Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who changed the Benghazi talking points?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57555984/who-changed-the-benghazi-talking-points/#postComments ^

Posted on 11/28/2012 12:04:42 PM PST by bryan999

Who within the Obama administration deleted mention of "terrorism" and "al-Qaeda" from the CIA's talking points on the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi?

It isn't the only unanswered question in the wake of the tragedy, but it's proven to be one of the most confounding.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: benghazi; bho44; ciatalkingpoints; coverup; soshillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 11/28/2012 12:04:44 PM PST by bryan999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bryan999
Get to the real BIG issue....the one connected directly with the death of 4 Ameicans.....Let's talk about the "stand down" order.

IIRC, a Petraeus rep said it didn't come from them. They implied that there indeed was such an order and they knew about it.

It had to come from Obama. No one else can give such an order.

2 posted on 11/28/2012 12:07:57 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Get to the real BIG issue....the one connected directly with the death of 4 Americans.....Let's talk about the "stand down" order."""""""........

That is the only QUESTIONS there is to be answered, all else is of no consequence as it will not lead to the above question. Chasing their tails on who changed what.

If they are going to continue down this path, then by golly BOMBARD them with questions. ASK so many every day, that they have no time to come up with an cognizant answer to any, scramble their brains. The more questions they ask, the more they will get confused.

3 posted on 11/28/2012 12:15:48 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Sacajaweau~: “ Get to the real BIG issue....the one connected directly with the death of 4 Americans.....Let’s talk about the “stand down” order. “

Yes !!
Perhaps the White hut was expecting 34 potential casualties ,
or prisoners to be exchanged for ...... ?

Where are all the other 30 surviving sequestered potential victims that NO ONE has questioned ?


4 posted on 11/28/2012 12:16:23 PM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt ("You can kill a free man,.. you can't enslave him." -Robert Anson Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
>Let's talk about the "stand down" order.

The Only topic worthy of inquiry!

5 posted on 11/28/2012 12:17:37 PM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

It came from the one whose name is not being mentioned in the media. It’s obvious who it is that all the king’s men and women are trying to protect. He is the one who got elected by his coloration, and who is protected by it.


6 posted on 11/28/2012 12:20:40 PM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

To date, the media haven’t asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn’t military help get to Battleground Benghazi?

IMHO, Benghazi-Coward Obama chose Susan Rice to be the perfect deflecting smokescreen for his Impeachable blunders in the Benghazi Massacre.

Susan Rice is female, Black, and above all “Had nothing to do with Benghazi.”

Why not ignore Obama’s ‘throwing Rice’ at the gullible RINOs, and call Commie Obama to testify under oath to a Congressional Committee?

Here are my three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:

1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?

2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?

3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?

Impeach! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


7 posted on 11/28/2012 12:26:08 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

Axelrod’s been reeeeeeeeeeeeal quiet lately. Congress better double-down on getting people to testify, like HILLARY, for example.


8 posted on 11/28/2012 12:26:19 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

9 posted on 11/28/2012 12:29:06 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

NO ONE IS BEING HELD RESPONISBLE...keep talking abouth other things long enough...it will go off the front pages and be forgotten..


10 posted on 11/28/2012 12:29:06 PM PST by rxtn41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

NO ONE IS BEING HELD RESPONISBLE...keep talking abouth other things long enough...it will go off the front pages and be forgotten..


11 posted on 11/28/2012 12:29:12 PM PST by rxtn41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax

Yep


12 posted on 11/28/2012 12:30:16 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Ah but Hillary has been busy with critical national security issues. In Peru and Australia and maybe Antarctica too. Anything to stay out of town and away from questioners.

When will our congressional bozos get around to getting her under oath?

13 posted on 11/28/2012 12:30:47 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bryan999
Three Facts

Fact One:

1) Only the POTUS can authorize a CBA (cross border authority) command for a rescue mission in a foreign nation.

Plus Fact Two:

2) No rescue mission was attempted.

Equals Fact Three:

3) 0bama turned his back on 41 State Dept. and CIA employees refusing to issue a CBA command and went to bed so he could go to Las Vegas the next day.

---------------------------------------------------------

Three scandals.


14 posted on 11/28/2012 12:32:17 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; maggief
But it was just a matter of hours before there was yet another revision. A CIA official contacted Graham and stated that Morell "misspoke" in the earlier meeting and that it was, in fact, the CIA, not the FBI, that deleted the al Qaeda references. "They were unable to give a reason as to why," stated Graham....

Late Tuesday, a CIA official confirmed to CBS News that someone within the CIA made the changes. The official combined all previous explanations for the edits stating:

[lol;lol;lol--they're working sooo hard]

"The information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources, and could not be corroborated at the unclassified level; the links were tenuous and therefore it made sense to be cautious before naming perpetrators; finally, no one wanted to prejudice a criminal investigation in its earliest stages."

15 posted on 11/28/2012 12:32:26 PM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

As Steve Hayes said on Special Report yesterday “they have put out five different versions of who changed the talking points in just the last two weeks.”


16 posted on 11/28/2012 12:34:16 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Spot on!


17 posted on 11/28/2012 12:35:55 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Well, being a devils advocate, what about the stand down order? You think it was illegal?

It’s definitely a decision I wouldn’t want the President to make. Nothing exculpatory has been presented, it’s all like a 7 year old child’s “I don’t know”, but it was his decision to make and the only laws he broke where the laws of public opinion. Even though that on the face of it, it looks to be a case of self-serving political interests that drove the decision rather than some or even a nuanced national security reason.


18 posted on 11/28/2012 12:36:14 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bryan999
I thought the administration had admitted it was Clapper that changed the points (only after Petraeus' testimony).

Now we hear it was also the FBI and the CIA.

They are trying as hard as they can to confuse the issue.

My sense is that Petraeus was telling the truth in his closed-door testimony. (Although he did mention the video early on...probably only because Clapper asked him to.)

19 posted on 11/28/2012 12:37:24 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

bookmark


20 posted on 11/28/2012 12:40:55 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Ping.


21 posted on 11/28/2012 12:41:37 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Those are the bottom line points. Not a single one of them has been addressed in any way so far. The Coward of Benghazi is in hiding.


22 posted on 11/28/2012 12:43:26 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rxtn41

It does not matter, particularly, who either gave the order to stand down, or who chose to change the talking points.

What does matter, is the code of silence that virtually the entire regime of Bronco Bama has chosen to subscribe to. For a “transparent” administration, they sure have covered up a lot of questionable decisions and actions that border on the definition of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, as stated in the Constitution.

This code of conduct is included as part of the UCMJ, as “refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming.” Normally these would not apply to a private citizen, but for people of elected or appointed authority, a higher standard is called for.

But as for trying to get the lethargic American electorate to sit up and take notice of this major lapse of duty and responsibility, it is rather like urinating in the direction of the wind.


23 posted on 11/28/2012 12:45:03 PM PST by alloysteel (Bronco Bama - the cowboy who whooped up and widened the stampede.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

And... Liz Cheney summed it up nicely:

“It is now the forth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn’t something that happens when you are actually telling the truth.”

I am still curious as to what when on behind the scenes after Morrell’s statement to the 3 senators, the correction in the early evening retracting Morrell’s statement, and the slick explanation that apparently followed even later to CBS.


24 posted on 11/28/2012 12:46:06 PM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
That's right, I heard Liz Cheney say that too but forgot about it.

I am still curious as to what when on behind the scenes after Morrell’s statement to the 3 senators, the correction in the early evening retracting Morrell’s statement, and the slick explanation that apparently followed even later to CBS.

The WH is spinning so many lies so fast it's hard to keep up with their latest version.

25 posted on 11/28/2012 12:50:01 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist
It is important,....but it is NOT the only worthy Topic.

There are multiple worthy topics regarding this whole mess.

What exactly was the CIA doing in Benghazi....

What was so Important that Amb Stevens , realizing that he had no real security in Benghazi,...choose to go there on the anniversary of Sept 11, 2001.

26 posted on 11/28/2012 12:53:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

They are trying to keep this one active so they can avoid the tougher questioons that we have been laying out since the attack happened.


27 posted on 11/28/2012 12:57:15 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

Who cares any more. Nothing is going to be done about it anyway.

Obama has the US by the azz.


28 posted on 11/28/2012 12:58:18 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

The other 30 were flown to Germany (Ramstein?) immediately and were apparently questioned there by the FBI in the days afterwards. No idea who they were...our people, prisoners of ours, just random people stuck there?

In any case, a little information seems to be leaking from these interviews, which is one of the things discrediting the “testimony” of all these other dweebs, suckers, fall-guys, or whatever you want to call them.


29 posted on 11/28/2012 1:10:20 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

This stink emanates from the Oval Office, no place else. Until the congress grows the necessary cajones the usurper in chief will continue to skate on this. Gun running and murder seem to follow wherever the big “O” goes.


30 posted on 11/28/2012 1:10:50 PM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
One by one the lies are exposed the excuses grow old and the real questions remain.

'Why did 0bama turn his back on 41 Americans leaving them to die?'

31 posted on 11/28/2012 1:11:26 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist; Sacajaweau
Let's talk about the "stand down" order.

The 0bama regime is trying to divert attention with a "Red Herring", ie. the talking point, in hopes that the public will grow weary and move on before ever getting to the "stand down" order. Remember, the public has a very short attention span and with the MSM refusing to discuss Benghazi, most of the Country has no idea what went on. You can seen it fading, like Fast and Furious, because congress is a bunch of spineless morons.

32 posted on 11/28/2012 1:22:28 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty ( Fast and Furious , Benghazi - What's 0bama's current body count?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: timestax
I expect Axelrod and Jarett were the first to discuss the issue between themselves, and then told their puppet what to do.
33 posted on 11/28/2012 1:28:12 PM PST by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/top-obama-envoy-meets-libyan-leaders_804899.html

My nomination for the obama team human cockroach who took charge of this fiasco and acted as the mouthpiece giving the “knock it off” orders to the military and CIA -in place of an apathetic or addled potus who was probably more concerned about getting a beer and a night’s sleep - and didn’t want potus duties to interfere with his Vegas fundraiser next day.


34 posted on 11/28/2012 1:33:48 PM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
You can seen it fading, like Fast and Furious, because congress is a bunch of spineless morons

You just said it was because the public has a short attention span.

What would you expect a "spineless" congress to do then?

35 posted on 11/28/2012 1:35:05 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: livius
Very little information can be found on the evacuees from the attack in Benghazi. Here is some mention of them from two early reports. My searches come up with nothing else.

US diplomats, Marine rescue team were also attacked at safe house, Libyans say Sept. 12, 2012

Miscommunication that understated the number of American survivors awaiting rescue -- there were 37, nearly four times as many as the Libyan commander expected -- also meant survivors and rescuers found themselves short of transport to escape this second battle, delaying an eventual dawn break for the airport.

(snip)

"(The ambassador) died as a result of suffocation by the fumes of the fire inside the embassy and one was also killed by gunfire before around 37 people were moved to a place we thought was safe," Sharif told Reuters in Benghazi.

Here is another short report.

Personnel wounded in Benghazi consulate attack treated at Landstuhl Sept. 13, 2012

All Benghazi consulate personnel have been evacuated to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli in a series of flights that included the three wounded personnel and the remains of the fallen State Department officials, the official said.

(snip)

The three diplomats injured in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya are being treated at an American military hospital in Germany and one of the two most seriously wounded is expected to leave the intensive care unit on Thursday.

