CIA releases statement of timeline, There were no delays! Response within 25 Minutes!
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/01/38 … escue.html I found this link, just heard about it on the 11:00 news, They were NEVER told to stand down!
Didn't know we had any issues with Lybia. Is that a new country or female genitalia?
I hear crickets chirping. I wonder what that means. LOL
Oh Tammy, can't you see the truth?
It's a coverup!
Don't believe it this.
It's from THEM.
They're manufacturing a timeline to make themselves look better.
(You know I do not personally believe what I wrote above). Just setting the stage for the inevitable onslaught your post will bring.
Lol, I am just glad you got here first so we could celebrate, cheers
The CIA timeline provided is what we already knew. The "rescue team" were the personal security staff that was stationed there in Benghazi. They were not summoned from some distant land and dropped into the compound to extract the Ambassador.
The second group that came from Tripoli never made it to the compound and were a force of six.
A close read of the article does have a few minor contradictions in it and did not line up with the testimony of Charlene Lamb Assistant deputy director from the State Department who watched the entire incident from start to end. They are small and do not amount to much.
This is the statement that takes the cake"
"But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began."
A heighten state of alert means the US forces are locked loaded and ready to respond on a moments notice to a breaking incident anywhere in the world. Yet now they want us believe they were on a state of alert yet not ready to be alerted. Oy Vey
A 66 man team was there in less than 25 minutes impossible to believe another 6 would have made much difference it seems like a very big response.
My understanding would be to protect our own borders being that 9/11 happened on American soil...This article made it crystal clear there were never any orders to stand down, it it also very clear the confusion present in all of the middle east. I have been studying this a lot, and the more I study the less I Know...alliances are breaking and forming, Syria is taking the brunt, dueling muslims sects, a gas pipeline, many complex issues...it is truly hard to see who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, the lines are blurred...I do believe we are going to see some big changes in the Mideast.
I'm not a conspiracy coverup theorist on this.
But am scratching my head on two issues:
1. If help was there in 25 minutes, why did the ambassador and 3 others still get killed? If help was not too late, perhaps it was too little?
2. Why did it take all this time to come up with this narrative?
But, like every interaction with terrorists, it reinforces the fact that America will always be playing defense. We simply never know who or where "they" are and who or where or when they will strike next.
I guess the real positive news here is that we saw no strike on a severely weakened NYC during Superstorm Sandy.
We have embassies and diplomatic stations in dozens of dangerous countries, the embassy was attacked by 150 (!) heavily armed trained militia with anti aircraft weapons, rpgs, mortar support etc. 4 Americans being killed is not a shocking outcome when the attack is that massive nor does it indicate a failure it simply indicates a massive, well prepared attack.
I buy that, Josak.
Kinda wanted to hear the pushback arguments.
As I said, we are always going to be chasing them. That is the nature of terrorism.
Had the Benghazi protection force been 150 US, likely the number of terrorists brought to the mission would have been 250 or 400.
Do I read this post correctly ?
You are saying that the forces of a country attacking the compound of an occupying force are terrorists?
The US, on the back of the UK and France trash a country, get the head of that country humiliated and murdered on video - then you call the reistance to that occupation terrorism ?
The US is the terrorist in this instance whichever way you look at it.
Very definately an act of terrorism - but I guess the 'other' side are the wrong colour, race or religion and so must be terrorists huh ?
From the Washington Times:
"According to international law, the host country’s duty is to protect all of its foreign embassies. Embassy security personnel cannot fire upon a mob attacking their perimeters. Only if the walls are breached and the rioters are inside the compound, can an embassy defend itself. That is why it is a national shame for countries like Egypt, Libya and Yemen to be unwilling or unable to defend our embassies from rioters."
So as I read your argument, R1, the Benghazi attack was fully jusitified because the US should not have helped the Libyan rebels to get Ghadaffi (sp?) out.
If fact, the US has no right to even HAVE an embassy in Libya.
Not a position I have seen postured in the mainstream media or even here on HP.
Somehow, I can't imagine any scenario where the WH, the State Dept, or even the Republican Congresspeople who are hell bent on proving a cover up, will allow.
Just an uneducated guess.
The US has every right to put an embassy where it likes - and destroys countries to exercise those rights.
In countries where the legitimate government has been overthrown by 'freedom fighters', or terrorists, depending on which side you were on - I guess the standing army would not consider the terrorists to be legitimately in the country even if victorious at this point.
In Libya it can be added that although there is apparently a 'legitimate' government in the capital, the country is now divided into five or six tribal areas, most of whom do not support the changes, and some of whom are definatively enemies of the US.
In respect to countries protecting embassies, if the government is so lacking in power that it cannot protect an embassy, then why is the embassy there.
So you think 6 security personnel are adequate to protect the embassy in "hostile territory". Josak, you are so buying the Kool-aid.
Remember General Patraous comments when he said "He did not tell anyone in the CIA to stand down. Notice he did not nor has he ever said that no one said for the CIA to stand down.
The report used here is a timeline of what we already knew. The question is the CIA boys on the ground, that were there no a brought in rescue team, under fire requested help they were under fire. Certain people are spinning that to mean CIA only were requested for help. What about the military in the area, what about NATO? We could have had our military come from 3 different positions in the area, one could have been there in 1/2 hour the furthest one could have been there in 2 hours. What happened to them?
The story of not knowing what was going on and lack of intel is the most bogus story of all time. They had 3 sets of eyes on this, not to mention all those n Washington, and they watched it in real time. So please do not insult our intelligence Leon by saying you did not know.
Links. I see tons of claims and no proof which is all that there has been from the right since this happened, proof that the military were half an hour away because that sounds bogus as hell. There is no way that a CIA mission would have been jeopardized (which it was and was blown) to send help from 25 minutes away when the military were 30 minutes away and none of the reasoning makes any sense, the last thing Obama or anyone else in government wants is dead soldiers so not doing everything possible to help is again illogical.
Bogus claims with no proof which make no sense logically, that the best you've got?
It did not take long for others besides me to see the CIA timeline was not accurate. My suggestion to Washington is to keep their mouth shut on Benghazi, it is easier to deal with silence then to have to keep changing the story when you get caught putting out inaccurate information.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
Wow, I am so lost:) Care to fill me in because all the comments are making me dizzy and confused...I was concentrating on schoolwork this past two weeks...a bit behind I suppose...Whats going on? What CIA timeline? Whats up with Lybia again? I know that Obama sent some troops in without approval from Congress right? Isn't that what happened in Vietnaam? Who was sent in because if its the Marines I believe (and thats easy for me to contact my Marine buddy who will know for sure) that the president doesn't need approval from Congress to send them in. And if it wasn't them than I am truly beyond lost. The Marines I believe is the presidents troops so to speak but I could be off base.
The latest I read: is the mission was running arms to Syria as a secret cia operation, and no support because they didn't want to bring undo attention to the operation.
Well if it was the CIA, then wouldn't we not really know any of all the truth behind the situation? And I would assume that we wouldn't want to call attention to it...what makes it terroristic though? I don't have all the facts and I don't know that I agree with it all with the information I do have but I don't have any info as of yet to deem it terroristitic...but as I said, I don't have all the information I have to obviously get up to speed.
Somebody blows up your house and kills your kids - you are not at war, just doing your thing - is that terrorism ?
You secretly run guns into a neighbouring country - is that terrorism ?
It's almost like you're genuinely surprised by the fact that the U.S. could be running arms to rebels at all, much less middle eastern rebels fighting a regime supported by the Russians.
by Zipper3 years ago
She didn't know about requests for increased security. She had no answers for any of the questions other than what they are doing now to make it more safe. The Democrats praised her and the Republicans asked...
by Mike Russo3 months ago
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent...
by Quilligrapher3 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have...
by JaxsonRaine3 years ago
A couple of notes from the hearing so far.Several key witnesses who were actually in Libya at the time Benghazi was attacked were ordered by lawyers from the Secretary of State not to testify to Congress.Lt. Col....
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
U.S. Envoy to Libya Is Killed in AttackCAIRO — The United States ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three of his staff members in a fiery and furious attack on the American...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, the slow motion movie that is Benghazi-gate can now be sub-titled: "Sex,Lies,and Videotape."The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Sept 11 and the continuing ...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.