TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
consulate.jpg
This week, US intelligence officials finally released a timeline for the September 11th attack on the consulate in Benghazi that left ambassador Stevens and three other Americans dead. (AP Photo/file)

Benghazi timeline

BY Dave Ross  on November 2, 2012 @ 11:51 am (Updated: 9:37 pm - 11/2/12 )

This week, US intelligence officials finally released a timeline for the September 11th attack on the consulate in Benghazi that left ambassador Stevens and three other Americans dead. The question has been: Did someone give an order to stand down? Where was the cavalry?

Well it turns out it was trying to get there. The so-called annex near the consulate was actually a CIA station, and according to the report, it organized a counter attack within 25 minutes of getting the first call at 9:40 p.m.

The report says "team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons from Libyans encountered along the way, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire."

So there was a counter-attack; but the CIA was outgunned.

In addition, the report says, eight more operatives from the CIA station in Tripoli were desperately trying to charter a plane to Benghazi to join the fight. They finally got there after midnight, and were in position at the CIA annex when two of them were killed by a mortar attack. So the two final victims were from the rescue team that arrived from Tripoli.

There was also a drone flying above the fighting, but it was unarmed, and could only provide pictures.

It took a heavily armed Libyan military unit to finally end the fight and evacuate the survivors.

Why didn't the Libyans get there sooner, why didn't the CIA station have better weapons -- don't know.

But what the report does show is that the CIA was in the fight and did send reinforcements, and there is nothing in the report showing an order to "stand down."

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (57)


  • Add A Comment

  • Cash wrote...
    This cheap excuse
    November 3, 2012 8:32 am
    is worse than just not taking about it... Please stop sticking up for anyone who screws up this badly regardless of whether or not they are on your side of the isle... It would be a breath of fresh air if they just stood up and said we screwed up and did not give this enough attention as we should have. I am guessing that will never happen but especially with Obama and his crew.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ok, weighing sources here
    November 3, 2012 9:11 am
    Source A: The CIA, who had personnel on the ground during the event.

    Source B: Faux News, Donald Trump, etc, with a naked partisan agenda.

    Gosh, who to believe??

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    it's no surprise that you believe lying criminals....
    November 3, 2012 9:28 am
    the ones who told us it was a spontaneous protest over a video. Sane and rational people, however, don't believe a word they say.

    Other military sources have said,

    "Why would they put a ragtag team together in Tripoli as first responders? This is not even what they do for a living. We had a first responder air base in Italy almost the same distance away." Despite the team arriving from Tripoli that night, sources said sufficient American back-up never came. British sources on the ground in Benghazi said they are extremely frustrated by the attack and are still wondering why they weren't called for help. “We have more people on the ground here than the Americans and I just don't know why we didn't get the call?" one said.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Chuck, have you now accepted the story the administration FINALLY decided on ?
    November 3, 2012 5:43 pm
    Source A: Is the CIA so protective that for 2 full weeks no one in the Obama administration even knew (apparently) that the attack was NOT a riot over a film? ... And (apparently) even kept the President in the dark, at least through the debates ? ... And (apparently) is now giving us 'true' information at odds with what the families of the dead Seals were informed?

    Source B: What's Donald Trump got to do with this? ... And even if you don't normally believe FOX, even a blind dog can find a bone occasionally.

    .

    I'd have believed this account had it been presented reasonably close to the attack in Benghazi. ... But not when it's been delayed 6 weeks for NO apparent reason. ..... Now, this report just looks like sop for the masses.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Remember, too. Woodward and Bernstein
    November 4, 2012 5:50 am
    worked for the Washington Post - and their reporting was dismissed by Nixon, et al, as a partisan agenda.

    With any lick, I'll all end Tuesday. Else we might be seeing President Biden in a year or so. ... Unless HE is complicit also.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Come On Chuck
    November 4, 2012 8:27 am
    You are way too smart to fall for this. This is a blatant FAILURE in Leadership. Blatant LYING to the American People and a to ad insult to DEATH - a disgraceful COVER-UP! For you to spin this on FOX is way beneath you. You are a smart guy, but I am disappointed in your flippant and blatant partisanship on this sad, sad issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    Nothing but lies from Dave Ross
    November 3, 2012 10:15 am
    Heck this morning on KIRO radio, they did a story about how the Navy was ordered to stand down and not respond to this attack. The Navy from the Stennis battlegroup had planes in the air and could have responded in less than 30 minutes, but they were ORDERED to stand down by the Obama Administration. WHY?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Ambassador Stevens died in a save house . . . .
    November 3, 2012 4:10 pm
    ok republican clowns you tell me how? Hint: they did not get to him.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Two Competing Versions Now (Do I Hear Three?)
    November 3, 2012 6:41 pm
    Ross is talking about the CIA time line released on 11/2. There's a competing State Department time line that doesn't quite exactly match the CIA time line. They haven't coordinated their lies yet, it seems.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Why so much outrage over lies?
    November 3, 2012 10:32 pm
    Good heavens, people.

    It's a couple of days before the election.

    Every single ad running by every single candidate is almost all lies, all day, every day. Especially ads that are supposed to inform the voters about the competing candidate.

    All the outrage over lies would seem more genuine if we weren't all so quick to blindly believe even the most outrageous lies simply because they reinforce our pre-conceived notions and existing prejudices.

    I doubt the CIA would lie to protect Obama. They would *much* rather see Romney in office, after his pledge to increase military spending by some astronomical amount. Much more career opportunity for the CIA under Romney.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Why so much outrage over lies?
    November 4, 2012 1:21 am
    Do you really have so little humanity left in you?! The families of those who died in Benghazi deserve to know the truth ta a minimum. But again, where is your apology to Nixon...all he did was lie about a break-in...Obama is covering up the truth about the events surrounding the death of Americans. Comparing Obama's lies to the American people to lies in campaign ads really does make me question rather you possess any ethics at all.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Problem, Rational, is that while we can figure out somebody is lying, we can't figure out who...
    November 4, 2012 9:46 am
    Is the CIA lying to protect Obama?

    Funny, but that seems to be the iron clad conclusion of a group of posters to this forum who have never even tried to mask their hatred for the president.

    Are all the folks who weren't there, and are sitting behind talk show mics kissing up to right wing sponsors lying to damage Obama? There's an equal probability of that, at least.

    To quickly dismiss as "lies" the reports of people who were on scene, involved in the situation, and have entire careers invested in their responsibilities, simply because the reports don't paint Obama in the worst possible light, is ridiculous.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Chuck Gould
    November 4, 2012 9:51 am
    Problem, Rational, is that while we can figure out somebody is lying, we can't figure out who...

    We know Obama lied with that story of his about a riot about a youtube movie trailer. There never was a protest in Benghazi, just a terrorist attack.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    'TRUE LIES' ???????
    November 4, 2012 2:40 am
    The outrage over conflicting lies is because they totally trivialize the 4 deaths in Benghazi. Everything reverting to failed excuses. Or CYA.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    God Heavens....Come On
    November 4, 2012 8:31 am
    Chuck, we are the UNtided States of AMerica. Obama is covering this issue up along with the corrupt and pathetic media. If they would have just come clean in the first place, They could have at least saved so face. Obama is LYING through his GIANT WHISTLING TEETH!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    maplefish...if you are going to call "liar", you need something besides a "hunch"
    November 4, 2012 9:47 am
    Where is your evidence that the CIA has lied about the timeline of these events? Speculation doesn't cut it. Just wishing something were true doesn't make it true.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fishnpol wrote...
    Finally something about Bengahzi
    November 4, 2012 7:52 am
    Too bad they don't tell the whole story, and use some disputable facts to boot. Nothing about the General that was replaced because he would not stand down or about the Admiral that was replaced. You ignorant left sheep that keeps asking where Insane Obama lied. Open your eyes He lied for two weeks saying it wasn't a terror attack (among other things) when they clearly knew that it was. They said that they never asked for more security when it was proven that they had been. He's clearly lied consistently about Romney all through his campain. If you would educate yourself you could clearly see the man is a pathological liar. Yes he lied and people died. Too many people that post on this site have turned off the lights upstairs and stopped using any sense that they were born with.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    If the CIA were going to lie to protect Obama
    November 4, 2012 9:50 am
    They would have done so much earlier.

    It could be just as easily said, and with no more justification, that the official report was deliberately withheld as long as it was to allow Limbaugh, Fox, Hannity, etc time to poison the minds of their flocks with doubt and innuendo.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    BUT----- If the CIA deliberately withheld a true report, then...
    November 4, 2012 6:51 pm
    they must have also withheld it from the President. ..An act of treason in itself.

    But, we should ask, IF TRUE - why was this report 6 weeks late incoming ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Begs for some great conspiracy "theories"
    November 4, 2012 9:56 am
    My favorite: It was a plan to just kidnap the Ambassodor and hold him at a camp in the Libyan desert. Then, just prior to the foreign policy debate/election, a brilliant raid (joint Libya-U.S.) would rescue him. What went wrong was they underestimated the unknowing former SEALS (Contractors) who fought back exceptionally and foiled the kidnapping which resulted in death by smoke inhalation. That's why all the "official" confusion afterwards.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Rangerhawk
    November 4, 2012 3:46 pm
    Begs for some great conspiracy "theories"

    You want loony conspiracy...check out SeattleD and the sarge claiming Romney financed and planned the terrorist attack in Benghazi on page 1 of this story.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Stop trying to distort Seattle D's postion
    November 5, 2012 5:07 am
    He said he'd be outraged if he found out that Romney financed the attack.

    He never said Romney did it, just he'd be outraged if he FOUND OUT HE DID.

    You are too easy.

    Funny, too.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    William Lawn
    November 5, 2012 6:08 pm
    More of the left spinning...he was floating an insane theory...yes, he said it was unsubstaniated, but he indeed did float it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Thanks Willie
    November 5, 2012 6:14 pm
    You'd think I'd have said something like Jeep was moving all it's manufacturing to China, or something.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    You'd think I'd have said something like Jeep was moving all it's manufacturing to China, or something.
    November 6, 2012 12:37 am
    No, but Fiat did say they would move Jeep production to China.

    Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Just one final thought - TIMING
    November 5, 2012 5:33 am
    IF this story and timeline are actually true, is is the height of political condescension and manipulation to withhold it for so long and then release it only a couple of days before the election. ... And now expecting all of us to believe FOX, et al, were the ones lying?

    OK, Romney did something similar with his tax returns, but I don't recall those involving death.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Why wouldn't they have stonewalled for a few more days, Mr. ron?
    November 5, 2012 5:54 am
    Election over, end of story.

    What was it that The Donald had on Obama again?

    And Gloria had on Mittens?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    because, mr. LAWN -
    November 5, 2012 6:13 am
    this way the left can claim the report as 'true' and all on the right 'liars' ... and not everyone is too busy to respond. ... Hence, true lies.

    I'm surprised, mr.LAWN, that you know nothing of 'gray' campaigning. Happens all the time. And usually actually does sway votes. ... And doesn't have to be outright lies. Often inconvenient truths. ... Or perceptions of truths. The whole point IS to stonewall, and then release with little of no time for fact check - let alone reply.

    And Trump is no longer relevant. An amusing but boring sidelight like Glenn Beck. ..... Kinda like Harry Reid.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }