New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The State Department and the Pentagon released responses today about him.

Yes, they both commented on him totally out of the blue for no reason.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, they both commented on him totally out of the blue for no reason.

They commented about him personally because he testified before Congress yesterday.

Enough said.

 

[elbe]

Sounds like Greg Hicks has a huge target on his back.

Are you drawing unsupported conclusions again? Could you provide a little reasoning behind that assumption?

 

[A'isha]

They commented about him personally because he testified before Congress yesterday.

Why on Earth would you expect them to not comment on his testimony?

 

[Tony]

I guess I'm just an optimist.

An optimist or a masochist?

 

[A'isha]

An optimist or a masochist?

Some days, I'm not entirely sure!

Anyway, Foreign Policy has an email from an American diplomat about Hicks that...well, just read it:

"Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous? Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked ‘desk officers' working honorably at the State Department. Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."

Ouch.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The giant, glaring flaw in your statement is that military help was actually sent.

The fighting was all over before it had a chance to arrive.

The Pentagon disagrees with you.

 

[A'isha]

The Pentagon disagrees with you.

What, exactly, do they disagree with me about?

 

[The Big Dog]

Some days, I'm not entirely sure!

Anyway, Foreign Policy has an email from an American diplomat about Hicks that...well, just read it:

Ouch.

Sounds like Greg Hicks has a huge target on his back.

 

[A'isha]

Sounds like Greg Hicks has a huge target on his back.

No, sounds like his fellow State Department employees are wondering why he was a big giant idiot in front of Issa's dog-and-pony show yesterday.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sounds like Greg Hicks has a huge target on his back.

Well, duh. He's embarrassing some very powerful people.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, sounds like his fellow State Department employees are wondering why he was a big giant idiot in front of Issa's dog-and-pony show yesterday.

Greg Hicks: big giant idiot.

ANTPogo, 5/09/13.


“No matter who you are, do not be a fanatic. Do not be a fanatic neither religious, nor ideological, nor political, neither positive nor negative, neither any look nor lifestyle. Fanatic has an image of a goner.”
― Ilkin Santak

 

[A'isha]

“No matter who you are, do not be a fanatic. Do not be a fanatic neither religious, nor ideological, nor political, neither positive nor negative, neither any look nor lifestyle. Fanatic has an image of a goner.”
― Ilkin Santak

That's really good advice. You should consider taking it.

 

[A'isha]

Well, duh. He's embarrassing some very powerful people.

Are you not going to answer my question? What do you think the Pentagon disagrees with me about?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Greg Hicks: big giant idiot.

ANTPogo, 5/09/13.


“No matter who you are, do not be a fanatic. Do not be a fanatic neither religious, nor ideological, nor political, neither positive nor negative, neither any look nor lifestyle. Fanatic has an image of a goner.”
― Ilkin Santak

It's easier to insult and deflect than admit there were some strange decisions (probably just incompetency) committed by senior administration officials that day and during the days that followed.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's easier to insult and deflect than admit there were some strange decisions (probably just incompetency) committed by senior administration officials that day and during the days that followed.

Yeah, it has been a real eye opener. Now we are getting into personal attacks on the witnesses, time to bow out.

 

[triforcharity]

There was no siege on the embassy.

Really? How are our men DEAD? If there wasn't a siege, how did our people die?

Help was being sent, and sent right away.

"Midnight to 2 a.m. -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy."

If the fighting had lasted for another 24 hours, then those forces would have arrived in time to assist. However, the fighting actually ended before they could arrive (which is what the Pentagon statement above is reiterating).

There was a team in Tripoli, 1 hour flight time to Benghazi. They didn't go. Why? They were told to stand down. The RIGHT decision, would have been to send as many guys as they had available, immediately. Without delay. When the attack started, we should have sent help. Feel free to disagree all you want. It would make you wrong.


Unless it's all untrue, which I'd find hard to believe. SOCAFRICA even agreed that they said no go.

When our people were attacked, and being shot at, we should have sent teams IMMEDIATELY!! Without delay!!

 

[RandFan]

The Pentagon disputed Hicks' claims, too, saying that there was nothing it could have done to mount a rescue in time. Pentagon press secretary George Little, briefing reporters on Wednesday, said: "The fact remains – as we have repeatedly indicated – that United States forces could not have arrived in time to mount a rescue of those Americans killed or injured that night."

Has anyone disproved this?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Really? How are our men DEAD? If there wasn't a siege, how did our people die?



There was a team in Tripoli, 1 hour flight time to Benghazi. They didn't go. Why? They were told to stand down. The RIGHT decision, would have been to send as many guys as they had available, immediately. Without delay. When the attack started, we should have sent help. Feel free to disagree all you want. It would make you wrong.


Unless it's all untrue, which I'd find hard to believe. SOCAFRICA even agreed that they said no go.

Well, you see, all they had were their sidearms on them. And it was entirely inconceivable for them to take arms that they picked up in Tripoli. Entirely. Couldn't be conceived. They just couldn't go. They wouldn't have gotten there in time anyways.

There also couldn't have been any fast movers over Libya. Nope. Nearest jet was in northern Italy, and it didn't have the legs to get over Libya. It's entirely inconceivable for it to land at a US naval air base in Sicily and refuel. Yup. Entirely.

On a more serious note, why was the FAST team, normally located in Sicily, on a training mission in Croatia on September 11? That's normally the day of "maximum alertness" for foreign based installations.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Has anyone disproved this?

No, just a lot of Monday quarterback ranting by armchair generals....