Posted on 07/31/2013 6:53:04 PM PDT by xzins
A Marine operations commander told lawmakers Wednesday he gave troops in Libya permission to respond to a September 2012 attack on a U.S. mission in Tripoli.
Testifying in closed session before the House Armed Services Committee, Col. George Bristol contradicted claims by some congressional Republicans he had issued a stand-down order following the attack, in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stephens and three other Americans were killed, The Hill reported.
Bristol, who commanded Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara at the time of the attack, said he gave the Tripoli security team leader, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, permission to act freely in response to the attack, The Hill said, citing a description it had received of the committee's members-only briefing.
Gibson told Congress last month he was ordered not to send his team to Benghazi because they were needed in Tripoli in the event of an attack on the U.S. Embassy.
Republicans argue the United States wasn't prepared to respond adequately to the Benghazi attack.
They accuse the Obama administration of downplaying or covering up the administration's handling of the attack, its lead-up and aftermath during the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign.
"Colonel Bristol has experience that could be valuable in deepening our understanding of the events of that day," a committee source told The Hill.
"Of particular interest to the committee is what our posture was in the weeks and months that preceded the attack," the source said.
Bristol, a seasoned combat commander, stepped down from his task force commander post in March.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Eggszactly
Is this the guy on Terminal leave?
20 hours is how long Ubben reportedly waited for rescue.
I think Bristol was in charge of Northern Africa.
“Sad reality: Liberals have so corrupted the armed forces that we can no longer trust them either. And it really upsets the hell out of me to say it but someone must.”
Great post and good to see someone has the bal** to say what needs to be said.
The “oath” means nothing today. I trust no one.
A liberal officer trying to save his balls. The US military is infested with them, most of them given their jobs under King Obamagabe.
Well of course, there is no stand-down if there is no go ahead to start with!
I believe it is more in the nature of a tactical game There are two places to be defended with support located at a distance.The game is to choose which place to defend with available support. So far it seems the decision was hold troop support for a possible more strategic place. The ground decision makers were suckered. It appears to me that the top didn’t recognize the urgency to beef up close support for all probable targets.
Now, a month later, the Colonel in charge of that LTC come to Capitol Hill and says he told the LTC that he had a "free hand," and could respond, in essence, however he wanted according to his discretion?
One of the two is a liar. Just ask yourself...who has the most to gain by lieing?
When we look at what actually happened...whose story sits with the facts?
IMHO, that answer is pretty obvious.
We are to believe, according to the Colonel, that the LTC was given a "free hand," and then did nothing?
Or, in light of the fact that the people under fire were begging for help, and that the one SEAL in Tripoli indicated that he had been told to stand down but then disobeyed the order and went to help and died fighting, should we believe that the LTC was given the same stand down order by his superiors?
I can see a single Navy SEAL who was now retired and working as a contractor gathering volunteers and disobeying an order like that. It's harder for me to believe that an active duty LTC in charge of the whole team would violate a direct order. It's just as hard to believe that the same LTC, if he had the okay, would then do nothing in the face of the urgent requests for help.
Sorry...but given what I know now, I believe if anyone is not being forthright, that it's the Colonel.
Which is the chief reason this investigation will go...no where.
I told you guys that COL Bristol would run to the “what difference does a rescue attempt make” camp wih Hillary and General Ham.
They are all on the same team now. All of them. David is the man who lost his leg in Benghazi. Wonder if he will join he sordid Hillary camp of lies and treason, or will he speak the truth?
This stinks—something isn’t right here. Who issued the order to the CIA people? Maybe he was told something he can’t say—or maybe someone is threatening his family? I think this goes to Obama himself—Only he has the power and it was done for some reason linked to the election? What I don’t know—BUT it will come out in the end and a whole lot of people will have egg on their faces.
I’m just sitting here shaking my head. I don’t know what to make of this. I mean, WTF?? There is a WITNESS to Gibson receiving the stand-down order from ... somebody. (Can’t remember the guy’s name right now. The guy in the embassy at Tripoli who was trying to organize some sort of help for the Benghazi group from where he was. He SAW Gibson receive the order, he said, though he didn’t know who it was from. He said Gibson was upset about it.)
I just ... WTF????
Bump
Your point is important.
In every organization the initiative is set by, and is a reflection of, the boss.
The boss didn’t care. It was happening but he didn’t care.
Why stick your neck out. Watch and see if it gets worked out.
The correrallary is that few in the country care even now.
No leadership — no mission.
I didn’t click the link to read the whole article yet (will tomorrow), but if he gave permission to respond to the attack, why was there no response? I don’t get it. Maybe the rest of the article at the link explains?
Many in my family served proudly. The mil wouldn’t accept me for understandable health reasons so I have done what I could to support them all my life.
But far too many people I know directly and through others have left and the reason given is the same every time. And I can’t print it here (language) but I think we all know what it is.
They, as in Obambi regime, all lie. Barrack and his press talking-head (Carney) lie every day to our populace. At the very least they spin, parse, and distort facts. It's simply a given with SOCIALISTS! Alinsky rules rule.
If there was no “stand down” order, Obama would have said so given the firestorm of accusations. Maybe Obama did say so, but I’m not aware of any related statements.
"From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli; We fight our country's battles In the air, on land, and sea; First to fight for right and freedom And to keep our honor clean: We are proud to claim the title Of United States Marine. ..."
Mission first; Marines always.
Semper Fidelis
OK.... Then why was the military response not executed??? A REAL president, not this fake piece of Kenyan shit in the WH, would have ENSURED that response force got on the ground in Benghazi.
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.