surfaced yet again in July 2010 when WikiLeaks.org made public (NYT) a trove of U.S. intelligence records on the war in Afghanistan. The documents described ISI's links to militant groups fighting U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan. In April 2011 during a visit to Pakistan, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen pointed to ISI's links with one such group, the Haqqani network. The May 1, 2011, killing of America's most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from Islamabad raised new questions over army and ISI support for the al-Qaeda leader and the legitimacy of their counterterrorism efforts. Pakistan's government has repeatedly denied allegations of supporting terrorism, citing as evidence its cooperation in the U.S.-led battle against extremists in which it has taken significant losses both politically and on the battlefield.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly said Pakistan trains militants and sends them across the border. In May 2006, the British chief of staff for southern Afghanistan told the Guardian, "The thinking piece of the Taliban is out of Quetta in Pakistan. It's the major headquarters."

Bob C

[SASless]

Does the Pakistani Minister remain out of prison....does he retain his office?

Answer yes to either or both of those questions....Pakistan is sponsoring Terrorism.

[500N]

I see the people of Libya and Benghazi in particular are thoroughly pissed off with the rebels that attacked and killed the US Amb and protested and took over the Rebel HQ and handed it over to the Libyan military.

[phil9560]

Lj-why is that 'out of order'?

[BEagle]

Well for one reason, as that dimwit GeeDubya had to be told, the collective noun 'Pakis' is considered by the Asian community to be highly offensive .

[PTT]

Does the Pakistani Minister remain out of prison....does he retain his office?

Answer yes to either or both of those questions....Pakistanis sponsoring Terrorism. BBC News - Anti-Islam film: Pakistan minister's bounty condemned (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19690210)
The actions of an individual are not the actions of the group. Otherwise one might argue that the Republican party approves of tax evasion... ;)
I don't doubt that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, even with state money, but this isn't that.

As an aside, the US (and plenty of other countries, including the UK) has sponsored plenty of terrorism (which we would probably refer to as "freedom fighters") over the years. Claims of innocence or outrage are somewhat hypocritical.

[SASless]

PTT....why do you insist on talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Either a State sponsors terrorism or not.....there is no middle ground.


Beags.....do I give a **** if I offend the Pakistani's by calling them Paki's? They sure don't hesitate to offend my sensitivities by allowing the ISI and others within their government to assist, fund, support, and advocate the conduct of Terroristic Acts.

In the scheme of being insulted....I think my insult pales in the scale of insults as compared to what is going on currently in Pakistan.

A Doctor who helped locate Bin Liner is in prison there on a 33 year sentence....effectively a death sentence for him.

Bin Liner lived safely in their country....in very close proximity to many of their Military bases and Officer schools with impunity until our SpecOps guys killed him.

So...please spare us the concern something said here insults them....it is going to fall on very deaf ears if you don't mind.

[PTT]

It's not complex:
A private individual sponsoring terrorist actions is not state terrorism, no matter who that individual is. That the state of which the individual is a national should "absolutely disassociate", "condemn", and that the ruling party should say "He is not a member of the (ruling) PPP (Pakistan People's Party), he is an ANP politician and therefore the prime minister will speak to the head of the ANP to decide the next step. They are not ruling out action against him but say he will stay in his post for now" suggests that they are not backing him.

Using state money to back terrorist actions, or backing an individual who does so, is state terrorism imo. The US defines state sponsors of terrorism as "countries that repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism" NCTC Website (http://www.nctc.gov/site/other/state.html) - no mention of individuals there.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

No. It's the same with Cameron and Mitchell. If you delay in taking action over clearly illegal actions, then you are saying "We are immoral; we are just seeing if we can get away with it"

[SASless]

PTT....I am confused.

You endorsed Dempsey removing Dooley...and his alleged misconduct paled compared to this Pakistani Minister.....yet you are happy enough the Minister is still in office.

I believe your true colors are showing here.....at least you do appear to be an apologist for things radical Islamic or at least confused over having some sort of standard for your view on such matters. Do explain the contradiction in your position here.

[PTT]

@ Fox3
No thanks. I'd prefer things were investigated thoroughly before any action were taken. I'm certainly no Tory, but precipitate reaction to appease the press is the wrong course here - who actually knows what was said by Mitchell?
The same would apply for Pakistan if, for even a second, I thought that I should hold another culture accountable by my own principles - I don't.

@ SASless
Where, exactly, did I say that I was happy that the minister was still in office? Perhaps if you were to read what I was writing instead of making strawmen you'd be less confused. What I said was that the minister acting in this manner does not make Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.

That said, I'd have thought you'd be better able to determine the difference between an individual acting on the behalf of a government and one acting on his own volition. Dooley was teaching on behalf of the US government, so he is subject to that government's standards - they decide if what he is doing during that activity is appropriate, because he is doing it with their money. The Pakistani minister was acting as a private individual and using his own funds; whether that action as a private individual is compatible with him being a government minister in Pakistan, though, is a different question, and one which the Pakistani government must (and appear to be) asking.

What's with the labels? You start by calling me left-wing, now an Islamic apologist (far from it - 2.5 years on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan - on our side, before you ask ;) ). Do such labels allow you to try to dismiss my arguments as invalid or something? How about discussing the matter at hand without the pigeon-holing?

[phil9560]

I'm with sasless.the pakistanis do a great deal which offends me so worrying about using the diminutive of their country's name to describe them pales into insignificance.

[SOSL]

I think you may be a troll!

Rgds SOS

[Rosevidney1]

Well for one reason, as that dimwit GeeDubya had to be told, the collective noun 'Pakis' is considered by the Asian community to be highly offensive .
-BEagle

I find this to be very curious as Paki means 'pure' and -stan means 'land of the'. So they object to being called pure? Methinks the 'religion of peace' has to find everything we say and do to beutterly objectionable.

[SASless]

PTT....you ignore the issue completely....as usual.

It is not of the individual we are discussing but the GOVERNMENT of Pakistan.





SOSL...... What you think of others matters not. Calling someone a Troll certainly shows your inability to respond in a rational manner to the issues being discussed. Gratuitous personal attacks are so...well....sad ...but very revealing of the offender.

[PTT]

@ SASless

You seem to be losing the thread a bit. What we were discussing was whether a private individual offering such a "reward" made Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. It does not, for the reasons stated.

At what point were we discussing the Government of Pakistan?

[SASless]

PTT....take a seat beside Tcabot and The Sultan.:ugh:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

PTT - well, the Policemen know because they wrote it down.That normally is sufficient in a court of law. I agree we only have the Sun's word for it, but any media lawyer will tell you it's the most accurate newspaper on average (because they get sued so often), and Mitchell's first statement said he didn't dispute their word. I'd put money on the PM knowing what was said by now.

I am usually the last person to jump to conclusions, but I will be very surprised if this one turns out any different, and I was last surprised in 1992.

Pakistan: Agreed that any culture/country should do what it thinks is right, but in this case that would mean them pulling out of the UN and a whole bunch of International Conventions.

[PTT]

SASless - I can only assume you've now lost it completely, as I have no idea what you are on about. Presumably it's supposed to be some dismissive statement to lump me in with someone you think isn't worthy of response, but you should know that doing so simply means you have no response. Either respond to the points made or admit that you cannot.

Fox3 -
Mitchell: I too would be surprised, but am still glad it's being looked at thoroughly rather than reacted to for the benefit of the media. Whether a policeman's notes are considered sufficient in a court of law is currently moot, since this isn't (yet?) being looked at in one. The PM may well know what has been said, and knowing what a slimy sneaky bugger he is I suspect he's more interested in knowing what the media can prove was said. This may be (and this is purely speculation) an instance where Leveson might be used for a poor cause, with suppression of such evidence and threats of prosecution for any poor coppers going to the press.
Pakistan: I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Why? The nation has done nothing. The individual has, though. We can get into some very woolly areas regarding whether what he's doing is terrorism or crime (not that I think there should be a difference between the two, or how they are treated).

[Robert Cooper]

SOSL

If you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion then the best course of action is to remain silent. Name-calling is not necessary and is beneath you.

Regards, Bob C

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

He's doing either international terrorism or crime, and he hasn't been sacked, let alone prosecuted. That makes the nation an accessory at least.

[SOSL]

Sorry Bob, you are quite right. For a moment I was confused between you and SASless.

Rgds SOS

[PTT]

@ Fox3
Show me a nation that hasn't done the same. The US has with the Iran-contra affair, Castro assassination attempts, extraordinary rendition... the list goes on, and those were actually state-sponsored. I didn't see the US pulling out the of the UN or other international conventions.

Just for SASless I'll add the Gibraltar killings of the IRA personnel to the list - I have no delusions that the UK is innocent.

[blaireau]

This covers most of the topic.

A word to rioting Muslims - YouTube

[SASless]

SOSL....join PTT on the bench! All you do is offer up insults and contribute naught to the discussion. The Mods may not care to act....but I can.....as I do not have to read your drivel.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

PTT - I completely agree, but 'everyone's doing it' isn't a defence, it's an admission of guilt with a plea for a lower sentence.

[SASless]

There is a move afoot in the UN for a Resolution forbidding the defaming of Islam.

I am all for it.....but only after the Muslims not only promise to "tolerate" Christians, Jews, and Non-Believers....but prove their dedication to that practice.

I want to see the Fatwas....Clerics speaking out....and whole communities demonstrating in support of the change.

Then.....what say the UN just incorporate the American Constitution's First Amendment re Freedom of Speech and Religion into the UN Charter....would that not cover all Religions and Beliefs?

One very small change from the actual text of the First Amendment.....

The United Nations shall make no Resolution respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

[PTT]

@ Fox3 - that rather depends on the resolution of the affair, tbh.

@ SASless - have you really got me on ignore? For what? For arguing a point you don't agree with and can't argue against? Grow a pair, man!

[racedo]

Well for one reason, as that dimwit GeeDubya had to be told, the collective noun 'Pakis' is considered by the Asian community to be highly offensive .
-BEagle

I find this to be very curious as Paki means 'pure' and -stan means 'land of the'. So they object to being called pure? Methinks the 'religion of peace' has to find everything we say and do to beutterly objectionable.

Use of the term Paki is offensive in UK but not in Australia where its used to describe people from Pakistan without any issue.

[Heathrow Harry]

but Abo is a bit fraught no???

[SASless]

Brits, Yanks, Ozzies, Pohms, Frogs, Paki's, Gyppo's, all used commonly in ordinary conversation......it is the context that determines whether it is offensive. Usually if it is said "about" someone....and not in an offensive tone "to" someone....no harm done. No harm....no foul.

You Huggy Fluffs look for insult and victim status for others way too much.

