Congressman:Benghazi attackers knew location of ambassador's safe room


#1

The terrorists who attacked the Benghazi consulate last year knew the location of the safe room where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team sought shelter, according to a congressman who spoke for 90 minutes with the diplomatic security agent severely injured in the assault.
"He confirmed this - that it was a very well orchestrated, and well organized, almost a military operation, using military weapons and using military signals," the late Florida Rep. Bill Young said after meeting diplomatic security agent David Ubben at Walter Reed Medical Center last summer, when both were patients there.
After Young's death in mid-October, his widow, Beverly Young, gave Fox permission to use her husband’s comments about the Sep. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the record. The congressman had originally spoken to Fox on background last summer.
foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/15/benghazi-attackers-reportedly-knew-location-ambassador-safe-room/

But the Sec of State, H. Clinton, did not read the cables the ambassador sent asking for military support.


#2

The republicans politicization of this armed attack during the war on terror with militant Islam is unfortunate. Many people have died in the war on terror and many more will die. We should pray for the souls of the dead and comfort their families. I have lost a family member in the war on terror also and I know the pain that it has caused us. However, we do not blame the President or congress for his death, but on the terrorist that took his life.


#3

[quote="tjones80, post:2, topic:345326"]
The republicans politicization of this armed attack during the war on terror with militant Islam is unfortunate. Many people have died in the war on terror and many more will die. We should pray for the souls of the dead and comfort their families. I have lost a family member in the war on terror also and I know the pain that it has caused us. However, we do not blame the President or congress for his death, but on the terrorist that took his life.

[/quote]

I'll blame the president. He had the ability to save them and he refused to do so. Inaction is just as wrong as evil action.


#4

[quote="Farsight001, post:3, topic:345326"]
I'll blame the president. He had the ability to save them and he refused to do so. Inaction is just as wrong as evil action.

[/quote]

Absolutely. Don't you know what the outcry would have been if the President were a
republican? The outcry would still be going on.


#5

[quote="tjones80, post:2, topic:345326"]
The republicans politicization of this armed attack during the war on terror with militant Islam is unfortunate. Many people have died in the war on terror and many more will die. We should pray for the souls of the dead and comfort their families. I have lost a family member in the war on terror also and I know the pain that it has caused us. However, we do not blame the President or congress for his death, but on the terrorist that took his life.

[/quote]

This really just adds a layer to the mysteries surrounding the event. Among them are:
1. What has never been answered is why in the world we aided the terrorist rebels in the first place. Libya was not harming us or threatening to, but was aiding us against terrorists. Why did Obama start a war in Libya?
2. Why did the terrorist organizations have anti-aircraft weapons in the first place? If, as has been reported, we gave them to them, why were there no safeguards in place to start with. We were shooting at Khaddaffi's planes. Why did they need anti-aircraft missiles?
3. What was Stevens doing in Behghazi? It was well known that it was a hotbed of terrorist organizations in rebellion against the government in Tripoli? Was he there to get them for the Turks to give to the rebels in Syria, as some have asserted? If so, why were we thinking to supply the Syrian rebels, when significant segments of the Syrian rebels are Al Qaeda aligned as well?
4. Why was there no protection other than the troops of some local warlord? Did Tripoli recommend that, or was it a private deal between the State Dept and some questionable warlord?
5. Why were the agents in Tripoli told to "stand down" during the attack?
6. Why did Obama's agents lie about the nature of the attack? Was it to hide it from voters prior to the election, or was it even worse? Remember that the supposed perpetrator of the film was hounded and jailed. Was the false claim aimed at suppressing any criticism of Islam, as the same was depicted on the film? Was this, like "Fast and Furious" a bogus assertion aimed at further reducing American constitutional rights?
7. And now this. Why did the attackers know the location of the "safe room". How did they know? Were the aligned with the "guarding" warlord troops upon which we relied, or the builders? Why were any of them trusted?
8. What is the actual policy of this government regarding Islamic terrorist groups? Obama has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He handed at least half of Libya over to Al Quaeda groups. He tried to aid the Syrian rebels. He seems to support Islamic uprisings...any uprising, as long as he thinks it's indigenous. He is presently "negotiating" with Iran over nukes, in a deal that even the French found unwise, and that Israel finds abhorrent.

I'm not a Republican, but I would sure like to know the answers to these things. And why is this administration hiding everything? Is it so bad this government knows the American people would go ballistic if they knew the truth?


#6

As we always did before this rather minor attack.


#7

[quote="oldcelt, post:6, topic:345326"]
As we always did before this rather minor attack.

[/quote]

Minor attack that killed a US ambassador. If a Vice president had been killed in Benghazi would you be calling it a "minor attack" ? Seems to me, the Democrats want to downplay Benghazi. Yet if it were a Republican president, the cry would be "what did he know and when did he know it?"

Ishii


#8

[quote="MJE, post:1, topic:345326"]
But the Sec of State, H. Clinton, did not read the cables the ambassador sent asking for military support.

[/quote]

Ambassador Stevens was offered additional security and declined on two occasions.

[quote="TexCatholic4JMJ, post:4, topic:345326"]
Absolutely. Don't you know what the outcry would have been if the President were a republican? The outcry would still be going on.

[/quote]

The "outcry" would be non-existent. There were 13 embassy and consulate attacks resulting in many dozens of deaths and injuries including a US Diplomat, American civilians, and even a marine under the Bush Administration. I don't recall any outrage or Congressional shenanigans over that.


#9

Source?

But not an ambassador.

And if the orders came out of the Bush admin to “stand down” etc. then there sure would have been an outcry - and it would have come from the entire media.


#10

[quote="Farsight001, post:3, topic:345326"]
I'll blame the president. He had the ability to save them and he refused to do so. Inaction is just as wrong as evil action.

[/quote]

It interfered with his election campaign, or with his golf game, or both. Besides, it is hard to give an order to action when the campaign was being built on the idea that the war on the Islamist terrorists was over and already had been won.
Better then, to blame American haters for the outrage.

The internet video producer blamed by the lying administration for this outbreak is finally out of prison though.


#11

Did these earlier attacks during Bush admin. reveal that top security had been breached including the location of safe houses?
Did these same earlier attacks reveal that Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al watched a real-time video of the bloody attacks from a drone circling above and send no help? Including directions to ‘stand down’ ? Any courageous men in the middle of the attack painting targets confident military support would come?
Did the earlier attacks result in the families of those killed accuse Pres. Bush & Sec of State Rice of lying to their face re: the murder of their child/spouse?
Did a citizen/civilian w/ no connection to the bloody attacks go to jail to cover for a lie Bush, Cheney & Rice advanced?


#12

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:8, topic:345326"]
Ambassador Stevens was offered additional security and declined on two occasions.

The "outcry" would be non-existent. There were 13 embassy and consulate attacks resulting in many dozens of deaths and injuries including a US Diplomat, American civilians, and even a marine under the Bush Administration. I don't recall any outrage or Congressional shenanigans over that.

[/quote]

Because no one seems to have known about those ahead of time, nor decided to blame them on a youtube video, or openly lie about it, or directly refuse to offer extra protection. People dying certainly sucks, but that is not why we have a problem with Benghazi.


#13

Didn’t take long to blame Bush. That is the pattern of the Obama administration.


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.