Obama Administration ran guns from Benghazi to Syria

[AUUSN 823]

The Senate finding is based, among other things, on an account from the deputy chief of base (whom I don't recall seeing on in the movie). In an official CIA memorandum, the deputy said that the real-life chief of base "authorized the move" to send the contractors to the mission. The contractors didn't contravene his order to stand down; they went out with his blessing.

At least one contractor, Kris Paronto, continues to insist that the real-life Bob issued a stand-down order. But it says a lot that Paronto's account has been rejected by every official report that looked at the issue as well as every top-level US official in office at the time.

[AUUSN 823]

Is this where I start posting articles upon articles stating there was a "stand down" order? Nah. I think this is where I will rise above the fray. Peace out. ;)/>

Yes please do. Or better yet how about a congressional report.

[TexasTiger 13,048]

He has shown his opinion and refused facts. His loyalty to Obama and Hillary has blinded him.

Your hatred of them blinds you every day. He strikes me as loyal to facts, not politicians.

He shows you sworn testimony, you reference a Hollywood movie script.

Trying for stupid post of the day?

I won't compete on your turf.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

He has shown his opinion and refused facts. His loyalty to Obama and Hillary has blinded him.

Your hatred of them blinds you every day. He strikes me as loyal to facts, not politicians.

He shows you sworn testimony, you reference a Hollywood movie script.

Trying for stupid post of the day?

I won't compete on your turf.

Tex, you own that turf. ;)

[AFTiger 282]

The Benghazi investigation is still ongoing.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Is this where I start posting articles upon articles stating there was a "stand down" order? Nah. I think this is where I will rise above the fray. Peace out. ;)/>

Yes please do. Or better yet how about a congressional report.

Why do I get the feeling you'll deny those reports as well? LOL. No thanks sport. I'll stand pat and defer to my last posts. Good day mate.

[homersapien 11,456]

Bottom line, some people are so politically/emotionally invested in their opinion of events, they are willing to simply dismiss official, bipartisan investigations while accepting a Hollywood version of what happened.

[AUUSN 823]

Is this where I start posting articles upon articles stating there was a "stand down" order? Nah. I think this is where I will rise above the fray. Peace out. ;)/>

Yes please do. Or better yet how about a congressional report.

Why do I get the feeling you'll deny those reports as well? LOL. No thanks sport. I'll stand pat and defer to my last posts. Good day mate.

So yougot nothing? No report?

[AUUSN 823]

The Benghazi investigation is still ongoing.

2014 report by the House Intelligence Committee said it "found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support" after the State Department compound came under attack. A report by Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee also said no restrictions were placed on a military response.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Is this where I start posting articles upon articles stating there was a "stand down" order? Nah. I think this is where I will rise above the fray. Peace out. ;)/>

Yes please do. Or better yet how about a congressional report.

Why do I get the feeling you'll deny those reports as well? LOL. No thanks sport. I'll stand pat and defer to my last posts. Good day mate.

So yougot nothing? No report?

I've got the testimony of three American heroes who were there, not some political committee. These three guys had no political agenda. You cannot state the same regarding the committee. If you do some research, you'll find plenty agree with three aforementioned American heroes. If you are honest, I think you know this already. You simply won't admit it. JMHO.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Bottom line, some people are so politically/emotionally invested in their opinion of events, they are willing to simply dismiss official, bipartisan investigations while accepting a Hollywood version of what happened.

:-\

[TexasTiger 13,048]

He has shown his opinion and refused facts. His loyalty to Obama and Hillary has blinded him.

Your hatred of them blinds you every day. He strikes me as loyal to facts, not politicians.

He shows you sworn testimony, you reference a Hollywood movie script.

Trying for stupid post of the day?

I won't compete on your turf.

Tex, you own that turf. ;)/> ;)/> ;)/>

I would be trespassing.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

He has shown his opinion and refused facts. His loyalty to Obama and Hillary has blinded him.

Your hatred of them blinds you every day. He strikes me as loyal to facts, not politicians.

He shows you sworn testimony, you reference a Hollywood movie script.

Trying for stupid post of the day?

I won't compete on your turf.

Tex, you own that turf. ;)/> ;)/> ;)/>

I would be trespassing.

Not when you own it.