[lj101]

SASless


OHIM - New Decisions from the Boards of Appeal (http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/OHIM/OHIMPublications/newsletter/0912/CASELAW/cs2.en.do)


There is no doubt that, as the examiner already argued and as further sources prove, the term ‘PAKI', in the English language, is a pejorative, offensive designation of a Pakistani, or generally speaking, a person from the Indian subcontinent, who lives in the United Kingdom (see, inter alia , Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2001, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , Volume 2, 1993). The word ‘PAKI' is a prevalent and known term in England and Ireland.

When assessing whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive effect.


From the fluffy huggy one

[SASless]

Is there a shift towards Political Correctness in the UK? Can one be taken to Court over charges of language considered merely insulting but yet convey no threat of physical harm, assault, or battery?

If so....is that law applied equally, fairly, and with consistency to all UK citizens or is there bias within the administration of that law?

Does the EU now see mere speech being a criminal offense?

If so.....the Huggy Fluffs are going to be the end of a good thing....called Freedom.

Quoting from your link.....


When assessing whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive effect.


No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck", "Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.

So....you willing to comply with the finding of the Appeals Board? You willing to clearly challenge any further use of those terms here at the Military Aircrew Forum?

Just using your logic, basis, and statement on this.....now that I am enlightened and informed about the EU/UK strictures on such language.

Do I understand your position correctly?

[Toadstool]

Pakistan distances itself from anti-Islam film maker bounty minister - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9562221/Pakistan-distances-itself-from-anti-Islam-film-maker-bounty-minister.html)

To go back slightly, the Pakistan government has distanced itself from the minister responsible. At present Pakistan has still not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This may change in the future which would have severe financial penalties for Pakistan. I would imagine though that the consequences for ISAF could be even more severe should Pakistan, a nuclear power and important ally in this region, take umbrage at such a move. Despite some people wishing to take the bull by the horns, the actual reality is that we can ill afford, at this time, to take such a move when we will need Pakistan and its support over the next 2-3 years. After this who know what will happen.

[lj101]

SASless

I dont think i have used any of those words to describe an American. If I had and in turn offended anyone I would apologise. You may not like the law of a foreign country, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.

[glojo]

Is there a shift towards Political Correctness in the UK? Can one be taken to
Court over charges of language considered merely insulting but yet convey no
threat of physical harm, assault, or battery?

If so....is that law
applied equally, fairly, and with consistency to all UK citizens or is there
bias within the administration of that law?

Does the EU now see mere
speech being a criminal offense?

If so.....the Huggy Fluffs are going to
be the end of a good thing....called Freedom.

Quoting from your
link.....






Quote:




When assessing
whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with
the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or
group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons
concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to
the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended
to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive
effect.



No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck",
"Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when
applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.

So....you
willing to comply with the finding of the Appeals Board? You willing to clearly
challenge any further use of those terms here at the Military Aircrew
Forum?

Just using your logic, basis, and statement on this.....now that
I am enlightened and informed about the EU/UK strictures on such
language.

Do I understand your position correctly?


Yup you understand correctly :( :( and we have allowed the lunatics to rule the asylum.. How dare ANYONE have a sense of humour

I am quite a tall person and if I were to walk into a shop I would see children tug at the arms of their parents and you can here them shouting, 'Look, look at that giant!' :) :)

If they were to do the same thing but point at someone of a different colour and perhaps describe their colour then that child can be called a racsist??

To better describe this.. If I played rugby and perhaps accidentally hurt someone and they called me a long streak of gnats urine then no harm done as they are describing me by my height.

If I were a coloured person and they called me a black piece of urine, then they would DEFINITELY get arrested if ANYONE complained.. Is there any difference? They are describing the offender but instead of height, they use colour to make that identity. Our country has gone to the dogs and hopefully I am not being disrespectful to any dogs. There is NO place for rasicsm but we appear to have NO idea what racism is??

I do know that black folk can insult each other by using the 'n' word but woe betide a white person that dares to simply use the same words.

Going back to perhaps being more on topic.. I have no idea really what a 'radical' muslim is but if it is someone that has very strict muslim beliefs then the Taliban might be all considered to fit within that definition and if so, am I correct to suggest the US is negotiating with these folks regarding our withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Do you think this will be another Vietnam?

I think you are wrong to label the demonstraters in the way you have but to me the demonstraters loose ALL credibility when they burn a National flag or an effigy of a Western leader but that is me a Western person applying my standards of acceptability which bear no relationship to folks from a different continent. We cannot compare.....

When in Singapore I once told off an old lady who blew her nose...the contents just missing my feet. I suggested she might in future consider using a handerkerchief, by crikey did I get a telling off. We Western folks have disgusting habits, do you know we blow our noses into a piece of cloth, wrap up the contents and stuff them in our pockets?? :):) Not the same as MURDERING anyone but we do have to understand different cultures and possibly their values. Incidentally straight after that killing happened the Taliban stated it was in connection with something completely different from this film.

[SASless]

The law does not apply to those of us who live outside the UK and the EU now does it? You cannot extradite us for using the word "Paki" can you?

[500N]

Goes that mean that Aussie is also classed as offensive to Australians ?

If not, what is the difference ?

[BEagle]

As those who have had to suffer the nonsense of 'Equal Opportunities' training will know, 'harassment' is as seen by the recipient of the alleged insult....

A while ago, there was much angst about how 'other than white' folk in the US should be described. 'Negroid' was probably offensive, but was 'black' OK? Or 'red' for 'native Americans'? Not that 'red' and 'redneck' were the same thing. Or was 'Hispanic' more correct than 'Latino'. What about 'Americans of colo(u)r'?

Until someone said "Why don't you just say 'Americans'?"

I think it was the last UK census which revealed that a fair number of people had answered the 'ethnic origin' question.....as 'klingon'!

[500N]

"I think it was the last UK census which revealed that a fair number of people had answered the 'ethnic origin' question.....as 'klingon'!"

In Australia I thought it was "Jedi" :O

[Thud105]

I'm sure that 'Jedi' was stated as a religion on the GB census - making it possibly the UK's fifth or sixth largest. And why not, it makes just about as much sense as the rest of the superstitious twaddle.
And as for the colour nonsense - well, as I've often observed in the past when someone gets on their colour high-horse "that's the pot calling the kettle Afro-American!"

[500N]

"but Abo is a bit fraught no???"
I wouldn't use "Abo", especially in front of them.

You should here what they call each other and whites !

They are very racist when describing others, especially when
it comes to Full blood versus anything but full blood ie half castes.

And White / Whitey I have heard a few times but "White fella"
is common.

[West Coast]

It was very problematic for the PC police at work when a pilot from Jamaica objected to being called African American. Never dawned on him someone might still be black.

[SASless]

The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days.

In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening.

Analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known databases of jihadists.

At the same time, there was evidence that countered this assessment. An initial investigation by congressional Republicans alleged that the families of local Libyans serving for a contractor to provide security at the consulate were urged in the days before the attack to have the guards not show up to work on Sept. 11. U.S. intelligence officers also knew of four suspects within 24 hours of the attack that had links to Ansar al-Sharia, a local jihadist organization with some ties to al Qaeda’s regional affiliate for north Africa.

The video footage also supports the accounts of four diplomatic-security officers who were at the Benghazi compound and who initially responded to the attack. On Sept. 17, these officers told State Department investigators in formal briefings that there was no spontaneous protest the night of the attack, U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast. This information was what led the State Department to conclude there was no protest at the consulate on the day of the attacks, according to these officials.

Nonetheless, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to say until Sept. 20 that the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest over the Internet film.


VP Biden added fuel to the fire about a "Botched Cover Up" by the Obama Administration during last nights VP Debate. Testimony before Congress directly contradicts the public position being taken by Obama, Clinton, Carney, and Rice.

Video comparisons of statements denying such public comments to video made of earlier statements have shown direct contradictions.

This Cover Up will be a major issue in the remaining weeks before the November 6th Election.

Obama's Foreign Policy is in shambles....Americans have been killed....and the Administration and Campaign are lying about it.

[Heathrow Harry]

Oh God........... a Republican

[Robert Cooper]

The U.S. State Department has released on its website a transcript of a background briefing on Libya that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday). It is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.

The transcript leaves no doubt that Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video.

Bob C

[SASless]

But did not Hillary herself run out the Video as being the cause....or am I imagining that?

[Robert Cooper]

The transcript is at:

Background Briefing on Libya (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm#)

Very detailed account of what happened in the Benghazi Consulate and worth a read. It certainly shows that there was no demonstration, it was a planned attack.

Bob C

[Thelma Viaduct]

No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck", "Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.

You forgot Ameritard mate. :ok:

[SASless]

Typical ...always some Nit Picker in the crowd!

It seems everyone but you g0t the point of the post.

Take you this long to think about it?

[SASless]

The Carrier Task Group Commander for the Med Fleet gets yanked off Ship immediately after the Benghazi Consulate Attack....as does General Ham who was CinC Africa Command.

I guess they were found to be incompetent or somehow unfit for command at the same time and well short of their normal tour of duty.....or is it something far more sinister?

Whats the odds that both of the Commanders holding cognizance for Operations in Libya getting the Sack for incompetence or some deficiency in performance within days of one another?

You reckon they either attempted to disobey the "Stand Down" order....or just made their opinions of such an order known to the wrong folks up the line?

The Obama Administration is refusing to answer ANY questions now.....None!

We have four Americans killed in the attack, we had forces available to assist the folks in Benghazi, had folks on the ground that could have assisted with that relief effort, a Citizen in jail without Bond for having made a Video (that is protected speech under our First Amendment), a government that utterly failed before, during, and after the attack......and worse of all....a Media that for the most part is assisting in the cover up of all this in a brazen attempt to sway a Presidential election.

[500N]

Who was the Carrier Task Group Commander who was pulled ?

.

[SASless]

Stennis admiral reassigned on allegations of 'inappropriate judgment' | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Stennis-admiral-reassigned-amid-allegations-of-inappropriate-judgment-176099991.html)


He was in charge of the USS Stennis Task Group.

Some question exists as to the location of the Stennis Task Group during those events....they were in the 5th Fleet area which is the Persian Gulf. Also, Ham is said to have told a member of Congress he did not receive a request for troops or air support for Benghazi but did have forces that could have intervened if ordered to do so.

Never Yet Melted » General & Admiral Relieved For Defying Washington and Trying to Rescue Former SEALs? (http://neveryetmelted.com/2012/10/28/general-admiral-relieved-for-defying-washington-and-trying-to-rescue-former-seals/)

[West Coast]

Living in a navy town, hearing of a dismissal isn't all that uncommon. Usually it's accompanied by at least a cryptic clue as to the reason. I'll be curious to see if the reason trickles out.

[500N]

Thanks

I was in the process of looking it up.


Something is not right if they replace two top star ranks
within a short time of each other.

[glojo]

We have four Americans killed in the attack, we had forces available to assist the folks in Benghazi, had folks on the ground that could have assisted with that relief effort, a Citizen in jail without Bond for having made a Video (that is protected speech under our First Amendment), a government that utterly failed before, during, and after the attack......and worse of all....a Media that for the most part is assisting in the cover up of all this in a brazen attempt to sway a Presidential election. Calling a spade a spade, if the Commander in Chief says stand down and those receiving the orders say 'Screw you,' then what are you suggesting? The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief, if he says, 'Jump' then surely all you say is 'How high'?

Four Americans diplomats being killed or those from any other nation is NOT GOOD and the host country HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE, but a full blown invasion with guns firing into hundreds, if not thousands of demonstrators is simply going to see another 'Blackhawk down' or indeed Beirut which saw the US pull out of that area.

I am NOT condoning the actions of those responsible for killing your diplomats, just like I am NOT convinced the cause was the insult to the muslim faith, but my question to you is that if this small force did invade that sovereign country, then what do you think the ramifications would have been World-wide? Do you think Muslims, the Chinese, the Russians would have thanked you?

Why not 'Softly, softly catchee monkey' find out who committed these acts and then remove the threat, not by missile strikes but feet n the ground exacting whatever measures are deemed necessary. We never hear of attacks on Russian or Israeli embassies or consulates and it is not rocket science to know why.

a Citizen in jail without Bond for having made a Video (that is protected speech under our First Amendment)

If a US citizen breaks the laws of a host country then they MUST surely expect to be accountable. Plane spotters come to mind and when they try to film the movements of military aircraft there are numerous countries where this will result in imprisonment. Are you suggesting your First or even ninety first amendment will apply no matter where your citizen might be?

[ORAC]

Are you suggesting your First or even ninety first amendment will apply no matter where your citizen might be? Errr, he was arrested and jailed without bail in California (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/world/california-anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html).

[glojo]

Errr, he was arrested and jailed without bail in California (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/world/california-anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html).When in America no one can complain about US citizens wanting the protection that their amendments offer :ok:

I didn't rate the film, the producer must have realised the implications BUT I thought we live in a free and democratic society that supports the right of free speech (within reason)

[ORAC]

The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief, if he says, 'Jump' then surely all you say is 'How high'? Indeed - and someone is lying about who ordered what......

Benghazi: Obama Emerges from the Fog of War
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west)

Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region.

Suddenly, on the campaign trail in Denver on October 26, he changed his story. “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”.........

An hour after the attack has begun, the president orders the CIA and the military to do “whatever we need to do.” Yet the CIA and the military do nothing, except send drones overhead to watch the seven-hour battle. A CIA employee and former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, twice calls for military help. He has a laser rangefinder and is pinpointing enemy targets, radioing the coordinates. The military send no aircraft to attack the designated targets. Special Operations forces standing by, 480 miles away — less than a two-hour plane ride — are not deployed.

The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.

It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing?...............

[SASless]

One of the last comments made by one of the two Former SEALs to other CIA officers was...."Where's the F@ecking Sprectre?".

That leads me to believe use of the AC-130 Gunship was in some sort of Contingency Plan which led them to think the Aerial Gunnery Support would be dispatched to help them. That is an assumption....but I think a valid one.

The real questions to be answered are very simple.

Did Obama order a relief effort or not?

If he did not....why not?

If he did.....why did it not happen?

Why was General Ham relieved of his Command?

Did he attempt to dispatch a QRF despite being told to "Stand Down"?

Was he told to "Stand Down"?

Were any of the Drones armed with Hellfire Missiles?

If trhey were....who decided NOT to expend those munitions against the Attackers?

While Tyrone Woods was marking targets with a Laser....was the Drone Video showing that?

Why is Obama and his Administration blaming the Attack on a spontaneous reaction to some Video despite knowing within two hours of the attack that it was anything but that?

Why is a US Citizen being held without Bail for a Violation of Probation charge after being identified as the maker of that video?

Usually it is Terrorists and Killers that are not allowed Bail....why is this guy being held without benefit of Bail?

Folks....this is much....much....bigger than Watergate!

Where is the American Media on this.....why are they assisting in the cover-up?

The Republic is in danger....grave danger over the way the government is acting in this matter....and the Media looking the other way to avoid having to report on this.

[glojo]

It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing?............... Sounds a bit like the Charge of the Light Brigade and who gave the order..

You gave the order sir...

Ah but you wrote it down..

Yes but I used his pencil.....

The INSTANT, the very instant the first innocent person was killed EVERY US embassy in the Middle and probably Far East plus numerous countries in Europe would have come under attack.

I dread to think of the ramifications if the US raid to free the Iranian hostages had actually reached Tehran. One day folks will realise that Rambo is an actor and his antics are make believe.

I stick by my softly, softly approach with firm enforcement.

[stuckgear]

The Obama Administration is refusing to answer ANY questions now.....None!




http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/6/21/c29fdba7-843f-4176-ac1c-9906c49b6d76.jpg

[SASless]

Food for thought!

Put yourself in the shoes of the guys on the Annexroof top....having made a rescue of others at the Consulate....doing the "Sparkle" routine for the Air Cover to observe.....and no firing being done.


Benghazi: A Reader Assesses the Evidence [Updated] | Power Line (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/benghazi-a-reader-assesses-the-evidence.php)

Lots of people "hate" Fox News....but in this they are about the only Media outlet that is reporting on this....they broke the story and are running with it.

NBC is running....away from the story.

[Lonewolf_50]

glojo, I think you will find that the gent in question had an outstanding warrant for something other than that film.

Suggest you do a bit more research.

[Two's in]

Dugdale pointed to a probation report citing eight allegations in which Nakoula had allegedly violated his probation. One of those was a requirement not to use aliases without permission from his probation officer, something the prosecutor said Nakoula did on at least three instances: during his fraud case, when he tried to get a passport in 2011 and during the making of the film.

The judge, who ordered a future identity hearing to determine the defendant's actual name, cited the many instances in which he misrepresented his name. She also noted his "unstable" residence and work history, referring to the film project, as also among the reasons for denying him bail.

Sounds like a fine upstanding citizen to me, hope he's out in time to vote next week, wonder if he's GOP or Democrat?

[glojo]

glojo, I think you will find that the gent in question had an outstanding warrant for something other than that film.

Suggest you do a bit more research.Hi Lonewolf,
Thank you for the advice and I am guessing we might be in agreement if I suggest his detention has nothing to do with what I at first believed was a freedom of speech issue??

Further research tells me he is allegedly a criminal that may well not answer ANY bail conditions?

I guess I believed someone and failed to check out the story they posted.

Thank you for your suggestion :ok:

[SASless]

Two questions stand out now....

Was there a USAF AC-130 Spectre responding to the Consultate Attack but was denied permission by Obama to engage targets?

Why was Tyrone Woods using a Laser Target Designator if there was no overhead Aerial Fire Support?

I still cannot believe 30 Americans were left on their own and it took a couple of very brave Men, who defied orders to stand down, to effect a Rescue of all of them except for the Ambassador.

I cannot wait to hear how Obama tries to explain that away to the American Public!

The SOB is sure hiding from what few Media want to seriously question him about all this!

[500N]

"Why was Tyrone Woods using a Laser Target Designator if there was no overhead Aerial Fire Support?"


Probably because he expected AT LEAST drones to be above based on his years of military experience and maybe a C130. By designating the targets, maybe he was hoping someone would see what he was talking about ?

[sevenstrokeroll]

very sad...and obama is now hiding behind a hurricane, hunkered down in the white house.

but romney is up two points on the latest ohio polls.

someone must push for an answer

[Robert Cooper]

If Tyrone Woods was actively painting the target, then an AC 130U was probably on station. As I understand it you do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched, which means that an AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command 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 Tyrone Woods was actively “painting” a target, something was on station to engage!
I believe two AC-130Us were deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector, but don’t know if they were still there.

Bob C

[Easy Street]

With modern kit you can use laser-based devices to generate accurate coordinates for the delivery of GPS-guided weapons. There is no need for the attack platform to be on-station for this to occur, so he could have been generating coordinates and passing them to a platform that was enroute.

[SASless]

Yes........but that would suggest something was on the way to help.....BUT No Help Came! Obama left these folks hanging!


Explosive Video: When the Navy SEALS called Independent Journal Review (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/20650-explosive-video-when-the-navy-seals-called/)

[Lonewolf_50]

Robert Cooper and Easy Street have the right of it.

You can use designators for a variety of reasons, even though the basic purpose fo that piece of kit is to paint the target for a laser guided munitions to hit it.

If there was an armed Reaper or Predator on station, the RoE for weapons release may or may not have been loose enough to permit the AFRICOM folks to engage. Don't know, I am not in that HQ.

The joint forces air component commander (JFACC) for that region, under whom a USAF Predator or Reaper would have been operating, may have been required to request NCA authority for a strike given that Libya is a sovereign nation as of this writing.

Or, his RoE matrix may have come up "weapons tight" based on that situation.

Please note that the political fall out of a strike might have been assessed as a show stopper on the international political level, not internal American political level. (Yes, I know, the two do overlap a bit).

Secretary of State Clinton might have been involved in a veto in closed room conversation, along the lines of "we cannot be seen to have armed drones flying about and shooting in Libya, it will cost us too much political good will" and so on and so forth.

This is no trivial political matter.

I was involved in some interesting operations a few years back where that sort of RoE problem was a daily frustration. In that time and place, the issue at hand was armed UAV's under USAF OPCON, forces hostile to our forces, and the airspace of a sovereign nation called Pakistan. At that time, the RoE was not as relaxed as it seems to be now, in terms of allowing engagements into or through Pakistani Air Space ... regardless of the fact that our guys and some of their local allies were taking fire from the Pakistani side of the border.

Used to drive me nuts when we'd run into that situation, and not be permitted to provide armed air support, but could only permit the drone operators to take pictures. Weapons tight.

Further comments duly :mad:

I am pretty sure I have not violated any OPSEC, given how far in the past this was.

[SASless]

This is no trivial political matter.

The potential death of 30 Americans trumps any concern by Clinton et al of "repercussions".....as we can see how Pakistan reacts (in private). Do you think for one instant the Libyan government wants Islamic Fundamentalist Terror Groups on its turf?

I don't know about you Lone....but if I was up to my Ass in Alligators....I would want and expect all the help I could get.....ROE's be damned!

In Vietnam days the call was "Broken Arrow" or an announcement5 over Guard or Tactical Radio Frequencies and every asset available was directed to the fight....no matter what other considerations might be weighed.

