Insiders Come Forward, Proof of Benghazi Stand Down Order, It was Obama

[Darp]

To the OP. I voted undecided as no one here can determine whether or not they could have been saved by a more timely response. The response should have happened and a hell of a lot sooner, and our State Department ignored the warnings and violence documented by the Judicial Watch site already posted. In that report the U.S. flag was the only flag still flying there as the other countries had pulled out.....Significantly the UK.............

Given all of this, why did we stay or not at least increase security. That is incompetent before the attack. It is also incompetent to not have a ready reaction force given the ongoing violence there............

Then to the main point that ticks me off.........They LIes about what happened afterwards..............They went full bore on the video even though all sources were saying otherwise.........

How about Team Obama manning up and saying the truth instead of trying to cover it up..................Even if it means you may have screwed up............Those that died deserved better than the lies spewed afterward. Which is one of my main complaints on Benghazi.

Eagle, yes it would not be 100% they would be saved. Just much more likely.

Curious, do you think it could be more than incompetence?

 

[Peach]

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:

The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

 

[eagle1462010]

To the OP. I voted undecided as no one here can determine whether or not they could have been saved by a more timely response. The response should have happened and a hell of a lot sooner, and our State Department ignored the warnings and violence documented by the Judicial Watch site already posted. In that report the U.S. flag was the only flag still flying there as the other countries had pulled out.....Significantly the UK.............

Given all of this, why did we stay or not at least increase security. That is incompetent before the attack. It is also incompetent to not have a ready reaction force given the ongoing violence there............

Then to the main point that ticks me off.........They LIes about what happened afterwards..............They went full bore on the video even though all sources were saying otherwise.........

How about Team Obama manning up and saying the truth instead of trying to cover it up..................Even if it means you may have screwed up............Those that died deserved better than the lies spewed afterward. Which is one of my main complaints on Benghazi.

Eagle, yes it would not be 100% they would be saved. Just much more likely.

Curious, do you think it could be more than incompetence?

Leaning more towards inaction and taking too much time to make a decision.

 

[Darp]

Peach........We have assets all over the globe.........and in the Med region.........There is no way in hell it should have taken that long. As I already said, we could have sent people from the continental U.S. in that amount of time.

So you claim Gen. Dempsey lied, under Oath, before Congress? Still no reason given for the grave accusation against a man who served this nation for decades. Dempsey's record is impressive for such a smear to be upheld:

Dempsey received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As acompany-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. As Lieutenant Colonel he commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[5]

In June 2003, then Major General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to Lieutenant General, as Corps Commander V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[6]


Dempsey talks with U.S. Marine Corps drill instructorsin March 2013.
It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell toSunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."

On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the U.S. Army, Europe/Seventh Army, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.

On March 11, 2008, Dempsey's commander, Admiral William J. Fallon, retired from active service. U.S. Secretary of DefenseRobert Gates accepted this as effective on March 31. Dempsey took over command as acting commander CENTCOM.

On March 13, 2008, Dempsey was confirmed by the United States Senate as Commander, U.S. Army, Europe/Seventh Army.[7]However due, to Admiral Fallon's unexpected retirement, Dempsey never took command of U.S. Army, Europe/Seventh Army.

On July 11, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to take command of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command while Lieutenant General Carter F. Ham replaced his nomination to command the U.S. Army, Europe/Seventh Army.[8]

On December 8, 2008, Dempsey assumed command of United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.[9]


Dempsey and Lt. GeneralBenny Gantz, Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces visiting the Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem, Israel, where Dempsey paid respect to the memory of Holocaustvictims on January 20, 2012.[10][11]
On January 6, 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he would recommend that the President nominate General Dempsey to succeed General George Casey as the Army Chief of Staff.[12] On February 8, 2011, Gates announced that President Barack Obama nominated Dempsey to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.[13] On March 3, 2011, Dempsey testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, [14] and on March 15, 2011, the committee affirmatively reported Dempsey's nomination.[15] On March 16, 2011, the Senate confirmed Dempsey's nomination by unanimous consent.[16] On April 11, 2011, Dempsey was sworn in as Chief of Staff of the United States Army at a ceremony at Fort Myer.

Adm Thomas Moorer has more impressive record, and he said Pearl Harbor was a cover-up, that we knew they were coming and lied about it. 40 years later Adm Kimmel's court martial was rescinded because Peart Harbor was a cover-up. So do I believe the 3 on the ground people or Dempsey? The three, which in courtroom is normal procedure. I do not believe in royalty.

In this case it is easy, all the other facts say the same thing. What would happen to Dempsy if he told the truth? He would be fired along with Hamm and McCrystal, etc., etc., etc. Obama is firing generals left and right.

 

[eagle1462010]

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:

The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

The fight wasn't going on in Tripoli..............it was in Benghazi.............They were told to guard the airport instead of going to where the fight was at. Which is why they were ticked off.

 

[Peach]

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:

The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

The fight wasn't going on in Tripoli..............it was in Benghazi.............They were told to guard the airport instead of going to where the fight was at. Which is why they were ticked off.

The FOXNews articles keep referring to a CIA station chief........but no name. I await that which is alleged in the specials.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why did we attack Libya Peach?

 

[Indeependent]

Obama better not run for president again.

 

[Peach]

Why did we attack Libya Peach?

UN Security Council resolution; violating UN Security Council resolutions was part of the reason for INVADING Iraq, remember? France, UK , and Canada were part of the "attack". A group called NATO was in charge, I believe you have heard of them.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why did we attack Libya Peach?

UN Security Council resolution; violating UN Security Council resolutions was part of the reason for INVADING Iraq, remember? France, UK , and Canada were part of the "attack". A group called NATO was in charge, I believe you have heard of them.

Really? And yes I've heard of them..........Humanitarian crisis, aiding rebels in a civil War........and so on............

Couldn't have been about Libya ditching the dollar and going to the Gold Dinar wouldn't it.....................Gaddafi was a scumbag, but what got him attacked was ditching the reserve currency.

 

[Peach]

Why did we attack Libya Peach?

UN Security Council resolution; violating UN Security Council resolutions was part of the reason for INVADING Iraq, remember? France, UK , and Canada were part of the "attack". A group called NATO was in charge, I believe you have heard of them.

Really? And yes I've heard of them..........Humanitarian crisis, aiding rebels in a civil War........and so on............

Couldn't have been about Libya ditching the dollar and going to the Gold Dinar wouldn't it.....................Gaddafi was a scumbag, but what got him attacked was ditching the reserve currency.

My mind remains open to any and all new evidence. Thank you.

 

[Darp]

Correctomondo, worse case help was 2 hours away. Nothing came for 13 hours. The founder of Delta Force has confirmed help was two hours away at worst.

 

[Darp]

Why did we attack Libya Peach?

UN Security Council resolution; violating UN Security Council resolutions was part of the reason for INVADING Iraq, remember? France, UK , and Canada were part of the "attack". A group called NATO was in charge, I believe you have heard of them.

Really? And yes I've heard of them..........Humanitarian crisis, aiding rebels in a civil War........and so on............

Couldn't have been about Libya ditching the dollar and going to the Gold Dinar wouldn't it.....................Gaddafi was a scumbag, but what got him attacked was ditching the reserve currency.

My mind remains open to any and all new evidence. Thank you.

Me too. Have heard same story. In that part of the world the choice normally is between bad and worse.

 

[Slice The Great]

Obama gave a "stand down" order?

Is that what you are saying?

Seventy two minutes after the start of the attack on the diplomatic mission, the President was meeting with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go over the military options for a rescue. It was decided to deploy two Marine anti-terror teams from Spain, a Special Forces unit from the U. S. and an SF unit based in Sicily.

 

[Slice The Great]

Everyone wanted to rescue Stevens

Obama ordered a Marine anti-terror unit from Spain to rescue the Americans. He also ordered a Special Forces unit to get there as fast as possible.

 

[Slice The Great]

Correctomondo, worse case help was 2 hours away. Nothing came for 13 hours. The founder of Delta Force has confirmed help was two hours away at worst.

What help was two hours away?

 

[Slice The Great]

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:

The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

The fight wasn't going on in Tripoli..............it was in Benghazi.............They were told to guard the airport instead of going to where the fight was at. Which is why they were ticked off.

The FOXNews articles keep referring to a CIA station chief........but no name. I await that which is alleged in the specials.

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:
Who exactly was told to guard the airport?
The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

The fight wasn't going on in Tripoli..............it was in Benghazi.............They were told to guard the airport instead of going to where the fight was at. Which is why they were ticked off.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

. ... Snip ... That is incompetent.

No. It was treasonous.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

What help was two hours away?

No matter how many time it will be shown, the fascist lefties will repeat that question as if that was the excuse. Liberals are only interested in protecting their Leader.

 

[Slice The Great]

Who should investigate further? Congess signed off on it, maybe litigation could add some clarity, Gen. Dempsey remains firm in his testimony:

The nation's highest ranking military officer on Wednesday disputed the story of a top American diplomat who served in Libya, saying no military forces were told to "stand down" after attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"They weren't told to stand down," Army General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Budget Committee. "Stand down, means don't do anything."

Dempsey said the four soldiers from the Special Operations Command for Africa were told by their commanders they would be better used at the Tripoli airport instead, where a flight might soon be arriving with U.S. casualties from Benghazi.

"They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport," Dempsey told Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who pressed the General for details.

"They had requested to go" (to Benghazi), Ayotte noted.

"That's correct," Dempsey replied.

"They asked to go to support the, what was happening in Benghazi, from Tripoli, correct?"

"That is correct," said Dempsey, who said the determination was made that the special forces would contribute more by being available at the Tripoli airport, since one of the men was a medic.

Top U.S. general disputes Benghazi attack story Jamie Dupree s Washington Insider www.ajc.com

Yes, the lives matter more than respect for the General, any clue as to why Congress found no errors on his part?

The four soldiers who wanted to go to Benghazi were not needed in Benghazi because the Americans had already been evacuated from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi Airport and were waiting for the C-130 that the four soldiers wanted to board.