Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

[Auburn85 434]

http://www.mcclatchy...ml#.UZZ0LbWcdv8

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Foreign Staff

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.

The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.

Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and testimony has not been sought from Ham, who is now retired.

Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.

“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said.

Some Republican lawmakers expressed surprise when told that Stevens had turned down such an offer.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

But a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated that some lawmakers may have been aware of Stevens’ exchange with Ham.

“Decisions conveyed by Ambassador Stevens were made on behalf of the U.S. State Department,” the spokesman, Frederick Hill, said in an email. “There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces. The lack of discussion by the public ARB report about the role inter-agency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee.”

One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.

Still, the offer from Ham provided Stevens with a chance to plead for more assistance, an opportunity he apparently did not seize.

Congressional hearings into the Benghazi attacks – there were in fact two, one on a compound often referred to as the consulate, where Stevens and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith died, and a second hours later on a nearby CIA annex, where two security contractors, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed – have focused primarily on the events during the night of the attacks and subsequent statements by Obama administration officials.

There have been fewer questions, however, about the months leading up to the attack and how the State Department, the CIA and defense officials addressed a growing security problem. Among the questions that have not been probed is why the Benghazi mission, with its large CIA contingent, remained open when other Western countries, most notably Great Britain, had pulled out of Benghazi in the weeks preceding the attacks because of security concerns.

Officials have publicly referred to Ham’s phone call before. In his Feb. 7 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military was aware of the Aug. 16 cable and that someone had turned down Ham’s offer.

Referring to the cable, Dempsey said: “I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.”

Dempsey said the State Department never requested more from the military.

“We never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces on the ground,” Dempsey told the committee.

The Aug. 16 cable remains classified. But Fox News has quoted liberally from it, reporting that State Department officials convened a meeting a day earlier to discuss security, which the cable described as “trending negatively.”

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said, according to Fox News.

The Accountability Review Board investigation, commissioned by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and released in December, placed blame for the Benghazi attack in large part on the State Department for not answering repeated calls for more security.

But the report also is peppered with references to Stevens and how well the embassy made the case to Washington for more security. In a news conference at the time of the release of the board’s finding, Adm. Mike Mullen, one of the board’s two chairmen and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the failing of the embassy.

“As the chief of mission, he certainly had a responsibility in that regard, and actually he was very security conscious and increasingly concerned about security,” Mullen said. “But part of his responsibility is certainly to make that case back here, and he had not gotten to that point where you would, you might get to a point where you would be considering, ‘It’s so dangerous, we might close the mission.’”

The embassy Stevens oversaw in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security” in Benghazi, the report stated.

Traditionally, State Department officials have depended on the State Department’s own Diplomatic Security Service, local police and military forces and security contractors to secure embassies around the world. U.S. military personnel at embassies consist usually of Marines whose job it is to guard the perimeter of a compound and to protect classified documents and equipment inside. It is rare that U.S. forces would be called upon to guard embassy personnel traveling outside embassy grounds.

Any increase in U.S. military force would have required State Department approval. It’s unknown if Stevens might have passed along Ham’s offer to the State Department and been turned down, or whether he believed that the security team Ham offered would not provide the kind of security he needed.

Officials familiar with the exchanges between Ham and Stevens said they did not know whether Ham offered any other support than the security team.

“It was a brief conversation,” the defense official said.

James Rosen and Jonathan S .Landay contributed from Washington.

Update: An earlier version of this story misspelled the name of Lindsey Graham and misidentified the Accountability Review Board.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

[homersapien 11,812]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again!

[AUGradinTX 0]

Despite the title of the article, this tidbit comes directly from it...

“The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

"Only partially granted" seems to be the key phrase here. I'm not familiar with the site this article is from, but it seems they are either leaving out part of the story, or do not know the entire story.

If what was offered was deemed insufficient by Stevens, is it really surprising that it was turned down? Without question the answer is no. The only way to get the security you really need is to stick to your guns and fight until you get it. The last thing you would do is accept something you know would be insufficient. If you did, the negotiations are over; along with your chances of getting what you actually need.

What is clear is that there were numerous attacks on westerners in the months leading up to this attack. These attacks are what led to Ambassador Stevens asking for more security. What is also clear is that Ambassador Stevens did not feel safe and relayed that sentiment to Washington several times. IMO, this article is attempting to persuade people who have not read all the facts to side with our current administration's failure to protect Stevens.

It is a fact that Stevens made several requests for additional security. An article saying he denied security is obviously not not being completely truthful.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZZ0LbWcdv8#storylink=cpy

[homersapien 11,812]

Despite the title of the article, this tidbit comes directly from it...

“The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

"Only partially granted" seems to be the key phrase here. I'm not familiar with the site this article is from, but it seems they are either leaving out part of the story, or do not know the entire story.

If what was offered was deemed insufficient by Stevens, is it really surprising that it was turned down? Without question the answer is no. The only way to get the security you really need is to stick to your guns and fight until you get it. The last thing you would do is accept something you know would be insufficient. If you did, the negotiations are over; along with your chances of getting what you actually need.

