Trump in bed during botched Yemen raid?

NOVA said:
The raid took place in Yemen around the time that Mr. Trump was signing a directive in Washington on Saturday afternoon ordering Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to devise within 30 days a more aggressive plan to defeat the Islamic State.:palm:

laughing.....
Click to expand...


Two stories, by two different libs on the same subject of the raid in Yemen, and two lies....shocking.
 
j-mac said:
Doesn't anyone have to post links to their claims in here?
Click to expand...

Many on here do have the latest updated links. Republicans know where to get them. You can get them every day to. Aisle 4 Walmart news stand National Enquire cash register check out.
 
Brain Food said:
Many on here do have the latest updated links. Republicans know where to get them. You can get them every day to. Aisle 4 Walmart news stand National Enquire cash register check out.
Click to expand...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...-in-trumps-first-counterterror-operation.html

The raid took place in Yemen around the time that Mr. Trump was signing a directive in Washington on Saturday afternoon ordering Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to devise within 30 days a more aggressive plan to defeat the Islamic State.:palm:
 
"The failure I've consistently been referring to is their failure to protect or even show a desire to help the four Americans killed in Benghazi." b3 #77

About 3 years ago NBC reported:

14/01/15 NBC-TV News reports: Benghazi Investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee:

A major new finding: Ambassador Stevens "declined two specific offers" from Gen. Carter Ham, for more military support.

Ambassador Stevens wasn't stupid. He knew the risk he was taking. But he was willing to take the risk, because he wanted his consulate to extend a less militaristic, armed-camp profile to Benghazi's natives. That's why Stevens wanted it the way it was.

The bad guys knew this. They often prefer soft targets. You know, like airliners, buildings, and lightly guarded federal facilities.

You just better hope the bad guys don't go after our nuclear waste. If they make a dirty bomb from the massive waste we have in storage, essentially unguarded, or merely blow it up in situ, it'll make the attacks of 09/11/01 look like a church picnic.
 
sear said:
"The failure I've consistently been referring to is their failure to protect or even show a desire to help the four Americans killed in Benghazi." b3 #77

About 3 years ago NBC reported:

14/01/15 NBC-TV News reports: Benghazi Investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee:

A major new finding: Ambassador Stevens "declined two specific offers" from Gen. Carter Ham, for more military support.

Ambassador Stevens wasn't stupid. He knew the risk he was taking. But he was willing to take the risk, because he wanted his consulate to extend a less militaristic, armed-camp profile to Benghazi's natives. That's why Stevens wanted it the way it was.
Click to expand...

After reading the August 16, 2012, EAC cable, General Ham called Ambassador Stevens and asked if the Embassy needed the SST from the U.S. military, but Stevens told Ham it did not.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/216521/bipartisan-senate-panel-state-department-failed-daniel-greenfield


NOTE...Site Security Team in Tripoli. This has nothing to do with Benghazi.....Tripoli is the site of the US Embassy...


On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters requesting a minimum of 13 "Temporary Duty" (TDY) U.S. security personnel for Libya, which he said could be made up of DS agents, DoD Site Security Team (SST) personnel, or_some combination ofthe two. These TDY security personnel were needed to meet the requested security posture in Tripoli and Benghazi. The State Department never fulfilled this request and, according to Eric Nordstrom, State Department headquarters never responded to the request with a cable.

Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility.

State Department documents indicate that its Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was aware of the fact that many of the tripwires had indeed been crossed and discussed suspending operations, but never did. Given these developments and the available intelligence at the time, the Committee believes the State Department should have recognized the need to increase security to a level commensurate with the threat, or suspend operations in Benghazi. However, operations continued with minimal improvements in security and personnel protections
Although the Mission facility met the minimum personnel requirements ~or Diplomatic Security agents as accepted by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the August 15 EAC meeting (specifically, the three Diplomatic Security agents were assigned to guard the Mission compound), the Committee found no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between August 15, 2012, and September 11, 2012, to increase security at the Mission facility in response to the concerns raised in that meeting...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/216521/bipartisan-senate-panel-state-department-failed-daniel-greenfield


Commission Findings.....The collection of investigative reports reached harsh conclusions. Requests for extra security in Benghazi went unheeded in the weeks and months before the attacks, and there was poor communication within the State Department about those requests. National security officials did not respond to increased violence in the region by deploying more military assets nearby that could have responded sooner. After the attacks, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was given inaccurate information about the incident that she shared widely with the American public.

In its report, the Accountability Review Board cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" among senior officials at the State Department.Four agency employees were reassigned.

Significantly, none of the reports found evidence that Clinton or anyone else had ordered the military not to attempt a rescue, that the CIA had been trying to move weapons from Libya to Syria, or that Rice’s misstatements after the attacks were a deliberate bid to downplay the terrorist threat for political reasons.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...owdy/74261098/


The last paragraph is weird at best.....no one ordered the military not to attempt a rescue????
The question is why wasn't the military ordered to attempt a rescue or at the very least show up to prevent further attacks....They certainly could not be expected to act on their own without orders. The attack lasted 13 hours....
 
sear said:
"The failure I've consistently been referring to is their failure to protect or even show a desire to help the four Americans killed in Benghazi." b3 #77

About 3 years ago NBC reported:

14/01/15 NBC-TV News reports: Benghazi Investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee:

A major new finding: Ambassador Stevens "declined two specific offers" from Gen. Carter Ham, for more military support.

Ambassador Stevens wasn't stupid. He knew the risk he was taking. But he was willing to take the risk, because he wanted his consulate to extend a less militaristic, armed-camp profile to Benghazi's natives. That's why Stevens wanted it the way it was.
Click to expand...
"The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.

Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and testimony has not been sought from Ham, who is now retired.

Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.

“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top