[AFTiger 282]

The stand down order came locally, not part of the investigation.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The stand down order came locally, not part of the investigation.

Please don't confuse our forum "experts" with trivial facts.

[AUUSN 823]

The stand down order came locally, not part of the investigation.

AFTIGER really showed his ass in this thread.

[AUUSN 823]

The stand down order came locally, not part of the investigation.

Please don't confuse our forum "experts" with trivial facts.

What fact is that? Back it up with a link.

[AFTiger 282]

The stand down order came locally, not part of the investigation.

AFTIGER really showed his ass in this thread.

Not really. You are only one.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

The fact that some ignore testimony of three American heroes with no political agenda, yet accept testimony from those with a political agenda is telling.

Early to bed, early to rise. Until tomorrow, good day mates.

[TexasTiger 13,048]

The fact that some ignore testimony of three American heroes with no political agenda, yet accept testimony from those with a political agenda is telling.

Early to bed, early to rise. Until tomorrow, good day mates.

What are their names?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

It is the most fateful moment in a movie that purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya: a scene in which the highest-ranking CIA operative at a secret agency compound orders his security team to “stand down” rather than rush off to rescue U.S. diplomats under siege less than a mile away.

According to the officer in charge of the CIA’s Benghazi base that night, the scene in the movie is entirely untrue.

“There never was a stand-down order,” said the base chief known as Bob, speaking publicly for the first time. “At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart.”

https://www.washingt...3c7d_story.html

It's a Micheal Bay film. Same guy that brought you Pearl Harbor where he interviewed like over 100 people actually there and then rearranged, changed, embellished, etc their accounts to bring you a film with lots of things going boom. Things like placing Admiral Kimmel actually at a golf course during the attacks which was not true. Though he usually did play on Sundays

It is the most fateful moment in a movie that purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya: a scene in which the highest-ranking CIA operative at a secret agency compound orders his security team to “stand down” rather than rush off to rescue U.S. diplomats under siege less than a mile away.

According to the officer in charge of the CIA’s Benghazi base that night, the scene in the movie is entirely untrue.

“There never was a stand-down order,” said the base chief known as Bob, speaking publicly for the first time. “At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart.”

https://www.washingt...3c7d_story.html

It's a Micheal Bay film. Same guy that brought you Pearl Harbor where he interviewed like over 100 people actually there and then rearranged, changed, embellished, etc their accounts to bring you a film with lots of things going boom. Things like placing Admiral Kimmel actually at a golf course during the attacks which was not true. Though he usually did play on Sundays

There is a difference here and that is he filmed Pearl harbor over 50 years later and even though he interviewed many who were there, how many of those he interviewed were actually involved in the screenplay? There are 3 guys who were government contractors that survived that attack that were there and participated in the actual filming of the scenes. IMV,its hard to argue with that aspect of his intent on presenting as close to a documentary as possible w/o being actually one.

Nope, it's fiction. Didn't tex tell you?

Bob told me.

According to the officer in charge of the CIA’s Benghazi base that night, the scene in the movie is entirely untrue.

https://www.washingt...3c7d_story.html

So did other agents that were there.

A second CIA officer at Benghazi that evening backed Bob’s account

https://www.washingt...3c7d_story.html

How many CIA agents do you know that speak out against the administration and don't fear for their jobs, their career, their life? It is a bit different being a contractor where the same fears don't exist.

Well having lived in military towns, and these contractors being soldiers shall I tell you how many soldiers I know that lie for things like sex, attempted rape, what they were doing with JR High girls at the mall, starting fights at HS parties, free drinks, to the MP's, to the local police, about selling drugs, to straight up get out of trouble... and the list can go on and on and on. I have zero doubt some soldiers would lie for profit which is what they get by selling book rights and movie rights and providing consulting in film making.

Also, I'm not allowed to disclose or discuss the CIA agents I know.

[AUUSN 823]

CIA Benghazi team clash led to 'stand down' report

By KIMBERLY DOZIER Dec. 14, 2013 7:53 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA officers revealed a clash over how quickly they should go help the besieged U.S. ambassador during the 2012 attack on an outpost in Libya, and a standing order for them to avoid violent encounters, according to a congressman and others who heard their private congressional testimony or were briefed on it.

