Yeah, I do too. And the folks who were on the ground in Benghazi say what’s coming out of DC isn’t exactly matching up with what they saw.
Specifically, they say that the timeline which has been released by DC of events that night is not accurate. They say that the CIA Annex was notified considerably earlier than 9:40PM (local) that there was a problem; that it was obvious several hours prior that an attack was possible; that the local guard force panicked and/or fled before the attack; and that the safe room where Ambassador Stevens was killed was not set up properly, lacking ventilation and fire suppression. In other words:
Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of “complete incompetence.”
But that’s not all:
Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add up.”
The same sources also indicate that armed UAVs were indeed readily available in the area. They also dispute the assertion that other US military assets (FA-18s or AC-130s) were “not available’.
We now appear to have a couple of contradictory stories. One is coming from DC; the other is coming from people who were actually there.
Which story do you think is more likely to be closer to the truth?