Remember That Little Incident in Benghazi?

| November 4, 2012 | 14 Comments

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?

Category: Foreign Policy, Military issues, Terror War

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. JP says:

    I’m gonna go with the ones who were actually there.

    I also read an article somewhere recently about a bunch of missing Stingers in Libya… could this maybe have been part of the decision for not clearing air support?

    All in all I think the admin chose not to get involved because it is so close to election time. Nothing short of cowardly, IMO.

  2. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    It’s the Hollywood fog-machine of war.

  3. B Woodman says:

  4. B Woodman says:

    Damn tablet. Try again.
    “Who ya gonna believe?! Me, or yer lyin’ eyes!?

  5. brat says:

    What @#1 said: All in all I think the admin chose not to get involved because it is so close to election time. Nothing short of cowardly, IMO.

    Gets my vote and it is sickening….

    Despite their best efforts, we will NOT forget…

  6. Devtun says:

    Yeah, very plausible BO’s brain Valerie Jarrett didn’t want to risk a “Blackhawk Down” or “Desert One” controversy…punt, deflect, and stonewall. Things could get bad for BO in a real hurry if he is a lame duck President after the 6th,7th,8th Nov…well, whenever the election is determined after recounts and recounts to the recounts.

    Deafening silence by our politburo on Benghazi, but hey ABC last week had a story about yawning dogs and mystery monkeys…A President Bush or Romney would have been raked over the coals everyday and twice on Sunday – sickening.

  7. OWB says:

    What these idiots driven by political considerations will never understand is that most of us (as in the ones who actually vote) are not now and will never be influenced very much by their political considerations no matter how many childish tantrums they throw demanding that their interests become ours.

    Kinda like their repeating, ad nauseum, that we are racists really does not impact whether we are or are not. It just makes them appear foolish and uninformed.

    No, we will not forget. We will also do our best to make sure that no one else forgets and that those responsible are held accountable not only for the mistakes in judgement but the cover-up of those mistakes.

    Criminal charges would also be nice for a few little things like gun running or whatever else was going on in or associated with Benghazi.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
    when first we practice to deceive.

    — Sir Walter Scott, “Marmion” Canto VI. Stanza 17

    (no, not in “Hamlet”, and not by Shakespeare)

  9. NHSparky says:

    People who were there: no agenda, nothing to hide.

    White House: Running for reelection, trying to cover their asses.

    Yeah, I think I know who to believe.

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    The clock is ticking….

  11. Common Sense says:

    ” 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.”

    Why would they stop lying now?

    Just like I believe the author of No Easy Day before the Obama bundler/fan movie showing tonight.

  12. DaveO says:

    A couple of points:

    1. The “guys on the ground” don’t want to be thrown under the bus. They have a vested interest in promoting any story that takes the blame away from them.

    2. The more stuff that comes out of all the sources, the more I’m led to believe the terrorists all but put up billboards and took out ads on Sesame Street and MSNBC to tell us what they were doing.

  13. Hondo says:

    Uh, DaveO . . . your first point isn’t exactly consistent, amigo. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

    The sources cited above say that things on the ground locally in Benghazi were pretty much a cluster-fornication prior to the attack. Seems to me that means they’re owning up to the fact that the folks in Benghazi share part of the blame. That argues against them having any agenda of making themselves look good.

    If you’re saying they’re trying to avoid taking heat for bad decisions made by distant others while also owning up to having made some mistakes locally, then I agree.

    I agree fully with your second point. The more I hear, the more it seems that some rather obvious indicators and warnings were outright ignored.

  14. UpNorth says:

    Agreed, Dave, except one minor point, if the terrorists ran ads on MSDNC, no one would have seen them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *