New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[A'isha]

The CIA also wrote that it was by terrorists associated with AQ (true) and there were numerous previous episodes, which State objected to and which were deleted. Hmmm, I thought we were just blaming the CIA.

Oh well, no matter, State didn't fix it, which allowed Rhodes to tell Sate department employee Susan Rice to lie and lie and lie, despite the fact Hillary and State knew it was false.

Your supposed "lie", the statement that the attack arose spontaneously due to protests over the video, had nothing whatsoever to do with State and was all CIA right from the very beginning.

By the way, we all noticed that you dodged the question about Hillary's lie to the Egyptian.

No, I didn't.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think it is beyond clear that the Republicans are far more upset that Benghazi isn't going to cost Hillary the Presidency and that it didn't cost Obama reelection than they are about the actual event itself.

 

[Meadmaker]

So one of the talking points I hear on talk radio is all about telling Marines to change in and out of uniforms four times. That sure sounds stupid to me. I mean really stupid.

So, I guess I'll go off and see if I can find out what actually happened. That requires wading through BS, I'm sure, but that can be interesting at times.

When you listen to the right wing scream machine, you picture a group of Marines, knowing that Americans are in a firefight, itching to get to Benghazi to save the people there, but instead standing around changing in and out of their uniforms, over and over, with different orders coming in from different places, while Americans are dying.

What's wrong with this picture? Let me count the ways.

First, by the time the Marines boarded the plane, all the Americans who were going to die had been dead at least an hour, and all the clothing changes were made on the plane. Those changes had nothing to do with the delay, and nothing to do with Americans dying.

Second, the plane wasn't headed to Benghazi. It was headed to Tripoli, to support evacuation of personnel there. (Or was it protection of people staying there? I'm not sure.)

Third, they showed up in uniform, were told to go to civies, were told to get back into uniform, and were told to get back into civies. That's four changes of clothing. That means they got on a plane, and someone told them to get out of uniform, and then some officer said, "Hell no we aren't going in civies. Get back into uniform." And then someone from the Pentagon called and told them, no, really, civies. There's a certain amount of speculation in the above. In fact, none of the stories I read said whether the final decision was for uniforms or civilian clothes, so I don't know the exact order of changes. The point is that, in reality, they didn't change clothes as often as it is suggested, and they weren't heading into combat.

The accounts all agreed that the planes sat on the ground, prepared for takeoff, for a very long time, and no one seems to know why, but all accounts agree that there was no way for those planes to leave before the combat was over in Benghazi, and they weren't going to Benghazi anyway. Also, the origin of the order to wear civilian clothes was a Libyan government request, although it was unclear if it was made that evening, or it was a standing order.

So, putting it all together, there is a picture that includes some confusion and indecision, but nothing at all like the image of what Hannity and his buddies like to present. Go figure.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sorry but this whole thing was a partisan show. Everyone forgets that the State Department is run mostly by civil servants. There are in fact political decisions made all the time. Benghazi was certainly a tragedy and mistakes were made, but we could say that about the Marine barracks attacks in Libya during the 80s or countless other incidents. This was a political opportunistic finger pointing. Even GOP committee members admitted as much.

 

[SOdhner]

Rule of So! Hot dog!

You know, my Chrome extension that changes "Rule of So!" to "I'm not going to respond to that." makes the Hot dog! exclamation look SUPER random.

 

[NoahFence]

Congress also investigated Clinton. And then did it six more times (and want to do it yet again) with your enthusiastic support.

So why are you all for multiple investigations of Clinton, but not for the CIA? Why don't you care that the CIA fully believed that the Benghazi attack spontaneously arose out of protests over the video, and stuck with that until the 18th?

The CIA ain't running for office, and can't be subjected to the witch hunt that comes with it. If Hillary wasn't running, this would have ended after the 1st "investigation".

 

[The Big Dog]

You know, my Chrome extension that changes "Rule of So!" to "I'm not going to respond to that." makes the Hot dog! exclamation look SUPER random.

That sort of works! I am not going to respond to that idiotic strawman!

 

[Tony Stark]

The CIA ain't running for office, and can't be subjected to the witch hunt that comes with it. If Hillary wasn't running, this would have ended after the 1st "investigation".

It is pathetic that the GOP scum pretends otherwise. They are very obviously lying. Do they just not care if everyone knows that they are lying?

 

[NoahFence]

It is pathetic that the GOP scum pretends otherwise. They are very obviously lying. Do they just not care if everyone knows that they are lying?

The bodies weren't even cold when the witch hunt began, given that it was all but understood that after Obama came Hillary. Republicans have been waiting in the weeds for this election so they can fight Hillary.

With.....


Donald Trump. Hahaha!!! Morons.

 

[Minoosh]

"Pushed to clarify whether they second rescue missed flight because they were told not to take it, Hicks responded: “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

I hope there's a copy-paste error going on here but I can't even tell what that sentence means. Whether they missed the second rescue flight?

Ignorant am I and informed I will become. I've avoided this thread from the get-go. What would help me is a timeline, if anyone can recommend a good one.

How much of this controversy hinges on the difference between an attack happening during a protest vs. an attack planned independent of a protest?

 

[The Big Dog]

"Pushed to clarify whether they second rescue missed flight because they were told not to take it, Hicks responded: “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

I hope there's a copy-paste error going on here but I can't even tell what that sentence means. Whether they missed the second rescue flight?

Ignorant am I and informed I will become. I've avoided this thread from the get-go. What would help me is a timeline, if anyone can recommend a good one.

How much of this controversy hinges on the difference between an attack happening during a protest vs. an attack planned independent of a protest?

It means that they did not go because they were told not to go. I think the missed the plane thing is a bit of sarcasm.

As far as the controversy, you know what they say, it ain't always the crime, it is the coverup.

 

[A'isha]

Ignorant am I and informed I will become. I've avoided this thread from the get-go. What would help me is a timeline, if anyone can recommend a good one.

This is a good comprehensive one. The relevant bits:

Around 12:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. ET): A six-man security team, including two Defense Dept. personnel, leave Embassy Tripoli for Benghazi.

1:30 a.m. (7:30 p.m. ET): The U.S. security team from Embassy Tripoli lands in Benghazi and learn that the ambassador is missing. They try to arrange for transportation into town, with the goal of locating Stevens.

[...]

5:15 a.m. (11:15 p.m. ET): The U.S. Regional Security Office in Tripoli gets a phone call from an Arabic-speaking source who says a Westerner has been found in Benghazi and is perhaps at a hospital. It's believed to be Ambassador Stevens. Transfer to airport is arranged.

At around the same time, the additional security team finds transportation from the airport under the escort of the Libyan Shield, another local militia, but decides to head to the annex after learning that Stevens was almost certainly dead. Just after their arrival, the annex takes mortar fire, sustaining three direct hits. The precision of the attacks indicates a level of sophistication and coordination.

Former U.S. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed in the mortar assault, which lasts just 11 minutes before dissipating; a DS agent and annex security member are severely wounded.

After the mortar attack, about 30 Americans evacuate the annex and head to the airport, with the assistance of the Libyan security convoy.

Ambassador Stevens is confirmed dead later that morning, as Americans see his body at the airport

Around 7:40 a.m. (1:40 a.m. ET): Unable to fit on one plane, the first wave of Americans - consisting of U.S. diplomats and civilians - departs Benghazi and heads to Tripoli, leaving behind security staff and bodies.

Around 10:00 a.m. (4 a.m. ET): The second flight leaves Benghazi for Tripoli with U.S. security members and bodies.

President Obama is told of Stevens' death. State Department tells all diplomatic posts around the world to review their security posture and to take all necessary steps to enhance it

That "second flight" is the one in question, a Libyan C-130. The above timeline only gives the time it left Benghazi to return to Tripoli, but it didn't leave Tripoli for Benghazi until 6 or 6:30 AM, after the attack was over and the American personnel had already assembled at the Benghazi airport, and didn't arrive in Benghazi until the first planeload of Americans had already left to return to Tripoli.

It means that they did not go because they were told not to go.

From the Committee on Armed Services Majority Interim Report: Benghazi Investigation Update:

At that time, Rear Admiral Brian L. Losey, SOCAFRICA’s commander, conveyed an order to Lieutenant Colonel Gibson to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there. Rear Admiral Losey said he was concerned about the possibility of follow-on attacks in Tripoli or a potential for attempts at hostage taking.

[...]

Rear Admiral Losey explained to the committee that it was rooted in his belief that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s team was “the only military element . . . in Tripoli that had any security experience whatsoever” and “it seemed prudent” to divide the few military personnel in Libya between Tripoli and Benghazi rather than concentrate them in one location. He said his decision was based on consultation with two other officers and the three had “about 90 years of collective Special Operations experience” between them.

Mr. Hicks, the DCM, described Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s distress to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in May 2013 and he did not object during the hearing when the soldier’s instructions were categorized as orders to “stand down.” This led some to conclude erroneously that inaction rather than an alternative warfighting posture was ordered for Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s four men. But, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s instructions were precisely clarified in a colloquy before the Armed Services Committee:

Mrs. Roby: . . . Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to . . . “stand down?”

Colonel Gibson: Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place. “Stand down” implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli. We continued to maintain visibility of the events as they unfolded.

Lieutenant Colonel Gibson made it clear to the committee that “in hindsight” he believes remaining in Tripoli was appropriate. “The decision by my higher headquarters to not get on that plane [to Benghazi] was the correct decision,” he told the committee. Indeed, he noted that had his unit left Tripoli as he originally intended, the medic would not have been available to treat the wounded when they arrived there later from Benghazi.

As Lieutenant Colonel Gibson noted to the committee, there is no doubt the instruction to remain in Tripoli to assist in protecting embassy staff was a “legal and lawful” order with which he properly complied. Rear Admiral Losey recounted that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson lodged no objections with him.

Although not directed to “stand down,” some might believe nonetheless that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson should have been allowed to proceed to Benghazi. But Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s orders rested upon the impressions that Rear Admiral Losey and other more senior officers had of the threat in Libya, the adequacy of the defenses that the State Department personnel and local forces could provide, and how best to deploy and utilize the SST.

Additionally,

In recounting his experiences to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Greg Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli and became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was missing, suggested that he thought such an aircraft from Aviano might arrive over Benghazi within a few hours. Mr. Hicks thought an unarmed overflight was desirable. Using a colloquialism for a fighter, he declared before the Oversight Committee that “a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point . . . as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”

Although the committee will continue to gather and assess information on this topic, it seems that had the risks been deemed acceptable and one or more unarmed fighter aircraft were flown over Benghazi, the effort would probably have been ineffective. Even if such planes could have been dispatched in a timely manner, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for pilots (even with night vision capability) to identify and overfly attackers in very low light. Furthermore, to minimize the antiaircraft threat, an overflight would probably taken place at a relatively high altitude and this would have lessened the putative deterrent effect on enemy forces arrayed far below. This is especially the case because the Benghazi attackers demonstrated th they were the sort of experienced fighters that Major General Roberso nwarned might be less fearful of an unarmed overflight. Those who struck the U.S. facilities seemed to have carefully planned their actions, scouted the scene beforehand, and were able to skillfully and accurately employ mortar fire.

Nonetheless, some have suggested that dispatching unarmed aircraft should have been considered, at least as an interim step before more about the attack and potential response became known. In this reading, had one or more jets been launched, a recall order could have been issued before arriving over Benghazi if problems arose with refueling or overflight permissions, or if a preferable alternative was developed in the meantime. But, in light of all these factors, majority members believe the use of unarmed aircraft, with no countermeasure capability, refueling arrangements, or targeting assistance, amidst a dangerous antiaircraft environment, would have offered only a small likelihood of benefitting those under attack. It makes sense that this remote option was apparently not more actively contemplated.

 

[The Big Dog]

All those words just to confirm what Greg hicks said.

Fantastic

 

[A'isha]

All those words just to confirm what Greg hicks said.

Fantastic

"Mr. Hicks...did not object during the hearing when the soldier’s instructions were categorized as orders to 'stand down.' This led some to conclude erroneously that inaction rather than an alternative warfighting posture was ordered for Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s four men. But, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s instructions were precisely clarified in a colloquy before the Armed Services Committee:

Mrs. Roby: . . . Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to . . . 'stand down?'

Colonel Gibson: Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place. 'Stand down' implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli. We continued to maintain visibility of the events as they unfolded."

 

[The Big Dog]

"Mr. Hicks...did not object during the hearing when the soldier’s instructions were categorized as orders to 'stand down.' This led some to conclude erroneously that inaction rather than an alternative warfighting posture was ordered for Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s four men. But, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s instructions were precisely clarified in a colloquy before the Armed Services Committee:

Mrs. Roby: . . . Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to . . . 'stand down?'

Colonel Gibson: Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place. 'Stand down' implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli. We continued to maintain visibility of the events as they unfolded."

Did not object, holy crap, now you are really stretching.

You know who else did not object? Hillary, when she knew that the CIA was peddling garbage and lies.

 

[acbytesla]

It means that they did not go because they were told not to go. I think the missed the plane thing is a bit of sarcasm.

As far as the controversy, you know what they say, it ain't always the crime, it is the coverup.

This ain't Watergate where the administration actually burglarized the Democratic Headquarters and then covered it up. Maybe some mistakes were made, but no crime.was committed. It's not Iran Contra where that administration to get around Congress, traded military arms to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua. There are no officials like Ollie North testifying to plausible deniability.

 

[tyr_13]

This ain't Watergate where the administration actually burglarized the Democratic Headquarters and then covered it up. Maybe some mistakes were made, but no crime.was committed. It's not Iran Contra where that administration to get around Congress, traded military arms to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua. There are no officials like Ollie North testifying to plausible deniability.

'It ain't the crime, it's the coverup', and yet they haven't even shown a coverup or what was supposed to be covered up...

This was a waste of government money for partizan activities.

 

[A'isha]

Did not object, holy crap, now you are really stretching.

"Chaffetz: So the military is told to stand down, not engage in the fight. These are the kind of people willing to engage. Where did that message come down, where did the stand-down order come from?

Hicks. I believe it came from either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA.

[...]

Turner: Mr. Hicks, I'm a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I'm very fascinated with the stand-down order to Colonel Gibson. As we pursue that, we want to know who gave Colonel Gibson the order and why. And so we want -- I would like to review that stand-down order with you and what your experienced that night since you were with him as he was receiving that stand-down order.

[...]

Turner: Now, do you know why they were told to stand down? Did Colonel Gibson give you any information or understanding?

Hicks: I actually don’t know why.

[...]

DeSantis: Even though you believed help was needed, there was a SOF unit, special operations units ordered to stand down, correct?

Hicks: Yes.

[...]


DeSantis.: So when the order to stand down was given, who issued that order? Were you told? Did Lieutenant Colonel Gibson tell you who was ultimately responsible for issuing that order?

Hicks: He did not identify the person.

[...]

DeSantis: And have you, since this incident has happened and you have been interviewed, have you been enlightened as to who was ultimately responsible for issuing the stand down order?

Hicks: I think that the right person to pose that question to is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson."

...

"REP. ROBY: At the May 8 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Gregory Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Missions at the Embassy in Tripoli that you have referred to, on the day of Benghazi attacks, he was asked by a Member, and I quote, "You believed help was needed in Benghazi, and there was a SOF unit, Special Operations unit, ordered to stand down, correct?" And Mr. Hicks replies "yes" to this question.

Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to, quote, 'stand down'?

GIBSON: Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down."

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Hicks is lying through his teeth, period. And he is using the graves of the dead, literally, to make a partisan point he knows is false. I'd say that makes him a pretty disgusting individual and a disgrace to his uniform.

 

[Dog Town]

'It ain't the crime, it's the coverup', and yet they haven't even shown a coverup....

Clueless... table for...