Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2014
51,327
18,076
2,290
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack

The film 13 Hours depicts the brutal attack and sacking of our consulate in Benghazi from the perspective of the men who fought and died to defend it. The Michael Bay film depicts a unit of responders being given a “stand down” order, which critics claim perpetuates a debunked allegation that investigators have long since retired. Not so says Trey Gowdy, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, who wonders why people have reached conclusions before all the witnesses have had a chance to testify. In fact, some first-person witnesses insist to this day that such an order was given:
Rep.Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order.

“The best I can do is tell you what the witnesses say, and then you can decide who you think is more credible,” Gowdy said during an interview with Boston Herald Radio. …

“I don’t know why the mainstream media doesn’t understand that you have to talk to everyone before you draw conclusions,” Gowdy said, noting the committee has roughly 12 witnesses left to interview before winding down its investigation.
Politico reported last night on the controversy, fueled by a former Special Ops commando who fought in Benghazi. Kris Paronto insists he was given a stand-down order, and tells Rachel Bade that he’s not going to stay quiet to save someone’s political career:
With Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” set to premiere Thursday, the five surviving members of the six-man Benghazi security team have blitzed the airwaves to promote the film and renew their assertion that a top CIA officer delayed them from immediately answering State Department distress calls. Three even testified to the same before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last spring, several sources have confirmed to POLITICO.

“There is no sensationalism in that: We were told to ‘stand down,’” said former Special Forces Officer Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night, in an interview with Politico. “Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. … If the truth of it affects someone’s political career? Well, I’m sorry. It happens.” …
Lawmakers have grappled with the question of a stand-down order before, and several bipartisan reports on the attacks have found no evidence of such a command being passed down the chain. Moreover, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the CIA and the Defense Department have long dismissed the idea that anyone would have held back help.

But the renewed allegations have forced lawmakers to wrestle with the issue again, and Republicans in particular may find themselves in an awkward spot. If GOP members of the Benghazi panel dispute Paronto’s assertion, they could look like they’re disparaging Americans who fought and died in service of the country. But if they side with Paronto, investigators would directly contradict some big-name intelligence officials, including former CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who say no one was ordered to stand down.
Yeah, well, finding out that Hillary Clinton and James Clapper might not have told the whole truth won’t be as big of a surprise as Bade surmises, nor as “awkward” for Republicans either. Republicans don’t have any reason to defend or attack Panetta, but Petraeus might be a little different for them. Nevertheless, much of that calculation depends on who and where that order might have originated; one or more of them might not have been in the command chain for such an order.

This puts the issue in the wrong direction, though. Isn’t it a little more awkward to call the men who fought to rescue Americans liars compared to assuming that politicians in Washington might have something to hide? What motivation does Paronto have to keep pressing this point? The motives for Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, and others in the chain of command to obfuscate this point — if true — are rather obvious.

Later this evening, I’ll finally get a chance to see 13 Hours. I hope to have a review up this weekend for it. In the meantime, Michael Bay may give Trey Gowdy an opening to reset the narrative.
 
Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack

The film 13 Hours depicts the brutal attack and sacking of our consulate in Benghazi from the perspective of the men who fought and died to defend it. The Michael Bay film depicts a unit of responders being given a “stand down” order, which critics claim perpetuates a debunked allegation that investigators have long since retired. Not so says Trey Gowdy, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, who wonders why people have reached conclusions before all the witnesses have had a chance to testify. In fact, some first-person witnesses insist to this day that such an order was given:
Rep.Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order.

“The best I can do is tell you what the witnesses say, and then you can decide who you think is more credible,” Gowdy said during an interview with Boston Herald Radio. …

“I don’t know why the mainstream media doesn’t understand that you have to talk to everyone before you draw conclusions,” Gowdy said, noting the committee has roughly 12 witnesses left to interview before winding down its investigation.
Politico reported last night on the controversy, fueled by a former Special Ops commando who fought in Benghazi. Kris Paronto insists he was given a stand-down order, and tells Rachel Bade that he’s not going to stay quiet to save someone’s political career:
With Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” set to premiere Thursday, the five surviving members of the six-man Benghazi security team have blitzed the airwaves to promote the film and renew their assertion that a top CIA officer delayed them from immediately answering State Department distress calls. Three even testified to the same before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last spring, several sources have confirmed to POLITICO.

“There is no sensationalism in that: We were told to ‘stand down,’” said former Special Forces Officer Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night, in an interview with Politico. “Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. … If the truth of it affects someone’s political career? Well, I’m sorry. It happens.” …
Lawmakers have grappled with the question of a stand-down order before, and several bipartisan reports on the attacks have found no evidence of such a command being passed down the chain. Moreover, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the CIA and the Defense Department have long dismissed the idea that anyone would have held back help.

But the renewed allegations have forced lawmakers to wrestle with the issue again, and Republicans in particular may find themselves in an awkward spot. If GOP members of the Benghazi panel dispute Paronto’s assertion, they could look like they’re disparaging Americans who fought and died in service of the country. But if they side with Paronto, investigators would directly contradict some big-name intelligence officials, including former CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who say no one was ordered to stand down.
Yeah, well, finding out that Hillary Clinton and James Clapper might not have told the whole truth won’t be as big of a surprise as Bade surmises, nor as “awkward” for Republicans either. Republicans don’t have any reason to defend or attack Panetta, but Petraeus might be a little different for them. Nevertheless, much of that calculation depends on who and where that order might have originated; one or more of them might not have been in the command chain for such an order.

This puts the issue in the wrong direction, though. Isn’t it a little more awkward to call the men who fought to rescue Americans liars compared to assuming that politicians in Washington might have something to hide? What motivation does Paronto have to keep pressing this point? The motives for Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, and others in the chain of command to obfuscate this point — if true — are rather obvious.

Later this evening, I’ll finally get a chance to see 13 Hours. I hope to have a review up this weekend for it. In the meantime, Michael Bay may give Trey Gowdy an opening to reset the narrative.

Stand down = A story contradictory to everything else that has been told, as well as official statements and political investigations along with testimony.

Not to mention the firefight ( shooting ) that occurred.

You people are beating a dead horse.

Shadow 355
 
"a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order."

Which is it?
 
"a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order."

Which is it?

( sigh )

Stop looking for an argument. And don't be naive on top of being a Troll.

I'm done.

Shadow 355
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
Men on the scene say they were given the order, and seeing how the regime LIED about the video, it makes perfect sense that they also lied about this... Just as a side line, those boats taken by Iran were originally supposed to have had engine trouble, then CHANGED to GPS errors!.... No clarification from the regime on that PHONY STORY!
 
"a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order."

Which is it?

( sigh )Stop looking for an argument. And don't be naive on top of being a Troll. I'm done.Shadow 355
Quit deflecting, little troll. Which is it? If Gowdy can't prove his claims, he doesn't count and his stories don't count.
 
"Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack"

lol

The ridiculous right is actually going to try to rekindle this moronic lie – true stupidity.
"Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack"

lol

The ridiculous right is actually going to try to rekindle this moronic lie – true stupidity.

Picture from your last court case?

images
 
You are not, Vigilante, as we well know.

You are a partisan ideologue and fool tool for the reactionary far right.
 
there's absolutely no way that gowdy would just make that claim to keep his kangaroo court going, is there?
 
Gowdy: Witnesses are telling us of a stand-down order during Benghazi attack

The film 13 Hours depicts the brutal attack and sacking of our consulate in Benghazi from the perspective of the men who fought and died to defend it. The Michael Bay film depicts a unit of responders being given a “stand down” order, which critics claim perpetuates a debunked allegation that investigators have long since retired. Not so says Trey Gowdy, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, who wonders why people have reached conclusions before all the witnesses have had a chance to testify. In fact, some first-person witnesses insist to this day that such an order was given:
Rep.Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order.

