Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[tigerryan]

The Extremis Force would do there own work on determining if there was a "trap" and would not realy give a S**t what Washington Ideas were about it. I think some of our shiny collared military folks went Blue Falcon (AKA Buddy Fuc**r) on the guys in contact and needing help. The politicians are just what you would expect.

[LilRed]

GTC: I was thinkin a Walter Cronkite's Tet '68 question: "What the hell is goin on?"... Yeah, for me, CBS News has credibility. Fox News doesn't.

I agree with Jon Stewart: "I think I see the problem here," Stewart said. "You can't understand why everyone else isn't as outraged as you, when it's because the rest of us aren't sure if what you're saying is true. And to be quite frank, you do have somewhat of a history of hysteria."

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-rips- ... 04118.html

I thought he was very polite in his comment, even though it was a slam dunk. I'd like to see this kinda intelligent, polite commentary from the "other side"... But, I haven't found much of it...


TR: Very plausible. We need to investigate, fairly, and, thoroughly. Those who made bad decisions, or, tried to "cover up" in any illegal way, should be held accountable. If da Big O is found remiss/responsible, he should be spanked.

I suspect there's a whole lot more to this story...

I wonder:

Did our military folk even know Stevens had gone to Benghazi? If not, one could understand the military's reluctance to jump in precipitously.

And, again, why did Stevens go to Benghazi, when he, himself, his DCM and the RSO, had all officially notified the State Dept. that the risk level was "critical/imminent", and, requested heightened security? Could it be CYA by the DCM and RSO, because a bad local decision, in which they participated, had very bad results?

Let's quit slingin mud, and find out what really happened.

[papaguido]

Did our military folk even know Stevens had gone to Benghazi? If not, one could understand the military's reluctance to jump in precipitously.

Yes they were very aware and during the initial attack in Benghazi a military force already in Libya was chomping at the bit to go, but they were told to stand down. There was also a counter terrorism unit based with in hours from the second attack ready to board a C-130, but were also ordered to stand down. The order to stand down came from higher, higher than the DOD & SecDef.

And, again, why did Stevens go to Benghazi, when he, himself, his DCM and the RSO, had all officially notified the State Dept. that the risk level was "critical/imminent", and, requested heightened security? Could it be CYA by the DCM and RSO, because a bad local decision, in which they participated, had very bad results?

The state department was fully are of the request, but for whatever reason the state dept. denied the request.

You claimed to be well read, this all factual and uncovered at the persistence FOX news to get to the bottom of this cover-up. Something the liberal left media has failed to do.

[LilRed]

PG:

"Yes they were very aware and during the initial attack in Benghazi a military force already in Libya was chomping at the bit to go, but they were told to stand down. There was also a counter terrorism unit based with in hours from the second attack ready to board a C-130, but were also ordered to stand down. The order to stand down came from higher, higher than the DOD & SecDef. "

Sorry, I haven't seen anything definitive on whether the military knew Stevens was going to Benghazi, BEFORE he went there... And, I have seen no credible info on where the "stand down" order, came from... Is this stuff from Fox News again? Maybe we should find out from other credible sources?

"The state department was fully are of the request, but for whatever reason the state dept. denied the request."

Maybe, the denial was based on lack of resources? Or, something else? And, I ask again, additional security resources were requested, and, DENIED, prior to Stevens' going to Benghazi. Who made the decision for him to go to Benghazi, without these resources, and, why?

Are you aware of the "No Fear" Whistleblower Protection Act which passed a coupla years ago? This act provides very strong protection for whistleblowers. Such that, they cannot be "retaliated" against (disciplined?) for whistleblowing... I wonder if the DCM, RSO and/or others are hollerin "whistleblwer" status in order to protect themselves from being held accountable from having made or participated in a very bad local decision?

I am also curious... There are several intelligence organizations with HEAVY presences in Libya, who work under the Ambassador. I am curious as to their recommendations concerning him going to Benghazi under the circumstances...

We all want the truth, and, appropriate accountability. Let's quit talkin trash and get on with findin out what happened, and, who is responsible.

I believe we agree that payback is due...

[WBU ALUM]

WBU:


Easy, man. We are allowed to disagree. I have serious creds too.


- What is the misinformation -- specifically?

Example: That the Anbassador was sodomized.

- What are "extreme right citizens" -- specifically?

The Tea Party/NRA/Republicans. No offense intended, just tryin to differentiate them and the liberal crowd. We are both allowed to believe what we want to, and, to disagree. And, to freely discuss it. So, let's get on wid da cussin n discussin.

- What "noise" are they making -- specifically? Why don't you lay it out and refute it -- specifically?

I particularly refer all the political crap bein slung around before we have completed a credible investigation. I am very well read on this one, from several angles. I dunna have the time or interest to joust with you. I do have time to make some points I think need thinkin about. You don't like my points? Don't read 'em.

- How are people being deliberately misled about Benghazi -- specifically?

See above for example.

- How does wanting the truth help and encourage the bad guys -- specifically?

Divisive political rhetoric before proper investigation is a big plus for the bad guys.


Most of us want the truth. Let's get it.


PG: Gladly. I do, carefully check out some a this stuff. CBS News has good credibility with me. Fox News does not.

Well, I asked you to be specific. Your responses weren't close.

- An obscure reference to sodomy is the crux of what you are referring to as misinformation? That's it? That's making you identify Congress' oversight in this matter as spreading misinformation and being political? I'm totally unaware of this being the focus of any information that is being sought regarding Benghazi. Please provide a source linked to this investigation (not some whacko blog) that is focusing on any sodomy committed against Ambassador Stevens.

- Well, you listed three groups as being "extreme." How are they "extreme"? What makes them "extreme"? What do you perceive as the specific characteristics -- the things they do or don't do, the things in which they believe -- that makes you characterize them as "extreme"? And again, I'd like documented examples and sources -- unless of course, it's really just your opinion. In which case, you won't be able to provide any documented example/source.

And by the way, I'm not questioning your beliefs about yourself. I'm questioning the comments YOU made about OTHERS.

- "Political crap" is your idea of being specific about "noise" that some are making? How about giving me some SPECIFIC examples of what you consider to be the "political crap" being spread around by others? And who -- specifically -- is saying it?

And by the way, I'm not jousting with you. This isn't about you and me. This is about comments you made about others. You need to be able to back them up.

- What rhetoric -- specifically -- is divisive? Who -- specifically -- is making the divisive comments? The Department of State has said for some time that their investigation is complete. Eight months have passed, Mr. Red. Why weren't ALL members of US government personnel involved in Benghazi also interviewed in this investigation? Why were they not allowed to read the findings of the investigation? Why is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee being denied access to the Benghazi files? If most of us want the truth, why are reports being hidden from government officials who have the authority for oversight? Apparently, you haven't been paying as close attention to this as you thought, and one side doesn't seem to want the truth to come out.

House Armed Service chair denied access to Benghazi files
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/h ... azi-files/

Yes, we're allowed to disagree, but there seems to be a huge imbalance in providing factual information in this disagreement. You provide your opinion with nothing to back it up. Nothing. I have provided links that contain facts and video testimony of those who were there making decisions -- or not making them.

Don't misunderstand me. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but what you've posted here is only that. Your comments are based on your opinion only. Your comments are very broad, very loose and contain no detail at all to back up anything that you suggest.

And by the way, I have made no reference to Fox News. And for the record, I haven't watched any television news in over 5 years, so don't sling that unfounded comment toward me.

[WBU ALUM]

I agree with Jon Stewart

You inject a comedian's view of this tragedy and seem to totally reject Congress' authority for oversight in this matter. This explains so much.

[papaguido]

PG:

"Yes they were very aware and during the initial attack in Benghazi a military force already in Libya was chomping at the bit to go, but they were told to stand down. There was also a counter terrorism unit based with in hours from the second attack ready to board a C-130, but were also ordered to stand down. The order to stand down came from higher, higher than the DOD & SecDef. "

Sorry, I haven't seen anything definitive on whether the military knew Stevens was going to Benghazi, BEFORE he went there... And, I have seen no credible info on where the "stand down" order, came from... Is this stuff from Fox News again? Maybe we should find out from other credible sources?

Amb. Stevens number 2 guy, his deputy Gregory Hicks just testified to this and he also refuted there was no mob/demonstration and it was a terrorist attack. He also testified that he was ordered to stand whatever military force he had available. Months before the RSO had intel of an increase el qaeda presence and requested additional security, but was denied.

Witness Hicks: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/0 ... od=WSJBlog

[LilRed]

WBU: Get off my ass. You n me agree on the substance... We screwed up in Benghazi. It needs investigatin, and accountability for the perpetrators, and, any folks on our side that screwed up. If Hillary and/or Obama screwed up, let them pay the fair price for their screw ups, based on facts. 'Nuf sed.

BG: I tried to find the actual statements from the DCM and RSO... It seems the DCM testified that the 4 SF people in Tripoli were not given permission to board a Libyan C-130, by the military, not State Dept?... That air support was ostensibly available from our base in Italy?... That he was told by his DAO it would take 2 - 3 hours for air support to get from Italy to Benghazi?... That the Chief of Staff of the JCS testified it would take 8 hours for that support to arrive?...

On another thread on another unnamed local blog, reference was made to a FAST. Was this a third military group that was ordered to stand down? By who? (As a side question, do you know, can these military units be ordered to stand down by the State Dept.? I'm not sure...)

IMHO, the whistleblower thing smells bad. Seems like we really need to find out why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, with minimal security, after he, himself, his DCM and RSO had declared the situation as a critical/imminent terrorist threat requiring additional security support. Their requests were denied, maybe wrongly... But, why was a US Ambassador allowed into a critical/imminent threat target, without appropriate security?


As we've all said, there's more to come.

[WBU ALUM]

WBU: Get off my ass.

Wasn't on it and wouldn't think of it. Told you twice it wasn't about you and me, but what you stated. Did you read it? Don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question. I asked for clarification. Just got more of the same. This time, got nothing. But I get it now. Nothing plus nothing plus nothing still equals nothing.

[gudtymchuk]

Seems like we really need to find out why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, with minimal security, after he, himself, his DCM and RSO had declared the situation as a critical/imminent terrorist threat requiring additional security support. Their requests were denied, maybe wrongly... But, why was a US Ambassador allowed into a critical/imminent threat target, without appropriate security?


As we've all said, there's more to come.

During the Congressional hearing Greg Hicks was asked this question. If I remember correctly Hicks testified Ambassador Stevens was sent by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to investigate the possibility of making the Benghazi facility a permanent facility and also to make a symbolic gesture to the Libyan locals of the permanence of the US in Benghazi. Money available was only available until the end of September. Yes, at the direction of Hillary who was very aware of the many request and denials of those request for more security in Libya..... The full Congressional hearing is available at the C-span website.

[papaguido]

BG: I tried to find the actual statements from the DCM and RSO... It seems the DCM testified that the 4 SF people in Tripoli were not given permission to board a Libyan C-130, by the military, not State Dept?... That air support was ostensibly available from our base in Italy?... That he was told by his DAO it would take 2 - 3 hours for air support to get from Italy to Benghazi?... That the Chief of Staff of the JCS testified it would take 8 hours for that support to arrive?...

On another thread on another unnamed local blog, reference was made to a FAST. Was this a third military group that was ordered to stand down? By who? (As a side question, do you know, can these military units be ordered to stand down by the State Dept.? I'm not sure...)

As we've all said, there's more to come.

The military chain command for Benghazi is...

US Africa Command (AFRICOM) reports to Secretary of Defense which in turn reports to the President. Such an "order" would have had to come from the top.

General Ham was the commanding officer for AFRICOM at the time. He reportedly claimed he was ready to deploy troops, but was ordered to stand down by then SecDef Panetta. Question remains where/who did Panetta get his orders from?

*FAST = U.S. Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) Company falls under Naval Chief of Operations and turn reports to the SecDef. FAST company Marines deployed to Tripoli on the day after the attack, but there mission was to secure the Embassy (Tripoli) and personnel.
-----------------------------------------------
FAST company is typically a 50 man unit and have the capability to deploy at a moments notice. The closest unit to Benghazi is based in Spain, only hours away by C-130. Had they been ordered directly into Benghazi, they could have been there well before the second attack and secured a perimeter until arrival of reinforcements.

General Ham (AFRICOM) had a one unarmed drone at his disposal which could have been used to gather intelligence to access the situation, neither were use, nothing, nada, not even an attempt was made.

[LilRed]

This is very interesting:


http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013 ... zi-mission


Betcha we'll find out this was done by State Dept, in Libya, i.e., the Ambassador and his staff... Maybe even for another agency...

[papaguido]

This is very interesting:


http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013 ... zi-mission


Betcha we'll find out this was done by State Dept, in Libya, i.e., the Ambassador and his staff... Maybe even for another agency...

I"m not surprised...maybe this had something to do with it....

Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:30am BST

GUARDS OF BENGHAZI

Blue Mountain hired about 20 Libyan men - including some who say they had minimal training - to screen visitors and help patrol the mission at Benghazi, according to Reuters interviews.

They also described being hired by Blue Mountain after a casual recruiting and screening process.

State Department security officials had their own concerns about some of the guards at the mission months before the recent attack, according to emails obtained by Reuters this week. One guard who had been recently fired and another on the company's payroll were suspected of throwing a homemade bomb into the U.S. compound in April. They were questioned but not charged.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/1 ... TR20121018

[gudtymchuk]

Is Obama falling victim of the Second Term Curse? Interesting read from the Washington post:

“Every second-term president, at least since Eisenhower with the U-2 [spy plane shot down in Soviet airspace] has somehow gone into a ditch,” said Ken Duberstein, who was White House chief of staff during Reagan’s second term.

“The suggestions that Obama is in a deep ditch are probably premature,” Duberstein added. “But when you get in a ditch, you need to stop digging. You need to put down the shovel.”
Full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html

[LilRed]

PG: You provided this link... It is most interesting... You said it showed "He also testified that he was ordered to stand whatever military force he had available."

Not tryin to be argumentative, but, I still can't find this in Hicks' testimony...


Witness Hicks: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded

Witness Hicks: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/0 ... od=WSJBlog
papaguido
udonmap.com

From Hicks' testimony:

"And he answered that the nearest help was in Aviano, and the nearest — where there were fighter planes. And he said that it would take two to three hours for them to get on site, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, thank you very much, and we went on with our work."

No tankers = No AF support from Aviano... This appears to be a military issue, not DOS or WH issue...

"Because we knew separately from David that the ambassador was in a hospital that we believe was under Ansar Sharia’s call, we suspected that we were being baited into a trap. And so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush. And we didn’t. We sent them to the annex."

Is this a local DOS issue? It appears that the decision not to send the local held security assets to the Ambassador was made by Hicks?

"In Tripoli, we had — the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi. We wanted to airlift — we had — since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi. We determined that Lt. Colonel Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal.

As Colonel Gibson and his three personnel were getting in the cars, he stopped, and he called them off and said — told me that he had not been authorized to go."

PG: I know military folk have to have "authorization" to fly on other than US controlled military assets... Is it not so? This looks like the Tripoli SF guys didn't get authoriztion, IN A TIMELY MANNER?

GTC: "During the Congressional hearing Greg Hicks was asked this question. If I remember correctly Hicks testified Ambassador Stevens was sent by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to investigate the possibility of making the Benghazi facility a permanent facility and also to make a symbolic gesture to the Libyan locals of the permanence of the US in Benghazi. Money available was only available until the end of September. Yes, at the direction of Hillary who was very aware of the many request and denials of those request for more security in Libya..... The full Congressional hearing is available at the C-span website."

I can only find a partial transcript of Hicks' testimony. If this is true, say goodbye to Hillary... Thank you!

Do you have a URL for the complete transcript of Hicks' testimony?

BR

Me n Ibrihim, somewhere in Mali

[gudtymchuk]

GTC: "During the Congressional hearing Greg Hicks was asked this question. If I remember correctly Hicks testified Ambassador Stevens was sent by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to investigate the possibility of making the Benghazi facility a permanent facility and also to make a symbolic gesture to the Libyan locals of the permanence of the US in Benghazi. Money available was only available until the end of September. Yes, at the direction of Hillary who was very aware of the many request and denials of those request for more security in Libya..... The full Congressional hearing is available at the C-span website."

I can only find a partial transcript of Hicks' testimony. If this is true, say goodbye to Hillary... Thank you!

Do you have a URL for the complete transcript of Hicks' testimony?

Red, as I already posted you can find the entire hearing, both on video and written transcript at the C-span website. Here is a link.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SConsulat

And yes, there is little doubt the Democrats "Lady in waiting" has, (along with others), blood stained hands.

As a historical side note: Doolittle commanded a bombing raid into Japan after Pear Harbor knowing they did not have the fuel capacity and, by necessity, be ditching their aircraft in an unfriendly environment. I don't think many will be buying into the no air tanker excuse.

[papaguido]

PG: You provided this link... It is most interesting... You said it showed "He also testified that he was ordered to stand whatever military force he had available."

Not tryin to be argumentative, but, I still can't find this in Hicks' testimony...

I was mistaken, it was the Defense Attache that was ordered to stand down by his chain of command, Gen Ham, AFICOM.

From Hicks' testimony:

"And he answered that the nearest help was in Aviano, and the nearest — where there were fighter planes. And he said that it would take two to three hours for them to get on site, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, thank you very much, and we went on with our work."

No tankers = No AF support from Aviano... This appears to be a military issue, not DOS or WH issue... [/quote]

Correct, but if the Commander and chief was aware of the situation, one call from him would have made it happen.

"Because we knew separately from David that the ambassador was in a hospital that we believe was under Ansar Sharia’s call, we suspected that we were being baited into a trap. And so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush. And we didn’t. We sent them to the annex."

Is this a local DOS issue? It appears that the decision not to send the local held security assets to the Ambassador was made by Hicks?

By his testimony, he may not have been able to corroborate the following...which led to his decision.

before I got the call from the prime minister, we'd received several phone calls on the phone that had been with the ambassador saying that we know where the ambassador is, please, you can come get him.

And our local staff engaged on those phone calls admirably, asking very, very good, outstanding, even open ended questions about where was he, trying to discern whether he was alive, whether they even had the ambassador, whether that person was with the ambassador, send a picture, could we talk to the ambassador?

PG: I know military folk have to have "authorization" to fly on other than US controlled military assets... Is it not so? This looks like the Tripoli SF guys didn't get authoriztion, IN A TIMELY MANNER?

I know for training purposes this is true and agreements may already be in place, but the authorization for the SF guys had nothing to do with boarding a Libyan C-130. The SF guys had no authorization to go to Benghazi.

Do you have a URL for the complete transcript of Hicks' testimony?

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/2013 ... 7/-1/rss01

[LilRed]

GTC: I dunna mean to play da fool, but the link for the full transcript, leads to a c-spanvideo site... Ya gotta pay to get the complete transcript... The plain c-span site has an "abreviated" version of Hick's tesimony...


It is identical in almost every word to the version at the url provided by PG - except at PG's site, it is described as "the transcript"...

There's gonna be more questions... Rightfully so.

[LilRed]

Late breaking news:

"The Marines were sent to Spain in recent weeks as part of a new permanent contingency force capable of moving into North Africa very quickly after the deadly attack in Benghazi last year showed military forces were not close enough to assist."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/10/world ... ?hpt=hp_t3

[gudtymchuk]

GTC: I dunna mean to play da fool, but the link for the full transcript, leads to a c-spanvideo site... Ya gotta pay to get the complete transcript... The plain c-span site has an "abreviated" version of Hick's tesimony...


It is identical in almost every word to the version at the url provided by PG - except at PG's site, it is described as "the transcript"...

There's gonna be more questions... Rightfully so.

Red,
Don't know what you are looking at but if you look about half way down on the left hand side of the link I previously provided you will see a timeline. Scroll the timeline, (scroll bar on the right hand side of the timeline) to 1:45:42. The video will begin at the point in the upper right hand side. You will see Okla. Congressman Lankford ask Hicks why Stevens went to Benghazi. There is also a scroll bar below the video window so you can easily scroll to other parts of the hearing. Interestingly at 1:43:49, the beginning of Lankford's 5 minutes there is a back and forth pertaining to the facilities in Libya not meeting minimum security standards as set out by the State Dept. Might want to back up and view that portion of the hearing.