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

Skip to comments.

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks
CBS News ^ | Monday May 6, 2013

Posted on 05/06/2013 9:43:29 AM PDT by Bigtigermike

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

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


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 20120911; alqaida; benghazi; benghaziresponse; benghaziwb; c130; cba; chrisstevens; clinton; corruption; democrats; expendable; generalham; gibson; greghicks; ham; hamtestimony; hillary; hillarybenghazi; inextremis; inextremisforce; libya; mitiga; obama; obamabenghazi; sharylattkisson; socafrica; southafrica; standdown; terrorist; tripoli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't see how they can. If "all available resources were utilized" then there would be solid records of their actions. Instead we have the Commander of AFRICOM, Gen. Ham, telling Rep. Chaffetz that the resources were available, ready to go and no one issued an order to send them.

AFRICOM leader General Carter Ham was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi. Youtube 1:43

And only one person has the authority to give that order.

81 posted on 05/06/2013 1:31:51 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
May God Bless these brave people who testify. They stand for America and may our committee in Congress do the right thing for America. They must stand up.

That is what real courage looks like. Not some mediocre sports figure pronouncing his is gay in front of supporting, cheering crowds.

82 posted on 05/06/2013 1:43:17 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (As long as America's tolerence of failure is not overwhelmed by a desire to succeed, we will fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
How in the H**L can they make any credible reply?

The wicked truth is it doesn't even have to be credible. It just has to be a reply and the MS will buy it hook, line and sinker. - along with the low information crowd.

The next step is to vilify the accusers and make some political hay about them and destroy more on the way to scorched earth.

83 posted on 05/06/2013 1:47:51 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (As long as America's tolerence of failure is not overwhelmed by a desire to succeed, we will fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

I don’t think it’s going to be Hillary - I think they’re prepping Michelle for the run, and I think Hillary knows it. If she doesn’t see that it’s all over for her, she’s too stupid to cross the street unescorted, let alone run for President.

Hillary thought she was using them, but they were using her, and now they don’t need her anymore.

The only question in my mind is whether she’ll be angry enough to turn on them. I don’t think so, because for some reason I think Bill has told her not to rock the boat.


84 posted on 05/06/2013 2:05:31 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: annieokie; penelopesire; maggief; Protect the Bill of Rights; thouworm; SE Mom; Nachum; onyx; ...
And so it goes.

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


85 posted on 05/06/2013 2:06:00 PM PDT by MestaMachine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

It would appear this group gave the administration every chance and a long time to make the story right.

They were being as loyal as they could. But it seems they will not let the lies persist. They are not moving on and letting their comrades voices fade away.

And remember there appears to be other deaths that were never reported or followed up on.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833848-us-diplomats-marine-rescue-team-were-also-attacked-at-safe-house-libyans-say?lite

“Of the eight American troops who had come from Tripoli, one was killed and two were wounded, Obeidi said. A Libyan deputy interior minister said a second American was also killed in the attack on the safe house. It was not clear if this was a diplomat or one of the consulate’s original security detail.”

Are there other deaths that were covered up?


86 posted on 05/06/2013 2:22:05 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

I don’t know.


87 posted on 05/06/2013 2:27:42 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

Reading these stories is making me physically sick to my stomach. That our ‘leaders’ would let Americans who answered their nation’s call just be slaughtered, not only without help sent their way, but with help pulled back and forbidden to give the aid needed.

We all know military and foreign service personnel, some are family, who go willingly into harm’s way. We always know of the danger and that there is the possibility that they won’t return from their latest mission. But we do NOT expect them to be left to die at the hands of our enemy, while our POTUS goes to sleep for his pre-fundraising beauty rest.

All of this is inexcusable from our POTUS, SoS, SecDef, the whole damned lot of them.


88 posted on 05/06/2013 2:33:44 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Filthy politicians in their worst form.


89 posted on 05/06/2013 2:42:14 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Galt level is not far away......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Other deaths,....news to me.


90 posted on 05/06/2013 2:52:43 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
I am not surprised.....what's a few bodies to gain and hold power for the far leftists....

They don't worry about any body count.

Read Horoiwitz's book,....Unholy alliance.

91 posted on 05/06/2013 2:55:08 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Still in jail from what I heard. He was naughty. There was a wire fraud conviction for which he was on Probation, and one of the terms of release was to stay off the interwebs. It made for a convenient rationale to snatch him, but he’d be free now except for the priors.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him.


92 posted on 05/06/2013 2:55:34 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: livius
I think they’re prepping Michelle for the run

Well, in the stupid political world we live in, anything is possible, but that being said, even hillary (and zero) felt the need to spend some time as senators. Michelle is a political lightweight. It would be an incredible precedent to elect someone as blatantly unqualified as michelle. The hillaryites in the dem party believe that they've been patient for long enough and now it's their turn. Imagine the civil war that would ensue in the democrat party if michelle ran for the nomination against hillary, lol!

93 posted on 05/06/2013 3:15:59 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: atc23
" there is a cancer on the presidency . . .

