Benghazi: A idea what really happened...

I just had a epiphany on what could have happened in Benghazi. The CIA Annex was two blocks down from the embassy, and from this story we know the CIA agents there would do and did everything they could on 9/11 to protect the Ambassador. According to what we know there were numerous attacks months before the attack on 9/11, which scared the Ambassador and according to the state department asked for extra security, and was declined. After all of those attacks before 9/11 I would be scared to, so why did he ask the CIA for extra security? Why didn’t he just go down the CIA Annex, park his ass there until somebody listened to his concerns. I doubt he would have been that dramatic but this leaves the question of the CIA would have given him extra security…period.

My thinking is the CIA was there on paper, but they were in and out doing off the books operations which is why they never knew about the other attacks. Now a reason why, maybe they declined the extra security because they didn’t want more U.S. Presence in that area because they were tracking a terrorist looking for his boss, and they didn’t want to spoof him. We know Obama doesn’t like going to war, but he is not opposed to doing what I just described because he did the same thing Bin Laden. Why would he bite the bullet then on the video? He knew the right wing guys would get so fixated on anything stupid he says during a election year, and this could be a he showing his left hand but not what hes doing with his right hand.

It would be bad if we got caught in a country or place that we weren’t supposed to be in, but it would be worse if the right could point at a Bin Laden like operation that went wrong, they could simply call Bin Laden a lucky strike.

I realize this is a tin foil hat thing, but I’m wondering what everything thinks here, I could be completely wrong, but it fits the dots perfectly.

more likely was the plot to kidnap the ambasador and trade him for the blins sheik,making ‘‘o’’ look like a hero

1 Like

i don’t buy either of these theories but I have reluctantly moved into the conspiracy realm on Benghazi as time has dragged on and it has become crystal clear that potus has no intention of prosecuting or punishing anyone for Benghazi. there have been so many things that have just seemed inexpliciable… unless you ask yourself if it could be possible that chris stevens was actually meant to die there. I don’t know why that would be the case but its the only way I can make any sense out of everything that happened.

one of many, many troubling things is that some military experts have said that the mortars that rained death and destruction on the annex, were not only fired with a high degree of professional expertise, but would have had to be already in place to be sure to achieve the exact trajectories that they did. the hair rose on the back of my neck when I heard that. it is not absolutely impossible that the Libyan terrorists could have achieved that themselves, but it is not very likely they could have done so without American assistance.

does anyone else think this is even a possibility?

There was a Retired Four Star Admiral who fronted this theory, and I called into my local radio station (on which he was interviewed), just to say he didn’t know what he was talking about.

A uniform doesn’t spontaneously make you an expert on procedural crime investigation, and he was never in NCIS.

In echo of what I said of Clinton earlier, hang the President, the State Department, and its secretary on their faults, don’t give into the temptation to make things up. It’s not necessary, nor honorable.

2 Likes

Secretary Clinton first proposed a plan to CIA Director David Petraeus to partner on a gun-trafficking program to arm the Syrian resistance and “vet the rebel groups, and train fighters who would be supplied with weapons,” according to The New York Times.

I think that is what Stevens was there to do. Things went badly, and there is no recourse for those involved, since disclosure would definitely land them in hot water. Seems that that is the 64,000 dollar question. If the consulate in Behghazi was being used to store/receive arms for a gun running program, we need to find out. If Obama’s gun-running program failed to vet the rebels, Clinton, who most likely launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and those weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans.
Emails and other correspondence suggest this COULD be truer than reality. Of course, we’ll just have to see if we can get to the bottom of this. Probably won’t come out, until after the mid terms.

1 Like

[quote=“Tiny1, post:5, topic:36825”]
I think that is what Stevens was there to do. Things went badly, and there is no recourse for those involved, since disclosure would definitely land them in hot water. Seems that that is the 64,000 dollar question. If the consulate in Behghazi was being used to store/receive arms for a gun running program, we need to find out. If Obama’s gun-running program failed to vet the rebels, Clinton, who most likely launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and those weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans.
Emails and other correspondence suggest this COULD be truer than reality. Of course, we’ll just have to see if we can get to the bottom of this. Probably won’t come out, until after the mid terms.
[/quote] apparently hillary’s benghazi defense strategy in her campaign is going to be “people can use four dead Americans as political footballs if they want to, but thats just wrong and they’ll have to do it without me.” are people really going to fall for that??!

Yes.

