Posted on 07/31/2013 6:53:04 PM PDT by xzins
A Marine operations commander told lawmakers Wednesday he gave troops in Libya permission to respond to a September 2012 attack on a U.S. mission in Tripoli.
Testifying in closed session before the House Armed Services Committee, Col. George Bristol contradicted claims by some congressional Republicans he had issued a stand-down order following the attack, in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stephens and three other Americans were killed, The Hill reported.
Bristol, who commanded Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara at the time of the attack, said he gave the Tripoli security team leader, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, permission to act freely in response to the attack, The Hill said, citing a description it had received of the committee's members-only briefing.
Gibson told Congress last month he was ordered not to send his team to Benghazi because they were needed in Tripoli in the event of an attack on the U.S. Embassy.
Republicans argue the United States wasn't prepared to respond adequately to the Benghazi attack.
They accuse the Obama administration of downplaying or covering up the administration's handling of the attack, its lead-up and aftermath during the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign.
"Colonel Bristol has experience that could be valuable in deepening our understanding of the events of that day," a committee source told The Hill.
"Of particular interest to the committee is what our posture was in the weeks and months that preceded the attack," the source said.
Bristol, a seasoned combat commander, stepped down from his task force commander post in March.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
WE keep asking the wrong questions.
How come no one is asking WHY these guys were in Libya in the first place? Not the Ambassador, but the other guys in the annex.
There was no saving the mission (it was not a consulate.) But there is no way the Marines are going to be sent in to protect a CIA project that was collecting weapons to send to Syria.
THAT is the question that we need answered, and the one that should blow up. What were they doing there and who knew about it. What happened to the weapons they were buying. Who specifically did they transfer them to and if they were “buying” them back, where did the money come from?
Because the mission had already fallen, and there is no way the Marines are going to be sent to protect a CIA operation.
The guys at the Annex never should have gone to the mission as it was under attack. It simply burned their operation.
We need to stop thinking that all of this was in the clear and people would react as if everyone was supposed to know what was going on.
If you change your point of view, the entire episode makes sense. Not in a moral way, or honorable way...but in a CIA way.
OK, the mission had already fallen. There was no reason to send a single troop to protect what was already on fire.
The goings on at the Annex were not State Department. They were CIA. The Marines are not going to be sent in to save the CIA Gun Running operation.
Stop thinking in an honorable and moral way. It makes perfect sense.
Democrats are LAW-LESS.......Republicans are BALL-LESS.
Semper GUMBY is more like it.
Stevens was DEALING GUNS to the
“REBELS”.....Obama ORDERED it via Hillary.
Could you just post the picture of Obama and the quote from page 261 from ‘Audacity of Hope” that says he side with the MUSLIMS....THANKS!!
Sounds like he is covering for the Clown. Am I misinterpreting?
Seems like something doesn't fit. All of the information we have is conflicting. Even this information in this article is suspect.
Personally, I think the White House is running a misinformation campaign to keep everything confused.
That's the key. This is perhaps a lie from a source inside the WH or a Democrat in attendance.
1.) Adolph Dubs, in Afghanistan, 1979
2.) Francis E. Meloy Jr., in Lebanon, 1976
3.) Rodger P. Davies, in Cyprus, 1974
4.) Cleo A. Noel Jr., in Sudan, 1973
5.) John Gordon Mein, in Guatemala, 1968
That’s per the State Department. It’s a big deal and we don’t defend buildings, but human lives. This stinks.
Correct, the entire point is the headline that gets blasted out there. The liberal media will run with it. The Obama Admin. knew what would be said for months. It’s a smoke screen.
People are taught to reflexively obey orders and you get more corruption, not less. This shouldn't be surprising, but to our own moral principles it can be.
So we find the sellout of honor harder to believe.
“I would have expected this from an Air Force General, sure, but from a Marine Colonel somehow this chapter is a very, very bitter pill.”
This is a BS comment. To state that one service senior officers have more integrity than another shows me you’ve never worn a uniform in your life. Complete crap!
So we DON'T have four dead Americans? They were rescued? What am I missing?
I am very sorry to say that someone is lying.
5.56mm
bttt
I see a bright future for the colonel in a Hillary administration with a peach Pentagon civilian appointment.
.
.
- OFF TOPIC :
“I cannot say if I will vote for Hillary Clinton or the Republican candidate for President in 2015!”
(R?-AZ) US Senator John “Crash” McCain
- pull the RINO bastard’s feeding tube now!
.
.
They didn’t know the mission had fallen at that point... guys were there holding out for seven hours.
“said he gave the Tripoli security team leader, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, permission to act freely in response to the attack”
A Marine general “gave permission”? That’s a pussified order unworthy of the USMC. He should have given an unmistakable order for an all out attack with any supporting arms that could get make it.
Something along the lines of, “immediately attack and destroy all forces besieging the embassy and the flag”.
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.