Skip to comments.New Detailed Account of Benghazi Attack Notes CIAs Quick Response (Raddatz does CYA for O)
Posted on 11/02/2012 5:52:17 AM PDT by SeafoodGumbo
Intelligence officials have disclosed a new detailed timeline of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, acknowledging the CIA played a greater role in responding to the attack than has previously been disclosed. Â A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders âto stand down in providing support,â as had been suggested in media reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Apologies...I don’t remember the moderator’s handle to tell him that the html needs fixing. Can someone beep him, por favor.
I have oceanfront property for sale in Arizona too.
The CIA is not a military force. It’s an intelligence service.
Expecting them to “respond” and not only defend and rescue some 30 people and protect or retake a facility is utterly ridiculous.
Obama’s policy of sheltering the Islamists has knowingly left Americans and American interests undefended in all parts of the world, including the US (remember Fort Hood?).
There should have been an immediate military response to the attack on the consulate and the CIA “annex.” The CIA is not designed for this, military actions undertaken by its own members are not its purpose, and blaming the CIA for having been inadequate to deal with the attack is a cynical shifting of blame. But “Cynical” should be Barry’s middle name by now.
LOL, and the REASON this took 7 weeks to come out is.......?
How F’n STUPID does this admin think we are (a rhetorical question)?
Martha Raddatz! I don’t care what you say. I want to see someone dragged into the public square, before a firing squad. I want to hear them beg for help, Martha. I want you to cover it for ABC.
Too convenient to be withheld for so long. I don’t buy the story and of all people to reveal this information...Martha Radditz....curious, not.
Well it all makes sense now. Two coordinated attacks, unfriendly militias blocking the roads, automatic weapons, deadly mortar fire.
Sounds like a spontaneous protest over a video.
Obfuscate and confuse. It’s all they have left. Firing blanks with much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Martha Raddatz and ABC have no credibility left. I wouldn’t believe anything they report.
The Republic is dead... we are officially a full fledged democracy, where the ruling political class fabricate facts as needed. Call me when you’re really ready for a REAL REVOLUTION...
The ambassador had told the State Department that the compound was not able to be protected from a coordinated attack, which he had reason to believe was coming because AQ had training camps in the area and the mission there in Benghazi was the only diplomatic target left in the city. So the government had already been told 3 weeks in advance that CIA assets were NOT enough.
And anything that happened within the CIA or State Department doesn’t negate the fact that the military system and POTUS were both alerted so the standard protocols would begin. Christopher Stevens personally called the guy in charge of the mission and told him they were under attack. The guy activated the red alert, which automatically sends out messages to a bunch of people including the military and POTUS.
From what knowledgeable people have said here and elsewhere, I understand that a red alert requires somebody physically with the POTUS to physically tell the President within 10 minutes that there is a critical situation. The contingency plans, which the military practices continually to prepare for any type of situation, begin automatically and include gathering assets to be sent to the affected area so that when it is clear which assets are needed they are all readily available.
What kind of government “investigation” is being done into what really happened there, when the rubble at the compound included 2 letters expressing disappointment that previous requests for additional security for Stevens from the police and the Libyan regime had been ignored - letters which also mentioned that what little “security” had been sent had actually photographed the inside of the complex just that morning (Sept 11th)?
Sean Smith was on the computer conversing with his gaming friends when the attack hit; he had previously commented about not being sure he’d survive the night, since the “police” had taken photos of the inside of the complex that morning - expressing cynical (and well-placed) suspicion that the people sent to protect them were actually scoping out the place for attack.
Probably not rocket science for him to figure that out, because the guy the Libyan regime put in charge of local security for the city of Benghazi is associated with Al Qaeda, and (as Stevens pointed out in a secret cable 3 weeks before Sept 11th) Al Qaeda was training for an attack - with the US mission there being the only diplomatic target that AQ hadn’t already taken out.
You had an ambassador and communication professional (Smith) who were guarded by the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
Were they trafficking heavy arms to Syria? Probably. Were they doing something hinky? Definitely.
Was what they were doing likely the province of the CIA? Most definitely.
Had people, including Stevens, raised alarm bells about the lack of security? Yup!
Was the CIA looking in on outright incompetence, while literally within earshot of rifle fire? Yes!
This all display Obamas ideology, long held paranoia and bias world view. Im sure Obama and his people thought what Stevens was doing was sexy, because it was risky. Of coarse, a leftist cant trust rank and file CIA, right? The CIA killed Che, Obamas hero, Obama is the self styled Che of the new Islamic caliphate.
Again, you cant trust the CIA, that is until your getting your ass shot off in a third world hell hole and your leftist party friends leave you for dead.
Stevens and Smith were expendable to Obama, but they werent expendable to Woods and Doherty.
Yes, blaming this on the CIA does nothing to help Obama. There was way too much going on for weeks and even months in advance to justify leaving personnel and a sensitive facility sitting there virtually unguarded (except for Libyan personnel connected to Al Qaeda, something that I imagine must have been known to the CIA).
It was all part of Obama’s either starry-eyed and incompetent or well-thought out and evil plan to “normalize” relations with our enemies, open our hands to show them that we came in peace and trusted them implicitly, and hand over our power to them.
This goes way beyond just the “botched operation” that Obama is trying to portray now, and that’s what he is desperately trying to cover up. Well, he only has a couple of more days to do it, so unless somebody - such as Romney - starts asking questions about Obama’s whole strategy and intention in the first place, he’ll probably get away with it.
BTW, I know that Romney is not going to touch this issue or get into the nuts and bolts of it at this point in the game, but it would be nice if he at least said that our entire policy approach should be reviewed in light of it, and that he would address this issue immediately upon taking office.
Yes. In the debate he seemed to agree with Obama on everything that Obama was willing to say publicly. It would be good if he indicated that Benghazi raises serious questions that he would address earnestly after he is elected.
Four dead that shouldn’t be: res ipsa loquitur.
Radditz did the ABC news story fawning over Obama and the rescue operation of two civilians in Somalia.
An ex Seal said that the mission that was done in Somalia was far more dangerous than taking out Bin Laden.
So, why not extract those in Benghazi??
Saw something from a Seal that says they are trained to jump from a commercial craft. So when those are allowed in airspace then they can go in for a Special Ops.
The more I consider these reports, the history of the players, and their ways of thinking, I am led to a new discernment between ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ in our present politic.
Those with worldly power in the ‘liberal’ camp have premised their thinking upon an antiChristian mindset. They lean towards relative morality, do not consider absolute truth to be obtainable, and recognize power in their lust for approbation. Consequently, when they face evil, they do not consider it something to be punished, removed, nor criminalized, but instead something to be controlled consistent with their objectives.
Conservatives, while not always Christian, in our politic tend to value the Judeo-Christian culture. When facing evil, we tend to believe it is to be held in control by legal systems, enforcement, adjudication, and appropriate execution of judgment. We believe the only way to not do a wrong thing is to do a right thing in the right manner. This implies justice isn’t righteous unless properly administered with righteous judgment.
The actions of this Administration, and the Clinton empire, and Democratic Socialism in general, didn’t treat evil as criminal, but treats the management of evil akin to controlling the Mafia families from the inside. Instead of identifying terrorists, capturing or killing them, then prosecuting them for crimes, they believe terrorists simply need to be controlled by other controllable terrorist groups. Islamic fundamentalism, by this model, then becomes controllable by other Islamic ‘denominations’ more controllable by their empire.
These types of perspectives don’t fight terrorism, other than those flavors which don’t support the liberal mindset.
They place their own members in various power structures to promote a larger scale effort, but fundamentally void of justice and righteous judgment.
We error in confusing their perspective with one valuing Christian culture. They don’t. They simply will degenerate into lower levels of corruption, condoning even more evil consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.