New Disclosures on Benghazi

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, are you saying that you think Ham thought that Stevens did not believe that there was a risk of attack in the short term? I'm certain I do not understand what you base that on, and there are no links in your post to guide us.

We know that the VERY LAST ENTRY in Stevens diary was: 'Never ending security threats...'

Stevens went to Benghazi even though he wasn't directed to. Ham interpreted this to mean that Stevens (like everyone else) did not perceive that there was a heightened risk of an attack during the time he would spend in Benghazi.

We know that Eric Nordstrom testified that he asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response. He said that Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low." Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi.

We also know the exact array of the security forces that day both Libyan and American, it is detailed above in the Vanity Fair article I linked.

To answer your questions: Not enough security.

We know that there was a request 5 security agents for the Benghazi mission. The DoS gave them 3. Stevens took 2 more along with him. Doing a little math: 3 + 2 = 5

 

[The Big Dog]

Stevens went to Benghazi even though he wasn't directed to. Ham interpreted this to mean that Stevens (like everyone else) did not perceive that there was a heightened risk of an attack during the time he would spend in Benghazi.



We know that there was a request 5 security agents for the Benghazi mission. The DoS gave them 3. Stevens took 2 more along with him. Doing a little math: 3 + 2 = 5

Thanks Telly, but the security situation was a little more complicated than your post. I'd strongly suggest reading the vanity fair piece I posted. You'll find a more detailed description than your post.

Stevens went to Benghazi because that was his job. The State Department didn't respond to the requests for security. We know that, that is what the testimony showed. Stevens went anyway because that was what he felt his duty was. If it is your theory that Stevens death was his own fault, I respectfully disagree. If you have links, I'm sure the people following this thread would be happy to consider them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Of course, we would be remiss not to mention the Petition presented to Congress by Special Operations Speaks, an organization of veterans, Special Forces, and other supporters asking John Boehner to open up a special Benghazi probe committee.

"Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas), began circulating a Discharge Petition HR 36 to force a House vote on forming the panel, which would investigate events leading up to the terrorist attack last year on the U.S. diplomatic annex in Benghazi, as well as the Obama administration's response."

While clearly the GOP is not at all on lockstep on this (unlike the Democratic Majority in the Senate who does not intend to do anything to investigate the terror attack in Benghazi), clearly the pressure is building in light of the unquestioned facts showing the the Executive Branch is actively interfering with the investigation (see my posts on the Non Disclosure Agreements and the mysterious case of the retired/not retired Colonel).

As usual, a link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/sos-conservatives-putting-pressure-on-boehner-to-force-special-benghazi-probe

 

[A'isha]

http://www.examiner.com/article/sos-conservatives-putting-pressure-on-boehner-to-force-special-benghazi-probe

SOS stated that some of the scheduled speakers at this point will include, U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), SOS Co-founder and retired Air Force Colonel Dick Brauer Jr., and SOS Co-founder Larry Bailey, a retired Navy CAPT and Navy SEAL.

On Friday, former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and a former Army Lieutenant Colonel announced that he will be a featured speaker at the July 23 Capitol steps press event according to SOS.

I'm sure this motley gaggle of birthers and lunatics will finally blow this scandal wide open.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know that most of you are aware that the State Department has highly restricted access to the survivors (most appallingly, through Non-Disclosure Agreements) but personal details are beginning to leak through the Foggy Wall.

Here is an update regarding one of the people most seriously injured during the attacks (and who will no doubt be familiar to most of us through the Vanity Fair article I posted).

As usual, a link:

Benghazi Hero still recovering at Walter Reed

 

[A'isha]

As usual, a link:

Benghazi Hero still recovering at Walter Reed

Oddly, despite ostensibly being about the injured survivor, the article barely mentions him, and provides no details (other than the pointless one of his name) that aren't already found in other sources like "Benghazi: the Definitive Report".

It also bears the usual hallmarks of Fox News' partisan agenda, such as the following:

In a related development, a Fox News poll released Thursday shows a majority of voters thinks President Obama should have ordered U.S. troops to go in and help the Americans at the besieged consulate.

Sixty-two percent of voters believe Obama should have sent troops. This number is down slightly from last month’s poll when 69 percent said the president should have ordered the military into action.

Since the military was ordered into action and US troops were ordered to go in and help, it appears that 62% of American voters have been misled by the right wing's lies about Benghazi. The good news is that 7% appear to have realized that since last month.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oddly, despite ostensibly being about the injured survivor, the article barely mentions him, and provides no details (other than the pointless one of his name) that aren't already found in other sources like "Benghazi: the Definitive Report".

It also bears the usual hallmarks of Fox News' partisan agenda, such as the following:

Since the military was ordered into action and US troops were ordered to go in and help, it appears that 62% of American voters have been misled by the right wing's lies about Benghazi. The good news is that 7% appear to have realized that since last month.

I am at a loss to see why you claim that his name is "pointless." That seems stunningly disrespectful. As we have seen the State Department has forced its personnel to sign Non Disclosure Agreements. The SA does not even think that you are entitled to his name. Further, the Definitive Report was issued in March, ANTPogo. The free article I linked contains substantial information that could not have been provided then

/and although I have no intention of getting into a lengthy Fox News Discussion, the poll questions was:

"On the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, President Obama did not order U.S. troops to go in and help the Americans at the consulate there. Do you think the president should have sent troops, or not?"

In light of that question, ANTPogo, If you have some basis to support your contention regarding "the right wing's lies about Benghazi," I am sure that everyone reading this thread would be interested to review the link.

 

[A'isha]

I am at a loss to see why you claim that his name is "pointless." That seems stunningly disrespectful. As we have seen the State Department has forced its personnel to sign Non Disclosure Agreements. The SA does not even think that you are entitled to his name.

Why do we need to know his name? What bearing does knowing his name have on what happened at Benghazi?

"On the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, President Obama did not order U.S. troops to go in and help the Americans at the consulate there. Do you think the president should have sent troops, or not?"

In light of that question, ANTPogo, If you have some basis to support your contention regarding "the right wing's lies about Benghazi," I am sure that everyone reading this thread would be interested to review the link.

Because the statement that "On the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, President Obama did not order U.S. troops to go in and help the Americans at the consulate there" is a flat-out lie. Two Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams were ordered to deploy to Libya, as was Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, with the orders being given while the events in Benghazi were still unfolding.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do we need to know his name? What bearing does knowing his name have on what happened at Benghazi?

Because the statement that "On the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, President Obama did not order U.S. troops to go in and help the Americans at the consulate there" is a flat-out lie. Two Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams were ordered to deploy to Libya, as was Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, with the orders being given while the events in Benghazi were still unfolding.

I understand that you feel that the State Department's refusal to provide the identity of the actual witnesses is justified. They are using Non Disclosure agreements to prevent that information from being known.

I notice a lack of links in your posts. There is no dispute that, despite your accusations of lies, that know no US Troops were ordered to Benghazi. Lets go to an actual statement of the commanding officer:

Why were no forces were deployed to Benghazi after the initial assault, Ham told the Aspen Institute that “in my mind at that point, we were no longer in a response to an attack. We were in a recovery.”

“And frankly, I thought, we were in a potential hostage rescue situation, because the ambassador was unaccounted for,” he said. “So all the worst fears as a U.S. ambassador now held hostage.”

FEST of course had already been ordered to stand down, agreed? Can we at least agree to that fact?

 

[A'isha]

I notice a lack of links in your posts.

Because this is hardly the first time the "no troops were ordered to deploy" lie has been discussed in this thread.

But if you want links, here, here, here, and here.

Why were no forces were deployed to Benghazi after the initial assault, Ham told the Aspen Institute that “in my mind at that point, we were no longer in a response to an attack. We were in a recovery.”

He was talking about his reactions in general, not justifying a supposed refusal to order troops to deploy (which had, as shown above, actually been done).

Ham also debunked Hicks' nonsense about sending a fighter jet, making him the second military official after Colonel Gibson to contradict Hicks' testimony about the military response that night.

FEST of course had already been ordered to stand down, agreed? Can we at least agree to that fact?

FEST also isn't a military unit of "U.S. troops".

 

[The Big Dog]

Because this is hardly the first time the "no troops were ordered to deploy" lie has been discussed in this thread.

But if you want links, here, here, here, and here.



He was talking about his reactions in general, not justifying a supposed refusal to order troops to deploy (which had, as shown above, actually been done).

Ham also debunked Hicks' nonsense about sending a fighter jet, making him the second military official after Colonel Gibson to contradict Hicks' testimony about the military response that night.


FEST also isn't a military unit of "U.S. troops".

Antpogo, the question was whether troops were sent to Benghazi.

The links you provided confirm that no troops were sent to Benghazi.

You accused the "right wing" of lying, yet your own links contradict your claim.

I'm not sure what Hicks has to do with anything. You have made your personal feelings about him well known, however.

 

[The Big Dog]

CNN's Interview with a Benghazi suspect

Yesterday, CNN aired a portion of a two hour interview that may help to answer the question why no one responsible for the attack has been brought to justice.

How come the FBI isn't doing this and yet CNN is?

See CNN's recent interview with Ahmed Abu Khattala, who Libyan and U.S. officials have described as the Benghazi leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated militia group Ansar al-Sharia.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/politics/benghazi-investigation-suspect/index.html

 

[Mike!]

Hmmmm.....

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/?hpt=po_c2

 

[A'isha]

I'm curious as to why it's news that a facility universally referred to as the "CIA annex" (starting almost immediately after the Benghazi attacks happened) turns out to have been staffed by people working for the CIA.

 

[mikedenk]

Is there a point where people need to stop digging for more information? Exposing the truth of the operation may be damaging to national security as a whole, not just the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, if it was a legitimate, highly-classified operation, why can't the administration just bring in some high-ranking Republican Senators and Congressmen and read them on?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm curious as to why it's news that a facility universally referred to as the "CIA annex" (starting almost immediately after the Benghazi attacks happened) turns out to have been staffed by people working for the CIA.

I think the "news" is the fact that the CIA people on the ground in benghazi have been subject to an unprecedented series of polygraph tests in order to make sure that they don't talk.

Just like the state department non disclosure agreements.

And the Pentagon's curiously not retired colonel.

Nothing to see here citizen.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'm curious as to why it's news that a facility universally referred to as the "CIA annex" (starting almost immediately after the Benghazi attacks happened) turns out to have been staffed by people working for the CIA.

In fact, it isn't even news. Or at least not new news, and this thread is supposed to be about "new developments". The Wall Street Journal reported this information back on Nov. 1. In fact, this isn't even the first time that CNN has reported this. They did so back on May 15!

 

[Mister Earl]

And to follow up my earlier post, I want to stress that there is no evidence that the investigation is politically motivated. I cannot say the same for the failure to investigate.

If it wasn't politically motivated, then we would've seen the same reaction from the same people during every attack under Bush.

Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on The US Consulate at Kolkata on January 22nd of 2002 that killed 5 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate at Karachi on June 14th in 2002 that killed 12 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Islamabad on February 28th of 2003 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy at Tashkent on June 30th of 2004 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US compound in Saudi Arabia on December 6th of 2004 that left 9 dead?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate on Karachi on March 2nd, 2006 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Syria on September 12, 2006 that killed 4 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Yemen on March 18th, 2008 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate in Istanbul on July 9th 2008 that killed 6 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Yemen on September 17th, 2008 that killed 16 people?

Nary a peep from the right during these. But when a political opponent is in office? Suddenly it's a scandal. And you think it isn't political?

 

[A'isha]

I think the "news" is the fact that the CIA people on the ground in benghazi have been subject to an unprecedented series of polygraph tests in order to make sure that they don't talk.

Just like the state department non disclosure agreements.

And the Pentagon's curiously not retired colonel.

Nothing to see here citizen.

Wait, wait, wait...are you telling me that the CIA is trying to keep the details of one of its operations secret?! When did they start doing things like this? They were always such an open and transparent organization before that Obama guy got elected!

 

[The Big Dog]

If it wasn't politically motivated, then we would've seen the same reaction from the same people during every attack under Bush.

Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on The US Consulate at Kolkata on January 22nd of 2002 that killed 5 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate at Karachi on June 14th in 2002 that killed 12 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Islamabad on February 28th of 2003 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy at Tashkent on June 30th of 2004 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US compound in Saudi Arabia on December 6th of 2004 that left 9 dead?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate on Karachi on March 2nd, 2006 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Syria on September 12, 2006 that killed 4 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Yemen on March 18th, 2008 that killed 2 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Consulate in Istanbul on July 9th 2008 that killed 6 people?
Where is the public investigation with outcries of "scandal" and "coverup" after the attack on the US Embassy in Yemen on September 17th, 2008 that killed 16 people?

Nary a peep from the right during these. But when a political opponent is in office? Suddenly it's a scandal. And you think it isn't political?

Where to begin?

In all of those cases, there was no "cover up." Unlike the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where we see: 1. Non Disclosure Agreements; 2. Abusive and totally unprecedented repeated polygraph tests on CIA personnel; 3. the Pentagon lying about the status of a witness.

How many of those attacks involved deaths of an American? How many involved the deaths of 4 Americans? How many involved the death of an Ambassador? How many involved the complete take over of an American facility? How many involved the complete take over of two facilities?

None, of course. "But Bush...."

The subject is the attack on the facility at Benghazi. Your tu quoque fallacies are totally off topic.