# New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediate



## Red-Dot (Dec 9, 2015)

"After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak" .    And Obama and company did nothing.... Why are they not in handcuffs right now? 


Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2015)

Sad told you so.


Red-Dot said:


> "After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak" .    And Obama and company did nothing.... Why are they not in handcuffs right now?
> 
> 
> Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document


Which gives credence to the Gen Ham was fired for trying to move recuse forces theory.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 9, 2015)

This was one of the biggest non-secret secrets out there.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 9, 2015)

Devildoc said:


> This was one of the biggest non-secret secrets out there.


 
And still HRC is a seriuos contender to be POTUS. I just don't get how that could be:wall:. Well, to be honest I do know, too many people drink the coolaide and just don't give a shit.


----------



## Brill (Dec 9, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> "And Obama and company did nothing.... Why are they not in handcuffs right now?



Who's going to prosecute?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Who's going to prosecute?



Congress.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2015)

> Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”



In the words of B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama: "Get the transcript"

From Leon Panetta's February 2013 testimony


> Soon after the initial reports about the attack on Benghazi, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DoD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It is important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana'a, and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.
> 
> In consultation with Chairman Dempsey and AFRICOM Commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions:
> 
> ...



I'm guessing that those were the forces that were "spinning up" when the email was sent, four hours after the attack began.  It should be noted that the distance from Rota to Benghazi is over 1,500 miles, while the distance from Sigonella is about 500 miles.  Even if you assembled a FAST and piled them into whatever aircraft they had at waiting at Rota, it would still take them between 4-5 to even get to western Libyan air space.  This is such a non-news item that it hurts.

Katie Pavlich over at TownHall.com actually checked the details of this email against the timeline of the attacks, and has determined that the information is not new. Email Released by Judicial Watch Shows Military Forces Were Immediately Ready To Move Night of Benghazi

You can read the entire timeline here: http://www.armedservices.house.gov/...?File_id=286253c3-3345-46a3-a120-496a75a448da

As if that wasn't enough to convince you, The Senate Select Committee on Benghazi has had the un-redacted version of this email for over a year



> “The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months," Benghazi Select Committee Press Secretary Matt Wolking released to _Townhall _in a statement. "While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response. This email chain helped inform the Committee’s interview of Sullivan in September, and will help inform the Committee’s upcoming interviews with Thomas Nides and others.”



Seems to me like this Benghazi "smoking gun" is yet another water pistol.

Hell, just read the entire thing over at Media Matters.  They explain it way better than I do: Conservative Benghazi Reporting Is A Dumpster Fire


----------



## Brill (Dec 9, 2015)

Yeah, no sense sending a message of strength to our enemies and Federal employees. 

LTC Peters said it all.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> In the words of B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama: "Get the transcript"
> 
> From Leon Panetta's February 2013 testimony
> 
> ...



V-22 Osprey could get there in 2 hours, and I doubt it would take FAST two hours to board the plane.
Carrier airpower could have launched and been overhead sooner than that.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2015)

As I said, the FAST was over in Rota, 1500 miles away.  Unless the V22 can travel over 750mph, I sincerely doubt that it would get there in two hours.

As far as carrier aircraft, the nearest carrier (USS Enterprise)was over 3550 nautical miles away at the time of the attack. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NavymapBenghazi.pdf

Edit: I just re-read what you said and I should clarify: the report said that FAST marines were over at Rota.  The "national mission force" team landed at Sigonella much later, after the attack was already over.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 10, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> In the words of B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" Hussein Superallah Obama: "Get the transcript"
> 
> From Leon Panetta's February 2013 testimony
> 
> ...




You're severely underestimating the spool-up and transit time of troops on QRF missions like this, as well as what assets may be allocated. Remember, the DOD doesn't just have your usual fat grey birds at it's disposal. Any SOF unit doing training is already ready to rock, give them munitions (which they most often already have, just need to load up mags..enroute) and an enroute op-ord and you're golden.


----------



## AWP (Dec 10, 2015)

I understand that we can't be everywhere at every time, but considering this was on 9/11 and Sigonella is kind of in the middle Europe and northern Africa AND they were able to move guys from Rota or wherever within hours:

Why didn't we have some assets on alert in Sigonella the Med? It isn't like the world was a quiet and happy place and suddenly exploded in violence on some random day....


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I understand that we can't be everywhere at every time, but considering this was on 9/11 and Sigonella is kind of in the middle Europe and northern Africa AND they were able to move guys from Rota or wherever within hours:
> 
> Why didn't we have some assets on alert in Sigonella the Med? It isn't like the world was a quiet and happy place and suddenly exploded in violence on some random day....



My thoughts exactly, and the thoughts of some of our pro's as well.  Not long after it happened I was talking about this with a friend who is the intel community, he echoed much the same.  He said everyone knew of the threats, everyone knew the Libyan militias/military/police would change uniforms for the highest bidder/most influential, everyone suggested that given what was going on (publically released and not), his people made suggestions to State and DoD that they might want to relocate assets or make some changes.  What he did not say was whether that info was acted on or how far it went.


----------



## Brill (Dec 10, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I understand that we can't be everywhere at every time, but considering this was on 9/11 and Sigonella is kind of in the middle Europe and northern Africa AND they were able to move guys from Rota or wherever within hours:
> 
> Why didn't we have some assets on alert in Sigonella the Med? It isn't like the world was a quiet and happy place and suddenly exploded in violence on some random day....



Back then it was denial about how serious the video was...now it's denial how serious IS is.

This Admin is either totally clueless or unwilling to accept outside information that contradicts its own group think.

Video was produced in summer of 2012 and clerics started calling BS in early Sept. No reason to put anyone on alert...didn't Ambo Stevens asked for a higher profile?


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 10, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> And still HRC is a seriuos contender to be POTUS. I just don't get how that could be:wall:. Well, to be honest I do know, too many people drink the coolaide and just don't give a shit.


People don't care because all they see is a conservative witch hunt against Hillary. Especially since the House Intelligence Committee found no intelligence failure on the night in question. They see it as another conservative attempt to bring down the all mighty glorious leader and his cronies. Point out the loss of American lives and you get the standard "but GW got more diplomatic personnel killed!" In any event, she will probably skate free of any serious repercussions of her failure and incompetence as Sec of State.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 11, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> People don't care because all they see is a conservative witch hunt against Hillary. Especially since the House Intelligence Committee found no intelligence failure on the night in question. They see it as another conservative attempt to bring down the all mighty glorious leader and his cronies. Point out the loss of American lives and you get the standard "but GW got more diplomatic personnel killed!" In any event, she will probably skate free of any serious repercussions of her failure and incompetence as Sec of State.



It's legitimately terrifying to me, not that she probably will skate free, but that for all intents and purposes she already has.  The liberal populace doesn't concern me nearly as much as the majority of the press does.  She and POTUS have blanket security from what would (hopefully only) seem to be about 2/3rds of all media outlets, who push their agendas with almost no fight from the other side.  The lack of a conservative backbone to do all that is necessary to ram this home and see that she fully pays for her blatant disregard to the well being of our Ambassador and his detail, and by extension any and every American abroad, tells us everything we need to know about a government that is tightening its power base over the general populace as each day passes, and is closing in on continuing its path.  I wouldn't be surprised if they've already secured her spot in the White House.  Obama then negotiated with a terrorist organization to ensure the release of one American Soldier for 5 AQ kingpins who will spend minimal time on what amounts to house arrest in Qatar, and outside of Fox, and military circles, no one in this country has batted an eye.  Her skating free on Benghazi is almost expected.  I could probably walk down the street and ask 5 people who Bowe Bergdahl is, and probably get 5 "no idea"'s because the media isn't pushing it, or those people have already made up their mind on what they want.

They simply stalled just long enough after Benghazi to ensure an Obama victory, and did it right in front of this country's face with a wink and a smile.  Now Obama has rewritten the fucking playbook, and assuming a conservative candidate even has a chance at victory in the upcoming election, they're being set up for complete failure.  How many of our allies still have solid, if any, trust in this country keeping its word anymore?  POTUS has appeased our enemies so much, that attacks on our country and our allies warrants nothing more than a "we stand with them" and " we need to keep doing exactly what we've been doing", the latter of which was pretty much nothing more than a fucking lie about our enemies power base and capability.  The far leftish government has regularly gotten away with murder, and they're so confident at this point that they have no qualms about how far they can push the line.  As I said, I'm legitimately terrified that this is a slow dismantling of America as any type of power or influence in every corner of the world.  The future of this country is so uncertain, yet I feel like we all have already seen, and know, what's to come.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2015)

I see this common theme of people blaming the media for the lack of action on this issue, but give me a fucking break. The media is all over reporting on Benghazi. It is covered all the time. Every major news outlet has covered Benghazi in depth, many many times. 

@BuckysBadger24 you do realize that people care about a lot of different things right? Most people don't care about what happened in Lybia today, let alone a few years ago. People also realize that this is most likely a witch hunt. Lastly many people realize that events like this do not a president make or break. People care about how the policies affect them and only them, If they even actually understand the policies.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I see this common theme of people blaming the media for the lack of action on this issue, but give me a fucking break. The media is all over reporting on Benghazi. It is covered all the time. Every major news outlet has covered Benghazi in depth, many many times.
> 
> @BuckysBadger24 you do realize that people care about a lot of different things right? Most people don't care about what happened in Lybia today, let alone a few years ago. People also realize that this is most likely a witch hunt. Lastly many people realize that events like this do not a president make or break. People care about how the policies affect them and only them, If they even actually understand the policies.


The media has been selective in it's reporting.
They would have been demanding heads if this was a Republican in charge.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 11, 2015)

I think the media reports on things that will bring them ratings. We, the consumer, should be keeping it at the forefront of the news, but complacency and and apathetic viewership has let it go by the wayside and become old news.

No one around me talks about Benghazi anymore except those friends of mine that are Veteran's or have family in the military and actually pay attention to foreign matters.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 11, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> The media has been selective in it's reporting.
> They would have been demanding heads if this was a Republican in charge.



I'm pretty sure the most watched cable news channel has been calling for heads like a motherfucker. 

What is "the media" today? The big 3 are irrelevant in today's rapidly growing media market. I don't know many who get their news from those sources.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 11, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I see this common theme of people blaming the media for the lack of action on this issue, but give me a fucking break. The media is all over reporting on Benghazi. It is covered all the time. Every major news outlet has covered Benghazi in depth, many many times.
> 
> @BuckysBadger24 you do realize that people care about a lot of different things right? Most people don't care about what happened in Lybia today, let alone a few years ago. People also realize that this is most likely a witch hunt. Lastly many people realize that events like this do not a president make or break. People care about how the policies affect them and only them, If they even actually understand the policies.



Well yeah, of course I realize that.  Blaming the media?  The media is a major catalyst to how people shape their opinions on any given subject.  Maybe you're seeing different news than I am, but I hardly see anyone calling for heads outside of Fox, who pushes in the wrong way to the point that I understand why people call it a witch hunt.  I'm not solely blaming the media for a lack of justice, but the facts as they "are" are reported hand in hand with their slant, whether it's the extreme right or left.  There's hardly an in between.

And yes people care about other issues as well, when they consider who their candidate will be, or at least I would hope they would.  But I think it's pretty clear that foreign policy, how IS will be dealt with, relations with Russia and Iran, etc. will in the end hugely dictate victory for the candidate who lays it out the best.  I think that battle is being clearly won right now by Hilary, with Trump staying close.  To say the media is having little effect on that just doesn't ring true to me.  Many people may realize, and certainly should realize, that this topic alone doesn't make a candidate.  But it's the hottest issue out there, with people across the globe dying every day at IS hands.  The fact that Hillary is even in contention, let alone the front runner, after the shit she pulled on Benghazi, speaks volumes to the medias effect.  She should be looking at criminal punishment, not running for POTUS, in my opinion.


----------



## AWP (Dec 11, 2015)

I realize this is only from yesterday and deals with Trump, but the media is admitting they can and will editorialize where Trump is concerned. They're admitting impartiality is irrelevant to them.

The media unload on Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com



> Tom Brokaw, the veteran NBC News anchor, has called Trump's proposal "dangerous," and likened it to the Holocaust and the Japanese internment. On its front page, The New York Times has said Trump's idea is "more typically associated with hate groups." Dan Balz, of The Washington Post, has called Trump's rhetoric "demagogic," while BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith has informed staff that it is acceptable to refer to Trump on social media as a "mendacious racist," because, he said, those are facts.
> 
> The willingness to use such language and draw such analogies represents a watershed moment in the media's coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign, several journalists and political observers told CNN. For the first time in six months, news organizations are abandoning concerns about impartiality and evenhandedness and stating what they believe are objective truths about the Republican's most popular presidential candidate.



If they are openly stating this now, I can't believe they haven't acted upon their beliefs in the past.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 11, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I realize this is only from yesterday and deals with Trump, but the media is admitting they can and will editorialize where Trump is concerned. They're admitting impartiality is irrelevant to them.
> 
> The media unload on Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> ...



I hate the media for what it is doing to our nation. I would love to see 24/7 "news" broadcasts go back to the days of Huntley and Brinkley, John Cameron Swazey, and Walter Cronkite; before Cornkite's ego exploded. We pretty much can cover all the is "news" in about an hour.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Dec 11, 2015)

I'd love to have had the chance to have experienced any one of those anchors period.  My entire life has been "everything good that happens is because of OUR guys, and they'd have done more good things if it wasn't for THEIR guys".  Legitimate agenda-less opinions and mature debating was a major focal point for me joining this site in the first place.


----------



## Brill (Dec 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I realize this is only from yesterday and deals with Trump, but the media is admitting they can and will editorialize where Trump is concerned. They're admitting impartiality is irrelevant to them.
> If they are openly stating this now, I can't believe they haven't acted upon their beliefs in the past.



At least we have the press to tell the People the truth as they see it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2015)

lindy said:


> At least we have the press to tell the People the truth as they see it.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2



Original article...

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2015)

The presentation and packaging of the "news" has always been about selective editorializing and biased slants, since before the Civil War. There's never been an unbiased newsman or newswoman because they've never figured out how to make reporters out of robots.
With so many media outlets competition is fierce. There's no room for the quiet, steady or sensible presentation of news. It's all about making such a Big Noise that you can be heard above all the shouting.  Sensationalism, controversy, sex and fear grab attention, drive the numbers and generate revenue.

Having said that, I think Benghazi is as dead an issue as POTUS's birth certificate. The country is so polarized it would take something so egregious, so inescapably and undeniably shocking to shake the very core of HRC's  support base. Nothing would give me more pleasure then to see her hauled off in handcuffs...but it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## pardus (Dec 12, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> The presentation and packaging of the "news" has always been about selective editorializing and biased slants, since before the Civil War. There's never been an unbiased newsman or newswoman because they've never figured out how to make reporters out of robots.
> With so many media outlets competition is fierce. There's no room for the quiet, steady or sensible presentation of news. It's all about making such a Big Noise that you can be heard above all the shouting.  Sensationalism, controversy, sex and fear grab attention, drive the numbers and generate revenue.
> 
> Having said that,* I think Benghazi is as dead an issue as POTUS's birth certificate.* The country is so polarized it would take something so egregious, so inescapably and undeniably shocking to shake the very core of HRC's  support base. Nothing would give me more pleasure then to see her hauled off in handcuffs...but it ain't gonna happen.



Agree with the bold in particular.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> The presentation and packaging of the "news" has always been about selective editorializing and biased slants, since before the Civil War. There's never been an unbiased newsman or newswoman because they've never figured out how to make reporters out of robots.
> With so many media outlets competition is fierce. There's no room for the quiet, steady or sensible presentation of news. It's all about making such a Big Noise that you can be heard above all the shouting.  Sensationalism, controversy, sex and fear grab attention, drive the numbers and generate revenue.
> 
> Having said that, I think_ Benghazi is as dead an issue as POTUS's birth certificate. The country is so polarized it would take something so egregious, so inescapably and undeniably shocking to shake the very core of HRC's  support base. _Nothing would give me more pleasure then to see her hauled off in handcuffs...but it ain't gonna happen.



I disagree with the underlined.  There are plenty of unbiased reporters; unfortunately, the further up the media food chain they go the more their objectivity gets stripped.  Some of the best reporters are the small-town and mid-market reporters.

I do agree with the italicized.  The rub, as I explained to my wife: no one cares.  To this point she has literally been linked to suspicious deaths of political operatives, and no one cared; who is going to care about this aside from the people who would vote against her anyway?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 15, 2015)

Small town and regional newspapers are where journalism is kept alive. Once a reporter moves to larger mainstream/syndicated newspapers the pay is much, much better. The problem is the cool aide you have to drink and then vomit up with every word you speak or write. It's all about the $, at the expense of acurate raw journalism.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2015)

My first job out of college, ink still wet on a BA/poli sci degree, was as the county government reporter for a town newspaper.  Whopping $10,500 a year, no OT (but did get comp time). Hated it.  HATED it.  But I learned so much.  Those vets at the paper, though, they were incredible mentors.


----------

