Libboes...article follows my rant.
So, let's see...a senior Obama administration official goes on Sunday morning talk shows to talk about how Benghazi was not a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton GOES TO THE HOUSE OF THE FATHER OF A BENGHAZI VICTIM and says, "We're going to hold responsible the people that made that video", and Republicans are politicizing Benghazi?
Hillary - you're cooked. Over. Done. Through. Ha ha!
Special Ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: May 6
As the weakly protected U.S. diplomatic compound in eastern Libya came under attack the night of Sept. 11, 2012, the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.
Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.
Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi, but Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned whether the Obama administration could have saved lives with a nimbler, more assertive response. They say that the reluctance to send the Special Operations troops may have, at the very least, deprived wounded Americans in Benghazi of first aid.
Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks’s testimony Monday ahead of a hearing Wednesday at which he is scheduled to appear. His remarks are the first public account from a U.S. official who was in Libya at the time of the attacks about the options that were weighed as militants mobbed the American diplomatic outpost and CIA station in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other government employees.
The new details are certain to reignite a debate over whether the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming in its public accounting of the events and missteps that resulted in the first death of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty in a generation. If Republicans in Congress succeed in portraying the administration’s response as feckless, the episode could dog any future political aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state when the attacks happened.
After the attacks ended without planes being scrambled or special forces dispatched, the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told Hicks he was sorry that his men had been held back.
“I’ve never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than someone in the military,” the officer told Hicks, according to the diplomat’s account. Hicks called that “a nice compliment.”
Hicks may have been the last American official to speak with Stevens. After an embassy security official ran into his residence to tell him about the initial attack, Hicks managed to get Stevens on the phone. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Stevens blurted out, according to Hicks. “My response is ‘Okay,’ and I’m about to say something else and the line clicks.”
The administration has said the independent review of the Benghazi assault was exhaustive, and State Department officials have vowed to implement reforms to make U.S. missions abroad safer. Republicans, however, say Hicks’s account suggests the administration has not been entirely truthful.
“The White House and the Pentagon have allowed us to believe that there were no military options on the table,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a phone interview. “The model of the military is to leave no person behind, and it’s stunning and unacceptable to think we had military willing and ready to go and the Pentagon told them to stand down. That’s just not the American way.”
Chaffetz said the troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack.
A Pentagon spokesman said he would review the Hicks testimony. “We have repeatedly stated that while Department officials started taking action immediately after learning that an attack was underway at the American facility there, our forces were unable to reach it in time to intervene to stop the attacks,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in an e-mail Monday night.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters that the Republican-led inquiry appears to be politicized, saying it was “not a collaborative process.”
He said, however, that the State Department is not seeking to suppress the accounts of whistleblowers. “We have always encouraged any State Department employee who wants to share their story and tell the truth,” he said.
Part of the Benghazi debate has focused on whether prompt action might have saved lives. In the initial attack, militants overran the compound where Stevens was staying and he and another State Department officer, Sean Smith, were killed. Others made their way to a nearby annex used by the CIA, where two Americans, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in an attack several hours later.
Hicks, a veteran Foreign Service officer who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, told congressional staffers that he and others in Libya thought that flying U.S. military jets over Benghazi during the early hours of the attack could have had a deterrent effect.
“If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the [CIA] annex in the morning, because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
Hicks said that late on the night of Sept. 11 he called the embassy’s defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and asked about the viability of sending jets.
“Is there anything coming?” Hicks said he asked Phillips.
Phillips told Hicks that the nearest planes were at Aviano Air Base in Italy and that it would take two to three hours to get them off the ground, the diplomat told congressional staffers. There also were no aircraft nearby that could have refueled airborne planes.
“The answer was, it’s too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.
Originally posted by sasquatch672The title of the thread is just another is a seemingly endless series of lies told by you regarding this event; Hicks testified that the plane that would have carried the 4 Special Ops wouldn't even have left Tripoli until after the mortar attack had already occurred.
Libboes...article follows my rant.
So, let's see...a senior Obama administration official goes on Sunday morning talk shows to talk about how Benghazi was not a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton GOES TO THE HOUSE OF THE FATHER OF A BENGHAZI VICTIM and says, "We're going to hold responsible the people that made that video", and Republicans are polit ...[text shortened]... way, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.
Originally posted by no1marauderFunny...you call me that, and then material comes out which contradicts your twisted worldview and your assertions about me - and then you call me that again.
