Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
"The investigation is ongoing." We dont know what direction(s) were given to the CIA, either directly or indirectly.
Thats OK these Demons have to hang on to lies its the only truth they know
"The investigation is ongoing." We dont know what direction(s) were given to the CIA, either directly or indirectly.
What's the point of this article besides fear-mongering. We all knew about the attack 2 hours after it happened, so what? The only people who's making a fuss about this whole thing are conservative attention whores. Even Romney is letting the topic rest because he realized he had no ammunition with it.
Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?
Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?
One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.
Don't kid yourself. This administration knows exactly what happened in regard to their reponse as information became available.One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.
Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?
One had live video feed and all involved parties returning alive. The other didn't. Not that amazing.
And this is incorrect.
So an UAV is not considered a live feed?
The final option was that American lives were worth sacrificing in order to not offend the host country.
Say what? They "do not confirm" it? OK? Do they confirm water is wet and the sun rises in the east?
The relevant issue is do they contradict it? If so, please provide specific quotes denying "the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments" and that " Members of the CSG" were involved. I saw people complaining that the full CSG wasn't convened, or that they personally weren't included, but nobody denied the claims I quoted. If you see something different, let's see the specifics.
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."
In a similar vein, you've yet to address my challenge about the testimony provided to Congress. You've insinuated that testimony is quite damning to the administration, yet once again you've neglected to document specifics. Consequently, it's just more meaningless hand-waving, something this thread has way too much of already. I offered several specific examples from the testimony I read. As one of the few conservatives here who actually uses his head, I was looking to you to do the same. Please fill in the blanks and back your claims with specific, factual information. TIA.
The State Department's former point man on security in Libya told a congressional hearing Wednesday that his superiors worked against him as he tried to get more help for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack.
Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility.
"I said, 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships. It's not the gunfire. It's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me," Nordstrom said.
He also told the State Department officer, "'For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."
As the four-hour hearing drew to a close, Nordstrom divulged he had verbally asked for significantly more help -- 12 agents -- but the officer from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs had rebuffed his request.
"His response to that was, 'You're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars,'" Nordstrom said.
That attitude made the Benghazi incident predictable, according to Nordstrom, who left Libya in July and continues to work at the State Department for diplomatic security.
------------
But Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that the regional security officer -- it was unclear if he was talking about Nordstrom -- tried to obtain additional personnel, but "was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."
"The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there," Wood said. "Diplomatic security remained weak. In April, there was only one U.S. diplomatic security agent there."
His colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, added that the State Department "had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time," drawing a sharp rebuke from committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California.
On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials provided reporters with the most detailed explanation yet of the attack in Benghazi, saying on a conference call that there was no prior indication such an assault was imminent.
The officials, who briefed reporters on condition of not being identified by name, said there was "nothing unusual" throughout the day of the attack.
Asked whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration, as originally asserted by Obama administration officials, one senior official said, "That was not our conclusion."
Amazing, yes. Surprising, no.Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?
Isn't it amazing how much we knew about details of Osama's death within 48 hours and how little we know about Benghazi nearly 2 months after the fact?
Both had live feeds.
They had a drone over Benghazi also sending back data. Maybe not from the initial attack but soon enough to allow options to be formed.
The final option was that American lives were worth sacrificing in order to not offend the host country.
Oh, you know this? certainly not a statement injected with assumptive biased.
I need a clear timetable. We already know that the first drone was redirected two hours after the attack began, and was in "some other part of Libya". Another was sent in ~40 minutes after that.
How long was the attack on the embassy? How long did it take the drone to get there? What was actually possible to see during the time the drone was actually in the area?
Those are good questions. I would like them answered too. I doubt that will ever happen.I need a clear timetable. We already know that the first drone was redirected two hours after the attack began, and was in "some other part of Libya". Another was sent in ~40 minutes after that.
How long was the attack on the embassy? How long did it take the drone to get there? What was actually possible to see during the time the drone was actually in the area?
The admin chose to sacrifice American lives so as to not offend the host country.by sending in any military force of any type.
There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.
You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?
There's the proggie view in a nutshell - respecting other nations is more important than American lives, even ambassadors.There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.
You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?
There are other countries in the world too, you know. Unilaterally sending combat troops to invade a city in a sovereign nation because, "There's some crime being committed against an American there," shows disrespect for nation status and sets up that any American visitor has the potential to be bait for an invasion. Countries that host our troops would then have to decide whether they want to be associated with the actions of such uncontrollable, indiscriminate strike teams.
You wouldn't accept other countries invading the US, so why would you think that other countries would accept such actions from us?