Special Forces Told "You Can't Go...." - Benghazi

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

wow bratt, you are posting biased articles

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.'

the team was denied PRIOR TO THE ATTACK are you now saying they knew the attack was coming?

"PRIOR TO AN ATTACK ON A SECOND U.S. COMPOUND...."


Please read the Benghazi timeline here (from CNN, btw--in case you think this is a biased timeline), and note the context of this entry:

"5:15 a.m. -- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty."

Do you even know what happened in Benghazi, DM?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

"PRIOR TO AN ATTACK ON A SECOND U.S. COMPOUND...."


Please read the Benghazi timeline here (from CNN, btw--in case you think this is a biased timeline), and note the context of this entry:

"5:15 a.m. -- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty."

Do you even know what happened in Benghazi, DM?

yes i know what happened. i checked your timeline and there is nothing there about a team being denied authorization in the timeline.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

yes i know what happened. i checked your timeline and there is nothing there about a team being denied authorization in the timeline.

That timeline is one that CNN posted in January. Obviously there's no information about being denied authorization, since that information just came to light.

You were making a big deal about them being denied authorization "PRIOR TO THE ATTACK", but that's not what Gregory said. He said they were denied authorization prior to the SECOND ATTACK.

Big difference there. It was, at that point, an ongoing assault and it should have been obvious that assistance was needed. So why was it denied? More importantly, if they had been allowed to go in, could the second attack have been prevented? Could the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty have been prevented?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

That timeline is one that CNN posted in January. Obviously there's no information about being denied authorization, since that information just came to light.

You were making a big deal about them being denied authorization "PRIOR TO THE ATTACK", but that's not what Gregory said. He said they were denied authorization prior to the SECOND ATTACK.

Big difference there. It was, at that point, an ongoing assault and it should have been obvious that assistance was needed. So why was it denied? More importantly, if they had been allowed to go in, could the second attack have been prevented? Could the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty have been prevented?

i'm sure that questions are legitimate but to suggest that assistance was denied knowingly is to suggest a malevolent motive, which is something you defend bush from in 9-11 conspiracy theorists' accusations. that is what this is; conspiracy fishing expedition, instead of ascribing good faith motives where human fallibility is present.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

i'm sure that questions are legitimate but to suggest that assistance was denied knowingly is to suggest a malevolent motive, which is something you defend bush from in 9-11 conspiracy theorists' accusations. that is what this is; conspiracy fishing expedition, instead of ascribing good faith motives where human fallibility is present.

1. You're right. The questions are legitimate. Thank you.
2. No, it isn't necessarily malevolence; it can simply be misplaced priorities or self-preservation or thinking about politics before peoples' lives. It happens everyday in Washington, but when it leads to lives lost, then it's only fair that people are held personally accountable. No one should get a pass just because they are on the very highest rungs of the political ladder.
3. I'm not a huge Bush fan; not sure where you got that.
4. It's very difficult to ascribe simple "human fallibility" to a situation where the calls for help were very clear. What kind of leader would deny help in this type of situation? The kind of leader you can be proud of, DM? Not me.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

1. You're right. The questions are legitimate. Thank you.
2. No, it isn't necessarily malevolence; it can simply be misplaced priorities or self-preservation or thinking about politics before peoples' lives. It happens everyday in Washington, but when it leads to lives lost, then it's only fair that people are held personally accountable. No one should get a pass just because they are on the very highest rungs of the political ladder.
3. I'm not a huge Bush fan; not sure where you got that.
4. It's very difficult to ascribe simple "human fallibility" to a situation where the calls for help were very clear. What kind of leader would deny help in this type of situation? The kind of leader you can be proud of, DM? Not me.

i agree that if the politics of fear or self preservation instead of bravery and integrity were executed then accountability is in order, but obama in my view has continually and historically displayed the politics of integrity. we will see if there was communication between obama, the national security and africa command in tripoli. there is no proof of communication in the chain of command. we don't know if africa command made a local decision or had orders from higher up. we don't know how high the decision making communication goes. so automatically assuming the worst is not becoming on your part.