Jump to content

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say


bengalrick

Recommended Posts

[url="https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/261936225106132993"]https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/261936225106132993[/url]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][i][color=#333333]CIA spox: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."[/color][/i][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]Note the Obama admin is not part of the CIA so he isn't saying he didn't get the orders. Just that they didn't do it. I don't know if this means there were no orders or if they received the from further up the ladder.[/color][/font][/size]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If just one of those drones had fired into the crowd, they would have scattered.

How about in the article saying there was [b]NO[/b] sign of a group of protesters who were mad about the Youtube movie?

Can there be anymore conflicting stories on what happened? The government can put a robot with a camera on freaking Mars, but they can't get the real story behind this? I personally feel this will be one of those Lee Harvey Oswald things, that the truth may never come out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going to put this here....

[url="http://www.armytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/10/ap-secdef-panetta-lack-of-info-hampered-benghazi-response-embassy-attack-102512"]http://www.armytimes...y-attack-102512[/url]
[quote]


[b] SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response[/b]



[size=4][color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press
Posted: Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT[/background][/font][/color]
[img]http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2012/10/ap-secdef-panetta-lack-of-info-hampered-benghazi-response-embassy-attack-102512/102512-panetta-benghazi-info-800.JPG[/img]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.[/background][/font][/color]
[b] Related reading[/b]

[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)][url="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-state-department-assess-embassy-guards-benghazi-libya-102412"]State Dept. weighs size of Marine embassy force[/url] (10/24)[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]White House told of Libyan attack claim on 9/11 (10/24)[/background][/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]"(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."[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]In a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether the White House considered military options during or immediately after the attack, and he questioned what the president knew about the security threats in the country. He said that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]"Can you explain what options were presented to you or your staff, and why it appears assets were not allowed to be pre-positioned, let alone utilized? If these reports are accurate, the artificial constraint on the range of options at your disposal would be deeply troubling," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which has become a heated campaign issue less than two weeks before the election. Republicans have criticized the Obama administration's failure to more quickly acknowledge that intelligence suggested very early on that it was a planned terrorist attack, rather than spontaneous violence erupting out of protests over an anti-Muslim film.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]House and Senate Republicans as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have criticized President Barack Obama and administration officials over the response to the attack and whether officials failed to provide enough security at the consulate.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]And there have been ongoing questions about whether there should have been additional military forces sent to the consulate immediately after it became clear that the Americans were under attack.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. 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.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign country — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]During his news conference, Panetta lamented the "Monday morning quarterbacking" that has been going on about how the U.S. handled the attack. And Dempsey, sitting alongside Panetta, bristled at questions about what the military did or did not do in the aftermath.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]Noting that there are reviews already going on, Dempsey added, "It's not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers. I can tell you, however, sitting here today, that I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation."[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]Military officials have noted that there had been no specific intelligence pointing to a possible attack in Libya, and that there were protests and other unrest in various locations around the Middle East and Africa.[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]Asked whether the military was on alert in that area because of 9/11, Dempsey added, "Yeah, and let me point out, it was — it was 9/11 everywhere in the world."[/background][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced it will hold a closed hearing Nov. 15 into the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, and additional hearings will follow.[/background][/font][/color][/size]

[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamie, do you honestly think that in the time we live, where the government can stealth into another country and kill Bin Ladan, and can put a robot on Mars with a camera that has a strong enough signal it can send back pictures from it, couldn't have known or done anything to prevent the attack? The government made a big deal a few years ago that they had a satellite where they could read a license plate from outer space.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351299034' post='1174874']
We've covered this, the security is the responsibility of the hosting nation.
[/quote]

There was a whole article that I posted depicting who was the security at the Consulate. The United States contracted out security to a company called Blue Mountain who's head quarters are in Great Britain. They then hired 20 Libyans who were very poorly trained, to stand guard. When the news paper contacted someone in Great Britain's government, they said they had never even heard of Blue Mountain. The government can spend 10 grand on a toilet, or lord knows how many thousands of dollars to cater events, but hire some hardly known British company to take care of security.

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-libya-usa-bluemountain-idUSBRE89G1TI20121018"]http://www.reuters.c...E89G1TI20121018[/url]

You can also google Blue Mountain security and it brings up their web site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. normally does use Marines for embassies but over seas in place like Libya they contract it out. I guess it's only in countries we are friendly with that will allow Marines to be there. In the article it gives a bunch of excuses really. It says that they weren't even sure how long they were going to stay in Libya so they didn't want to beef up the defenses. For some odd reason it also blames gun laws for the reason the Blue Mountain guys didn't have any. What kind of bullshit is it, that regular citizens are walking around town with AK47, but people guarding the consulate couldn't? Every new news story that comes out, makes the government look dumber and dumber.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351300247' post='1174883']
Every new news story that comes out, makes the government look dumber and dumber.
[/quote]

News story?

Breaking news: Unnamed sources say Glenn Beck sucks copious amounts of dick. Like, all of the dicks, in and around his mouth at all times. Big ol' piles of dick for Glenn Beck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1351307893' post='1174908']
News story?

Breaking news: Unnamed sources say Glenn Beck sucks copious amounts of dick. Like, all of the dicks, in and around his mouth at all times. Big ol' piles of dick for Glenn Beck.
[/quote]

I was just referring to the long list of newspaper, television accounts, and internet sites. When some one in Washington puts out a different story every day and you read articles where Hillary took the blame, then Obama takes the blame, and even saying that the Ambassador was at fault because he was sympathetic to the rebels. I posted the link to a story by Reuters that goes by detail after detail on how the White house screwed this up.

They admitted to contracting out the security to a British company that then recruited Libyan citizens and trained them enough to carry a flash light and a baton. So you got an Ambassador in a war torn Libya being protected by 20 unarmed guys that live in Libya (why would they risk their lives against their own countrymen) who asked for more security, and he was turned down because the government didn't want to hire some full time guys to work there, because they didn't know if they were going to keep that consulate there. Because "If we hired someone full time, and shut down the Consulate we would have to find them a different job to do.

Holy shit! When I read this stuff, along with the fact they had drones flying over head with cameras on, and they did NOTHING. It's just in sane. It reminds of the movie with Samuel L. Jackson, I think it is called "Rules of Engagement." It's about an Embassy being attacked by a mob in a middle eastern country, and Jackson has to decide if it is necessary to fire into a crowd while taking incoming shots.

I really couldn't imagine what that Ambassador went through. These bad guys over seas don't play by any rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1351309085' post='1174913']
I'm not arguing it was a fuck-up, I'm questioning the political motive behind all the finger-pointing.
[/quote]

Try to put yourself in the shoes of some of the important people that are involved. What would you do or say, if the government you work for, puts you in the middle of a country that has known terrorist, has recently had rebels take over the country and pulled the dictator out side and shot him on the hood of a truck, and still is really in a civil war. So not only is the government keeping you in this situation, your security is made up of Joe Blow off the street with low to no experience, carrying flash lights and batons. If the government was going to do something like that, they should have closed the place down and the brought everyone home.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of these fucking idiots try to come up with excuses and passing the blame to others. It's even worse when they place the blame on someone that is dead and can't defend their selves or give an account of what went on. So here is the newest piece of crap article saying the White House had knowledge that they knew the consulate had asked for more defense, but turned them down because they didn't have enough facts on the situation to potentially send more people into harms way. So yeah, they are trying to say exactly what I said earlier. That basically sacrificed American live in Libya to prevent the possible loss of more lives by sending in troops. Yes folks, this is your American government. So I have to ask, why the fuck didn't they just send in a helicopter and pull them out? The British were smart enough that they had evacuated their embassy a week before hand.





[quote]


[b] Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: Aide[/b]


[img]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/TjU25.PJENH3CwnnJsz82w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQwO3E9ODU7dz00MA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/02/16/olivier-40x40-jpg_002342.jpg[/img]By [url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/olivier-knox/"]Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News[/url] | [url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/"]The Ticket[/url] – 7 hrs ago



[img]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/b9ZxedF.hGlX7RJPH6obAw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/7a1063344a5e311e1f0f6a7067003ebd.jpg[/img]President Barack Obama talks with supporters after arriving in Manchester, N.H. for a campaign stop Saturday (Winslow …The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11[sup]th[/sup].
"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but [url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/"]were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups[/url]. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.

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," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.
And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans.
But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, [url="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html"]doubted Panetta's explanation[/url] and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."
"He's wrong," said Vietor.
On Friday, Obama himself [url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-denies-misleading-benghazi-vows-capture-plotters-184349903--election.html"]forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans[/url] about the attack in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
[b]CORRECTION 3:26 p.m.:[/b] An earlier version of this post confused the timing of the Fox News Channel report and Defense Secretary Panetta's remarks. Panetta's remarks came before the Fox report, not afterwards.
[/quote]



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-did-not-deny-requests-help-benghazi-aide-182415488--election.html

If you can read this without getting a knot in your stomach, you need to go find the closest Amercan flag you can find, and salute it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1351409929' post='1175126']
Am I missing something here? You have the head of the NSC saying it didn't happen, versus "unnamed sources" from... Fox News.


Yet you choose to believe Fox News? If that's the case, why stop there? Obama probably threw the molotov himself!
[/quote]

What I posted wasn't a fox news story. It simply says what Fox News stated certain things. That's a yahoo article. They have their own interviews and stuff with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey giving statements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the plot is thickening...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/


[b] [b][size=5][i]Navy Replaces Admiral Leading Mideast Strike Group Because of Ongoing Investigation[/i][/size][/b][/b]
[color=#333333][font=Georgia]

[i]In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.[/i]
[i]Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.[/i]
[i]In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette “pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.”[/i]
[i]The statement said Gaoutte would return to the carrier’s home port of Bremerton, Washington.[/i]
[i]A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.[/i]
[i]The Stennis group arrived in the Fifth Fleet’s area of operations on Oct. 17 to replace the USS Enterprise, which was on the final deployment of its 50 years of service. The allegations are recent and were made within the last couple of weeks.[/i]
[i]The Stennis returned to Bremerton in March from a seven-month deployment to the Middle East. In July the Pentagon ordered the carrier to deploy in August — four months ahead of schedule — so a two-carrier presence could be maintained in the Middle East after the Enterprise finished its deployment. The other carrier strike group currently operating in the Fifth Fleet is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.[/i]
[i]Gaouette’s Chief of Staff, Capt. William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker arrives to take command “until the matter is resolved.”[/i]
[/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read about that on Yahoo I wasn't sure what to make of it. Do drones even take off and land on carriers? From where that ship was in the gulf, how long would it take for a cruise missile from a war ship, or fight jets to get there? 10 minutes or more like 20-30 minutes? More than likely with the type of guys that were said to be defending the consulate with flashlights and batons ( :29: ), I'm not sure how long it would take a crowd to get inside. Now, if they had drones already in the air monitoring the situation and didn't do anything, that's a different story. To me this seems like the trickle down effect where the last guy in line gets the shaft. Who loses their job first, the President of the United States or some Navy Admiral? Yeah, you get the point. Fact is, I'm sure that Admiral wasn't authorized to make that decision on his own, considering it would be an act of war attacking people inside Libya's borders.

I still think, and that this point will continue to think until my dying days, that this was a screw up from top to bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1351441115' post='1175152']
Seems the plot is thickening...
<snip>
[i]The Stennis returned to Bremerton in March from a seven-month deployment to the Middle East. In July the Pentagon ordered the carrier to deploy in August — four months ahead of schedule — so a two-carrier presence could be maintained in the Middle East after the Enterprise finished its deployment.[/i][/quote]

I wouldn't be too quick to associate this with the stuff that happened in Libya. The Navy is a conservative, slow-moving frat-boy club when it comes to high-level internal politics. So at this point it is mere speculation. Relieving a command is super-serious business so I expect that the smart thing to do would be to wait for more official reports of why this happened.

One the re-quoted part of the article: Oh, man, that sucks to get turned around so fast on those long deployments. Happened to the ship I was on in 1976; twas a very unhappy crew when we got the news that we were going back to the Med so soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351444592' post='1175164']
I wouldn't be too quick to associate this with the stuff that happened in Libya. The Navy is a conservative, slow-moving frat-boy club when it comes to high-level internal politics. So at this point it is mere speculation. Relieving a command is super-serious business so I expect that the smart thing to do would be to wait for more official reports of why this happened.

One the re-quoted part of the article: Oh, man, that sucks to get turned around so fast on those long deployments. Happened to the ship I was on in 1976; twas a very unhappy crew when we got the news that we were going back to the Med so soon.
[/quote]

Yeah I imagine that would have to suck.

Your almost def right. The part where it mentions "inappropriate leadership judgment" is the part that makes me kind of wonder. Huge coincidence nonetheless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351444592' post='1175164']
I wouldn't be too quick to associate this with the stuff that happened in Libya. The Navy is a conservative, slow-moving frat-boy club when it comes to high-level internal politics. So at this point it is mere speculation. Relieving a command is super-serious business so I expect that the smart thing to do would be to wait for more official reports of why this happened.

One the re-quoted part of the article: Oh, man, that sucks to get turned around so fast on those long deployments. Happened to the ship I was on in 1976; twas a very unhappy crew when we got the news that we were going back to the Med so soon.
[/quote]

I wonder what was wrong with the Enterprise that made it important enough to retire it 4 months early.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1351444975' post='1175166']
I read yesterday that David Petraeus, now the head of the CIA, said that at no time during that attack did any CIA assets in the field ask for help.
[/quote]

That sounds like a red herring to me. It wasn't CIA agents that asked for help, it was the Ambassador at the consulate. From what I have read, it said CIA agents were close enough that they could have stepped in. Of course there were also reports drones were flying overhead filming the situation and broadcasting it to high ranking officials as well. To me it seems like a sensory overload. When so many conflicting accounts of the situation and so much finger pointing, it makes it extremely difficult to nail down the blame. It's like a filibuster through the media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...