New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see that the attempt to extort a resignation and political absence via expressly false defamation still continues.
 
16.5 said:
Every post you make on Hicks is just another inch on top of the snow job. Your argument is utterly ludicrous, I thought I made that point quite clear.
Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that no one else seems to care what you think is "utterly ludicrous"? Especially when you can't seem to comprehend anyone's posts?

No one, literally no one believes that Greg Hick's failure to answer the phone at night in his personal quarters and the resulting what? delay? made the slightest bit of difference, and you have certainly not suggested let alone made the case that it did so.
Click to expand...
And back to the out of context interpretation.


I think it is absolutely marvelous. ANTPogo thinks that Greg Hicks is an idiot folks... that tells you one hell of a lot about ANTPogo's arguments, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but your continual misrepresentations of what other people have posted says everything that anyone would ever have to know about your arguments.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
The context being that Ant thinks that Hicks is an "idiot"
Click to expand...

Because of his moronic misunderstanding of how the military works and what its capabilities are.

and the ongoing investigation into the murders in Benghazi a "clownshow."
Click to expand...

There is no "ongoing investigation". There's just Issa's partisan political theater.
 
16.5 said:
1. Ham asked Stevens if he wanted the troops
2 Stevens said no while...
3 begging the state department for additional security
4 which was not provided because
5 hills had a soft footprint policy in Libya as part of
6 obama's larger claims of success in Libya and against the war on terror
7 which lead to the bs talking points and subsequent nonsense story that he attack was spontaneous in response to a video.

QED
Click to expand...

Building on this post, I noticed today an article regarding the publication of Ambassador Stevens' Benghazi Diary: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/26/chris_stevens_benghazi_diary_published_brooding_hopeful_final_days

I think that no matter which side of the investigation you are on, you will find the attached link interesting. In any event, in line with point three above, Stevens's final entry in his diary, dated Sept. 11, reads: "Never ending security threats…"
 
As part of our commitment to the very finest summary of developments regarding the Benghazi Massacre, the latest:

The Armed Forces Committee (whose chairman is not Rep. Issa) is investigating the failures in Benghazi. Military Leaders, including General Ham and LTC Gibson, testified in a closed classified hearing.

Readout of Hearing here

There were two significant issues disclosed. The most significant was:

When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process.

Brennan was promoted to the head of the CIA. Unbelievable.

The second issue disclosed was that Gibson confirmed Hicks' testimony about Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

However, Gibson stated that he was not ordered to "stand down," but rather "he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi." The release also states something that does not make sense at all: "Gibson acknowledged that had he deployed to Benghazi he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended." Beyond the fact that this appear to contradict the claim that they were armed only with sidearms (which is a minor claim of course, as we know that Gibson had access to the entire armory in the Embassy) this does contradict Hicks testimony that:

"In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.

We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted."

It appears that on 9/12, Gibson concluded that the situation in Tripoli was secure enough to go, but now concludes that it would have left the Americans "undefended." That does not make sense.
 
The former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.
Click to expand...

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/...cle_3ebd5c58-41ab-577c-98ac-331d752cc9c4.html



at this point the Benghazites should be considered about as serious as Birthers and 9/11 Twoofers.
 
Last edited:
Myron Proudfoot said:
http://azstarnet.com/news/national/...cle_3ebd5c58-41ab-577c-98ac-331d752cc9c4.html



at this point the Benghazites should be considered about as serious as Birthers and 9/11 Twoofers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted that, along with the testimony from Ham that John Brennan had not consulted with ham in connection with reviewing the security situation in Libya and elsewhere on 9/11. You missed that, huh.

It is important to note that they did not order the team to stand down, they just ordered it not to go to Benghazi, despite the fact that the senior diplomat and the senior military person the ground concluded that the team should go Benghazi.

Now FEST? Yeah, them the state department ordered to stand down.
 
16.5 said:
As part of our commitment to the very finest summary of developments regarding the Benghazi Massacre, the latest:
Click to expand...

"Our"? Is more than one person posting under the username 16.5?

The second issue disclosed was that Gibson confirmed Hicks' testimony about Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

However, Gibson stated that he was not ordered to "stand down," but rather "he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi." The release also states something that does not make sense at all: "Gibson acknowledged that had he deployed to Benghazi he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended." Beyond the fact that this appear to contradict the claim that they were armed only with sidearms (which is a minor claim of course, as we know that Gibson had access to the entire armory in the Embassy) this does contradict Hicks testimony that:

"In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.

We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted."

It appears that on 9/12, Gibson concluded that the situation in Tripoli was secure enough to go, but now concludes that it would have left the Americans "undefended." That does not make sense.
Click to expand...

On what basis did you conclude that Gibson thought that the situation in Tripoli was secure? And how did you arrive at any conclusion about what weapons the Special Forces members had from the information that you posted?

According to the Arizona Star article, the Special Forces members wouldn't haven't gotten to Benghazi in time to be of any help. Since they would have gotten to Benghazi too late to have helped and they turned out that the medic from the group was needed at the Tripoli airport, isn't it possible that the correct decision was made?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
"Our"? Is more than one person posting under the username 16.5?



On what basis did you conclude that Gibson thought that the situation in Tripoli was secure? And how did you arrive at any conclusion about what weapons the Special Forces members had from the information that you posted?

According to the Arizona Star article, the Special Forces members wouldn't haven't gotten to Benghazi in time to be of any help. Since they would have gotten to Benghazi too late to have helped and they turned out that the medic from the group was needed at the Tripoli airport, isn't it possible that the correct decision was made?
Click to expand...

Gibson thought the area was secure (and it was secure) because he made the tactical decision to take the charter to benghazi. C'mon man, this is basic stuff, you think he would have left tripoli if tripoli was not secure? Hicks after consultation with the Libyans made it so.

I hope you don't think he is an idiot and a moron like some.

Me: hey here is an important development confirming part of hicks testimony.
Troll: he's a moron
Me: lolz, game over
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Gibson thought the area was secure (and it was secure) because he made the tactical decision to take the charter to benghazi. C'mon man, this is basic stuff, you think he would have left tripoli if tripoli was not secure? Hicks after consultation with the Libyans made it so.

I hope you don't think he is an idiot and a moron like some.
Click to expand...

The fact that Gibson either wanted or was willing to go to Benghazi, depending on how you interpret what you posted earlier since it appears to have been Hicks who pushed for the group to go to Benghazi, says nothing about how secure the Tripoli embassy was. Yes, it is completely plausible that the Special Forces members were more interested in getting into the fight in Benghazi than they were about securing the embassy in Tripoli. Once again, you are claiming something that is not supported by anything but your own speculation. Just as you did by making a claim about what sort of weapons the Special Forces members had.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The fact that Gibson either wanted or was willing to go to Benghazi, depending on how you interpret what you posted earlier since it appears to have been Hicks who pushed for the group to go to Benghazi, says nothing about how secure the Tripoli embassy was. Yes, it is completely plausible that the Special Forces members were more interested in getting into the fight in Benghazi than they were about securing the embassy in Tripoli. Once again, you are claiming something that is not supported by anything but your own speculation. Just as you did by making a claim about what sort of weapons the Special Forces members had.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is completely plausible that the Special Forces members were more interested in getting into the fight in Benghazi than they were about securing the embassy in Tripoli. Once again, you are claiming something that is not supported by anything but your own speculation.

Bwhahaha!!!! Good one! Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

Maybe they were just gung ho GI Joe types who were willing to leave an unsafe area unprotected because you guess that Hicks was pushing for it, and anyone is speculating if they say anything different!

Hee hee!

I'll ignore the weapons claim because I, unlike you, know what testimony there was regarding the movement of the arsenal from the Embassy.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, it is completely plausible that the Special Forces members were more interested in getting into the fight in Benghazi than they were about securing the embassy in Tripoli. Once again, you are claiming something that is not supported by anything but your own speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming anything. I am pointing out a plausible alternative to your claim. There is a big difference between the two, and you seem to be the only person who doesn't comprehend the difference between making claims and pointing out possibilities.

Bwhahaha!!!! Good one! Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

Maybe they were just gung ho GI Joe types who were willing to leave an unsafe area unprotected because you guess that Hicks was pushing for it, and anyone is speculating if they say anything different!
Click to expand...

Now you're claiming that we don't know whether Hicks was in favor of sending the Special Forces members to Benghazi? Your own post quoted Hicks as saying that "We determined that Lt. Gibson and his team of Special Forces should go." Do you not even understand your own posts?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Now you're claiming that we don't know whether Hicks was in favor of sending the Special Forces members to Benghazi? Your own post quoted Hicks as saying that "We determined that Lt. Gibson and his team of Special Forces should go." Do you not even understand your own posts?
Click to expand...

Who is we, Telly?

You know who WE is Telly?

Hicks and LTC Gibson among others.

Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

You speculation is completely IMPLAUSIBLE.

At least you were smart enough to back off the weapon accusation
 
16.5 said:
Who is we, Telly?

You know who WE is Telly?

Hicks and LTC Gibson among others.

Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

You speculation is completely IMPLAUSIBLE.
Click to expand...

So now you're back to believing that Hicks was in favor of sending the Special Forces members to Benghazi, after in your last post claiming that I was speculating when I said that Hicks was in favor of it? I'm getting dizzy trying to keep up with all the changes in your stances.

At least you were smart enough to back off the weapon accusation
Click to expand...

LOL!!! I didn't mention this issue in my last post proves that anything has changed? Another one of your "if it hasn't been proven to be wrong then it must be right" conclusions.

The reality is that the Special Forces team would have gotten to Benghazi after the folks in Benghazi were already on their way to Tripoli.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
Is it wrong that I'm reading that like it's in a Ken Burns documentary?
Click to expand...

Yes, Ken Burns makes documentaries about real life events, ANTPOgo's post is complete fiction designed to disrupt the thread.

Call me naive but I have this dream that someone (other than me) will say:

Hey ANTPogo Ham's newly released testimony that the person in the Administration coordinating security and contingency planning for 9/11 did not talk to the Senior Military Commander over the most volatile region on earth, and had he done he might have learned that Ham was so concerned about the security situation in Libya that he offered the Diplomats a military team, which was rejected, and maybe the President of the United States should do something about it is clearly new information and hand waving it away does not reflect well on you or your arguments.

There are no "what ifs": the contingency and security planning was incompetently done.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Hey ANTPogo Ham's newly released testimony that the person in the Administration coordinating security and contingency planning for 9/11 did not talk to the Senior Military Commander over the most volatile region on earth, and had he done he might have learned that Ham was so concerned about the security situation in Libya that he offered the Diplomats a military team, which was rejected, and maybe the President of the United States should do something about it is clearly new information and hand waving it away does not reflect well on you or your arguments.
Click to expand...

So, that "revelation" is only significant because your unsupported what-ifs say so?

Okay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom