First Eyewitness in Benghazi to go public gives account of attack, warning signs

[BlindBoo]

The attack on the Consulate building lasted a little over an hour.

Your first response: "7 hour assault?"

This is what is so irritating discussing anything with an Obama liberal.

First of all you make an implied statement which is quickly shown to be incorrect. Not that it really matters how long the attack lasted what you were doing is trying to show that one item was false thus the rest can't be true. Pure Alinsky BS.

Then when shown to be incorrect you double down on your disingenuous comments. You were given a CNN time line shows the assault was over a period of 7 hours but at this point "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???" Absolutely none that is what.

Except there was no 7 hour assault. The consulate was destroyed and abandoned. Later in the morning when the rescue team arrived the CIA annex was also assaulted. I don't give a flying rodents behind about CNN's time line. I listened to the congressional testimony.

 

[Edgetho]

Your first response: "7 hour assault?"

This is what is so irritating discussing anything with an Obama liberal.

First of all you make an implied statement which is quickly shown to be incorrect. Not that it really matters how long the attack lasted what you were doing is trying to show that one item was false thus the rest can't be true. Pure Alinsky BS.

Then when shown to be incorrect you double down on your disingenuous comments. You were given a CNN time line shows the assault was over a period of 7 hours but at this point "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???" Absolutely none that is what.

Except there was no 7 hour assault. The consulate was destroyed and abandoned. Later in the morning when the rescue team arrived the CIA annex was also assaulted. I don't give a flying rodents behind about CNN's time line. I listened to the congressional testimony.

The point is this....

The attack began at app 9:43PM local time.

There was over a Seven Hour period in which sporadic hostilities flared up.

Ample time for forces from Sigonella to get there.

An F-18 could have been flown overhead in a matter of an hour or less at Mach 2 and at 1,500 feet of altitude that would have sent ANYBODY in the area to look for cover.

The Marines have Units specifically trained for these type of events.

Where were they?

The State Department was well aware of the hotbed that Libya and Benghazi had become, why weren't the Marine Units stationed nearby?

Why did the piece of ******* shit in the White House LIE about what happened?

WHY???

WHY did the piece of ******* shit send the stinking scrunt Susan Rice to personally LIE on FIVE TV Network shows with the same story?

WHY did the piece of ******* shit go to the UN and tell the same ******* lie?

And why are you on your knees defending him?

All the scumbag ************ had to do was say, "Shit happens. Some ignorant ragheads attacked an American Consulate and we lost some good men. It took us by surprise and caught us flat-footed. We screwed up. Sorry 'bout that."

And you know what? I wouldn't have said a word.

I've been in a War. I've experience combat. I know what it's like.

I could live with that explanation.

But I don't think that's what happened. What happened was the piece of ******* shit in the White House and Hitlery Clinton made a political decision based on the upcoming 2012 election and that an attack from al Qaeda might not look so good since the PIECE OF ******* SHIT has been running around the Country for Months telling everybody that al Qaeda has been destroyed because he's such a badass.

For those reasons, he decided not to do anything because he KNEW the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM would cover his ass.

And you know what? They did.

Funny how this report from the CommieBroadcastingSystem took over a year, huh?

**** them.

And the piece of shit got re-elected because he lied about it.

And that makes you happy

 

[BlindBoo]

Except there was no 7 hour assault. The consulate was destroyed and abandoned. Later in the morning when the rescue team arrived the CIA annex was also assaulted. I don't give a flying rodents behind about CNN's time line. I listened to the congressional testimony.

The point is this....

The attack began at app 9:43PM local time.

There was over a Seven Hour period in which sporadic hostilities flared up.

Ample time for forces from Sigonella to get there.

An F-18 could have been flown overhead in a matter of an hour or less at Mach 2 and at 1,500 feet of altitude that would have sent ANYBODY in the area to look for cover.

The Marines have Units specifically trained for these type of events.

Where were they?

The State Department was well aware of the hotbed that Libya and Benghazi had become, why weren't the Marine Units stationed nearby?

Why did the piece of ******* shit in the White House LIE about what happened?

WHY???

WHY did the piece of ******* shit send the stinking scrunt Susan Rice to personally LIE on FIVE TV Network shows with the same story?

WHY did the piece of ******* shit go to the UN and tell the same ******* lie?

And why are you on your knees defending him?