A State Department status report obtained by The Associated Press says the third injured staffer is awake and alert at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center near the Ramstein Air Base, where 33 uninjured consulate personnel are staying and receiving military counseling. All were evacuated from Benghazi early Wednesday and arrived in Germany late that afternoon along with the remains of the four diplomats.

According to the report, the injured staffers "are doing relatively well" and most want to return to Libya.

Congress and the press seem to be totally incurious about them.

36 posted on 11/28/2012 1:48:42 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rxtn41

BINGO!!! And, it will be forgotten. People’s attention span is very short and they know it.


37 posted on 11/28/2012 1:51:39 PM PST by Know et al (The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter: Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
What's needed are a group of republicans who will sink their teeth into the deep flesh of these liars, and not let go.

Don't forget that the Watergate burglary happened in 1972. The hearings didn't start humming until 2 years later.

Let loose the dogs of war.

38 posted on 11/28/2012 1:51:43 PM PST by boop ("I need another Cutty Sark"-LBJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
Chasing their tails on who changed what

McLame and Grahmnisty to the resuce?? Give me an effing brake!! This crap is nothing more than typical political diversion to keep the focus off of the obozo's treasonous order to the military to stand down and not help the NOW DEAD ambassador and three other Americans. Now the obozo is publicly saying that there is nothing left to disclose about the Benghazi terrorist massacre. To me, obozo might as well have been on site doing the launching of the RPGs because that statement is proof that he's as guilty as hell and was complicit in the deaths of those 4 Americans. Just like Bill Clinton re Waco and Daddy Bush re Ruby Ridge. Unfortunately, those in DC are above the law.

39 posted on 11/28/2012 2:08:19 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Yes, it’s odd. Or not really, I guess.

They seem to have been debriefed at least by the FBI (and remember, it supposedly took the FBI a couple of weeks to actually get to Benghazi), but whatever information was obtained seems to have sunk into a dark pool somewhere. And then there were the two or three “prisoners” who somebody (who?) ordered the rescuers to turn over to the Libyans, although what Libyans is not very clear either. AQ or our supposed allies?


40 posted on 11/28/2012 2:19:19 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

Didn’t the POTUS already say to blame him? And SOS Hillary said that she took responsibility for the FUBAR. Now every one is supposed to get back to work for the American people. If there were only more jobs for Americans.


41 posted on 11/28/2012 2:22:43 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper
I expect Axelrod and Jarett were the first to discuss the issue between themselves, and then told their puppet what to do.

Right on! Except they couldn't contact their puppet in time, so one of them issued the stand-down order.

General Ham wouldn't accept that order from anyone other than the President, so they ordered his deputy to tell him he was relieved of his command.

42 posted on 11/28/2012 4:34:56 PM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; annieokie; penelopesire; maggief; Protect the Bill of Rights; thouworm; SE Mom; ...
From the looks of this, Woods and Doherty would have been subject to the UCMJ so the order could have come from the Pentagon, (panetta...or dempsey,) or the state department which would have meant hillary.

Did State Department Rules of Engagement Cause the Deaths of the SEAL’s in Benghazi?
Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: Wally Zimolong, Esq.

excerpt:

The exact rules of engagement for State Department private military contractors are classified and even when they are the exact rules are somewhat gray. We do know that in 2007, after criticism and incidents involving private military contractors in Iraq, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) was amended to bring private military contractors within the purview of UCMJ. Accordingly, private military contractors, like Doherty and Woods, could be charged with war crimes and prosecuted in US federal courts for any wrong doing committed while operating in Libya as private contractors. Moreover, while the exact State Department Rules of Engagement for private military contractors operating Libya are classified, according to a Marine Corp statement shortly after the September 11, 2012 Benghazi incident, we do know that the State Department’s rules prevented Marines from operating either at the Tripoli embassy or Benghazi consulate. Moreover, we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrell’s book ‘Lone Survivor’ that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.

