1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Benghazi Hearings

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by buzz_wiser©, Oct 22, 2015.

  1. ATL1

    ATL1 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    7,379
    Tyrant:
    "1
    a :an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

    b :a usurper of sovereignty
    2
    a :a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally

    b :one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power"

    And the masses are dumb.
     
  2. ATL1

    ATL1 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    7,379
    The Republicans have squandered this election with poor choices as candidates. The party has allowed itself to be hijacked by lunacy.

    I actually think there are some great policies ideas from the party but they need to decide who they are gonna allow run the show.
     
    GTNavyNuke likes this.
  3. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    Well Obama's refusal to follow certain laws, and usurp them with executive orders, kind of applies to the above.
     
    IronJacket7 likes this.
  4. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    Isn't this kind of the point of the whole primary process?
     
  5. awbuzz

    awbuzz Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,539
    Wonder if the movie 13 Hours will be down played by the HC machine...
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  6. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,984
    It's over a year old, but it seems that some aren't aware of this information

     
  7. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,984
  8. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    We left our people high and dry that night. Shameful moment for our country.
     
  9. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,230
    Oops, someone caught lying again.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...were-ready-to-move-night-of-benghazi-n2091105
     
  10. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    More junk from Judicial watch. I would never trust anything from them without a thorough check of the sources and context. They love to take a single quote and blow it out of context. That is what is happening here. Notice there is no document anywhere that says the force was told to stand down. In fact, the team was based in Germany, but was on a training mission in Croatia. It, along with a team from the US, was indeed dispatched to a staging base in Southern Italy.

    Judicial Watch just wants to show that because there is an emailing saying: "we have identified the forces that could move Benghazi. They are spooling up as we speak", it means that the force was ready to move to Benghazi, and because it did not arrive, it was told to stand down. That is simply not in evidence. The team based in Germany was on a training mission in Croatia when the attack happened. This team is know as CIF(Commander’s in-Extremis Force)-110, and is based in Stuttgart. Note the attack on the consulate started at 9:40pm and on the annex between 4-5am. Forces from Tripoli arrived on scene at 5am and evacuated at 6:30am.

    Note, the attack started at 9:40pm. Realize that the team from Tripoli didn't arrive at the annex until 5am. Note that even based on the email, if the forces were "spinning up" at 1:19am, they'd need to be at the annex in 3:41 in order to help with the annex attack. Based on all the additional evidence, it appears the force was sent to Southern Italy along with air assets and a team from the US. It appears they had dispatched the forces to Italy in order to deal with a hostage situation or the possibility of an additional attack on another embassy/facility. They appeared to have wanted to assemble a sizeable team. By 2:30am, Libyan security forces had taken control of the situation at the consulate and Ambassador's Steven's body had been taken to the hospital.

    Total time-frame is 9:40 - 6:30 That is 9 hours. How long do you think it would take to end a training mission, arrange transport back to base, re-equip and depart for a hostile location? In the middle of everything, a call is received at it appears order has been restored. Another team from the embassy is already en-route. It would make sense to send the force to a staging area to await further developments. Remember, the several embassies had been attacked that day and the Cairo embassy had been overrun. Imagine if all forces had been deployed to Benghazi and another attack occur ed somewhere else in the middle east?

    Again, from the Accountability Review Board, comprised of Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering as Chairman and Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman. Additional members were Catherine Bertini, Richard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner. Do you impugn their integrity?

    The report is available here

    This entire thing is based on bunch of unfounded implications and leaps in logic. 1. Just because a team is "spinning up" doesn't mean it can be at the Benghazi annex in 3:41. 2. The team was not told to stand down, it was indeed dispatched, but to Southern Italy instead of directly into a potentially hostile city. Remember, they had drones over the site and over a hundred attackers hit the consulate. The city was extremely unstable, with large formerly rebel militias vying for control. 3. There is no stand down order anywhere in this article. The force mentioned has been referenced numerous times.

    The only people lying here is Town Hall and JW.
     
  11. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,230
    Don't know Amb Pickering but I wouldn't trust "Midnight Mike" any farther than I could throw him. You familiar with Ms Bertini. if you were you probably wouldn't hold her up for scrutiny. Shinnick is a State hack and Turner know nothing about. He's probably a USAID bubba from the looks of the team.

    Where is General Ham? Why is he MIA and his testimony not available for scrutiny? It's obvious. He was the CINC, you know the guy who owned the CIF. Who in their right mind in a heightened state of alert sends their CIF on a training mission??!! Nobody. Even if you were that idiotic you'd have a back up.

    First step in the road to recovery is recognizing you have a problem. some people think the problem is that other people are confronting them with hard evidence they have a problem.

    Unfortunately in this case, the "off the record thought I wiped them clean records" inadvertently got recovered. yes, they're incomplete but how many of the missing ones paint the rest of the picture.

    What happened here is clear. Major screw ups at the top. In the fog of war the top attempted to minimize instead of appropriately respond. Why, because it didn't fit the political narrative. Terrorists (and they won't even refer to them as terrorists) were supposed to be weak and on the run. we had the glorious Arab Spring and peace was supposed to break out across the region and they would be hugging and kissing us like decades long friends.

    They hate us and want us destroyed. no amount of fabricating some story about how they're really really nice people can cover up that fact. The people in charge here are clowns and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
     
  12. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    Pickering was appointed as Ambassador to the UN by HW Bush, he'd been Ambassador to various countries since 1974. He's probably the most respected member of the US civil service. He was Ambassador to Russia under Clinton. What are your issues with Mike Mullen? What is your issue with Bertini? She started in the federal government under Reagan and continued with Bush. She went on to direct the World Food Program in 1992, and was reappointed under Clinton. What's wrong with her?

    Ham testified. You can see the transcript here. It is also important to note he was general in charge of Africa Command, and the CIF was part of Europe command. Command was transferred during the attacks but apparently the group couldn't make it in time. I'll admit, being on a training mission on 9/11 seems weird, but realize we hadn't been attacked on 9/11 since the original attacks. My guess, considering these are Spec Ops, is that they were conducting missions in Afghanistan or were somewhere else. The Croatia training was probably a cover for another operation. Remember, these forces had been committed to Afghanistan in early 2012. None of this changes the fact that these forces can't teleport to a place like Benghazi in 6 hours. The force from Tripoli barely managed that.

    Do you have any specific facts here? Why would it be beneficial to minimize instead of respond? Losing a consulate is a bad thing. Fighting off attackers is a good thing. That doesn't make any sense.

    All Libyan's don't hate us. A section of the rebels that overthrew Kaddafi are islamist and hate the West. To say that all Muslims or all Libyans hate us is silly.
     
  13. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,984
    Fwiw, I don't find the use of resources from Europe a big deal one way or the other. I can see both sides.

    That being said, the four guys from the annex told to not deploy in support of the consulate as they testified is.

    Having an ambassador with inadequate security, especially when it required breaking/ skirting the law is a big deal.

    Sending a govt rep to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack is a big deal.

    Having so many Americans being willing to give the Administration a pass on this is, imo, a big deal because it means our society has jumped the shark.
     
  14. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    The Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence disagrees with you. That did not happen.

    After the DS agent in the Tactical Operations Center at the Temporary Mission Facility alerted the Annex security team that TMF was under attack at 9:40 , the Chief of Base called the [REDACTED] "who advised that he would immediately deploy a force to provide assistance," according to a September 19, 2012, cable that provided the joint CIA Station/Base report on the events surrounding the September 11-12 attacks.9 Two armored vehicles were prepared so the security team could respond from the Annex. Approximately 20-25 minutes after the first call came into the Annex that the Temporary Mission Facility was under attack, a security team left the Annex for the Mission compound. In footage taken from the Annex's security cameras, the security team can be observed departing the CIA Annex at 10:03 p.m. Benghazi time. During the period between approximately 9:40 p.m. and 10:03 p.m. Benghazi time, the Chief of Base and security team members attempted to secure assistance and heavy weapons (such as .50 caliber truck-mounted machine guns) from the 17th February Brigade and other militias that had been assisting the United States. 10 Then, the team drove to the Mission facility and made their way 7 NCTC and FBI, The 11-12 September Attacks on US Facilities in Benghazi, November 13, 2012, p. 3. 8 Ibid. 9 E-mail from "Fw: Subject: Eyes Only- Tripoli Station and Benghazi Base Report on Events of 11-12 September," containing CIA TRIPOLI 27900, September 19,2012, p. 2. 1 ° Classified Report of the Department of State Accountability Review Board (ARB), December 18,2012, p. 27. 4 onto the Mission compound in the face of enemy fire, arriving in the vicinity of the compound at approximately 10: 10 p.m. Benghazi time. 11 The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.l3

    That is on page 5 of the PDF report.

    Resources are not limitless. Everyone does not get all the security they request. The Ambassador chose to travel to Benghazi, and he was extremely knowledgeable about the militia situation there. I have no idea what you're referring to when you say breaking/skirting the law. There is no law that says every and all security requests must be granted. The facility had 16 personnel(5 DS, 3 armed Feb 17th milita, 3 armed national police, and 5 unarmed local contractors charged with manning lookouts) assigned to secure it, with 6 CIA people nearby in the Annex to provide assistance. It was not undefended.

    Facts not in evidence. There were multiple reports, the CIA said it was related to the video. Locals on the scene said the attackers said they were angry about the video. Other sources said it was a coordinated attack. Note that the attack on the annex, lasting 11 minutes dissipated as soon as the attackers ran out of mortars. They had 3. It is still unknown whether the attack had been planned for 9/11 or if the video was a catalyst for an attack in planning. If the attack had been planned for that day, surely they would have had more than 3 mortar shells on hand, especially in an environment like Benghazi, where armed militias with heavy weapons are commonplace.

    The American people broadly realize that our personnel are in constant danger and that we cannot protect everywhere at every time. It is sad that our society is so politically divided that they believe the words of the pundits without actually reviewing the facts or bipartisan reports.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015
  15. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,984
    1) Read the last line of your gold text, regarding frustration expressed by those on the ground. Your long quote amounts to them believing the bureaucrats over the guys who risked their lives and lost a friend.

    2) You say that you don't know what I'm talking about but then rant on why I'm wrong? There's a law requiring that facilities which don't meet security regulations have a waiver signed by the Secretary of State before being occupied, or something like that. There was no waiver for the Benghazi Consulate. Clinton said it wasn't necessary because it was temporary (over a year), hense skirting.

    3) If you still believe there's any truth to the video excuse, you are in my opinion why things like the holocaust happen. Watch some of the videos I've posted in this thread and think for yourself. Don't be a DNC dittohead.
     
  16. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    There were frustrated they couldn't get there quicker. You said "they were told not to deploy". That is not true. Additionally, it appears the delay was to try and get more firepower, which is not a bad idea when you're going up against 60+ people attacking.

    There is no waiver required if the facility is temporary, as the Benghazi compound was designated. There was no law broken. I'm not a psychic, I can't tell what you mean when you say "Having an ambassador with inadequate security, especially when it required breaking/ skirting the law is a big deal." The facility, not the ambassador, had inadequate security, and required a temporary designation. Realize that in civil-war torn Libya, the state department chose not to invest all the resources required to make the special mission a permanent facility. The ambassador knew that and travel there anyway. In fact, part of his reason for visiting was to prepare a proposal to make it permanent before a Sept 30th fiscal year deadline. That is a very broad way of "skirting" the law.

    The videos don't prove a thing. Rep. Jordan is referencing emails sent at different time frames. Between that time-frames, the assessment changed. The statement that the attack in Benghazi is not related to Cairo means nothing other than that the two events were not coordinated; it doesn't mean the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video.

    No one can say that he attack would have happened on 9/11 without that video. Attackers themselves referenced the video. Would an attack have happened at some point, regardless of the video? Yes, I think it would. The main difference though, is that the terrorists used the video to swell the ranks of the attackers. Which is why there were people mentioning it.

    I agree the administration appears to have strongly played up the video-side while downplaying the terror side of it. I think this is wrong, but that's not a stand down order, there's no violation of state department facility law, and there no indication that the CIA knew any attack was coming. In addition, you cannot say the video played no role in the attack.

    Nothing could have been done by Clinton or Obama to save them on that night. That's a much less salacious scandal than what the conservative media was trying to sell, and it appears some people here bought it. The entire "scandal" revolves around incorrect talking points and intelligence reports/understanding at various points in time.
     
  17. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,984
    1) here's an interview with the boots on the ground



    In the future, you may not want to assume someone else doesn't know what they are talking about because of your interpretation of one sentence.

    2) sorry about my lack of clarity (typing on phone) I don't think you understand how diplomatic service works. Yes, he accepted the risk. It doesn't change the fact that they were using the facility as a consulate without meeting minimum security requirements and without a waiver. Calling it temporary for months, a year?, is skirting the law.

    3) the video excuse was that it began as a spontaneous copycat of Cairo to which later extremists joined with heavy weapons



    Watch the 60 Minutes episode. Watch the interview with the contractors. There was no evidence for this claim. It was political spin.



    Or this from then CBS's Cheryl Attkisson
     
  18. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    AE, I'm not going to watch several videos. Make a claim and I will debate it with you. I do not argue when you only make implications. You said the annex was told not to deploy, that was factually incorrect and the delay was quite small. Excuse me for thinking you didn't know about stuff.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015
    GTNavyNuke and Northeast Stinger like this.
  19. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,103
    With respect, having read much (but not all) of this thread, much the same words as used above can be used to describe the defense mounted by the administration.

    A lot of the disagreement revolves around whether you believe the people who were there, or the politicians who were involved. None of us know the integrity of the people involved. I have some idea however, about the integrity of this administration. Their track record about Benghazi was horrid in lying about it initially as being caused by a video, when they knew within 24 hours this was certainly not the case. Yet they still sent Susan Rice out that Sunday with those talking points, and the President himself brought this up in the UN a week later.

    It may be that being near an election influenced their forthrightness. It certainly was a VERY sad way to behave towards the American people in general, and the families of those who died.

    I am not certain there was any dishonesty around the decision to send or not send relief that night....that much is very murky. There is NO doubt the administration knew within 24 hours the attack was a terrorist attack...Hilary's own emails to the Egyptians as well a she down family prove that much.

    So, we have clear evidence there that the administration is perfectly willing to lie to the public.
     
  20. Frenchise

    Frenchise Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    668
    I think you're missing something. Based on intial reports, the attack was thought to be terrorist-related. Emails/cables go out, including to the Egyptian PM. Then, as more accounts on the ground come in, there are reports on the ground of the attackers screaming about the video. That happened after the email to the Egyptian PM/family.

    Considering that there are third party newspaper accounts of the attackers mentioning the video, one cannot say the video had nothing to do with it. As I've said before, there were several indications that the attack was somewhat spontaneous(having only 3 mortars), which indicates the video was a convenient way of rallying the Islamist militia/terror group to attack. Was an attack going to come at some point? Probably, but the video(or to be clearer the Imam on Egyptian TV blaming the US for the video) did play some part in causing the attack on that day, as evidenced by the words of the attackers themselves.

    Lastly, why on earth would they have told anyone ready to respond to stand down? There's clear evidence the annex station chief got the go ahead to assist. Same for the group from Tripoli. It's not murky. Multiple bipartisan reports agree on that fact. No military assets could assist in time.

    If I remember correctly, Sheryl Atkinson was fired over shoddy reporting(poorly vetting sources, I think) on that 60 minutes piece, by the way. EDIT: that was Lara Logan, AE did not link that video.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015

Share This Page