All the scumbag ************ had to do was say, "Shit happens. Some ignorant ragheads attacked an American Consulate and we lost some good men. It took us by surprise and caught us flat-footed. We screwed up. Sorry 'bout that."

And you know what? I wouldn't have said a word.

I've been in a War. I've experience combat. I know what it's like.

I could live with that explanation.

But I don't think that's what happened. What happened was the piece of ******* shit in the White House and Hitlery Clinton made a political decision based on the upcoming 2012 election and that an attack from al Qaeda might not look so good since the PIECE OF ******* SHIT has been running around the Country for Months telling everybody that al Qaeda has been destroyed because he's such a badass.

For those reasons, he decided not to do anything because he KNEW the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM would cover his ass.

And you know what? They did.

Funny how this report from the CommieBroadcastingSystem took over a year, huh?

**** them.

And the piece of shit got re-elected because he lied about it.

And that makes you happy

The decision to not send a military force was made by the generals in command.

Do you understand why talking points are given to the media?

Your vulgarism hurts your case.

 

[007]

So how is it this "eye witness" has gone "public" but hasn't appeared before congress?

 

[Freewill]

Your first response: "7 hour assault?"

This is what is so irritating discussing anything with an Obama liberal.

First of all you make an implied statement which is quickly shown to be incorrect. Not that it really matters how long the attack lasted what you were doing is trying to show that one item was false thus the rest can't be true. Pure Alinsky BS.

Then when shown to be incorrect you double down on your disingenuous comments. You were given a CNN time line shows the assault was over a period of 7 hours but at this point "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???" Absolutely none that is what.

Except there was no 7 hour assault. The consulate was destroyed and abandoned. Later in the morning when the rescue team arrived the CIA annex was also assaulted. I don't give a flying rodents behind about CNN's time line. I listened to the congressional testimony.

Every time line shows that the assault lasted 7 hours or don't you count when the two SEALS were killed. I truly believe you don't care because the truth apparently isn't something you care about. You are trying to make an issue out of the time line to apparently prove how much smatter you are then everyone else, including the Pentagon and CNN. Your strategy is back firing. Besides it does not matter whether it was 1 or 7 hours four men died needlessly.

 

[BlindBoo]

Except there was no 7 hour assault. The consulate was destroyed and abandoned. Later in the morning when the rescue team arrived the CIA annex was also assaulted. I don't give a flying rodents behind about CNN's time line. I listened to the congressional testimony.

Every time line shows that the assault lasted 7 hours or don't you count when the two SEALS were killed. I truly believe you don't care because the truth apparently isn't something you care about. You are trying to make an issue out of the time line to apparently prove how much smatter you are then everyone else, including the Pentagon and CNN. Your strategy is back firing. Besides it does not matter whether it was 1 or 7 hours four men died needlessly.

The Benghazi attack consisted of military assaults on two separate U.S. diplomatic compounds. The first assault occurred at the main compound, approximately 300 yards long and 100 yards wide, at about 9:40 pm local time (3:40 pm EDT, Washington DC). The second assault took place at a CIA annex 1.2 miles away at about 4 am the following morning.[49]

2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim that there was a 7 hour long assault is a flat out lie that implies the military stood by while Americans were being fired upon (assaulted) for 7 straight hours. That's is not what happen and if you don't know it by now, it is not my fault. Frankly, I'm suspicious of any news story that uses that lie.

 

[g5000]

There was not just a threat against Benghazi. All of our missions in the entire Middle East were under threat. This made predicting which mission would actually be attacked far more difficult.

It also made any decisions about how exposed to leave our other missions while sending all of our resources to defend what very well could have been a diversion more difficult.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[tinydancer]

There was not just a threat against Benghazi. All of our missions in the entire Middle East were under threat. This made predicting which mission would actually be attacked far more difficult.

It also made any decisions about how exposed to leave our other missions while sending all of our resources to defend what very well could have been a diversion more difficult.

Hindsight is 20/20.

What are you talking about?

Al Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the drone assassination by America of his right hand man who was Libyan.

He made a video. It was out there all along.

al - Libi was AQ #2. CNN even had a story out there that AQ leaders had been wiped out with the exception of Zawahiri.

 

[tinydancer]

Al Zawahiri put out a video 4 count em 4 freaking days before the attack. And this article was out there on September 15th while Obama et al were still blaming a stupid anti Muslim video.

DUBAI: Al Qaeda said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, the SITE Intelligence Group reported on Saturday.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) also called for more violent demonstrations against US embassies in the Middle East and Africa.

“The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mukhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” AQAP said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based offshoot did not claim direct responsibility for Tuesday’s attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

But it stressed that “the uprising of our people in Libya, Egypt and Yemen against America and its embassies is a sign to notify the United States that its war is not directed against groups and organisations… but against the Islamic nation that has rebelled against injustice.”

The statement comes four days after Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a video eulogising Libi, his late deputy and propaganda chief who was killed in a drone strike in June.

Mohammed al-Megaryef, the head of Libya’s national assembly, said on Saturday that the attack on the US consulate was planned and “meticulously executed.”


Attack on US in Libya ?revenge? for al-Libi death: Al Qaeda ? The Express Tribune

 

[g5000]

There was not just a threat against Benghazi. All of our missions in the entire Middle East were under threat. This made predicting which mission would actually be attacked far more difficult.

It also made any decisions about how exposed to leave our other missions while sending all of our resources to defend what very well could have been a diversion more difficult.

Hindsight is 20/20.

What are you talking about?

Al Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the drone assassination by America of his right hand man who was Libyan.

He made a video. It was out there all along.

al - Libi was AQ #2. CNN even had a story out there that AQ leaders had been wiped out with the exception of Zawahiri.

And did his threat specify the Benghazi consulate?

No.

My point, exactly.

Our embassy is in Tripoli. Should we have left that completely unprotected to respond to the attack at the consulate? For all we know, the fact that we did not abandon the protection of our embassy prevented it from also being attacked that night.

The date appears to have been what was important. 9/11. The terrorists probably chose the consulate instead of the embassy because it was more exposed. It was just the bad guys' good luck the ambassador happened to be in Benghazi instead of Tripoli on 9/11.

 

[tinydancer]

There was not just a threat against Benghazi. All of our missions in the entire Middle East were under threat. This made predicting which mission would actually be attacked far more difficult.

It also made any decisions about how exposed to leave our other missions while sending all of our resources to defend what very well could have been a diversion more difficult.

Hindsight is 20/20.

What are you talking about?

Al Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the drone assassination by America of his right hand man who was Libyan.

He made a video. It was out there all along.

al - Libi was AQ #2. CNN even had a story out there that AQ leaders had been wiped out with the exception of Zawahiri.

And did his threat specify the Benghazi consulate?

No.

My point, exactly.

Our embassy is in Tripoli. Should we have left that completely unprotected to respond to the attack at the consulate? For all we know, the fact that we did not abandon the protection of our embassy prevented it from also being attacked that night.

The date appears to have been what was important. 9/11. The terrorists probably chose the consulate instead of the embassy because it was more exposed. It was just the bad guys' good luck the ambassador happened to be in Benghazi instead of Tripoli on 9/11.

The terrorists good luck was that the State Department was stupid enough to hire a Libyan militia to guard the consulate.

Let's see if you're a member of that Libyan militia who would you side with? America or....

Are you calling in sick that day?

Leaving work early?

 

[tinydancer]

No one did anything when the militia leaders basically threatened strike action. How many times did Washington basically to Stevens "you're on your own"....And to back the militia warning up:

A few days before the attack, two mercurial local militia leaders had threatened to cease protecting the consulate after Libya's national election because they suspected the United States was offering its support to a rival politician.

There's no reason to believe that the militias (which are separate from February 17) withdrew before the election, but the incident underscores concerns over the militias' seriousness about its mission.

Stevens turned out to be right about the Libyan security. When the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate began, neither the Libyan guards nor the "quick reaction force" proved sufficient, if the latter ever materialized at all. The CIA account has the agency immediately trying to raise local Libyan militias to help respond, unable to even get an answer.

Further efforts to raise the militia seem to have achieved little.

When a larger U.S. reaction force arrived from Tripoli at the Benghazi airport, they were forced to haggle with locals for transportation into town – something that February 17 Brigade might have provided. A "heavily armed Libyan military unit" did arrive at the CIA's facility around dawn the next morning, though as Miller points out in his story, it's not at all clear where they had been for the preceding 12 hours.

At the time, this must have been alarming and deeply frustrating for CIA and State Department officials struggling to contain the Benghazi firefight using limited American resources.

In retrospect, though, it largely serves to underscore the already well-known problems with Libya's militia-based system. The entire reason that the U.S. consulate was using February 17 Brigade, after all, was because the state was not able to provide security on its own.

Libyan militia?s failed security at Benghazi