The Obama administration has been dogged by complaints that the White House, Pentagon and State Department may not have done enough before and during the attack to save U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, and by accusations that it later engaged in a cover-up.

One allegation was that U.S. officials told the CIA to "stand down" and not go to the aid of the Americans. Top CIA and Defense and State Department officials have denied that.

The testimony from the CIA officers and contractors who were in Libya on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, bolster those denials, but also shed light on what may have led to the delay of up to 30 minutes to respond, according to the varying accounts.

None of those who testified said a quicker response would have saved the lives of Stevens and communications specialist Sean Smith at the temporary diplomatic facility.

The senior CIA officers in charge in Libya that day told Congress of a chaotic scramble to aid Stevens and others who were in the outpost when it was attacked by militants on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away. They said they were trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge.

Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, who heads a House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the employees, said he believes this disagreement was the source of allegations that the CIA ordered security personnel to "stand down" and not help the people inside the diplomatic mission, and perhaps was the source of accusations the administration failed to answer a call from the CIA security team for combat aircraft.

"The team leader knew he was on his own," said Westmoreland, R-Ga.

He explained that the lack of air support was clear to all CIA employees working in Libya because of a 2011 CIA memorandum sent to employees after NATO forces ended their mission in support of the Libyan revolution.

"It basically told people in Benghazi ... if you are attacked, you get your 'package' (the personnel they are charged with protecting) and you get out," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

A senior intelligence official confirmed that the CIA officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the diplomats' call for help by trying "to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons." When it became "clear that this additional support could not be rapidly obtained," the team moved toward the diplomatic compound.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the attack publicly by name.

One contractor testified that he shouted repeatedly over the agency's radio system to his CIA security boss that they should request combat aircraft. But the security chief explained to lawmakers that he ignored his subordinate's demands because he said he knew that no combat aircraft were available for such a mission, Westmoreland said.

Westmoreland said the CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready, the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building. Some wanted to rush to the U.S. compound roughly a mile away, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire.

The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup.

At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to "wait" at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees.

According to previous accounts by U.S. officials, the attacks began at approximately 9:40 p.m., and the CIA team arrived roughly 25 minutes into the attack.

None of those who testified would say they believed the ambassador or the others could have been saved had they arrived any faster, according to two officials, who also were briefed on the testimony. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the closed testimony publicly.

When the seven CIA employees reached the diplomatic compound, they fought their way in and found the five State Department security personnel who had taken shelter in various parts of the compound.

They found computer specialist Smith, dead from smoke inhalation, but couldn't find Stevens and decided to fall back to the CIA annex, because the crowd was building outside again, Westmoreland and the other officials said.

Stevens was found in a safe room and taken by Libyan civilians to a nearby hospital, but he died from smoke inhalation.

The CIA team believes their convoy was followed back to their compound, where they were first attacked by small arms fire around midnight local time, which quickly stopped when the CIA team returned fire, Westmoreland said.

Roughly five hours later, the CIA team testified that mortars hit, killing former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who had helped rescue the diplomats, and former SEAL Glenn Doherty, who had just arrived with a team from Tripoli.

The lawmakers wanted to hear directly from the contractors about their account before a book the contractors have written is published in September 2014, if it passes the CIA's security review.

[AUUSN 823]

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/world/africa/new-book-says-cia-official-in-benghazi-held-up-rescue.html?_r=2&referrer=

[AUUSN 823]

Fox News goes all out to save Michael Bay’s Benghazi flop “13 Hours” from its own lies and awfulness

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/19/fox_news_goes_all_out_to_save_michael_bays_benghazi_flop_13_hours_from_its_own_lies_and_awfulness/

[AUUSN 823]

The scene in question features the fictionalized version of Bob ordering his security team to “stand down” rather than attempt to rescue the diplomat, then missing in the wake of an attack on the nearby American consulate. Not only was the stand-down order never given, Bob said, but nothing he said in the aftermath of the consulate siege could even be “interpreted as equivalent” to such an order.

“I thought I would regret it if I didn’t” speak out about the inaccuracies, Bob said. “So much of this information has been wrong.”https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/wrong-michael-bays-benghazi-movie-13-hours-is-inaccurate-says-cia-officer-involved/