Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about the guy who was ordered to stand down, refused permission to go from the CIA stronghold a mile or so away from where the Ambassador was located?
From the ARB report:
Just prior to receiving the TDY RSO’s distress call shortly after 2142 local,
the head of Annex security heard multiple explosions coming from the north in the
direction of the SMC. The Annex security head immediately began to organize
his team’s departure and notified his superiors, who began to contact
local security elements to request support. The Annex response team departed
its compound in two vehicles at approximately 2205 local. The departure of the
Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors; the team leader decided on
his own to depart the Annex compound once it was apparent, despite a brief delay
to permit their continuing efforts, that rapid support from local security elements
was not forthcoming.
When the second team (led by Colonel Gibson) was eady to go, all the Americans in Benghazi were at the airport ready to leave. Not much point in going when everyone was leaving. That is why in this latest story they said they would pass them in the air.
They were saying it because that is what the CIA was saying and it was CIA facilities that were attacked.
The CIA says they made no claims. Are you not interested in finding out how we can have such incompetance?
All the same, nobody believed it was about a video. They were just caught flat footed and unprepared and this was the only thing they could come up with even if it was lame.
It was noted here right after it happened that there is no way it was about a video. Yet, that is the excuse the administration trotted out because they believe you (spoken in the big picture) would be stupid enough to buy it.
They also knew that many that didn't would still go out of their way to try and defend the incompetance.
Who testified that help was called for and denied? Who exactly denied this help according to that testimony?
MAYBE if you had watched the hearings, or MAYBE IF you had been following the events instead of watching MSNBC YOU wouldn't be asking questions that ANYONE who HAD watched the hearings or have been following the events since it happened would already know.
Your silly question has been answered right here in this thread. Look it up and quit making such a fool of yourself.
The CIA says they made no claims. Are you not interested in finding out how we can have such incompetance?
All the same, nobody believed it was about a video. They were just caught flat footed and unprepared and this was the only thing they could come up with even if it was lame.
It was noted here right after it happened that there is no way it was about a video. Yet, that is the excuse the administration trotted out because they believe you (spoken in the big picture) would be stupid enough to buy it.
They also knew that many that didn't would still go out of their way to try and defend the incompetance.
The CIA talking points, 3 days after the attack, sent for review to the other parts of the government linked the attack to the video, said the attacks were spontaneous and claimed that only part of the crowd attacking the facilities were extremists.
The CIA had intercepted communications on the day of the attack, among members of the group suspected of attacking the facilities, talking about the events in Cairo. The CIA had warned the Cairo embassy that there could be attacks linked to the video the day prior to the attack in Benghazi.
How can you say the CIA didn't really believe what they were telling others 2 to 5 days after the attack?
My opinion is that the CIA's initial assessment was affected by the CIA's expectations (having warned about attacks elsewhere) and the intercepted communications.
In any case, if people are really interested in how and when the video entered the Benghazi narrative then they should be focusing on the CIA and not the White House, the State Department or the U.N. Ambassador.
Obviously they weren't what? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
