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

CBS News is biased now??????

They're pretty mainstream for that accusation, don't you think? If they're biased, it isn't a conservative bias, that's for sure!

the mainstream media might be liberal on social issues but they are conservative on economic issues. they are obviously worried about hillary clinton in 2016. why didn't you address the fact that the special forces were denied authority before the attack? you are obviously biased just as well for posting this nonstory.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the mainstream media might be liberal on social issues but they are conservative on economic issues. they are obviously worried about hillary clinton in 2016. why didn't you address the fact that the special forces were denied authority before the attack? you are obviously biased just as well for posting this nonstory.

How is it a non-story that this administration could have sent in more forces to help and instead they told them not to go? If it were Bush in office, it'd be a story--and you would be on it like a duck on a june bug. Your bias is showing here; not mine.

[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.

[Pliny]

Concerning the Benghazi Timeline:
The evidence of a cover-up is becoming clear, thanks to information recently released about what happened at Benghazi. Doug Ross of Director Blue has pulled together information from Stephen Hayes and the House Oversight Committee that leads to, in his words, "four inescapable conclusions":
a) Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress.
b) Barack Obama went to sleep knowing that a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans were under terrorist attack.
c) Barack Obama awoke refreshed the next day to begin fundraising.
d) The entire Executive Branch lied repeatedly to the American people to save Obama's chances for reelection.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2SbsVvFaB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

a) Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress.
b) Barack Obama went to sleep knowing that a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans were under terrorist attack.
c) Barack Obama awoke refreshed the next day to begin fundraising.
d) The entire Executive Branch lied repeatedly to the American people to save Obama's chances for reelection.

I don't know that these constitute Impeachment, but these hearings must happen and people should be concerned with what the administration did.

It shows a lot of Obama's character that he a) just went to bed while the firefight was going on; and b) went to Vegas the next morning when there was still chaos in Benghazi. And then to pull a "Wag the Dog" and blame the violence on a youtube video, and criticize the exercise of free speech...it's despicable, vile, disgusting, and totally unforgivable.