Benghazi: A idea what really happened...

You want to talk about “Hard Choices”? The title of Hillary’s book? REALLY? Are we not supposed to notice that bit of propaganda? NEWSFLASH: Hillary’s electoral fantasies (all they ever were, really) are as dead as Chris Stevens.[/quote]

This is an insane accusation. The usage of the phrase “hard choices” is not Hillary Clinton propaganda. It’s English language.

Insult me all you want, I don’t give a damn. Its not me I’m defending, or this God awful administration for that matter.

who ‘ordered’ the military to stand down

There was no military stand down. You had my quote Colonel Gibson right there for damn sakes!

The only ones who stood down was FEST, and they aren’t military, they’re State Department assets.

So how about you stop trying take the heads off of Generals and Colonels who were every bit doing their jobs as Mark Thompson tried that night, and aim at the people who really did do nothing?

“Hard Choices”? The title of Hillary’s book? REALLY?

Didn’t know this, because I Surprise don’t give a **** what that bitch writes. I’m sure its just as truthful as “My Life”, a title I only know because I saw it in a store.

it just means an administration too cowardly to act

Completely agree.

and a high command more interested in pleasing politicians than doing their jobs.

Not so much.

You’re taking narrow stories about General staff officer who’ve done dumb things, approved women’s entry into the SEALS, enlist Gays, or removing “So help me God” from the USAFA oath.

You’re frustrated by those things, I get that, but I will not let you use it as a cudgel to characterize these men however you want, simply because you are frustrated.

You’re applying these acts wholesale across the board. You’re not taking any of these men, as * their own* men. You’re not analyzing their record, you’re not weighing in on choices they personally made prior to this, you’re just condemning them all collectively for the actions of a few, and reading those actions into this situation.

Thus far, it’s all been bluster with you. If you have evidence that they’ve acted incompetently, or with political aims, then hand it over. Prove that your accusations have merit. Why is that so wrong to ask?

I defend these men, because it’s no different than my defense of the Generals and Colonels on 9/11. I see the parallel, the same injustice occurring here, I don’t give **** if you don’t.

[quote=“qixlqatl, post:59, topic:36825”]
You know what? I’m too ***-DAMNED FURIOUS to respond to this in any way that doesn’t earn me a (crap)-load of infractions anyway. (Insult deleted), those no load REMF’s decided (before or after the fact) that sucking up to the politicians was more important than protecting American lives on the ground. THAT’S HOW THESES THINGS WORK for general and field grade officers trying to make rank. It just so happens that the politicians in this case are the worst in GOD KNOWS WHEN. I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll sit and read your BS about “Not going was the right thing to do when lives were on the line”. I can tell for a fact that YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE. When the (crap) hits the fan you GO. Whether you can make a difference or not, YOU DO YOUR UTMOST. I will brook NO DEFENSE for men who sat on their hands and did NOTHING, because failure would look bad on a performance review.

I don’t give a FAT RAT’S (butt) who ‘ordered’ the military to stand down: it could be JESUS CHRIST for all I care. It is the military’s JOB (in case you haven’t noticed) to put themselves in harms way in highly uncertain circumstances. If they wanted a safe job and a clear career path, they should have been accountants or stock clerks.

You want to talk about “Hard Choices”? The title of Hillary’s book? REALLY? Are we not supposed to notice that bit of propaganda? NEWSFLASH: Hillary’s electoral fantasies (all they ever were, really) are as dead as Chris Stevens.

You keep right on beating the “nothing we could do” drum.* I* know it’s BS. You know it’s BS. Any American with* two brain cells to rub together* knows it’s BS.

And, no, that does not mean a conspiracy to get Chris Stevens, or anything else: it just means an administration too cowardly to act and a high command more interested in pleasing politicians than doing their jobs.
[/quote] I think qixl and I just said approximately the same thing (my post #58 and his post #59), just some “stylistic differences”… and I thought mine might bring the wrath of the mods upon me! had to use some dashes!!

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:51, topic:36825”]
No, I’m saying this shows they’re willing to go against the Administration, ergo, they aren’t in fear for their jobs in telling the truth.

If you’re going to say they’re lying, you need evidence, which I don’t see you providing.

FEST are once again State Department assets, not DoD. None of the commanders mentioned here made one decision effecting their deployment or lack there-of.

FAST, which they did command, was too far away. They were sent, but by the time teams got in range of Libya, all Americans had already been evacuated to Tripoli, so they went there instead.

Fly overs by fighters weren’t an option because Tankers weren’t in the area to ferry them. As General Dempsey stated, it would have taken around 20 hours to make that happen, which is an even worse timeframe than FAST was looking at.

All in all? The State Department is one the responsible. They didn’t provide the security the Ambassador requested, they didn’t deploy all of their own Counter-terrorists assets, they were the ones that came up with the “it was a protest” story to cover their asses. They’re the guilty ones, so have at it.

It’s the same for Colonel Robert Marr, the NEADS battle commander on September 11th, 2001.

He oversaw the protection of North-Eastern Airspace in the United States. He couldn’t do anything either, and he mistakenly sent planes both South when there was nothing there, and out into the Atlantic when there was nothing there either, missing his chance to stop both Flight 77 and 93. Do you blame him? Or are you willing to admit there are times when things really are out of our hands?
[/quote] Alaska you have several times (tho not in this post) confidently asserted that the SEALs died only an hour or so after the ambassador and his attache’. do you have access to the autopsies?

No… and I’ll admit you were right before on the 7-8 hour gap. I was looking at an older report that stated they died about 4 hours before the arrival of the Libyan C-130 (which was at 7, so 3 A.M.). Reports made after the FBI concluded their investigation stated they actually died soon after 5:00.

Timelines are critical, I admittedly should have read more of this report. Stevens is still stated to have died sometime after 1:00 A.M., after showing up at a local hospital unresponsive.

…and he probably died of “smoke inhalation and not as a result of the terrorist attack,” huh? AS, you are just another apologist for this administration’s criminality/incompetence. If you don’t understand that LOTS of members of the General Staff are political hacks then there is NO HOPE for you and I’m done with you. Your only redeeming quality for me is that you’re marginally more intelligent than bf1. You’re “not going to let” anyone here speak their mind is megalomania.

I’m guessing you just skim my posts, right?:

“*Its not me I’m defending, or this God awful administration for that matter. *”

As you know, it was the Ambassador himself who noted their security shortcomings, and had tried to request more from the State Department. He didn’t get them, and that was Administration’s fault.

Go ahead and hang the administration for their lack of preparations and denying the Ambassador his request for additional security, I won’t stop you, they deserve it.

Nope, my point point is nuanced, though not hard to follow:

Leading up to the attack, The State Department “Bleeped” up. Once the attack started, the military was given the broom to try and clean up their mess. Wasn’t much they could do, but they did try, which is more than we can say for whomever told FEST to stand down.

LOTS of members of the General Staff are political hacks [/quote]
I’m not denying politicking within the General Staff. It’s command, it goes with the territory.

You’ve not established however, how this is relevant here. Was one of the commanders inexperienced, or proven incompetent before the attack? Did we see an overbearing commander counter the orders of a more knowledgeable subordinate? Did we see them make a call, 99 times out of 100, that clear-thinking soldiers would have avoided?

No, you’re just saying “politics is a thing” and thus your point is proven. Which isn’t enough.

Last I checked, it wasn’t a soldier who said Ambassador Steven’s wasn’t killed by Terrorists. That was a half-brained politician.

Cause of death was smoke inhalation, but the terrorists were the ones that set the building on fire, so they are the killers.

And yet, you buy into–hook, line and sinker–everything the government puts out about this incident–including a wholly made-up “time-line.”

I don’t buy your BS, because you have provided nothing to counter what the soldiers have said. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I know they’ve taken an oath that’s of stronger stuff than what the politicians do. It’s the politicians I question… and commenters.

All your bluster, and you’re just saying they’re lying, because you think they’re lying. No proof. And you proceed to tear down the image of good men through your thoughtless actions.

Unsubstantiated accusations are Satanic. Even the ancients understood how easy they are to make, and how difficult they are to live off. You do nothing to engender yourself or your viewpoint to me by doing that here.

BS = beef soup.

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:65, topic:36825”]
No… and I’ll admit you were right before on the 7-8 hour gap. I was looking at an older report that stated they died about 4 hours before the arrival of the Libyan C-130 (which was at 7, so 3 A.M.). Reports made after the FBI concluded their investigation stated they actually died soon after 5:00.

Timelines are critical, I admittedly should have read more of this report. Stevens is still stated to have died sometime after 1:00 A.M., after showing up at a local hospital unresponsive.
[/quote] thank you

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:61, topic:36825”]
This is an insane accusation. The usage of the phrase “hard choices” is not Hillary Clinton propaganda. It’s English language.
[/quote] not mutually exclusive. almost but not quite.

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:62, topic:36825”]
Insult me all you want, I don’t give a damn. Its not me I’m defending, or this God awful administration for that matter.

There was no military stand down. You had my quote Colonel Gibson right there for damn sakes!

The only ones who stood down was FEST, and they aren’t military, they’re State Department assets.

So how about you stop trying take the heads off of Generals and Colonels who were every bit doing their jobs as Mark Thompson tried that night, and aim at the people who really did do nothing?

Didn’t know this, because I Surprise don’t give a **** what that bitch writes. I’m sure its just as truthful as “My Life”, a title I only know because I saw it in a store.

Completely agree.

Not so much.

You’re taking narrow stories about General staff officer who’ve done dumb things, approved women’s entry into the SEALS, enlist Gays, or removing “So help me God” from the USAFA oath.

You’re frustrated by those things, I get that, but I will not let you use it as a cudgel to characterize these men however you want, simply because you are frustrated.

You’re applying these acts wholesale across the board. You’re not taking any of these men, as * their own* men. You’re not analyzing their record, you’re not weighing in on choices they personally made prior to this, you’re just condemning them all collectively for the actions of a few, and reading those actions into this situation.

Thus far, it’s all been bluster with you. If you have evidence that they’ve acted incompetently, or with political aims, then hand it over. Prove that your accusations have merit. Why is that so wrong to ask?

I defend these men, because it’s no different than my defense of the Generals and Colonels on 9/11. I see the parallel, the same injustice occurring here, I don’t give **** if you don’t.
[/quote] Alaska I think I have argued against you on Benghazi as hard as anyone here (I think I may even have started this thread God help me) and in one post I was so emotional I risked attention from the mods, but for the record, I do not question your motives. I question the completeness and in some cases the accuracy of your information.

Generals and their staffs are rarely “soldiers” any longer. They’re politicians–politicking for their first (or next) star, control of which is NOT with the military, but with Congress! If you’d spent ANY time in uniform, you’d know that. Secondly, if you want to buy their BS, be my guest, but I don’t have to…and won’t until THIS administration starts telling the truth for a change–though I won’t hold my breath because that’ll NEVER happen. Any general officer who refuses to resign in the face of this administration lacks the character necessary to gain MY respect and unstinting support.

1 Like

“Remain in place” is soooooo much different than “stand down from active operations”.

I can’t tell you how disgusted I am by all of the collective and mutual ass-covering and responsibility avoidance among the senior military.

I promise you, every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine knows what it means for them if they find themselves out on the sharp end, and that knowledge will be hell on force discipline, morale, and will-to-combat.

Keep telling yourself “we couldn’t help it” is an acceptable excuse when no effort was made.

1 Like

One problem: it isn’t just Generals you’re speaking to. It’s Colonels, in the field, with command of ground assets. Even when they had the chance to turn on the Generals and the Rear Admiral, they didn’t. They didn’t even file an objection. Like Lt. Col Gibson who commanded the security team in Tripoli, *** how do you explain men like him?*** How does he fit into your narrative?

Secondly, if you want to buy their BS, be my guest, but I don’t have to…

I’m not saying you do, but *** where is your proof***? That’s the quid pro quo here.

Do you have a reasonable basis for suggesting that they the military didn’t actually do all they could? Or are you just throwing out accusation because you’re frustrated about what happened?

As I see it, it was decisions leading up to the attack that made Bengahzi what it was. Decisions the State Department didn’t make competently, and it’s hardly a mystery why. They are a department who is so ******* dumb, they didn’t even know what FEST was for:

“the first thing to know is that it’s not a security team. It’s primarily a resource that State can send to help restore a facility. Best example is Nairobi after the bombing because the Embassy suffered such significant damage. It couldn’t function properly without resuming basic infrastructure needs like communications. In this case, that was not necessary as Embassy Tripoli wasn’t impacted and could, as it does today, continue to function normally.”

In short, they thought FEST were communication engineers with guns, instead of trained Counter-terrorists meant to enter into on-going firefights!

And they thought this because, no experience with foreign security, even Benjamin Daniels (again, Mark Thompson’s boss) who I quoted before was a lightweight. Prior to his position he was a Clinton Speech writer on foreign affairs. No prior military service, no field ops with Department agents, just an egg-head who thought he knew things because they put him on the National Security Council for a while.

These are the Democrats, are you surprised they’re this stupid? Because I’m ******* not.

[quote=“qixlqatl, post:75, topic:36825”]
“Remain in place” is soooooo much different than “stand down from active operations”.

I can’t tell you how disgusted I am by all of the collective and mutual ass-covering and responsibility avoidance among the senior military.

I promise you, every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine knows what it means for them if they find themselves out on the sharp end, and that knowledge will be hell on force discipline, morale, and will-to-combat.

Keep telling yourself “we couldn’t help it” is an acceptable excuse when no effort was made.
[/quote] I agree that Benghazi had to have a very destructive impact on military morale–also the morale of all Americans stationed overseas in whatever capacity. Those people were left to twist slowly in the wind. it’s not something anyone who will be serving in a dangerous place will forget.

[quote=“Alaska_Slim, post:76, topic:36825”]
One problem: it isn’t just Generals you’re speaking to. It’s Colonels, in the field, with command of ground assets. Even when they had the chance to turn on the Generals and the Rear ADmiral, they didn’t. They didn’t even file an objection. Like Lt. Col Gibson who commanded the security team in Tripoli, *** how do you explain men like him?*** How does he fit into your narrative?

I’m not saying you do, but *** where is your proof***? That’s the quid pro quo here.

Do you have a reasonable basis for suggesting that they the military didn’t actually do all they could? Or are you just throwing out accusation because you’re frustrated about what happened?

As I see it, it was decisions leading up to the attack that made Bengahzi what it was. Decisions the State Department didn’t make competently, and it’s hardly a mystery why. They are a department who is so ******* dumb, they didn’t even know what FEST was for:

In short, they thought FEST were communication engineers with guns, instead of trained Counter-terrorists meant to enter into on-going firefights!

And they thought this because, no experience with foreign security, even Benjamin Daniels (again, Mark Thompson’s boss) who I quoted before was a lightweight. Prior to his position he was a Clinton Speech writer on foreign affairs. No prior military service, no field ops with Department agents, just an egg-head who thought he knew things because they put him on the National Security Council for a while.

These are the Democrats, are you surprised they’re this stupid? Because I’m ******* not.
[/quote] my god. why am I not surprised to learn here for the first time that Thompson’s boss was a former Clinton speechwriter, rather than anyone with any military or strategic competence? profoundly depressing. and it makes my imaginary scenario in an earlier post seem less imaginary all the time.

What “mutual ass-covering”? The military did not support the “demonstration” story. They dealt with it as a terrorist attack, and maintained from the start it was a terrorist attack.

Do not simply accuse, do not simply generalize, give me an example. If you want me to believe you, then show me testimony where you think the Commanders are doing this.

Keep telling yourself “we couldn’t help it” is an acceptable excuse when no effort was made.

The State Department made no effort, I’ll willingly grant you that, the Military however sent Marine FAST teams and other Counter-terrorist units in the general area. “General” being from Europe, and even a team from the United States. These teams were not trained nor intended to be the Calvary in hot firefights, but the Calvary they would have been if they were closer.

None of them arrived before the Americans in Benghazi were evacuated, so any that did go to Libya went to Tripoli, which was the rally point.

The only team that made it into Benghazi before the evacuation, was the one lead by one of the SEALs. They stayed in communication with AFRICOM, and once they hooked up with the surviving Americans, command was fed intel on their situation in real time.

From that, they decided on further recourse, but their #1 priority was simply to get everyone to Tripoli. They didn’t know though if an attack on Tripoli was coming, and with the other attack on the Embassy in Cairo, they likely suspected it. For that reason a team needed to stay behind in Tripoli, there needed to be someone there with Counter-terrorist expertise, and that’s what Lt COL Gibson and his team represented; the only defense Americans in Tripoli had in the face of a wider attack.

Alaska would it be fair–or unfair–to say that many of your earlier posts in this thread leaned heavily on the ARB report, while your later posts were based on a broader documentary base? (including military documents) that’s the way it looks to me, and consequently your posts improved imo, tho we are still quite far apart.

imo the ARB “investigation” was a farce and not worth the paper it is written on. the members of the board were chosen by the head of the department being investigated. they then kindly refrained from even interviewing her as part of the investigation. how could anyone take it seriously knowing that alone? mind boggling.

former prosecutor Victoria toensig has pointed out a few other oddities. no oath was administered to any witnesses. no stenographer was present at interviews nor were they recorded. so there is no real word for word transcript. instead, summarizing “note taking” was the process used. (you’d think this was the year 1312, not 2012.) no witness was permitted to review their testimony before publication of the unclassified report, and to this day no witness has been given access to the classified version. are you starting to smell something rotten in Denmark? good grief. ( it’s that amazing Obama/Clinton “transparency” once again at work I guess.)

there is no accountability in this report, other than in the title! four mid level functionaries were criticized but not one of them has been fired or even missed a paycheck or even been seriously demoted. moreover, the decisions those four people made were known to, and approved by, their superiors. why are those higher on the food chain exempt from even the extremely mild disgrace meted out to the four mid levelers? a name that keeps coming up when state dept personnel talk about Benghazi among themselves is said to be under secretary of state Patrick J Kennedy, but apparently he is an untouchable.

so almost two years after Benghazi, no one has been assigned any real responsibility with any real consequences. and we have arrested one, count 'em, one, of the perpetrators of the actual attack after two years and are trying him under the American civil court system, which will provide us with no actionable intelligence as a court martial–or extended detention–might have done. reportedly, he has already stopped even pretending to cooperate with authorities. so it appears that Benghazi’s secrets continue to be safe. and that is just what our president, our secretary of state, and their sycophants want. whistleblowers of considerable courage are our only hope.