Benghazi survivor: Help was close enough but never sent

[red states rule]

The truth is starting to come out and it is not looking good for the administration.





An eyewitness to 2012's infamous Benghazi attack says the U.S. did not employ all of the defensive resources it could have to save the American lives lost the night of September 11th.

A special operations member who witnessed the attack on the U.S. Mission unfold in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 last year, as well as debriefed those who took part in the response, spoke with Fox News' Adam Housley on Monday night and revealed information that directly contradicts the administration's insistence that there was not enough time nor resources to send to Benghazi to help State Department employees, contractors, and intel operatives who were under a terrorist attack. FNC kept their source's identity hidden, as witnesses to the Benghazi attack have reportedly been intimidated by the administration into silence. The assault left four Americans dead, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens.


"I know for a fact that C110 was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa but in Europe and they have the ability to react and respond," the special ops member told FNC.


The C110 is a 40-man special operations commanders and extremists force. They are capable of rapid response and deployment and are specifically trained for Benghazi attack-like incidents. The night of the attack, according to the special op, they were training 3 & 1/2 hours away in Croatia.


"We have the ability to load out, get on birds, at a minimum stage. C110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in 4 to 6 hours from their European theater to react. They would have been there before the second attack," he said, adding, "And you hear a whole bunch of advisers say, 'We wouldn’t have sent them there, because the security was an unknown situation.' If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum, you send forces there to facilitate the exfill—medical, injuries. We could have sent a C130 to provide medical evacuation for the injured."


The State Department could have called another station for help, as well. According to the source, there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Dept. security staff in the Libyan capital of Tripoli who were not deployed even though they were trained as a quick response force. By air, the travel time between Tripoli and Benghazi is roughly over one hour.


Instead, seven men who were American reinforcements in Tripoli, along with Agent Glenn Doherty, commandeered a jet and flew to Benghazi. Ultimately, Doherty and Tyrone Woods would be killed on the roof of the CIA annex.


The special op member told Fox News, "If it wasn’t for that decision, I think we would be talking completely different about this situation. I think you would be looking at 20 plus hostages captured by AQ or you would be looking at a lot of dead Americans in Benghazi."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/29/Benghazi-Attack-Eyewitness-Help-Was-Available

[red states rule]

The liberal media is trying to avoid this story but more and more people are talking about it. We know who did it and not going after them[QUOTE]

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121061" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[aboutime]

Just a reminder to everyone of the one person who DID NOTHING to stop, or help save the FOUR American lives in Benghazi.
What's her name?.....4929

[red states rule]

While Fox News reports the rest of the liberal media, for the most part, yawns





Thursday's CBS This Morning singled out the FBI's pursuit of three persons of interest (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/seeking-information-on-attacks-in-benghazi/seeking-information-on-attacks-in-benghazi-poster) who could provide information on the September 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Margaret Brennan touted how "what happened that night is still the topic of debate in Washington", and noted that members of Congress "want to speak to those Americans evacuated from Benghazi, but claim the White House won't release the names."

ABC devoted a news brief to the FBI's investigation on Wednesday's World News, but didn't cover the development the following morning on Good Morning America. NBC apparently didn't find the story newsworthy, as they failed to cover it on their evening and morning newscasts.
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/2013-05-02-CBS-CTM-Brennan.jpgBrennan led her report by outlining how "the FBI wants to speak to three unidentified men...who appear to be holding weapons on the grounds of the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi...the men may provide information about the attack that killed four Americans. Members of Congress are also after more information from the White House." She continued by playing a sound bite from Senator John McCain, who accused the Obama administration of "not providing the Congress...with the information that's needed for us to conclude this tragic chapter in American history."

The CBS correspondent later pointed out that "McCain and his Republican colleagues have held more than 20 hearings focused on the attack during the past eight months. Now, they want to speak to those Americans evacuated from Benghazi, but claim the White House won't release the names. The administration argues that they have answered all relevant questions." She provided balance to the McCain clip by playing an excerpt of President Obama's comments on the attack from a Tuesday news conference.

Near the end of the segment, Brennan reported that "eight months later, there are no suspects and no arrests", and added that "the union representing the Foreign Service says some of its members also have questions about how these deaths could have been avoided."