[quote=“tperkins, post:7, topic:36825”]
Yes.
[/quote] egad. that is, as royko would have said, “profoundly depressing.”

a few days ago i was part of a three way conversation among three women. one was a local woman and good friend. another was her daughter in law, who has been living overseas the past few years and raising three young children and has not been closely following american politics. the subject of benghazi came up. the daughter in law said, “bring me up to speed on behghazi.” so my friend and I did so. when we finished, the younger woman shook her head in wonderment at our naivete. (she is the daughter of a police chief, which may have something to do with where she is coming from.) she said, “are you guys blind or what? they wanted** to get rid of those guys or at least one of them for some reason. thats the only thing that could explain the actual reduction of security when the people posted there were pleading for the opposite. and why were americans kept in benghazi when other embassies and international organizations had gotten the heck out of there? and why was stevens in this particularly dangerous place on a particularly dangerous date?”

i dont know if her assessment is accurate or not. but it would explain some things about benghazi that have never made sense to me, even from the point of view of the self-interest of the Obama administration… unless their definition of self-interest involved the death or deaths of some americans who for some reason had become inconvenient or expendable.

That’s essentially what I’ve thought about that.

1 Like

Yeah, I’ve kinda always assumed Chris Stevens had something on Hillary. Sure seems like a lot of the Clintons’ associates wind up dead…

Again, don’t go chasing after shadows. You’ll only lead yourself into the dark.

The world doesn’t have to follow a narrative or make sense, random events can occur.

In this case, their stay at the embassy in Libya can be explained by our involvement in the country, we helped topple the regime, and they were trying to influence Libya into being the kind of place that could be our ally. Our people were also still right next door in Egypt, another volatile situation.

Entire reads of the documents leading up to attack showed, yes, they originally thought these were protests. They had no idea they were both 1. planned terrorist attacks, and 2. were in fact going to go violent, until it was too late.

Now they did know that these were terrorist attacks before the night was done, and to the State Department’s credit, they (and by “they” I mean the Deputy ambassador Gregory Hicks) did ask for resources to be mobilized ( the team in Tripoli). That decision however was overruled by the AFRICOM Commander General Ham.

It didn’t matter anyway though, the moment the attack began, those men were dead. None of our assets could have reached them in time to save them.

That’s Hillary’s line, and I’ve heard plenty of military analysis that that says that there were assets that could have reached them in time (maybe not for ambassador Stevens, not sure at what point it was too late for him).

1 Like

I’m not protecting her, it’s still her fault, she didn’t approve assets to be in the field to protect the ambassador.

They took on a strategy of thinking that being “low key” was the way to go. They were wrong, and denied the Ambassador’s own requests for additional security.

July 9: Per the Senate Intelligence Committee, Stevens’ requests for 13 additional security agents from State Department headquarters goes unanswered.

Aug. 3: Per the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department fails to extend Stevens’ Defense Department-provided Site Security Team protective detail and lets the contract expire.

Aug. 16: Per the Senate Intelligence Committee, Stevens sends cable to the State Department raising additional security concerns. He relays information from a meeting with a CIA officer who described 10 Islamist militia and Al Qaeda training centers in Benghazi.

Sept. 5: Per the Senate Intelligence Committee: “AFRICOM produced a Theater Analysis Report entitled ‘Libya: Extremism in Libya Past, Present and Future.’ The report contains a map showing ‘how [REDACTED] are actively exploiting the open operating environment in Libya.’” More

August 2012-Sept. 11: Senate Intelligence Committee investigation finds no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between Aug. 15, 2012, and Sept. 11, 2012 to improve Stevens’ security.

and I’ve heard plenty of military analysis that that says that there were assets that could have reached them in time (maybe not for ambassador Stevens,

By the time the assets in Tripoli were mobilized, the ambassador was already dead. The SEALS died within an hour of him.

The F-15 Strike Eagles in Italy would have taken several hours to reach them, and we had no tanker support to get them there & back.

They didn’t even try. In fact, as I understand it, they had been asking for help for some time, and it was totally ignored.

True. On the very DAY that additional security was denied for Benghazi, we sent a U.S. Marine contingent to “protect” our Embassy in…wait for it…BARBADOS! “Protect” it from what? Sunburn?

2 Likes

If they were at the northernmost part of Italy, it would have taken a little over two hours to get to Benghazi. Sicily, a little over one. Add at most half an hour to load with ordnance and get them in the air.

1 Like

Except, those planes weren’t fueled, or armed (more time), and would still need tanker support. F-15Es have a combat radius of less than 800 miles. Benghazi was over 1,000 miles away.

The closest planes that were ready, were in Djibouti, 2,000 miles away. Also no tanker support.

Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff

All American assets were ineffective. The only thing I’ve never seen clarification on is if the help the Israelis offered had an opportunity.

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:18, topic:36825”]
Except, those planes weren’t fueled, or armed (more time), and would still need tanker support. F-15Es have a combat radius of less than 800 miles. Benghazi was over 1,000 miles away.

The closest planes that were ready, were in Djibouti, 2,000 miles away. Also no tanker support.

Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff

All American assets were ineffective. The only thing I’ve never seen clarification on is if the help the Israelis offered had an opportunity.
[/quote] I saw the pilot of the plane that eventually did fly into Benghazi and fly the survivors out interviewed on fnc. I believe he was based in Italy, I would have to look that up. he said explicitly that had he been asked to fly to Benghazi at the beginning of the attack, he very possibly could have saved the 2 seals who died 7 to 8 hrs later. he also said that the Benghazi station personnel had weeks beforehand specifically requested that a plane be waiting at the Benghazi airport, fueled up and ready to go, on sept 11, they were so sure they were in mortal danger. that request like so many others was refused.

one of the men who was killed had sent an email to a friend on sept 10 or early sept 11 that began “…if I am still alive tomorrow…” he wasn’t.

Gregory hicks, second in command at Tripoli, testified under oath that there were both military and civilian personnel there who were virtually begging to be allowed to go the Benghazi compound to help repel the attack. they were never given permission. Hicks also testified that it was highly probable that a flyover by American aircraft would have been in itself enough to discourage continuation of the attack after the first wave, and that he had been told by experts that planes could have reached there from Italy in 2 to 3 hrs, long before the end of the attack.

I have heard several other military personnel including one of the rank of general but whose name I do not remember, state that they wanted to go to Benghazi and would have gone in a heartbeat, and believe they could have saved at least the SEALs.

In addition there is in existence a unit specifically designed to protect embassy personnel around the world. it is called the Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST for short. Mark Thompson, the leader of that team, testified on May 8, 2013. When reports started coming in on Benghazi in late afternoon of sept 11th, 2012, he alerted his leadership that deployment of FEST should be seriously considered. he was absolutely stunned to receive a reply from the white house that meetings had already been held that had “taken FEST out of the menu of options.”** in other words, a unit designed specifically for this type of emergency had already been removed from consideration without even consulting its leader or giving him the courtesy in participating in the deliberations or discussion. is that not just a tiny bit strange?

yes, numerous military and other functionaries who know which side their bread is buttered on have supported the official line that no effective US assets could have reach Benghazi in time. but there are also numerous individuals who have been brave enough to speak and dispute that. and there were personnel in several locations both near and far, who were itching to go. they were in most cases not specifically told not to go. they didn’t have to be. they needed an order to go. even after clearly articulating a desire to do so, they did not receive that order.

even if it were true that no forces were in place that could have rescued the Benghazi personnel “in time” (but how did they know that?), that very fact --that no plans had been made to deal with security issues on Sept 11 in a place like Benghazi, a likely candidate for attack even without the humongous “clues” provided by the countless warnings from the staff there–displays a fecklessness that is virtually incomprehensible. Even if we accept the administration’s take on it (forgetting the ridiculous video fabrication), we have to choose between swallowing without explanation an incomprehensible degree of fecklessness and blowing off of warnings–and considering the possibility of actual intent. I do consider actual intent to be possible. very possible.

2 Likes

Read my prior post please.

I was not speaking to “what could they have done beforehand to mitigate this?” afterwards. At the time the attack started, that was all moot.

Gregory hicks, second in command at Tripoli, testified under oath that there were both military and civilian personnel there who were virtually begging to be allowed to go the Benghazi compound to help repel the attack. they were never given permission.

Yes, I know about them. The C-130 they wanted to get on didn’t arrive in Benghazi until after 7.

However, the Special Operations Command in Africa ordered the team to remain in Tripoli, saying that the mission in Benghazi at that point had shifted from a rescue operation to an evacuation.

“There is no evidence this four man team could arrive in Benghazi to assist with the attacks,” Mr. Little said.

Mr. Hicks said the decision angered the leader of the Green Beret team.

The team remained in Tripoli, and helped in the care and transport of wounded personnel from Benghazi who arrived on the returning Libyan C-130.

Officials said there was no phone log indicating the time the team leader called the Special Operations Command in Africa. But Pentagon officials said because the C-130 arrived in Benghazi after 7 a.m., well after the attack had ended, there was nothing the four-person team could have done to assist.

Both the Ambassador and the Seals were dead by 3. Timelines are critical.

Hicks also testified that it was highly probable that a flyover by American aircraft would have been in itself enough

No planes in range to do that. I already covered this.

“2 to 3 hrs” is irrelevant if there’s no tankers in the air to support them, and their on-board fuel wouldn’t have been enough.

In addition there is in existence a unit specifically designed to protect embassy personnel around the world.

Yes, they’re called “FAST” in the report, but they are mentioned:

8:56 the next night. The timeline again is critical.

even if it were true that no forces were in place that could have rescued the Benghazi personnel “in time” (but how did they know that?), that very fact --that no plans had been made to deal with security issues on Sept 11 in a place like Benghazi, a likely candidate for attack even without the humongous “clues” provided by the countless warnings from the staff there–displays a fecklessness that is virtually incomprehensible. Even if we accept the administration’s take on it

I’m not asking you to believe the Administration, I’m asking you to believe the AFRICOM commander who made the call not to deploy, and General Dempsey, who supported his decision.

This was a in-house call for the military, and the timeline supports that call.

Talk about what could have been done before, there the administration and State department have blame, and still have much to answer for. What happened after the attack started was by en large the military, and they acted as much as could have been expected. Just as with the first 9/11.

1 Like