Let's Talk About This "Stand Down" Order Thing....

[daveman]

No, he was told to sit down and stfu lol...because he was a stupid fool...

Amazing how the hater dupes get brainwashed into obsessing about irrelevant minutia...

Yes, Obama is responsible for getting the first sitting US Ambassador in 33 years killed -- and it's irrelevant minutiae.

Mindless sheep.

 

[francoHFW]

Why do you repeat lies?

Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote | The Daily Caller

House Democrats opened Wednesday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding — cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.​

Dude?

franco lies about everything.

Oh, I know. It's pathological.

You hater dupe morons wouldn't recognize a lie or a fact if it smacked you in the face. Change the channel, you've lost your tiny little minds...

It's only a question of HOW the Pub propaganda machine is lying to you chumps. In this case, Dems voted yes on these cuts to avoid even bigger ones...

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”
http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redi...g==&ord=0&

HELLO?!?!!

 

[dilloduck]

We have been told repeatedly in regards to the trade of the Taliban five and Bowe Bergdahl we leave no man behind yet when it came to Benghazi we were willing to leave men behind even if we couldn't get there in time to save these men does that mean we don't even try?

The CIA operatives and their Libyan militia allies launched a counter offensive about 25 minutes after the initial assault. They drove the attackers away from the consulate building long enough to find all survivors and the body of Sean Smith. The only one missing was the ambassador. All were taken to the safety of CIA annex. The Body of the ambassador was returned about 5:00 that morning. By 10:00 they were all on a plane to Tripoli.

Which does not refute the fact that a stand down order was given and Obama tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was a demonstration that had amok. He lied.

 

[francoHFW]

We have been told repeatedly in regards to the trade of the Taliban five and Bowe Bergdahl we leave no man behind yet when it came to Benghazi we were willing to leave men behind even if we couldn't get there in time to save these men does that mean we don't even try?

The CIA operatives and their Libyan militia allies launched a counter offensive about 25 minutes after the initial assault. They drove the attackers away from the consulate building long enough to find all survivors and the body of Sean Smith. The only one missing was the ambassador. All were taken to the safety of CIA annex. The Body of the ambassador was returned about 5:00 that morning. By 10:00 they were all on a plane to Tripoli.

Which does not refute the fact that a stand down order was given and Obama tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was a demonstration that had amok. He lied.

For about 10 minutes, until the CIA changed their minds..brainwashed idiot.

 

[francoHFW]

The stand down was not given by the Obama administration, and wouldn't have made any difference, brainwashed functional idiot. Ay caramba.

 

[BlindBoo]

The CIA operatives and their Libyan militia allies launched a counter offensive about 25 minutes after the initial assault. They drove the attackers away from the consulate building long enough to find all survivors and the body of Sean Smith. The only one missing was the ambassador. All were taken to the safety of CIA annex. The Body of the ambassador was returned about 5:00 that morning. By 10:00 they were all on a plane to Tripoli.

Which does not refute the fact that a stand down order was given and Obama tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was a demonstration that had amok. He lied.

For about 10 minutes, until the CIA changed their minds..brainwashed idiot.

What I heard was that the CIA commander made his guys wait 10 minutes or so until he could get more men from their Libyan Militia allies.

I'll bet that all the survivors were at the Annex before the order to stay in Tripoli was issued. But I don't have time to look up the time lines so that is just a guess.

 

[BlindBoo]

We have been told repeatedly in regards to the trade of the Taliban five and Bowe Bergdahl we leave no man behind yet when it came to Benghazi we were willing to leave men behind even if we couldn't get there in time to save these men does that mean we don't even try?

The CIA operatives and their Libyan militia allies launched a counter offensive about 25 minutes after the initial assault. They drove the attackers away from the consulate building long enough to find all survivors and the body of Sean Smith. The only one missing was the ambassador. All were taken to the safety of CIA annex. The Body of the ambassador was returned about 5:00 that morning. By 10:00 they were all on a plane to Tripoli.

Which does not refute the fact that a stand down order was given and Obama tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was a demonstration that had amok. He lied.

An order to stay in place to protect the Embassy is not the same as a stand down order. Politicians always play the PR game with their talking points.

 

[Care4all]

snopes.com: Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi

FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.

FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

this is just a part of the article, stating specifically, no one was directed to stand down:

However, administration officials denied that any requests for military assistance by those at the U.S. mission in Benghazi were rejected: The White House [has] flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor [said].

And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans.

Fox News Channel reported that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.
On 1 November 2012, U.S. intelligence officials released an account stating the CIA had in fact rushed security operatives to the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi within half an hour of the start of the attack: The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been publicly acknowledged, U.S. intelligence officials said.

The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving U.S. personnel to
safety on Sept. 12, U.S. officials said.

U.S. intelligence officials insisted that CIA operatives in Benghazi and Tripoli made decisions rapidly throughout the assault with no interference from Washington, even while acknowledging that CIA security forces were badly outmatched and largely unable to mobilize Libyan security teams until it was too late.

Among the new disclosures is that the CIA station chief in Tripoli sent an emergency security force, with about a half-dozen agency operatives as well as two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi aboard a hastily chartered aircraft while the attack was underway.

