Obama Administration ran guns from Benghazi to Syria

[AUUSN 823]

The attack happened at 2142. The CIA security team left the station house at 2205. That is not, ever equal to a stand down order. I'm sorry. It just isn't.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Where was the military ?

Told to stand down.

[AUUSN 823]

Where was the military ?

Told to stand down.

Read General Dempsey and Hamm's testimony and get back to me.

[AFTiger 282]

Where was the military ?

Told to stand down.

Correction. Not given permission to proceed.

[AFTiger 282]

The attack happened at 2142. The CIA security team left the station house at 2205. That is not, ever equal to a stand down order. I'm sorry. It just isn't.

Did you forget, they left despite orders not to. Stand down order disobeyed.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

You two are quite a pair. Are you addressing theme movie or the event.? You go back and forth when it suits you.

Are you suggesting you didn't start a thread discussing how the movie depicted what happened?

Did you stay on topic? No. You started talking about the event.

You claim the movie is a accurate depiction of the event.

[AFTiger 282]

You two are quite a pair. Are you addressing theme movie or the event.? You go back and forth when it suits you.

Are you suggesting you didn't start a thread discussing how the movie depicted what happened?

Did you stay on topic? No. You started talking about the event.

You claim the movie is a accurate depiction of the event.

So does the movie producer and three of the combatants.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

According to Operators with the Annex Security Team, they had become aware of the consulate attack after 9:30 pm local time, and were ready to respond within five minutes, however, they were delayed from responding by "the top CIA officer in Benghazi".^[85] The Regional Security Office sounded the alarm and placed calls to the Benghazi CIA annex and the embassy in Tripoli, saying, "We're under attack, we need help, please send help now ..." Then the call cut off. After some discussion, the CIA's Global Response Staff (GRS) at the CIA annex, which included senior security operative Tyrone S. Woods, decided to implement a rescue.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

More incompetence............

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.^[64]

^{I see no need to beef up security. Do you?}

[AUUSN 823]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Initially, the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.^[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya."^[166] She also reaffirmed "America's commitment to religious tolerance" and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."

In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."^[172] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video.

In a White House press briefing on September 18, press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information – we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."

On the same day, during an appearance on

Univision

, a Spanish-language television network in the United States, President Obama stated, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

On September 24, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television. The television ads in Pakistan (marked with the U.S. Embassy seal) feature clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video.

On September 25, in an address before the

United Nations General Assembly

President Obama stated, "The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America ... And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."

^[77]

^[191]

He referred to

Innocence of Muslims

as "a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Given these statements, why would anyone question this administrations handling of Benghazi? Could they possibly have a political agenda? Would they lie to cover up errors in judgement? Nah, damn the testimony of three American heroes. Our administration got it right.

Sigh.

[AUUSN 823]

Where was the military ?

Told to stand down.

Correction. Not given permission to proceed.

Please clarify or are you going to keep showing that education with these oh so cute one liners?

[AUUSN 823]

Initially, the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.^[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya."^[166] She also reaffirmed "America's commitment to religious tolerance" and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."

In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."^[172] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video.

In a White House press briefing on September 18, press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information – we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."

On the same day, during an appearance on

Univision

, a Spanish-language television network in the United States, President Obama stated, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

On September 24, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television. The television ads in Pakistan (marked with the U.S. Embassy seal) feature clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video.

On September 25, in an address before the

United Nations General Assembly

President Obama stated, "The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America ... And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."

^[77]

^[191]

He referred to

Innocence of Muslims

as "a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Given these statements, why would anyone question this administrations handling of Benghazi?

Dont go all Raptor. We are discussing the actions on the ground, not in DC.

[AUUSN 823]

More incompetence............

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.^[64]

This is no surprise. The CIA had briefed Stevens on the threat.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

[AFTiger 282]

Initially, the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.^[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya."^[166] She also reaffirmed "America's commitment to religious tolerance" and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."

In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."^[172] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video.

In a White House press briefing on September 18, press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information – we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."

On the same day, during an appearance on

Univision

, a Spanish-language television network in the United States, President Obama stated, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

On September 24, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television. The television ads in Pakistan (marked with the U.S. Embassy seal) feature clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video.

On September 25, in an address before the

United Nations General Assembly

President Obama stated, "The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America ... And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."

^[77]

^[191]

He referred to

Innocence of Muslims

as "a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Given these statements, why would anyone question this administrations handling of Benghazi?

Dont go all Raptor. We are discussing the actions on the ground, not in DC.

And I thought you were talking about a movie.

[AUUSN 823]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

You don't know the difference do you?

Another question. Have you ever conducted a mission brief or convoy brief?

Have you ever been in charge of a group of individuals where your decisions could get them killed?

[AUUSN 823]

Initially, the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.^[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya."^[166] She also reaffirmed "America's commitment to religious tolerance" and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."

In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."^[172] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video.

In a White House press briefing on September 18, press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information – we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."

On the same day, during an appearance on

Univision

, a Spanish-language television network in the United States, President Obama stated, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

On September 24, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television. The television ads in Pakistan (marked with the U.S. Embassy seal) feature clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video.

On September 25, in an address before the

United Nations General Assembly

President Obama stated, "The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America ... And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."

^[77]

^[191]

He referred to

Innocence of Muslims

as "a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Given these statements, why would anyone question this administrations handling of Benghazi?

Dont go all Raptor. We are discussing the actions on the ground, not in DC.

And I thought you were talking about a movie.

Oh look. Another one liner. I'm talking about the movie's wild ass claim that there was a stand down order. There wasnt one. Period.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

You don't know the difference do you? Yes

Another question. Have you ever conducted a mission brief or convoy brief? No

Have you ever been in charge of a group of individuals where your decisions could get them killed? Yes

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Initially, the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.^[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated.

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya."^[166] She also reaffirmed "America's commitment to religious tolerance" and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet."

In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."^[172] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."

Using these talking points as a guide, Rice stated:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video.

In a White House press briefing on September 18, press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we – our initial information, and that includes all information – we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."

On the same day, during an appearance on

Univision

, a Spanish-language television network in the United States, President Obama stated, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

On September 24, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television. The television ads in Pakistan (marked with the U.S. Embassy seal) feature clips of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video.

On September 25, in an address before the

United Nations General Assembly

President Obama stated, "The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America ... And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."

^[77]

^[191]

He referred to

Innocence of Muslims

as "a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Given these statements, why would anyone question this administrations handling of Benghazi?

Dont go all Raptor. We are discussing the actions on the ground, not in DC.

And I thought you were talking about a movie.

Oh look. Another one liner. I'm talking about the movie's wild ass claim that there was a stand down order. There wasnt one. Period.

Speculation

[AUUSN 823]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

You don't know the difference do you? Yes

Another question. Have you ever conducted a mission brief or convoy brief? No

Have you ever been in charge of a group of individuals where your decisions could get them killed? Yes

Then you would know you cant be strategically ready to go in five min, unless you were prestaged. They were not.

If you have been in charge then you would make sure things were in order before sending them out to possibly die, wouldnt you or has your desire to trash other Americans clouded your judgement?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

More incompetence............

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.^[64]

This is no surprise. The CIA had briefed Stevens on the threat.

And who did Stevens brief on the threat?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

You don't know the difference do you? Yes

Another question. Have you ever conducted a mission brief or convoy brief? No

Have you ever been in charge of a group of individuals where your decisions could get them killed? Yes

Then you would know you cant be strategically ready to go in five min, unless you were prestaged. They were not.

If you have been in charge then you would make sure things were in order before sending them out to possibly die, wouldnt you or has your desire to trash other Americans clouded your judgement?

The entire team was briefed the day before the attacks. They were ready. Unfortunately, the Ambassador and his team were ill equipped to respond adequately. They counted on and expected support.

When the annex team accepted this duty, they knew the possibilities. When the compound came under fire the annex team was ready to respond. This wasn't their first day on the job nor their first rodeo.

[AUUSN 823]

More incompetence............

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.^[64]

This is no surprise. The CIA had briefed Stevens on the threat.

And who did Stevens brief on the threat?

He didnt brief anyone.

[AUUSN 823]

Being tactically ready in five min is awesome....but were they strategically ready?

Lets see.....Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon and Army Special Forces, yeah, I'd say very ready.

You don't know the difference do you? Yes

Another question. Have you ever conducted a mission brief or convoy brief? No

Have you ever been in charge of a group of individuals where your decisions could get them killed? Yes

Then you would know you cant be strategically ready to go in five min, unless you were prestaged. They were not.

If you have been in charge then you would make sure things were in order before sending them out to possibly die, wouldnt you or has your desire to trash other Americans clouded your judgement?

The entire team was briefed the day before the attacks. They were ready. Unfortunately, the Ambassador and his team were ill equipped to respond adequately. They counted on and expected support.

When the annex team accepted this duty, they knew the possibilities. When the compound came under fire the annex team was ready to respond. This wasn't their first day on the job nor their first rodeo.

You are still missing my point. They get briefed everyday. That still doesnt mean they were prestaged. You cant maintain that kind of posture indefinetly. There was no specific intel on a pending attack.