Sadly.....the Obama Administration has broken faith with the American People and those who goe in Harm's Way on their behalf. It started with the ROE's in Afghanistan and has led to the disaster in Libya.

The Cover Up is what absolutely disgusts me!

The lying Bastards stand there just like Bubba Clinton waving his big ol's finger under our nose and uttering those infamous words......"I did not have Sex with that Woman....Ms Lewinsky!" and we know how that turned out! Monica only got screwed.......but four very Brave Men died in Benghazi!

They died waiting for help they had every right to expect but were denied by Obama!

The Cowardly SOB only thinks about his re-election bid.....not anything else!


Stolen from another web site.....and reported as being from a former Delta Force Operator.......

Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass or a Liar

The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi. So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:

“(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 Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest **** I Ever Heard Doctrine”.

To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all. It is horse****, nothing more.

The “The Dumbest **** I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians. Read the doctrine carefully. On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense. The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”. Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?

A couple of points however need to be made.

First. I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi. On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization. In fact, they are both old tankers. The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.

Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.

Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far. The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room. That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse. Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!

Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?

Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?

And this is why “The Dumbest **** I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.

The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.

My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!

I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions. In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want! Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!

What more information do you need? Or was this never about information at all? Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?

In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.

And that pisses me off.

[SASless]

General Ham and General Dempsey both have said there were forces available and ready to act as a QRF and Aerial Support for the Benghazi Consulate.

They both now say there was no "Order" to commit those forces.

What they are not saying is whether there was a "Standown" order that cut short their efforts to relieve the Defenders.


Benghazigate: General Ham: “No Order to Protect Consulate” (VIDEO) (http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/benghazigate-general-ham-no-order-to-protect-consulate-video/)

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless, my distaste for Secretary Clinton knows few bounds. Part of what I was getting at is that when a political decision is made to use, or not use, force for a given scenario, State as often as not gets heard. I concur with your point on a call for fire, and what we'd like to see as an option open, particularly when there are forces within reach.

Hmmm, I seem to recall some F-4's not sent to help out USS Pueblo, eh? :mad:

I know how the process works. As far as I know, we were not, at the point of that raid, in a hostilities mode in Libya. That makes your analogy to 'Nam is a little off the mark. What is disturbing is that there seem to have been contingency plans for dealing with a NEO or similar operation, and the play book was ignored in favor of "do nothing" or "do nothing yet" even though there were people in place to do something.

Yes, that's on Obama's shoulders, and Panetta's. They are the national command authority, who have ultimate authority and responsibility for use of our forces. Because of the input State has on what options are politically available, it's on Secretary Clinton's shoulders as well.

[racedo]

Hmmmm The suggestion is that General Ham wished to activate special operations teams in contravention of DoD orders and was then relieved of duty by his deputy.

[SASless]

Did Obama order ,or have the order , to "Stand Down" issued to Delta Force and other Support Units as is suggested by this article....and two News Networks having copies of the E-Mails that would confirm it, relase them to the Public....then Obama is done as President!

It would mean Obama, Panetta, and probably Dempsey and Clinton will be held in contempt by the American Public.

Gingrich: Senator told me networks may have White House emails commanding counterterrorism group to stand down on Benghazi rescue | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/31/gingrich-rumor-says-networks-have-white-house-emails-telling-counterterrorism-group-to-stand-down-on-benghazi-rescue/)

[Robert Cooper]

It is not a question of could we have sent forces in to help. We could. We could have sent forces to help as they were within a few hundred miles. This battle of Benghazi was a protracted fight - covering at least six to eight hours (depending on when you start the clock).

It is being reported that the former SEALs at the CIA compound, on hearing the gunfire at the consulate, twice requested permission to provide support and twice were told “no”. In the end they defied orders and went anyway.
Over the next seven hours requests for help was sent by these brave men at least three times. The answer was "no". Someone made the decision to not send help. Who? The decision to withhold Cross-Border Authority would have been that of one man - the president.

To have Panetta and Dempsey acting as apologists for the WH saying "it was just too hard" or "the uncertainty was a key factor" - are you kidding me? That is BS. The fact is, rarely do Commanders making life and death deployment decisions have as much information as they had during this particular attack. They not only had piles of information, they had it all in real time.

Former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane, during a FOX News interview a couple of days ago, said:

“You don’t just passively allow Americans to remain under attack for eight hours at a time when you have forces within range and do nothing. The Secretary of Defense was in the White House at five o’clock within an hour of when the attacks started. He could have told him, “Yes. We have special operations people and F18 aircraft that could be deployed right away. To have known what he had available, to have known that Americans were under fire, and to have done nothing, is dereliction of duty that I have never seen in a Commander in Chief from a president of any party”

Bob C

[El Grifo]

You would hardly think there was an election just around the corner with the Republican moving ever closer to the ropes :ugh:

[SASless]

Given the choice of the Mormon or the Moron....i shall go with the Mormon thank you!

Dick Morris calls it Romney by 7-10% in the popular vote and 300 plus in the Electoral College Vote.....which means another demolishing defeat for the Democrats two elections in a row.

Karl Rove's data is showing much the same.....Ohio will go to Romney handily....and thus the election!

It will show the Progressive Agenda and Liberal Democrat Policies just don't sell despite all the lying, denying, and dreaming that bunch use to convince themselves they are on the right path.

Now we have Fox News reporting on Classified EMails to the SecState about the Benghazi situation.....an email that clearly stated the Consulate was unsafe, vulnerable, the security situation was out of control, and there were up to Ten Islamic Radical Terror groups operating openly in Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton is now up to her Buck Teeth in this scandal....both before, during, and after the event. No way she can escape from this now.


Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand 'coordinated attack' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/)

[500N]

This is dangerous because she may become the Sacrificial lamb
that allows Obama to off load it onto her and him get away.

[glojo]

I still do not understand how the US would have dealt with the aftermath of any single operation.

Is this more of a political thread where those that do not like one party are as usual being critical of the incumbent administration?

What do we think would be the ramifications when news broadcasters transmitted footage of US forces mowing down innocent demonstrators, women and young children because you can bet your boots that will be the headlines.

To order those troops not to attempt a rescue must have been a decision that weighed heavily on the shoulders of whoever gave it and hopefully the man at the top had the courage to take that responsibility and I say courage as it would be far more popular to have let loose the forces that were possibly available.

Were US embassies and consulate warned of the probability of this type of incident and if so did this consulate take all necessary action to safeguard all personnel?

My thoughts are with those that died and please do not think I am being flippant with this post, it is asking questions as opposed to giving opinions

[500N]

"What do we think would be the ramifications when news broadcasters transmitted footage of US forces mowing down innocent demonstrators, women and young children because you can bet your boots that will be the headlines."


Who said anything about mowing down innocent demonstrators, women and young children ?


Separating the decision to cross borders, this would have been a Rescue / Recovery of persons in a hostile environment but one that is not nearly as hostile as other raids have been conducted.

Now you already had 2 very well trained people on the ground who could
have made any Raid / Rescue / Recovery a lot easier by either moving to a location where they could be more easily extracted or from where they were under possible fire.

You could have had airborne intel permanently over the sight with real time video feed, airborne fire power in terms of UAV's / Apache / C130 / F18 depending on the level of precision required.

And then the need for Helo's to actually conduct the extraction and possibly to put a few boots on the ground beforehand as well for all round protection.

Now back to the women and children. If someone opens up on you, well are they not fair game ?

I am still surprised that the US did not go in to at least attempt to get them all out.

.

[falconeasydriver]

The more this gets opened up the better IMHO, that being said the stink on this thread appears to be if the ambassador and his protection detail were hung out to dry.
Politicians will ALWAYS err on the side of self preservation, including ideals as much as themselves.
To me this is nothing more than a decision to sacrifice the ambassador and his detail as the lesser of two evils, the real issue is how aware we're the authorities of the threat before this happened, and what steps might of/should have been taken.

[glojo]

Hi 500N
I would like to hear how those trapped in that consulate could be safely secreted away from that location to an area where there were absolutely no civilians that could become casualties.

It is easy to assume the cards will fall in your favour but we have all been around the block several times and how many pictures have we seen where innocent folks were accidentally killed.

A consulate is surrounded by a huge number of demonstrators.

A small number within that large crowd are manipulating them and possibly killing those trapped within the surrounded property.

A C-130 Gunship is called in along with helicopter borne assault troops.

How do you insert these troops without the innocent demonstrators who are simply protesting against a film that they feel insults their religion.

My 'mowing down of the women and children might be OTT but they will be in that crowd that have a legitimate reason for making their protest and as I said previously you can be sure that within that crowd their will be photographers that are looking for more stories to show the US in a bad light.

I keep asking about how the US would deal with the ramifications of this extraction mission but so far it has not got any response.

Now you already had 2 very well trained people on the ground who could
have made any Raid / Rescue / Recovery a lot easier by either moving to a location where they could be more easily extracted or from where they were under possible fire. Has there been any successful raid similar to what you describe?

I can think of the laughable rescue of the nurse that was freed from a hospital during the war in Iraq and then the Bin Laden operation where there was only one very lightly armed person facing the assault troops. I am NOT critical of that well executed plan but does it compare to the raid on Entebbe or even the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London? Those two missions were well planned and well executed.

Would this assault have been so well planned?

Did anyone know if this could have been the bait to entice in a few US helicopters?

Could there have been terrorists on the ground armed with surface to air missiles just waiting for Rambo to come over the horizon?

An ill planned operation would play right into the hands of the Taliban and whilst it is easy for us arm chair quarter backs to dismiss my questions, they need to be considered and just two people on the ground are not going to give you the complete picture in two hours or even two days.

Look at what happened in Somalia... Some extremely brave soldiers died and for what?

Respect to those involved in that operation and hindsight is an obnoxious talent that makes people feel they know better than those that have to make real decisions in real time.

To criticise anyone who has to make the hard decisions is so easy from an armchair and even easier if we are not privy to all the facts.

Do folks seriously believe the recommendations by the Carrier Group Commander were simply dismissed by one person without them listening to their military advisers?

For those that criticise the way the Daily Mail presents the news then I thoroughly recommend they listen to Fox News for five minutes. A great comedy station but an unbias presenter of news it is NOT

[500N]

Glojo

Unless we have all the facts, it is hard to say.

You don't need SAM's to bring down a helo, RPG and 50 cal
are perfectly capable and they had RPG's as it is on the video.

The initial attack was 20 people.

Did the large number of demonstrators come later or before ?


Re moving them, use of the friendly militia to go in and get them ?

[ORAC]

To order those troops not to attempt a rescue must have been a decision that weighed heavily on the shoulders of whoever gave it If that's what happened, then well and good and the action can be justified.

But, on the record that's not what happened.

Obama is on record as saying that: “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”.........

So either Obama is lying, or someone in the chain of command disobeyed a diirect order from the Commander in Chief. Either, way, it must be known which is correct and no prolonged enquiry is required.

As with Watergate the issue has moved on from the incident to the cover-up.

[Heathrow Harry]

anyone remember 1993 and the battle of Mogadishu in Somalia - a Special Forces operation that went horribly wrong?

Trying to fight in built up areas without serious infantry back-up is not something you want to get into on the spur of the moment - might have lost a lot more men

[racedo]

Suggestions that Ambassador Stevens met with Turkish Diplomats earlier in the day and he was the conduit enabling Syrian Free Army / Al Qaeda getting tons and tons of Libyan weapons add more and more to the mess.

[Ronald Reagan]

What amazes me the most is that the west went in and removed Ghadaffi to save the people of this city! What a total waste of time that was. Ghadaffi was saying there were Al Qaeda in Benghazi and thats why his forces were attacking it. It does seem rather odd we are in the game of supporting Al Qaeda and other like minded groups and actually fighting their enemies for them. Said groups were probably delighted that the west removed Ghadaffi for them, certainly made their lives much easier. Now said groups hope we can remove Assad for them in Syria. If this was a plot for a tv show people would not watch it as they would say its to stupid to be real!

[glojo]

Glojo

Unless we have all the facts, it is hard to say.

You don't need SAM's to bring down a helo, RPG and 50 cal
are perfectly capable and they had RPG's as it is on the video.

The initial attack was 20 people.

Did the large number of demonstrators come later or before ?


Re moving them, use of the friendly militia to go in and get them ?

Hi,
Unfortunately in some parts of the World Al Jazeera News is as popular as a pork chop in a Synagogue, but for a fairly balanced coverage I find it to be very informative. I guess it might have a slight anti Western bias but we should remember how it has been banned from entering a number of Middle eastern countries because of its anti Radical stance. This station managed to film some of the demonstration and there were quite literally thousands of demonstrators and by thousands, I do mean just that.

I think the 20 number might have been those that were actively involved in the murder of the US staff at that consulate as opposed to the thousands of demonstrators that were protesting against the film.

It is now accepted by the West that the film protesters were not involved in that assault, the operation was pre planned and as you correctly point out:

You don't need SAM's to bring down a helo, RPG and 50 cal
are perfectly capable and they had RPG's as it is on the video.

I am NOT going to discuss the dangers involved in bringing troops into an urban area via helicopter as SASLess is someone whose observations I hold in the highest of regard and would be hover over a hostile built up area where the threat is not known? Decisions had to be made on the hoof and as I keep saying, we are not privy to what may, or may not have been said but to suggest this decision was made WITHOUT the input of those best qualified to advise your Commander in Chief just does not make sense! I know you folks are having your Presidential elections this month but surely this issue is far too serious to play politics with?

If the senior military advisers to the Commander in Chief gave advice which was ignored and those lives were lost as a direct result then surely the honourable thing for them is to resign!! That way the public would be able to read the resignation letter which no doubt would avoid any embarrassing or contentious remarks but the letter would still speak VERY LOUD and VERY CLEAR.

[SASless]

Folks....especially the Chattering Class that suggest the "right" course of action was taken by Obama/Dempsey/Ham and others NOT in Benghazi that night....listen up.

The American Embassy in Tripoli sent a small group of Security Operators to Benghazi. They reinforced some CIA operators already in Benghazi. The CIA and for a while the State Department folks in Benghazi were in direct contact with Tripoli and Washington. Other major Combatant Commands were linked to those communications. The CIA and State Department folks were being assisted by local Militia elements that had firearms and ground transportation.

Two former SEALs and other former SpecOps troops were among the CIA and State Department Security Operators in the Tripoli and Benghazi Detachments. One of the former SEALs was spotting targets using a Laser and was in direct communication with someone that was RECORDING his radio transmissions.

There was at least one....maybe two Drones overhead....one is assumed to have been armed with Hellfire Missiles. The Contingency Plan called for use of AC-130 Spectre gunships based at Sigonella, Italy. The SEAL spotting the targets with the Laser was heard to ask "Where's the ******* Spectre?".

The Tripoli Detachment landed at the Benghazi Airport and was transported by the local militia in ground vehicles to the CIA Annex in Benghazi.

This was a Terrorist Attack.....this was not Mogadishu where very large portions of the population were part of the local Warlords Army which was hostile to the US Forces. In fact....a fair proportion of the Benghazi population are quite friendly to the US presence.

The abject failure of the Obama Administration to adequately assist the Americans under attack in Benghazi cannot be denied, mitigated, excused or over looked. I don't care how you spin it, deny it, or try to ignore it....when Military force is available....we should use it to defend fellow Americans who are under armed attack by Terrorists.

We have a solemn duty to put our own selves at risk to protect our own.

Listen to this short video.....an informal speech by a Fighter Pilot named Ritchie.

Brig. Gen. Steve Ritchie and the Rescue of Roger Locher - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QvRcP4go-eg)


You may remember a film called "Bat 21" based upon this story. Don't tell me we do not place a high value upon saving our fellows who are in great danger? I wonder how our Senior Military Commanders have gotten to the point they will quietly turn their backs on their own as happened in Benghazi? How can anyone wearing the Uniform stand in front of a mirror having made such a decision?

I suggest there should have been some Stars thrown on some desks that night....and some Politicians be told to find someone else to carry out the order to "Stand Down"...."Observe, Film, and Listen" but do nothing to assist the guys under attack. When do we just simply write off 30 of our fellow Americans?



BAT 21 (http://www.vnafmamn.com/bat21.html)

[Dak Man]

LiveLeak.com - Interview with General Wesley Clark Pentagon hit list/Iran/Iraq and more!

[LT Selfridge]

Mr Stevens, with his Libyan experience was in the country to coordinate our support for one of the weapons we used to defeat Qaddafi (Al Qaeda).

Logically, as the man on the spot after Q's fall, Mr Stevens became Ambassador.

He was killed by the people we supported (Al Qaeda).

It's an embarrassment which needs to be 'managed'

These (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lRBl11SRtUk&bpctr=1351781629) people aren't trying to rescue Ambassador Stevens.

Our weapon: The Database (http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database/24738)

[500N]

"The Tripoli Detachment landed at the Benghazi Airport and was transported by the local militia in ground vehicles to the CIA Annex in Benghazi."



Glojo

I knew that the local militia had been used but couldn't find a reference
so didn't include it. SaSless has so now I will include it.

The place was attacked by 20 people.

How big is the US friendly militia in Benghazi ? Thousands.

Why didn't they use them to go back and get them out. I saw a reference to it once but can't find it again but no need for US boots on the ground if you have friendlies already there.


The least they could have done is have air assets available and in the air
so that if and when required they could be called on at short notice.

Anyway, I've said my piece and plenty of other examples of rescues have been provided - I'll add the F117 Pilot's rescue in Europe.

[ORAC]

Quote of the day: "This is as bad as Watergate…[but] nobody died in Watergate.”

[The Sultan]

Orac/Sas

This article shows you are so full of s and brings into question if you ever served in actual combat. No one can launch cross nation action in 1- 2 hours. A senior general said the heavy fist force was 24 hours out.

The response of the govt protected lives after a sucker punch. Some of those do get through. Face facts the lives lost, while extremely tragic, equates to the results of one daily HUMMER load road side bomb in Iraq after mission accomplished was declared.

Currently Libya is not an enemy, so it would be bad form to "nuke" a city for political cover. Leaders do not do that, Chickenhawks do.

Sas: You never saw hero's lost in an ambush? Did you ever not get there in time, and you probably never went more than 100 miles? Unlike Vietnam, Libya is not lost. If it is eventually, it is 100000 times cheaper than the failure in Vietnam and 10000 times cheaper than Iraq.

The SultanCIA rushed to save diplomats as Libya attack was underway - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-rushed-to-save-diplomats-as-libya-attack-was-underway/2012/11/01/c93a4f96-246d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html)

[West Coast]

I don't know if a heavy fist force was necessary.

[Toadstool]

CIA confirms role in US consulate attack in Benghazi - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9650199/CIA-confirms-role-in-US-consulate-attack-in-Benghazi.html)

Although this is probably a rehash of the Washington Post article, it suggests that things were not as simple as it seemed. You can't just cherry pick all the perceived wrong doings by a Democrat Commander in chief. I haven't got the time or space to do the same thing with the last Republican President.

[Heathrow Harry]

"We have a solemn duty to put our own selves at risk to protect our own."

regretfully the President of the United States has to look at a much, much bigger picture

that's why he's there and that's why he is charge of the military

[Ronald Reagan]

If the most powerful military in the world was powerless to do anything considering all the resources in the region then its a poor state of affairs. I would imagine the failing is of more of a political nature than a military one though.
Why the hell was something like this not anticipated! We all knew the nature of some in Benghazi before the war even began. Why the hell was the Ambassadors security not far more comprehensive!
Personally I think the whole Afghan war was a waste of time and money from day one and we should have left Ghadaffi in charge. If we had then this incident would likely never have happend.
We must stop playing games in other peoples nations thinking we know best.

[air pig]

Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences applies. Remove or help to remove a dictator in particular in the Middle East, this is what you get, a power vacuum, and disorder. Sometimes a country needs a strong foot on the throat of the population to maintain relative peace. Iraq and Yugoslavia were cases in point.

[SASless]

The Chattering Chavs are back.....and I wonder how their perspective would change if it were Brits instead of Americans.....and more specifically if it were their sweet tushes that were hanging out that night while their PM pondered his tea leaves over what decision should be made?

[Heathrow Harry]

I think we all know that if you serve in the forces there is always the risk that you may "cut adrift" if suits those further up the ladder

[racedo]

The Chattering Chavs are back.....and I wonder how their perspective would change if it were Brits instead of Americans.....and more specifically if it were their sweet tushes that were hanging out that night while their PM pondered his tea leaves over what decision should be made?

Agree

When you leave diplomats hanging you send a message to others that if the TSHTF you are on your own.

If the supposedly pro US militia in Benghazi was around then nothing to stop using them and providing some close air support "if requested", after all isn't this what was happening last year.

Seems strange that you allow a situation continue for hours on the ground without using your allies...........unless they involved anyway.

[racedo]

I think we all know that if you serve in the forces there is always the risk that you may "cut adrift" if suits those further up the ladder

Yes but now you are telling it to diplomatic staff.

[JohnDixson]

SAS,

Your ( longer ) post is on point.

Does it seem oddly coincidental that a Sr Army General and a USN Strike Force Commander get new jobs shortly after the event?