Just over a week earlier, CBS also stood out (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/04/24/nbc-abc-ignore-blistering-house-report-placing-blame-benghazi-obama-) in covering a "blistering report criticizing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" with regard to the Benghazi attack, while NBC and ABC punted on covering it on their morning and evening newscasts. However, the Big Three still haven't covered (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/05/01/fox-news-features-libya-whistleblower-who-asserts-we-know-who-perpet) the allegations of a Benghazi whistleblower who claimed that U.S. special forces could have responded to the September 11 assault on the consulate.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/05/02/cbs-highlights-fbis-latest-benghazi-development-nbc-yawns#ixzz2SE942EQF

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk050713dAPR20130507094514.jpg

[red states rule]

Obama's base is doing their best to offer up lame defenses and are trying to convince you not to pay attention to what is going on





Time's Joe Klein Still Bitterly Clinging to Discredited Obama Script on Benghazi

Trying desperately to defend the Obama State Department's Benghazi failure on the day when House hearings in the fiasco commence, TIME's Joe Klein took to his keyboard on May 8 to hack out a 9-paragraph post about how "Republicans Are Still Chasing Their Tails on Benghazi."
(http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/benghazi-again/)

Back in November, you may recall, my colleague Mark Finkelstein noted how Klein was gobbling up Obama talking points on the fiasco "like Thanksgiving turkey." (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/11/26/klein-gobbles-obamas-benghazi-talking-points-thanksgiving-turkey) Well, Klein's still at it, right down to his suggestion that the Benghazi consulate compound was under siege on September 11 because of a YouTube video

It does seem that the Administration’s talking points were massaged a bit after the President’s candor. This may have been attributable to the presidential campaign and the Administration’s desire to low-ball the Al Qaeda threat. If so, this was a venial, not a mortal, sin. It affected not one life. More likely, though, the wording was scrubbed as a result of the nature of the investigation going on at the time–it may have been deemed premature to announce that it was a pre-meditated act of terror. Perhaps the local militia lucked into a situation where they showed up at the consulate and found very little security protection. Hard to say. There were protests all over the middle east that night, ginned up by jihadis using the excuse of a near-unseen anti-Muslim You Tube video.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/05/08/times-joe-klein-still-bitterly-clinging-discredited-obama-message-beng#ixzz2SnA25gcc

[aboutime]

The only Americans who are genuinely, and honestly not paying attention to any of this Benghazi reporting, were all Obama voters.

[red states rule]

My what a difference in coverage and interest from the Obama loving media




MSNBC: No Live Coverage for Benghazi Hearings; Gave Hillary 5 1/2 Hours in Jan., Praised Performance

As NewsBusters previously reported, MSNBC gave no live coverage to yesterday’s congressional hearings on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Instead, the network aired a mere six minutes and 20 seconds of a highlight from the hearings. Those snippets were spread across four hours, and some of them were redundant.


Contrast that with the way MSNBC treated Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi back on January 23. On that occasion, the liberal cable (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/05/09/msnbc-no-live-coverage-benghazi-hearings-gave-hillary-5-12-hours-jan-p#) network broadcast a whopping five hours and 28 minutes of live testimony.

Ms. Clinton’s hearing in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee lasted two hours and 59 minutes; MSNBC aired all of it, without commercial interruption. The hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee lasted two hours and 30 minutes; MSNBC aired all of it, without commercial interruption, except for a brief one-minute break for commentary after the first half-hour.


http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/hillarykicksbutt375.jpgWhat explains this differential treatment of two different hearings on the same incident? Undoubtedly MSNBC realized that Hillary Clinton would be a tough customer. She was unlikely to crack under pressure from House and Senate members. She was never going to admit to incompetence nor a coverup. There was little risk of a major revelation during her testimony, so MSNBC felt comfortable airing it live in its entirety.


Of course, MSNBC personalities lauded Ms. Clinton after her testimony while ripping those who dared to ask her tough questions. Shortly (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/05/09/msnbc-no-live-coverage-benghazi-hearings-gave-hillary-5-12-hours-jan-p#) after the hearing ended, Chris Matthews opened his show by declaring, “Hillary kicks butt!” He went on to wax poetic:

In response to hostile questions, she came back with strength and a challenge of her own. Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, she never looked better. Venturing forth in unprotected waters today, she showed how not to be defensive, how not to sweat, also how to exhibit humanity and, yes, compassion even when the witnesses are looking desperately, those people around her, to target her weaknesses.
But this Wednesday’s Benghazi hearings were different. It was not the indignant Hillary Clinton testifying, but rather three whistleblowers who did not paint the Obama/Clinton State Department in a favorable light. MSNBC must have known that there was potential for some damning revelations that would hurt the administration, so they avoided live coverage altogether. There were indeed some damning revelations that came out of those hearings, but MSNBC only showed their viewers a few carefully selected clippings, including Eric Nordstrom getting choked up and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) getting angry over the questioning.


MSNBC’s talking heads did their best to downplay the importance of these hearings, dismissing them as a conservative witch hunt meant to destroy Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency in 2016. Alex Wagner mocked:

The hearing is officially entitled, "Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage." But, hey, don't call it a witch hunt.
MSNBC’s shameful attempt to laugh away the seriousness of the Benghazi incident is not only bad journalistic practice; it is bad for the country.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/05/09/msnbc-no-live-coverage-benghazi-hearings-gave-hillary-5-12-hours-jan-p#ixzz2Sst3ZA4r

[red states rule]

Now the opinion of an Obama supporter and MSNBC regular





Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi

By Eugene Robinson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/eugene-robinson/2011/02/24/ABPAwVN_page.html)


Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.


Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.


That’s not a particularly noble way to use the deaths of four American public servants, but at least it’s understandable. Attempts to concoct some kind of sinister Whitewater-style conspiracy, however, don’t even begin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-republicans-lead-a-witch-hunt-on-benghazi/2013/05/09/ca565d10-b8de-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html#) to make sense.


The hearing convened Wednesday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-committee-holds-hearing-on-benghazi-attacks/2013/05/08/639da672-b7ea-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html) by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?


Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.


House Republicans who voted to cut funding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-republicans-lead-a-witch-hunt-on-benghazi/2013/05/09/ca565d10-b8de-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html#) for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.


Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound? This is a decision that clearly still haunts and enrages Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who sat helplessly in the capital while Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were being killed at the consulate 650 miles away.


But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.



for more of the stomach churning excuses

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-republicans-lead-a-witch-hunt-on-benghazi/2013/05/09/ca565d10-b8de-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

[jimnyc]

Unusual for me, I've been turning on the nightly news the past 3 days, solely to flick back and forth between the news channels. All told, I think I saw about 20 minutes of coverage in 3 days (outside of Fox) and maybe 10 of it was ranting about the way the Republicans are looking into this matter. The writing is on the wall already. There will be a handful of conservatives calling for heads and in 3 months from now this will be a covered up memory, just like Fast and Furious.

[red states rule]

Unusual for me, I've been turning on the nightly news the past 3 days, solely to flick back and forth between the news channels. All told, I think I saw about 20 minutes of coverage in 3 days (outside of Fox) and maybe 10 of it was ranting about the way the Republicans are looking into this matter. The writing is on the wall already. There will be a handful of conservatives calling for heads and in 3 months from now this will be a covered up memory, just like Fast and Furious.

In most of the liberal media this is "reported" as the Republican's viscous personal attacks on Hillary

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unusual for me, I've been turning on the nightly news the past 3 days, solely to flick back and forth between the news channels. All told, I think I saw about 20 minutes of coverage in 3 days (outside of Fox) and maybe 10 of it was ranting about the way the Republicans are looking into this matter. The writing is on the wall already. There will be a handful of conservatives calling for heads and in 3 months from now this will be a covered up memory, just like Fast and Furious.

Quite likely that will happen. You know what they say happens soon after a nation no longer allows justice to prevail? Either complete enslavement of the population as in CHINA/RUSSIA CASE OR A CIVIL WAR THAT IS ANYTHING BUT CIVIL....--Tyr

[red states rule]

Quite likely that will happen. You know what they say happens soon after a nation no longer allows justice to prevail? Either complete enslavement of the population as in CHINA/RUSSIA CASE OR A CIVIL WAR THAT IS ANYTHING BUT CIVIL....--Tyr

All day the libs on TV have repeated the "big lie" that nothing new was learned in this weeks hearings

Oh really? You mean these libs new about the 12 revisions of the talking points and did not say anything?

and how one whistle blower was demoted for speaking out about the lies in the talking points and did not say anything?

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c10920720130512120100.jpg

[red states rule]

Dems are desperate to try and pass the buck on Benghazi to anyone other then Obama and Hillary





On the Senate floor earlier today, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) took a moment to try her darndest to throw the still-unfolding Benghazi saga back in the oh-so-hyper-partisan Republicans’ faces:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUR7y2x6NYk&feature=player_embedded


Er… nice try at reviving an old-and-busted attempt to turn this debacle back on those obstructionist Republicans, but no. For one thing, the issue here wasn’t the available funding, but the prioritization of the available funding (the State Department miraculously has enough money for Chevy Volts (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/11/rep-questions-state-department-green-energy-spending-amid-security-concerns/) [which the Obama administration also heavily subsidizes (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/21/are-the-chevy-volts-sales-being-inflated-by-giveaways/)!] and charging stations at certain embassies, but not adequate security at others?); for another, as Andrew Johnson highlighted at NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348306/boxer-uses-snow-white-blame-gop-benghazi), a State Department official confirmed in testimony last October that more money would not have prevented the attacks, via the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-blame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html) at the time:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.
The real issue here, of course, is both the specific failures that led to the deaths of four Americans and the wider failures of a poor Middle-East foreign policy, and the administration’s subsequent and shoddy attempt to save face on both counts in the dwindling weeks before a presidential election — not the availability of the funding (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html) that the State Department chose to allocate otherwise.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/14/sen-boxers-latest-take-on-benghazi-mirror-mirror-who-cut-the-funding-for-diplomatic-security/

[aboutime]

Dems are desperate to try and pass the buck on Benghazi to anyone other then Obama and Hillary



Boxer can't help it. Her experience with the growth of a brain was drastically short-lived.

She had to blame Republicans since she could no longer blame Bush. And she certainly would never tell the truth and blame Obama, or Hillary.

[red states rule]

4 men were murdered and begged for help that was never coming

Meanwhile Obama went off to a fundraiser the next day