No, I'm saying sasquatch is a liar.
I'm saying you're a two-bit partisan hack blinded by hatred of anybody and anything that might demonstrate that your political leanings are seriously screwed in the head.
EDIT: One more time, a golden oldie: Obama abandoned Americans to die. And lied about it.
Originally posted by sasquatch672The fact that you unashamedly repeatedly lie shows who is a "partisan hack". And telling a lie over and over and over again does not transform it into the truth.
Funny...you call me that, and then material comes out which contradicts your twisted worldview and your assertions about me - and then you call me that again.
I'm saying you're a two-bit partisan hack blinded by hatred of anybody and anything that might demonstrate that your political leanings are seriously screwed in the head.
EDIT: One more time, a golden oldie: Obama abandoned Americans to die. And lied about it.
The thread title is a lie; you know it is too.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom what I'm reading, Hicks did not testify that he didn't think jets could make it in time, but he testified that someone told him that when rejecting his request. There is a big difference in meaning between these two assertions.
No, I'm saying sasquatch is a liar.
Then, LONG AFTER, the mortar attack he testified that he believes quickly scrambling fighter jets likely would have prevented the attacks.
What am I missing here? Where did Sasquatch lie?
Also, Sasquatch is an anonymous person debating politics on a chess site. I don't think he's lying, but perhaps I can be convinced of it.
But the person who refused to send fighters saying it would take 2 or 3 hours before the jets could get off the ground. I grew up on an Air Force base. That does not pass the smell test. No way a US Air Force base under normal operation cannot scramble a fighter in less than 2 hours. I strongly suspect that person was lying.
What is indisputable is that the Obama administration lied about it being a spontaneous uprising. That ought to be a lot more disturbing than some anonymous person lying about politics on a chess site.
But, Obama has promised to investigate and get to the bottom of it. We can feel better.
Originally posted by sasquatch672One wonders if Benghazi could be Obama's Watergate. It seems much worse than a burglary of a political office.
Libboes...article follows my rant.
So, let's see...a senior Obama administration official goes on Sunday morning talk shows to talk about how Benghazi was not a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton GOES TO THE HOUSE OF THE FATHER OF A BENGHAZI VICTIM and says, "We're going to hold responsible the people that made that video", and Republicans are polit ...[text shortened]... way, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.
Originally posted by techsouthThe thread title says nothing about the jets; it is:
From what I'm reading, Hicks did not testify that he didn't think jets could make it in time, but he testified that someone told him that when rejecting his request. There is a big difference in meaning between these two assertions.
Then, LONG AFTER, the mortar attack he testified that he believes quickly scrambling fighter jets likely would have preve ...[text shortened]...
But, Obama has promised to investigate and get to the bottom of it. We can feel better.
"SpecOps Halted From Saving Benghazi Victims"
Of course, the flight the 4 Spec Ops would have been on didn't leave until after the "Benghazi victims" were already dead therefore they could not possibly have "saved" them. Sasquatch knows this, therefore he is lying by saying otherwise.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSee my post above. This is just an attempt to goal post move now that Sas' claim as been shown to be false.
The Benghazi victims, at the very least, were the Americans fighting for their lives at the Embassy and Annex. If the SpecOps were actually told to stand down, then the thread title isn't a lie.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo it isn't. Why don't you hold the real liars accountable for once? Aren't you the least bit concerned about the recent developments regarding the Benghazi attacks?
See my post above. This is just an attempt to goal post move now that Sas' claim as been shown to be false.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeNo, I'm not. The claim about the jets has been floating around (seemingly like right wingers think actual jets can) for months. The info about a small Special Opps team that couldn't have arrived in any event until long after anyone became a "victim" gets a: 😴
No it isn't. Why don't you hold the real liars accountable for once? Aren't you the least bit concerned about the recent developments regarding the Benghazi attacks?
Right wingers have been banging this drum to try to milk political gain from the deaths of four Americans for more than half a year. It's shameful.
Originally posted by no1marauderAstonishing.
No, I'm not. The claim about the jets has been floating around (seemingly like right wingers think actual jets can) for months. The info about a small Special Opps team that couldn't have arrived in any event until long after anyone became a "victim" gets a: 😴
Right wingers have been banging this drum to try to milk political gain from the deaths of four Americans for more than half a year. It's shameful.