John

[SASless]

John,

General Ham was or should have been directly involved.....the Admiral was on the Stennis in the Persian Gulf which is Fifth Fleet Water. Perhaps I might get my ruler out and actually measure the distance from a point south of Hormuz to Benghazi....but it would seem a long way away for any Air/Ground reaction as compared to Sigonella in Italy.

I wonder if there was a Carrier in the Med which is Sixth Fleet water?

We have two Carriers in the Persian Gulf now....the Stennis deployed early due to tension with Iran.

[air pig]

The Chattering Chavs are back.....and I wonder how their perspective would change if it were Brits instead of Americans.....and more specifically if it were their sweet tushes that were hanging out that night while their PM pondered his tea leaves over what decision should be made?

My comments were, if you are referring to my post, are not a comment on any or all decisions which may or may not have been made by the US military chain of command or by the President, merely a comment on the Middle East situation and with many dictators around the world when they are removed you may create a bigger problem.

RiP to the guys who have been lost and condolences to their families.

[JohnDixson]

SAS, yes the USN Admiral is a separate issue. So, only the Army General reassignment is curious.

Some of the postings on this issue brought to mind the use of the code word, " Broken Arrow " by Lt Col Moore, and I got the impression that some people do not, amazingly, agree with the concept that if an American unit is in trouble, everyone capable drops their whatever and gets after it. Perhaps I misread.

John

[lj101]

From The Times online today

An American special operations team and two teams of anti-terrorist Marines were ordered to fly to the rescue of diplomatic staff and CIA officers in Benghazi on the night the US Ambassador was killed, The Times has been told. But by the time they were ready to move it was too late.
Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary, was at the White House with President Obama when the attack on the US consulate by armed militants began on September 11. He returned to the Pentagon for a meeting with General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Carter Ham, commander of Africa Command, who was in Washington.
They agreed that the Americans in Benghazi needed military help. Under Mr Panetta’s orders, a special operations team on a training mission in Europe was alerted “to drop everything” and fly to Sigonella in Sicily, a staging-post before heading for Benghazi, a US official told The Times.
Two platoons of US Marines serving as Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams in the Spanish naval base of Rota were also ordered to prepare for a rescue mission in Benghazi.
The decision to send in rescue teams contradicts reports that have emerged over the past week claiming that an appeal for military help by paramilitary CIA officers under fire in Benghazi was denied. Republican politicians seized on the reports to demand an explanation from President Obama.
It has been rumoured in blogs this week that General Ham was so upset to be told that military aid was denied that he disobeyed orders and authorised a special operations rescue. As a result he was allegedly relieved of his command.
A Pentagon spokesman said that these claims were “false, false, false”. The official said that General Ham was authorised by Mr Panetta to organise a rescue team and signals were sent immediately to the special operations team in Europe and the Marines in Rota to get ready for battle.
The attack in Benghazi began at about 9.45pm and lasted around seven hours. Militants moved from the burnt-out consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, another diplomat, died to a CIA annexe a mile away. The militants knew of the annexe and a full-scale attack began, lasting several hours. Two former US Navy Seals died. While the violence raged the rescue teams were making preparations to intervene. However, the special operations team took several hours to reach Sigonella, and by that time “it was all over”, the official said.
The Marines were too late but one of the platoons still flew to Libya. The mission changed to providing security for the US embassy in Tripoli. Mr Panetta said last Thursday that it was risky to send military “into harm’s way” without having a full picture of what was going on — a remark that may have helped to generate some of the speculative reports that military aid had been denied.
The official confirmed that an unarmed surveillance drone operating in Libya at the time of the attack had to be redirected to Benghazi. By the time it got there it was running out of fuel and had to be replaced by another drone, also unarmed. So there was no continuous “real-time” imagery flowing back to the Pentagon to give Mr Panetta, General Dempsey and General Ham a clear view of what was happening.
General Ham, 60, indicated to the Pentagon in June that he wished to retire for personal reasons. His proposed successor is General David Rodriguez.




IMHO Obama is going to win again......anyone fancy a bet on it?

[SASless]

Obama may escape....but he will not "win" on Tuesday!

[glad rag]

All this posturing just highlights how "bust" the American political system has become.:(

[ORAC]

Two things wrong with that report, lj101, firstly it states that Panetta ordered in troops and secondly that General Ham was there and received and actioned the orders.

The first is contradicted by Panetta, the second by General Ham. Which sort of demolished the whole account.

Washington Times: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/)

........The questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e4W1LDSs5X4#!) during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned (http://news.yahoo.com/video/benghazi-failure-could-happen-025127759.html) Mr. Chaffetz's account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta's statement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/email-state-department-told-white-house-militants-claimed-responsibility-for-libya-attack/2012/10/24/0814f79c-1e39-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html) that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. "General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways," Mr. Bolton concluded. "Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh."

[lj101]

I'll let The Times know; you can't trust anyone nowadays.

[SASless]

It will ultimately wind up being political football where points are scored but no one is taken to Court for things like Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and related charges.

The fall back position is the order was to do whatever was possible....move the troops into position, ready aircraft, but do not pull any triggers real or literally witout the President's Approval. By the time it got staffed, planned, implemented, and reported BACK UP the chain....the situation was overtaken by events and thus there was no need to order the Troops and Aircraft to the Rescue.....with a short snide...."There! See! We did everything we could do!"

Of course the Obama regime will never answer questions about the before and after of the attack.....as both of those would skewer them on their very own Lance.

This Administration....and President has never....never.....never.....accepted responsibility or blame for anything that could remotely be seen as "negative", "bad", or "wrong". Why should they start now?

The Republicans don't have the Balls to play hard ball in Congress over these things as they think it will keep the Democrats from doing so to them in future administrations (though they are absolutely wrong in that).....and the Main Stream Media is already seen to be spiking the story along with so many other stories.

The American People have a perfect opportunity to respond to the Obama Regime on Tuesday.....by voting his ass out of office. He will get the message then!

[The Sultan]

ORAC

John Bolton has no credibility in the world of rationale people. Hell he makes Sara Palin look like an informed foreign policy expert.

Any war fighter knows unless you are literally across the street mounting an op in minutes is not possible. Everything was done and the response limited the casualties to an unfortunate four individuals. This loss was ten percent of the people in harms way so the response team did well.

One of the leaders of the attack has already been dealt with. Other retribution is coming. Unlike Shrub President Obama keeps his promises to hunt our enemies down.

The Sultan

[ORAC]

Sultan, the links are to the original statements, Bolton's credibility is irrelevant. Or are you saying Ham lied to the Congressman and Panetta lied to the Senate committee?

[West Coast]

Sultan

Sometimes it helps to have a baseline. You speak for all warfighters when you say "any warfighter". If you're speaking for me, could I at least know the background you come from?

Thanks

[SASless]

I guess the Brits were in Benghazi and are miffed they did not get a call to assist the American Consulate during the attack.

Odd....I thought War Horses ride to the sound of the Guns?


Exclusive: Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/exclusive-security-officials-on-ground-in-libya-challenge-cia-account/?test=latestnews)

[FOG]

Sultan,

Had some down time and notice your BS. The USMC routinely has units on less than 1 hour notice. There were both a FAST company and a 130 Force Recon detachment “training” on Sigonella. There is no training outside of eyeball liberty and 16 ounce curls in Sicily for these units. To move either requires approval from two different chains of command and are briefed at the secretarial level. The FAST unit is HQ’d in Rota but had moved forces to Sig along with the FR Marines.

The non-existent U.S. Army unit has still a different chain of command.

Either quite a few different chains of command were being extraordinarily wasteful in moving high value/low density forces to places with little training opportunity or they had a pretty good clue as to something about to happen. That something consisting of information coming up through the Intel side and out into the military channels spanning three continents.

I cannot speak for others but I have seen friends killed in helos, and fixed wing, and on the ground in combat.

Take a look at google maps, just South are good places for either HLZ or DZ. The non-existent U.S. Army unit and FR are jump capable while the FAST company is not jump capable.

Cruise speed of a CH-53E (HC-4 based on Sig) is approximately 165KTAS, -130 300KTAS, and higher for a C-17. All are faster, carry more, etc. than the DC-3 used to get from Tripoli.

Quite doable in any number of different ways using a combination of some pretty well trained forces, at least two of which were orientated on Benghazi.

West Coast,

Sultan does not speak for or like any war fighter I know, regardless of uniform.

S/F, FOG

[SASless]

The closest Sultan has come to Military Service is handing out hamburgers at Window Two as Real Warriors drive through for lunch.

[SASless]

So....the Obama Administration boycotts the largest Cable News Network....but briefs the Obama bought media.....how's that for transparency folks?

The Drones overlooking the Libyan Chemical sites not far from Benghazi are allowed to be Armed by mutual agreement.....yet no Armed Drone found its way to the Consulate despite the CIA guys having Ground Lasers and kept asking where the Air Support was?

I guess the Obama Regime wants us to believe that line of ****?


What laser capability did Benghazi team have? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/what-laser-capability-did-benghazi-team-have/)

[Blue Bottle]

A bit more news on this...
"Rogue" U.S. General Carter Ham Arrested for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down Order (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rogue-u-s-general-arrested-for-activating-special-forces-teams-ignoring-libya-stand-down-order_102012)

[SASless]

That is old news....new testimony coming up with General Petraeus and General Clapper along with one other Administration Intelligence type testifying.

Why the Republicans done't get their thumb out and call Clinton, Panetta, Dempsey, Rice, and Ham as well....defeats me. They should have done that within two weeks of the attack and BEFORE the election.

[melmothtw]

SASless.

You say:

It will ultimately wind up being political football where points are scored

And in the very same post just a few lines further on you continue:

Of course the Obama regime will never answer questions about the before and after of the attack.....as both of those would skewer them on their very own Lance.


adding...

This Administration....and President has never....never.....never.....accepted responsibility or blame for anything that could remotely be seen as "negative", "bad", or "wrong". Why should they start now?



What was it you said about political footballs and points scoring?

The American People have a perfect opportunity to respond to the Obama Regime on Tuesday.....by voting his ass out of office. He will get the message then!


The American people have spoken, but it seems that you're the one who hasn't got the message.

[SASless]

Mel.....the Media did not allow Libya to become an issue...they have spiked the story. The debates had some mention of it but as you well recall Candy Crowley, despite being the Moderator of the debate, injected herself into the debate and sided (quite wrongly both on the rules and factually) with Obama thus effectively negating Romney's very accurate comments on the matter. She later admitted being wrong on her facts but the Media made no real mention of that and thus Obama was assisted in dodging what could have been a very serious wound.

Obama, Clinton, Rice, Panetta, Dempsey, and Carney shall not be confronted with legal liabilities and the upcoming Congressional Hearings will only result in two things.....one showing how inept and sad the Obama Administration acted before, during, and after re the Attack on the Consulate. The Media will call it a Partisan attack by the Republicans who are seeking poltical gain over a non-issue.

The only thing I missed was the gullibility of the majority of the American electorate. I am now happily sat on the street curb and will watch the Democrats Parade to destruction. Their policies can only lead to that....as they say.....it is simple math. At some point they will spend money they do not have to the point even the Golden Goose goes bankrupt. Maybe out of the ashes will rise a society of young folks that for once fully grasp the reality that Government is not the answer but the problem. Hopefully, I will live to see that before I cash in my chips.....assuming I have any left to cash in...and there is someone with enough money left to pay me for them.

[Rosevidney1]

"When people learn they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."
--Benjamin Franklin

A voice from the pages of history rather agrees with SASless, it would seem.

[SASless]

Patreaus just resigned.....over an extra-marital affair supposedly.

He was to testify before Congress next week.

One down.....some more to go!

[PBY]

Hi guys,
just a theory. What if US is supplying Al-kaida with guns to help the insurgents.
The guns go through US embassy. Ambassador after a while has enough of this bull**** and he needs to be silenced. To withdraw help is the best way to assasinate. I know, that it sounds like a "conspiracy" and anything what sounds like a conspiracy is automatically not true in the eyes of most north american people, because that is the way they are programmed to think.
Just trying to think why they did not give the ambassador the help in time. I smell politics.
The only advantage of growing up in communist country is that you learned to read between the lines. But am I sure about what I am saying? No. Am I allowed to speculate? By all means. Something smells fishy.

[SASless]

As they say...."The Fish rots from the Head!"

[ORAC]

The Corner: Down from Olympus (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333145/down-olympus-victor-davis-hanson)

.......We were beginning to sense that the crime of Benghazi (not listening to pre-attack requests for increased security; not sending help immediately from the annex to the besieged consulate; not rushing in additional military forces during the hours-long attack) and the cover-up (inventing the video narrative of a spontaneous demonstration gone wild to support a pre-election administration narrative of an impotent al-Qaeda, a successful Libya, a positive Arab Spring, and a cool, competent Commander in Chief, slayer of bin Laden, and architect of momentous Middle East change) were not the entire story of the 9/11/2012 attack: Why was there a consulate at all in Benghazi, given that most nations have shut down their main embassies in Tripoli? Why was there such a large CIA contingent nearby — what were they doing and why and for whom? Why did the ambassador think he needed more security when so many CIA operatives were stationed just minutes away? What was the exact security relationship between the annex and the consulate, and why the apparent quiet about it? Who exactly were the terrorist hit-teams, and did they have a particular agenda, and, if so, what and for whom? All these questions had not been answered and probably would have been raised during the scheduled Petraeus testimony — which is apparently now canceled, but why that is so, no one quite knows. And if Hillary Clinton departs, and perhaps Susan Rice and James Clapper as well, then the principals of the decision-making chain leave with more questions raised than answered. We are sort of back to a Watergate-like timeline of a scandal raised but not explored in a first term, only to blow up in the second......

[SASless]

No reason they still can not be called before Congress to explain their actions, decisions, and tell what they know. By the way....just where is Hillary Clinton....is she still at the Woman's Fair in Argentina?

[racedo]

Patreaus just resigned.....over an extra-marital affair supposedly.

He was to testify before Congress next week.

One down.....some more to go!

SAS

Don't you believe in mere conincidences !!!!!!

That was a rhetorical as I don't either at that level of Government.

[Two's in]

This stuff makes a really good hat. I hardly hear the voices at all when I use this...

http://www.baco.co.uk/images/products/01352-BacoFoil-300mm-x-5m-Extra-Thick-front-rd.jpg

[Robert Cooper]

According to the FBI, the affair was discovered earlier this year soon after the FBI began monitoring his email. This raises a very serious question. Who authorized the FBI to monitor the e-mail of the Director of the CIA? His communications would, by their very nature, be one of the nation's closest guarded secrets
That cannot have been a decision made by a junior staffer at DOJ. I doubt that even the Director of the FBI could authorize the surveillance of a critical member of America's national security team. Is this a decision Eric Holder can make? Or, does it come under the exclusive purview of the White House?
If the investigation began in the spring, why did the Bureau sit for so long on the revelations about the affair?
We can only hope that this resignation is the result of an attempted blackmail scheme to keep him quiet, and he, being a flawed man, but still a man of principle, resigned and made it public himself so he could speak freely in the future. If he does not speak of what he knows of Benghazi, we can assume they have more with which to force his silence.

Bob C

[500N]

Robert

That was mentioned by the US media as well.

How can the FBI investigate the head of the CIA
and the President not know about it ?

[SASless]

Before the FBI would conduct such an investigation....the Director would for sure brief the President. That presupposes this President will even talk to the Director. Some Presidents give the Director a regular meeting, along with other important officials like the CIA Director and of late the DNI.

The FBI would have primary jurisdiction if the compromise was thought to be domestic only....and the CIA would have secondary authority.

Please to remember the CIA Counter Espionage folks and the FBI guys have a very tenuous relationship. Think back to Aldrich Ames closely followed by the FBI's Hanson case. Both were major disasters for each agency.

Throw in the NSA and some other half dozen outfits and the turf wars are monumental.

[sevenstrokeroll]

one good thing about america, we can say anything we want ('cept fire in a crowded theatere).

but something is mighty funny, and our commander in chief might be COOL, but only like fonzie...not like cool calm and collected

[SASless]

The story gets worse if the rumours are remotely close. FBI sources report the E-mail scanning by the FBI started over a suspicion of possible fraud in Afghanistan that caused them to monitor the Emails. They say during that monitoring....the illicit affair was discovered. The decision to ask for the Resignation was made months ago and the FBI is upset the actual announcement of the Resignation took so long due to the election as it was feared there was a possibility of compromise of classified material as Petraeous was seen to be a target for compromise during that period.

Now a question.....did the White House sit on this knowledge and only use it post Benghazi to keep the CIA Director from talking about what happened before, during, and after the Attack?

We are talking Chicago Politics here folks....you always hold Aces in your pocket until you need them.

Also....Hillary has a scheduling conflict that keeps her from being able to testify as requested by Congress. Funny how that happened .....purely a coincidence is it not?

[M609]

As far as I can piece together from media......

Paula Broadwell harrassed some 3rd person for months via email. 3rd person gets the cops involved, FBI investigate, get access to Paula Broadwells email, where they find emails to/from David Petraeus with very personal content.

How is that going after David Petraeus?

[SASless]

A]n FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. …

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman.

Believe any source you wish.....

[Lonewolf_50]

Holly Patraeus, dissed. Way to go, General P, you just humiliated your one and only (thirty years, more?) who you took a vow to love and cherish until death do you part.

Come on, man. :mad:

[Dak Man]

It has all the hallmarks of the put down of a coup to me, head of the CIA, and a dozen or so (Romney supporting) Top Brass summarily kicked out or embarrassed into resignation......

[500N]

A coup ? Might be going a bit far.

More likely just ignoring Obama's wishes or the military / CIA starting to do
own things without his consent and decided to clean out the lot while
he had the chance ?

[glojo]

May I suggest that those responsible for planning this ill thought out attack were either incapable of thinking about the bigger picture, or were not interested in any ramifications and would not listen to reason?

[Heathrow Harry]

from here it look like an old feud inside the Army and the usual problems between the CIA & FBI...........

[SASless]

Mr. Gowdy has his say.


MUST SEE: South Carolina Rep. Gives Most Passionate Rant on Benghazi Independent Journal Review (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/11/22964-must-see-south-carolina-rep-gives-most-passionate-rant-on-benghazi/)

[SASless]

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.
Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.
That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.
On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.
How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.
Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.
Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.
Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.
But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.
The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understandingBenghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.
We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.
When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.
Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.
General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.


Now Hillary Clinton conveniently takes a tumble....claims a Concussion and thus just cannot possibly testify before Congress about Benghazi.

The State Department Report absolutely blasts the State Department of which she is the Secretary and thus responsible for its operations....but no mention is made about that small fact. No one gets fired.....some resign....to take new jobs elsewhere in the government probably.

Obama nominates John (Who served in Vietnam you may recall) Kerry to replace Clinton.

You may recall Kerry falesly accused US Soldiers and Marines of War Crimes back during the Vietnam years when he was giving assistance to the North Vietnamese who were still fighting a War with us.

Of late.....we might as well have Mad Bob at the Helm of State in my country.....damn sure not a lot of difference in what is going on.

[Toadstool]

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BENGHAZI_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-14-03-09-37)

It appears that this CIA BENGHAZI TEAM CLASH LED TO 'STAND DOWN' REPORT may have contributed to the death of those in the embassy.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Kerry falesly accused US Soldiers and Marines of War Crimes back during the Vietnam years"

My Lai anyone...........................

[SASless]

Harry.....you conveniently over look John (who served in Vietnam you may recall) Kerry and the Winter Soldier Project and his testimony before Congress which was a load of horse ****. You probably also ignore his Treasonous Acts in Paris and subsequent support of the North Vietnamese all the while being a Naval Officer.

As you routinely trumpet anti-American and Progressive drivel....that comes as absolutely no surprise.

Kerry has no Honor....violated his Oath as a Naval Officer....gave aid and support to the Enemy....and in a decent World would have been stood against a Wall and been shot for his crimes. He was not.

That he committed Perjury when testifying under Oath before Congress....he should have been tried for that in Federal Court and sentenced to a lengthy period of time in a Federal Prison. He was not.

That he was not prosecuted does not mitigate or lessen the seriousness of his Crimes or Actions.

That he is yet to disclose ALL of his Military Records is proof he did not serve in an Honorable manner and it was only through Political Connections that he was able to cover up adverse action taken against him by the Navy.

My Lai happened....the Army, including Colin Powell, tried to cover it up. They failed in that due to other Soldiers both stopping the killing and reporting it up the Chain of Command. When it was investigated by General Peers....the whole sordid truth was laid out and criminal prosecutions of some lower ranking participants took place. Those Senior Officers who covered it up....were not prosecuted for their crimes. Colin Powell went on to have a very successful career in the Military and Federal Civilian Service.

That My Lai occurred does not grant Kerry absolution for his lies, false testimony, and generally treacherous conduct.....even if he is a Progressive and Democrat.

Nothing you can say will alter that situation either.....as you will only offer up mythical information to paint Kerry in colors other than his true colors which are Yellow....and Red.

[500N]

With military people, generally they stay pretty quiet about things that went on,
unless you are a Walt or like Kerry is said to have done, turned on his own.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire so in my mind,
where Kerry is concerned, so many people came out that
has to be some truth to it.

As for Benghazi, well, the truth will come out eventually.

[500N]

SaSless

That is a very interesting piece by the US Navy SEAL Officer.