No, this presidency is a cancer.

94 posted on 05/06/2013 3:26:21 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

But Michelle would be a twofer...


95 posted on 05/06/2013 3:31:48 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt
"I believe General Ham was about to thwart this stand-down order and was relieved of his command by a traitor. He needs to be called to testify."

Amen!

96 posted on 05/06/2013 3:32:36 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

“Some new ideas ther,...the prison....Hmmm.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/12/fox-news-source-yes-the-cia-was-holding-prisoners-at-the-benghazi-annex/

Just a single source, but this does jibe with what Broadwell said in her Denver speech.

In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.

Two separate questions here. One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners? Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasn’t adopted, or so we’ve assumed. We’ll see. Two: Did Ansar al-Sharia and its partners in jihad find out about the prisoners and attack the annex on 9/11 to try to free them? I’m thinking … probably not, for the reasons Ed gave this morning. If they thought there were prisoners at the annex, why’d they attack the consulate first and give up the advantage of surprise? The attack on the consulate wasn’t a diversion, either: According to the CIA’s timeline, the first attack at the annex didn’t happen until 11:56 p.m., more than two hours after the consulate attack had begun and after the CIA security team had already returned from the consulate to the annex. That makes it sound like the jihadis tailed the CIA’s people back to the annex; if they were planning an ambush to free prisoners, they should have had people pre-positioned there to move in as soon as they saw the CIA security team leave for the consulate earlier in the evening. And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?

Besides, the timeline of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair is hard to square with the idea of her being privy to secret info about Benghazi. Quote:

The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News…

Petraeus is said to have been the one to have broken off the extramarital affair.

If — if — all of that is accurate, then it sounds like Petraeus dumped Broadwell sometime in July and, given what we now know about those threatening e-mails that she sent to another woman, she probably didn’t take the news all that well. In which case, why would he still be sharing secrets with her two months later, after the Benghazi attack? Was Broadwell really revealing classified info in her Denver speech or was she just misremembering a report from earlier that day on Fox News? She did, reportedly, have classified documents on her computer, but both she and Petraeus claimed they didn’t come from him. And in fact, because of her background in the military, Broadwell allegedly had “a top secret/SCI clearance and then some.” She might have had access to info about Benghazi, and classified documents about whatever, from her contacts in the national security bureaucracy, entirely independent of Petraeus.

But maybe that timeline isn’t accurate. Petraeus’s allies might be keen to claim that the affair didn’t start until after he’d left the military because adultery is an infraction of the UCMJ. If the affair began while he was still in uniform, it’s not only a moral failing but potentially a legal issue.

Now, help me answer three questions. First, why did the FBI pursue its investigation of the cyber-harassment of Jill Kelley all the way back to Petraeus? My understanding from reading a bunch of stories this morning is that Kelley reported the harassment, the FBI quickly launched an investigation (no one’s sure why it was such a priority for them but maybe it has to do with Kelley’s JSOC connection), and they traced the harassing e-mails back to Broadwell. But they didn’t stop there; evidently they started digging around to see who was e-mailing Broadwell too, and they traced that back to a pseudonymous Gmail account operated by Petraeus. Er … why did they do that? Once they knew who the cyber-harasser was, why was it necessary to keep digging and piece out the entire love triangle? They’d found their suspect.

Second, why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys? Not only hasn’t she been accused of anything — not even an affair with Petraeus — but Petraeus and Broadwell aren’t being charged with any crimes either. Second look at what Broadwell’s father told the Daily News this morning?

Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously “together” as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday. John Brennan, Obama’s White House counterterror czar, allegedly learned of the affair in summer 2011 — before Petraeus was named the new CIA chief. That being so, how were Obama and James Clapper supposedly kept in the dark until last week? The One should be spitting mad that he wasn’t kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires he’ll make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security and O’s presidential legacy — and yet the FBI kept things hush-hush, even from their boss, until just a few days ago. Why? Here’s Scarborough and Peter King wondering. Key bit at 4:00.


97 posted on 05/06/2013 3:32:43 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (I'm afraid to go visit any American college because of all the foreign students with bombs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
" didn't the hilldabeast look them in the eye and tell one of the families of those she had left to be slaughtered that she wouldn't rest until those responsible were brought to justice and then go on to speak of the anti-islam video?"

Yes: Slain SEAL’s Father: Clinton Promised to Prosecute YouTube Filmmaker for Benghazi Attack

98 posted on 05/06/2013 3:43:16 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Your: We are living in Bread and Circus’s and MillHouse Obama probably will get off scott free...

Regrettably, concur

Even should the House impeach, Senate Democrats would never remove a fellow Democrat. They are all about protecting their own instead of protecting the Constitution.

Keep catching the 3 wire!

99 posted on 05/06/2013 5:17:52 PM PDT by DakotaGator (Weep for the lost Republic! And keep your powder dry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

...and Hillary in as VP.


100 posted on 05/06/2013 6:26:23 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 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