The CIA team attempted to organize an effort to make its way to a hospital where U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens had been taken and was thought to be still alive. But the team was held up by Libyan officials at the airport and scrapped the plan to reach Stevens after learning that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain.
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 15 January 2014 review of the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi viewed video footage documenting the dispatch of a security team to the Mission compound within 20-25 minutes of the first report of the attack, and they found that no "stand down" orders were issued to the security team at the Annex: After the Diplomatic Security (DS) agent in the Tactical Operations Center at the Temporary Mission Facility alerted the Annex security team that TMF was under attack at 9:40, the Chief of Base called the [redacted] "who advised that he would immediately deploy a force to provide assistance," according to a September 19, 2012, cable.

Two armored vehicles were prepared so the security team could respond from the Annex. Approximately 20-25 minutes after the first call came into the Annex that the Temporary Mission Facility (TMF) was under attack, a security team left the Annex for the Mission compound. In footage taken from the Annex's security cameras, the security team can be observed departing the CIA Annex at 10:03 p.m. Benghazi time.

The team drove to the Mission facility and made their way onto the Mission compound in the face of enemy fire, arriving in the vicinity of the compound at approximately 10:10 p.m. Benghazi time. The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.
General Carter Ham headed the U.S. Africa Command during the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A late October 2012 rumor claimed General Ham declined an order to "stand down" and attempted to provide military assistance during the attacks, only to be relieved of his command "within a minute" of doing so, and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was likewise relieved of his command for ordering his forces to support those ordered into action by General Ham. That rumor was fueled by an 18 October 2012 announcement that President Obama had selected a nominee to replace General Ham (who subsequently retired from the U.S. Army in April 2013) as commander of the U.S. Africa Command: President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

"Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region," Panetta said. "I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service."
However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground: The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.
On 29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false: The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.
General Ham himself testified before the House Committee on Armed Services in June 2013 that the decision not to deploy close air support during the attack was made by him based on his assessment of the situation at the time, not because he was ordered to "stand down": I will admit to giving a lot of thought about close air support. And in the lead up to September 11th, in the discussions about what forces should we have available, it was my determination, obviously with advice from others, but the responsibility was mine as the commander, was that close air support was not the appropriate tool in this situation.

And as I look back on the events of that night and say ... and think in my own mind would air have made a difference? And in my military judgment, I believe the answer is no. It was a very uncertain situation in an environment which we know we had an unknown surface-to-air threat with the proliferation particularly of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, many of which remain unaccounted for. But mostly it was a lack of understanding of the environment, and hence the need for the Predator to try to gain an understanding of what was going on.

Knowing the intelligence that I had at the time, not obviously what I have now, but the intelligence I had at the time caused me to conclude in my military judgment that attack aircraft would not be the appropriate response tool. And so I did not direct a heightened alert. That is obviously fair for criticism, and knowing what we know now maybe that was — maybe I would make a different decision. But close air support I think, I still even knowing what I know now, think that was not the right tool to effect change in this situation.

 

[daveman]

Dude?

franco lies about everything.

Oh, I know. It's pathological.

You hater dupe morons wouldn't recognize a lie or a fact if it smacked you in the face. Change the channel, you've lost your tiny little minds...

It's only a question of HOW the Pub propaganda machine is lying to you chumps. In this case, Dems voted yes on these cuts to avoid even bigger ones...

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”
http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redi...g==&ord=0&

HELLO?!?!!

And now for another dose of reality.

Barbara Boxer?s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security - The Washington Post

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president’s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don’t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is “an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.”
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years.
“The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.
The report added that baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but noted that Congress had been responsive in providing “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,” the report pointedly noted. “Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.”
Meanwhile, while the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attack lamented the failure of Congress to provide necessary resources — and called for “a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs” — it fixed the blame for the lack of security squarely on State Department officials.​

And more reality that you will ignore in favor of your programming:

Hillary Clinton's State Department cut security in Libya before deadly terror attacks, Sen. Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact Wisconsin

The State Department has acknowledged it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.

The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board concluded that the number of diplomatic security staff in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attacks was inadequate "despite repeated requests" from the Benghazi mission and the embassy in Tripoli for additional staffing.

The Benghazi facility had been projected to have five security agents and there had been multiple requests that five be placed there. But in the nine months before the attacks, the facility had a full complement of five agents on only 23 days.

After the State Department's security staff in Washington rejected the repeated requests, the post became resigned to not having the full complement of five agents and stopped making the requests, the review board found.

A bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee also found that the State Department headquarters did not grant Stevens' requests for more security personnel.

--

The bipartisan Senate committee found that despite the deteriorating conditions around Benghazi, State Department headquarters decided not to request an extension of service by the Defense Department's Site Security Team, which was scheduled to be redeployed in August 2012, about one month before the attacks.

The 16-member team was based in Tripoli, but spent some time in Benghazi and had provided security resources that the State Department could utilize. The State Department opted not to request an extension of the team, the Senate committee found, because it believed that many of the duties could be provided by State Department security staff and local Libyan security personnel.

The Senate committee also pointed out that less than a month before the attacks, Stevens "declined two specific offers" from the general heading Defense Department operations in Africa to extend the stay of the Site Security Team.

But according to Stevens’ top assistant, Gregory Hicks, that was a few weeks after the State Department had already decided not to request the team’s deployment to be extended.

Because Washington "had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required" Stevens to decline the two offers, Hicks wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.​

You just keep lying, Franco. I expect nothing less.