Can anyone answer these

Didn't General Ham and an Admiral get relieved over something to do with
Benghazi ?

Anyone know what it was and what happened to them ?

[Heathrow Harry]

"does not grant Kerry absolution for his lies, false testimony, and generally treacherous conduct.."

Funny that such a died in the wool commie has three Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star for bravery in action in Vietnam

maybe he actually knew what he was talking about SAS???

[racedo]

Funny that such a died in the wool commie has three Purple Hearts & a Bronze Star for bravery in action in Vietnam


I think the subject of obtaining Purple Hearts was well documented and discussed during his run for President. Don't think it is something he would want to be jumping up and down with.

[SASless]

Harry......it is plain you sure don't know what you are talking about!

Kerry was and is an embarrassment for anyone who has served in Combat.

Three Purple Hearts....and not a single minute In-Hospital?

Think about it Harry.....how does one accomplish that?

I spent Six Weeks In Hospital and two months recuperating from my Wounds and it was the Army that issued the Purple Heart.....not me submitting my own name for the Award as in Kerry's awards.

Why is it....the only person I ever heard of taking the Three Hearts and Out was......John Kerry?

Only the Navy and Marine Corps has that option to begin with.

So don't play the Smart Ass when you don't know what you are talking about.

[SASless]

Lurch is such a Moron!


Kerry Makes ENORMOUS Gaffe - Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/17/kerry-makes-enormous-gaffe)

[500N]

SaSless

I was trying to work out what he (Harry) was getting at.

I thought he might have been saying it tongue in cheek at one stage
but the lack of smilies made me think not.

[Heathrow Harry]

I was - I find SASless a prime example of Florida Man

"A year-long analysis of Associated Press “strange news” stories found that Florida generated more of them, by far, than any other state (examples: “Man wearing sleeping bag as cape attempts robbery”; “Florida lotto winner seeks to open nude dude ranch”).":ooh::ooh:

[SASless]

Harry.....you must do more research before you post as it would save you much embarrassment.

Had you done so....you would not have made the gross error you just did.

But....then you never have concerned yourself with the facts when you post so no surprise there.

As you are so typical of most of your ilk....you have not stopped to think about a small State called California.....usually known as "The Land of Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts!"

Thus it would appear you don't have any grasp of Geography or anything else American?

So try again Harry.....offer something useful instead of trolling for a Sucker.

[awblain]

Are people really and seriously suggesting that guest military assets in a country can act freely, merely because of their geographical location?

The "cross border authority" is indeed an important concept, because its issue is a decision that takes the step from peace to war. However, say some F15s from RAF Mildenhall were to bomb Whitehall, that would be an act of war no different than if the aircraft had flown from Missouri to drop similar bombs.

When there's no functioning government, it might be a more flexible, but I don't think it's a big deal - opening fire in someone else's country when you're already there raises as many eyebrows as flying in to do so.

If you confine your violence to inside your embassies and consulates, then it's a different matter again, but again I don't see there's a major issue with whether the origin of that violence was flying from Sicily or somewhere out in the Sahara.

[SASless]

In the scheme of things....just what would the Libyan government been able to do....ask us to leave? Send their Air Force after us....dispatch their Navy....mobilize their Army...cut off Diplomatic Relations....file a protest at the UN Security Council.....hell...even Attack our Consulate maybe?

[West Coast]

Heathrow Harry

Just like Bloody Sunday huh? Cover ups for both.

[500N]

awblain

If forces are in country, wouldn't they have a status of forces agreement
that lays out what can and can't be done and under what situations and
under what authority ?

Also, US Marines protecting an embassy are protecting US soil,
not Libyan soil.

Re flying in, so does that mean the RAF / UK Gov't carried out an act of war
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?

[racedo]

Also, US Marines protecting an embassy are protecting US soil,
not Libyan soil.
Correct provided they remain in the environs of the Embassy. They can return fire when attacked. However if they fire without being fired upon then they pretty much lose diplomatic protection and any actions of host Govt in response could be classified as acceptable.
Diplomats will always caution military on any action that undermines Embassy.

Its why Libyan Embassy issue in UK was so protracted / complicated as there was no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate. Now had they mounted a machine gun just fired at people then they would have been an attack on UK.


Re flying in, so does that mean the RAF / UK Gov't carried out an act of war
on Libya when they flew an armed C-130 into the desert to rescue British citizens ?

If done so without the permission of host Govt then I believe it is tantamount to an act of war, however the nuances on whether it was armed or not can be difficult to prove.

[SASless]

Yeah right....given a choice of blaming some Terrorists or perhaps the UK Armed Police and SAS.....who would be able to decide who shot the Bobbie?:ugh:

[500N]

Racedo
"If done so without the permission of host Govt then I believe it is tantamount to an act of war, however the nuances on whether it was armed or not can be difficult to prove."
I would class C-130's with SAS/SF Troops on board as armed and considering
the SAS were in country with weapons picked up from the embassy, I would
say that permission was not granted and they were not out for an afternoon stroll.

"no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate."

BS of the highest order.

The Libyans were lucky to get out. A pity the SAS were not sent in to
"do the job" that should have been done juts like the Iranian embassy.

You never know, one day we might just get to the bottom of it.

"However if they fire without being fired upon then they pretty much lose diplomatic protection and any actions of host Govt in response could be classified as acceptable."

Of course, but that is why you have very clear ROE's and
you don't station hot headed dick heads in those roles.

[racedo]

"no clear conclusive proof that shot the killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher was fired from Consulate."

BS of the highest order.

The Libyans were lucky to get out. A pity the SAS were not sent in to
"do the job" that should have been done juts like the Iranian embassy.

You never know, one day we might just get to the bottom of it.

"However if they fire without being fired upon then they pretty much lose diplomatic protection and any actions of host Govt in response could be classified as acceptable."

Of course, but that is why you have very clear ROE's and
you don't station hot headed dick heads in those roles.

Pretty much nobody can say with enough evidence that will stand up in a court of law, even ballistic experts are unclear.

As for attacking the building.............you can't because like the oft claims of just go into Ecuador building and take Julian Assange. SAS go in and shoot lots of people then you allow ANY Govt to do exactly what occurred in Benghazi and in diplomacy then use precedence all the time.

Oonce you do it then Uk diplomatic missions overseas are fair game for any country and you have no fallback................would you really wish FSB to walk into Embassy in Moscow ?

[Toadstool]

Benghazi embassy attack was 'preventable,' US Senate report finds | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/benghazi-embassy-attack-preventable-us-senate-report)

Senate report out. While it criticises the US govt for some failings, it doesn't substantiate some of the claims made in this thread.

[Courtney Mil]

it doesn't substantiate some of the claims made in this thread.

I cannot believe that the Senate Select Committee has failed to address our claims. What are we? Some sort of rumour network?

[Toadstool]

CM you've shattered the illusion. :{

[MightyGem]

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi in cinemas now.

13 HOURS presents, for the first time ever, the true account of the events of September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked the US State Department Special Mission Compound and a nearby CIA station called the Annex in Benghazi, Libya. A team of six American security operators fought to repel the attackers and protect the Americans stationed there. Those men went beyond the call of duty, performing extraordinary acts of courage and heroism, to avert tragedy on a much larger scale. This is their personal account, never before told, of what happened during the thirteen hours of that now-infamous attack.

[racedo]

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi in cinemas now.

13 HOURS presents, for the first time ever, the true account of the events of September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked the US State Department Special Mission Compound and a nearby CIA station called the Annex in Benghazi, Libya. A team of six American security operators fought to repel the attackers and protect the Americans stationed there. Those men went beyond the call of duty, performing extraordinary acts of courage and heroism, to avert tragedy on a much larger scale. This is their personal account, never before told, of what happened during the thirteen hours of that now-infamous attack.

Its a movie................... don't expect truth, may get entertainment.

[Robert Cooper]

Actually, the movie is fairly accurate.

Greg Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.

Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who offered the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn’t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.

Later, when it became clear that Stevens was missing, the first concern was that he had been taken by terrorists. “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.” As this information was coming in, a “response team” from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport, one that Hicks thought might become involved in a “hostage rescue” operation, even as officials worried they were being “baited into a trap.”

Hicks then spoke of the mortars that landed on the compound shortly after a group of Americans fleeing the consulate arrived at the annex. The first mortar landed among a group of Libyans who had helped bring the Americans to safety. “The next was short,” he said. “The next three landed on the roof.”
Those were the mortars that killed Doherty and Woods.
Hicks was visibly choked up when he recounted learning about Stevens’ death from the Libyan prime minister. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said.

In one of the most stunning portions of the hearing, Hicks confirmed the chilling refusal of the Obama administration to send in readily available U.S. assets to stop the consulate slaughter. This order to “stand down” was given not once, but at least twice. Hicks also revealed that an explicit order from the chain of command prevented a four-man special forces rescue team in Tripoli from getting to the Americans trapped at the annex. He noted the order came from “either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA” and that the team was “furious” when they were told to stand down. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” said Hicks, referring to the officer on the receiving end of that command. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’

Bob C

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm confused

you say "That the witnesses ... reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi."

But "In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack."

So things changed very quickly, it was nighttime, it was hard to get clear information........ cockup certainly, "web of deceit" ..... a stick to beat Mrs C in an election year

[PersonFromPorlock]

So things changed very quickly, it was nighttime, it was hard to get clear information........ cockup certainly, "web of deceit" ..... a stick to beat Mrs C in an election year It was the transparent, provable, and extended lying about the origins of the attack that made the rest of the government's description of events non-credible. 'Web of deceit' isn't all that hyperbolic.

That said, I'm not at all sure we had any air support resources that could (in retrospect) have been generated and launched in time to do any good. But it appears that in real time there was no attempt to do so, even though we had no way of knowing for how long the assault would go on.

[FOG]

Aviano had the QRF for FRY. These were/are dedicated to the FRY mission and thus “unavailable” for other uses w/o political consent. There was also dedicated tanker support.

173 Abn (along with USAFE) is in Vicenza. Both report (boast) of the ability to launch either a Co. or Bn. to anywhere in the where within two hours.

USMC had KC-130s in Sigonella along with other assets.

USN had HC-4 in Sigonella (MC-53Es). Though not primary trained in vertical assault plenty of HLZs South of the compound.

Supposedly a USA SF Charlie (DA) was in FRY along with USAF crews able to respond.

If you listen to the released recordings one of the dead former NSW members is heard to be designating targets and requesting weapons release. It is not clear from the transmissions what platform or weapons were being talked about. For those that think this individual lost his head, was playing around like a teenager on a video game, etc. ask yourself what are the odds of someone of his background wasting time designating a target (mortars) and requesting weapons release without an armed platform of some sort being available?

S/F, FOG