“The best I can do is tell you what the witnesses say, and then you can decide who you think is more credible,” Gowdy said during an interview with Boston Herald Radio. …

“I don’t know why the mainstream media doesn’t understand that you have to talk to everyone before you draw conclusions,” Gowdy said, noting the committee has roughly 12 witnesses left to interview before winding down its investigation.
Politico reported last night on the controversy, fueled by a former Special Ops commando who fought in Benghazi. Kris Paronto insists he was given a stand-down order, and tells Rachel Bade that he’s not going to stay quiet to save someone’s political career:
With Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” set to premiere Thursday, the five surviving members of the six-man Benghazi security team have blitzed the airwaves to promote the film and renew their assertion that a top CIA officer delayed them from immediately answering State Department distress calls. Three even testified to the same before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last spring, several sources have confirmed to POLITICO.

“There is no sensationalism in that: We were told to ‘stand down,’” said former Special Forces Officer Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night, in an interview with Politico. “Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. … If the truth of it affects someone’s political career? Well, I’m sorry. It happens.” …
Lawmakers have grappled with the question of a stand-down order before, and several bipartisan reports on the attacks have found no evidence of such a command being passed down the chain. Moreover, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the CIA and the Defense Department have long dismissed the idea that anyone would have held back help.

But the renewed allegations have forced lawmakers to wrestle with the issue again, and Republicans in particular may find themselves in an awkward spot. If GOP members of the Benghazi panel dispute Paronto’s assertion, they could look like they’re disparaging Americans who fought and died in service of the country. But if they side with Paronto, investigators would directly contradict some big-name intelligence officials, including former CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who say no one was ordered to stand down.
Yeah, well, finding out that Hillary Clinton and James Clapper might not have told the whole truth won’t be as big of a surprise as Bade surmises, nor as “awkward” for Republicans either. Republicans don’t have any reason to defend or attack Panetta, but Petraeus might be a little different for them. Nevertheless, much of that calculation depends on who and where that order might have originated; one or more of them might not have been in the command chain for such an order.

This puts the issue in the wrong direction, though. Isn’t it a little more awkward to call the men who fought to rescue Americans liars compared to assuming that politicians in Washington might have something to hide? What motivation does Paronto have to keep pressing this point? The motives for Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, and others in the chain of command to obfuscate this point — if true — are rather obvious.

Later this evening, I’ll finally get a chance to see 13 Hours. I hope to have a review up this weekend for it. In the meantime, Michael Bay may give Trey Gowdy an opening to reset the narrative.
 
I am inclined to believe that the allegation that the Chief of Base at the CIA ordered the six man CIA rescue team that the mission to go assist the diplomatic mission was cancelled is a fabrication with the goal of making money off of right wing conspiracy nuts and Obama haters.

Kris Paronto is not a credible witness. He testified before the HSPCI that the call for help from the besieged diplomatic mission came into the CIA annex 15 minutes before the well established time that it was actually received, which was 9:42 PM. One of the RSO's at the diplomatic mission called the CIA Annex Security Team Leader's cell phone at 9:42 PM to inform him that the diplomatic mission was under attack and requesting assistance. The team leader says the time was 9:42 PM and the HSPCI found this to be the case.

Is Paranto lying or just mistaken? If he is just mistaken, perhaps he is also mistaken that there was a stand down order from the Chief of Base. If he is lying, which I believe he is, it could be because he also claims that the team departed the annex a half hour after the team members had their kits ready to go on a rescue mission. In order for the delay to be fifteen minutes longer that it actually was, the call for assistance would have had to come in at 9:27 PM.

My conclusion is that Paranto's memory is defective or he is lying. I am inclined to believe he is lying to promote a bogus story that appeals to right wing conspiracy nuts and Obama haters.
 
By all means believe those who are covering their asses instead of someone who was actually there.
 
By all means believe those who are covering their asses instead of someone who was actually there.
And why would you think that those there wouldn't be covering their asses? Would like to live with the fact that had you acted you might have saved lives but instead you did as told when you thought that was the wrong thing to do?
 

Forum List

Back
Top