With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypt’s prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. Indeed, it is important to understand what Doherty’s and Wood’s role was in Libya. Doherty and Woods were not contracted to provide security to the Benghazi consulate. Rather, reports indicate that they were operating as part of a team contracted by the State Department to seek out and destroy shoulder fired surface to air missiles in the hands of Libyan militias. If State Department Rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi or if there were no rules of engagement for the situation they faced, then they may have been prevented from taking action early in the battle which could have changed its outcome.

When the perimeter was breached did the State Department’s rules of engagement require them to rely on the Libyan security forces to repel the initial attackers rather than permitting them to react immediately to counter the breach? Did the State Department rules of engagement – and the ultimate threat of prosecution under the UCMJ – cause them to make decision against their better trained combat judgment? Unfortunately, given the lack of reports of EKA’s and circumstantial evidence gleaned from the State Department’s position Marine security teams, it is certainly reasonable to assume the answer to both is yes.

My hope is that when the final story is told, it will show that Doherty and Woods went down fighting and saved the lives of the 17 people that were rescued from the Benghazi consulate. Early reports indicated that Ambassador Stevens was killed along with “three Marines.” Clearly, Doherty, Woods, and Sean Smith had done something that would have led to the conclusion that they were Marines. Perhaps they fought off the much larger forces and shuttled the 17 to safety and formed a perimeter (along with Sean Smith who with his military background would at least be proficient in small arms tactics) around Ambassador Stevens who refused to leave until his staff had safely escaped the main compound. Perhaps both were part of a larger team of ex-special operators that indeed caused a significant number of EKA’s that has been kept quite for obvious diplomatic reasons.

That is what I hope. Until, then given the State Department’s record thus far, the question must be asked “did the State Department rules of engagement cause their deaths?”

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.


43 posted on 11/28/2012 4:44:54 PM PST by MestaMachine (It's the !!!!TREASON!!!!, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bryan999
Ah, the people have spoken, the liar in chief was reelected and there are NO republicans with the mind and spine to find out and tell US why 4 Americans were murdered at Obama’s Libyan WMD weapons depot.
44 posted on 11/28/2012 4:48:21 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Does anyone know if Obama was even in the situation room during the attack? Far be it from the press to ask.


45 posted on 11/28/2012 4:51:37 PM PST by cornfedcowboy (Trust in God, but empty the clip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: livius

I reckon the FBI was only mildly afraid to go to Germany to debrief the evacuees. As far as the ‘prisoners’ go I suppose it was just a matter of practicality. When you evacuate under fire with inadequate transportation for your own you cut the trash loose. They ostensibly had some kind of promise from the Libyan government to take care of them if they would turn them over to the Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade.


46 posted on 11/28/2012 6:06:56 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

I thought Woods and Doherty were civilian contractors for the CIA not the DoD!?! I’ve never heard for certain but that’s the last I heard some time ago.


47 posted on 11/28/2012 6:40:17 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“We do know that in 2007, after criticism and incidents involving private military contractors in Iraq, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”) was amended to bring private military contractors within the purview of UCMJ. Accordingly, private military contractors, like Doherty and Woods, could be charged with war crimes and prosecuted in US federal courts for any wrong doing committed while operating in Libya as private contractors.”

This article was written by people who knew Glen Doherty pretty well.


48 posted on 11/28/2012 6:50:09 PM PST by MestaMachine (It's the !!!!TREASON!!!!, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Oops, sorry, I missed that.


49 posted on 11/28/2012 6:53:04 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
If State Department Rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi or if there were no rules of engagement for the situation they faced, then they may have been prevented from taking action early in the battle which could have changed its outcome.

We can say for sure that Doherty couldn't have done anything early in the engagement. He flew in from Tripoli with seven other guys to evacuate personnel. I don't think he or they got there until everything was over at the main consulate and everybody had retreated to the 'annex.'

50 posted on 11/28/2012 6:58:27 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson