Who changed the Benghazi talking points?

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

[petitfour]

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.

[zot]

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.

[MestaMachine]

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.

[Just mythoughts]

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.

[cornfedcowboy]

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

[TigersEye]

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.

[TigersEye]

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.

[MestaMachine]

“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.

[TigersEye]

Oops, sorry, I missed that.

[TigersEye]

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.'

[Dixie Yooper]

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

The really stupid thing is that just like Watergate, if the right decision had been made, it wouldn't had made a difference in either president's election. Nixon could have had John Dean and his henchmen arrested for what they did as soon as he found out about it. Axlerod and Jarett could have given the attack order and made their puppet look like a hero.

[timestax]

THE MEDIA SITS ON HIS SCANDALS

TARGET THE MEDIA..TARGET THE MEDIA

[timestax]