What is clear is that there were numerous attacks on westerners in the months leading up to this attack. These attacks are what led to Ambassador Stevens asking for more security. What is also clear is that Ambassador Stevens did not feel safe and relayed that sentiment to Washington several times. IMO, this article is attempting to persuade people who have not read all the facts to side with our current administration's failure to protect Stevens.

It is a fact that Stevens made several requests for additional security. An article saying he denied security is obviously not not being completely truthful.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchy...8#storylink=cpy

Perhaps the CIA didn't want extra security.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5

[AURaptor 1,137]

These are times of high cotton for any country that's an enemy to the United States.

its own administration and various parts of the govt seem to be destroying this country from with in.

All that needs to be done is sit back and watch us collapse.

[homersapien 11,812]

These are times of high cotton for any country that's an enemy to the United States.

its own administration and various parts of the govt seem to be destroying this country from with in.

All that needs to be done is sit back and watch us collapse.

I take it you haven't witness much history, much less studied any. :-\

[AURaptor 1,137]

These are times of high cotton for any country that's an enemy to the United States.

its own administration and various parts of the govt seem to be destroying this country from with in.

All that needs to be done is sit back and watch us collapse.

I take it you haven't witness much history, much less studied any. :-\

Far more than you.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble?

[homersapien 11,812]

These are times of high cotton for any country that's an enemy to the United States.

its own administration and various parts of the govt seem to be destroying this country from with in.

All that needs to be done is sit back and watch us collapse.

I take it you haven't witness much history, much less studied any. :-\

Far more than you.

Well, I will admit I am not clairvoyant. :-\

[homersapien 11,812]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble?

I have no idea.

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The president doesn't need to ask for permission to send troops anywhere, especially overseas to protect Americans. Furthermore, he doesn't need the state's persmission here anymore. Welcome to the totalitarian state. We are so screwed.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

http://lewrockwell.c...morey1.1.1.html

http://uscode.house....d/pls/10C18.txt

[homersapien 11,812]

The president doesn't need to ask for permission to send troops anywhere, especially overseas to protect Americans. Furthermore, he doesn't need the state's persmission here anymore. Welcome to the totalitarian state. We are so screwed.

What's your point?

Is it that, no matter what happens, anywhere in the world, it's the President's fault?

Or are you simply changing the subject of this thread?

[shabby 1,960]

The president doesn't need to ask for permission to send troops anywhere, especially overseas to protect Americans. Furthermore, he doesn't need the state's persmission here anymore. Welcome to the totalitarian state. We are so screwed.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

http://lewrockwell.c...morey1.1.1.html

http://uscode.house....d/pls/10C18.txt

Considering much of the attacks on the handling of Benghazi have focused on Clinton's agency failure to provide adequate security to 'requests made' , I would think this revelation would be of substantial importance. You know, if you're actually looking for the truth that is.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

[shabby 1,960]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

And how many military commanders have come forward and stated that you never give that order? That you don't give a 'go' to send your troops into that situation? Here's a hint: It's more than one. The problem with Benghazi is everyone attacking the administration claimed executive cover up. Then when facts disprove that, they rush to the incompetence of the State Department and executive branch. Two problems I have with that. 1) Military commanders don't agree with that assessment and 2) People complain that Obama has his hands on everything and then complain about 'why he was so hands off'. Freaking make up your minds.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

And how many military commanders have come forward and stated that you never give that order? That you don't give a 'go' to send your troops into that situation? Here's a hint: It's more than one. The problem with Benghazi is everyone attacking the administration claimed executive cover up. Then when facts disprove that, they rush to the incompetence of the State Department and executive branch. Two problems I have with that. 1) Military commanders don't agree with that assessment and 2) People complain that Obama has his hands on everything and then complain about 'why he was so hands off'. Freaking make up your minds.

I have. We disagree. I have years of service to gather my opinion. We can take a group into the heart of Pakistan and take out a terrorist but we can't retrieve four Americans in Libya where we have a presence? Sorry. I don't buy it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The president doesn't need to ask for permission to send troops anywhere, especially overseas to protect Americans. Furthermore, he doesn't need the state's persmission here anymore. Welcome to the totalitarian state. We are so screwed.

What's your point?

Is it that, no matter what happens, anywhere in the world, it's the President's fault?

Or are you simply changing the subject of this thread?

Intelligence briefings are a wonderful tool in determining whether or not there is a threat to Americans overseas, and I'm willing to bet those briefings included such warnings. I'm reminded of Granada in the mid eighties.

Whatever happens next, it is now indisputably clear that the murder of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans was planned by an al-Qaida affiliate in Libya. The CIA knew it — and told Washington. Our staff in Libya knew it — and told their superiors. Top Libyan officials knew it — and repeatedly said so. Billary lied in the 90s but no one's life was at stake. Reagan, Bush I or Bush II wouldn't have thought twice about protacting American in hostile territory..

So why was any reference to terrorism or al-Qaida carefully and deliberately removed from the “talking points” handed to our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, before she made the rounds of the TV talk shows the Sunday following the attacks?

About that, we can only speculate. Because no one in authority in Obama’s White House and what was Clinton’s State Department will fess up.

Are you really surprised?

It was deeply moving to listen to the three State Department veterans who had the guts to come forward and testify on Wednesday. I was especially impressed by Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission/charge d’affairs in Libya. He was in Tripoli, a two-hour flight from Benghazi, when Stevens called to tell him, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

Hicks told the committee that none of his efforts to get military assistance for the beleaguered Americans in Benghazi was successful. He revealed that a Special Operations team in Tripoli was ordered to “stand down” and not fly to Benghazi. The officer in charge of the team told Hicks, “I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.”

Hicks said he was absolutely “dumbfounded” when he heard that an obscure anti-Islamic video was being blamed for turning a group of demonstrators into a murderous mob. “I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks told the committee. He knew it wasn’t true. But that was the Administration’s story; and, by golly, they were going to stick with it.

Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, no doubt engaged in a bit of hyperbole when he told Sean Hannity before the hearings began that his committee would force the Administration to come clean about “the biggest lie of all.” Issa said:

The Administration has made a claim that for classified reasons they changed the story. We believe right now that may be the biggest lie of all, and we intend on making the president come clean as to, quote, ‘what the classified reasons are that would justify lying to the American people.

http://personalliber...est-lie-of-all/

By now, everyone should know that whole thing was a front for the CIA.

When U.S. personnel were airlifted from Benghazi the night of the attack, there were seven Foreign Service and State Department officers and 23 CIA officers onboard. This fact alone indicates that the consulate was primarily diplomatic cover for an intelligence operation that was known to Libyan militia groups. The CIA failed to provide adequate security for Benghazi, and its clumsy tradecraft contributed to the tragic failure. On the night of the attack, the small CIA security team in Benghazi was slow to respond, relying on an untested Libyan intelligence organization to maintain security for U.S. personnel. After the attack, the long delay in debriefing evacuated personnel contributed to the confusing assessments.

http://www.truth-out...enghazi-scandal

They were moving weapons.

Diplomatic sources told the Sunday Times that the U.S. “bought weapons from the stockpiles of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.”

The heavy arms include mortars, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and the controversial anti-aircraft heat-seeking SA-7 missiles, which are integral to countering Bashar Al-Assad’s bombing campaign.”

Now compute the decades old design for the territory as stated by Wes Clark and the neocon dream. Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation in Salon that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:

“General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ... Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran"] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/13/committing-treason-and-benghazi-murder-cover-up/

[homersapien 11,812]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

Well it may work that way in the movies, but I suspect it's a little more involved in real life.

Unless of course, you can put together a case that actually happened, or at least it is a plausible scenario.

And considering your profession, I find it hard to believe you haven't come to terms with the concept "S*** Happens". To hold any president directly accountable for everything that happens within the government is not realistic.

[homersapien 11,812]

Intelligence briefings are a wonderful tool in determining whether or not there is a threat to Americans overseas, and I'm willing to bet those briefings included such warnings. I'm reminded of Granada in the mid eighties.

Granada?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Intelligence briefings are a wonderful tool in determining whether or not there is a threat to Americans overseas, and I'm willing to bet those briefings included such warnings. I'm reminded of Granada in the mid eighties.

Granada?

Are you a veteran?

http://youtu.be/Ng7IvuGMYlM

[homersapien 11,812]

Intelligence briefings are a wonderful tool in determining whether or not there is a threat to Americans overseas, and I'm willing to bet those briefings included such warnings. I'm reminded of Granada in the mid eighties.

Granada?

Are you a veteran?

Why do you ask?

And I asked - or at least implied - I didn't know what what in hell you are talking about. If you don't want to respond, that's fine with me.

And I don't watch video clips without a reason to. So you are just going to have to put your own thoughts into your own words, as difficult as that may be.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

Well it may work that way in the movies, but I suspect it's a little more involved in real life.

Unless of course, you can put together a case that actually happened, or at least it is a plausible scenario.

And considering your profession, I find it hard to believe you haven't come to terms with the concept "S*** Happens". To hold any president directly accountable for everything that happens within the government is not realistic.

Crap does happen. The failure to react to it properly doesn't! Believe it or not, I have personal experience with what our military special operations can do. The U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, N.C., controls five active Special Forces groups and has training oversight for two groups in the Army National Guard. The Green Berets are uniquely selected, trained and equipped for deployment around the world during peacetime, conflict and war. Regionally and culturally oriented, Special Forces Soldiers are experts in unconventional warfare, direct action, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense and combating terrorism.

I spent a few months with this group as part of a mission in Central America. I know a little about what we can do and how fast we can respond at a moments notice. The team in Tripoli could have been there in no time.

[homersapien 11,812]

Well, I think the focus should be on what actually happened and why. What could have been done is interesting, but only in the context of what was possible.

It's easy to point out what "could or should" have happened. In hindsight.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.