Ok, so I read an article that the real life CIA chief (Bob) said he never gave a stand down, nor anything close to that.
Now I just watched the Kelly File with the soldiers.. and they said there was indeed a clear word for word "stand down".
Ok, so who's lying?
He didn't give a stand down order. Only those two guys say he did. The report of the House Select Committee (which you can download from benghazi.house.gov) includes the testimony of all of the surviving team members and team lead, as well as "Bob" and the deputy chief.
When they first got the call from the mission compound, the team lead, deputy chief, and Bob huddled to discuss a plan while the GRS team members gathered their gear. The team lead said he wanted an additional gun truck, and Bob wanted to get some additional manpower, because the departure of the whole team with all of the weaponry meant that the CIA annex would be completely unprotected. All three (Bob, deputy, and team lead) got on the phone. When the GRS team members were ready to go, they got in the vehicles. The guy who is the co-author of the book on which the movie is based was not a party to the discussions the leadership was having, and he described them as "jawjacking" on the phone. He got out of the vehicle and said they needed to go, that they were losing the initiative. It was at this point that he claims Bob said to stand down. Bob said that he told them to wait while he tried to get them the additional resources, and that is what the others testified, as well. The co-author claims that the team decided to go on their own, but Bob, the deputy, and the team lead testified that the team lead made that decision, and that he had the authority to do so.
I don't like to use the word "lying," as I think the guy believes it's what he heard, but (a) in previous testimony he didn't say Bob said "stand down" and (b) in spite of video evidence to the contrary (and the testimony of everyone else involved), he insists the call about the attacks came in at 9:32 and not 9:42. Memory is not always reliable, especially in stressful situations.
He's very brave, and obviously put himself at risk to save others that night, but Bob and the other leaders had to take care of the GRS team, as well as everyone at the CIA annex. It seems unfair that this guy is free to portray Bob as arrogant and incompetent, and there's nothing Bob can do about it because he needs to maintain his cover.
Why do these kinds of movies, which are ostensibly supposed to just show what happened, instead keep perpetuating these debunked claims?
In Zero Dark Thirty, it was portrayed that torturing suspects elicited crucial information in the hunt for Bin Ladin, when in reality:
"After an exhaustive three-year investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the conclusion that those claims are overblown or downright lies."
By water boarding the United States ABSOLUTELY gleaned information that led to US finding and killing Bin Laden. It's not remotely debatable.
Without the water boarding, it's possible he still would be out there.
Wherever you are getting your information, you need to get it someplace else.
I guess you didn't see the film.
The film never implied a "Stand Down" order came from Washington. The CIA chief said to a single person "Wait", "Wait" after a protest the CIA chief retorted in anger...Stand Down".
The point was, the rescue was delayed because the station Chief told them to WAIT. As far as the viewer, the terminology is completely irrelevant.
He didn't give a stand down order. Only those two guys say he did. The report of the House Select Committee (which you can download from benghazi.house.gov) includes the testimony of all of the surviving team members and team lead, as well as "Bob" and the deputy chief.
No sir, respectfully, there was no stand down order. This was the conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee, which by the way is controlled by Republicans, so even they admit there was no stand down order.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled.html
Further, there was no way to save the ambassador. He had put himself in a very dangerous situation with no quick way out.
From the brief Fox News article I cited:
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.share
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled.html
Further, there was no way to save the ambassador. He had put himself in a very dangerous situation with no quick way out.
They're probably not lying they just misunderstood something. If the ´damn Senate committee came to the conclusion there was no "stand down" order then there was no stand down order and that's the end of it. It doesn't matter what your cooked up conspiracy brain makes you believe.
shareFaux News? As opposed to what, the Clinton News Network? Here comes another Killery apologist claiming that all of the people who heard the order to stand down are lying. You are ridiculous.
shareThe team lead said he wanted an additional gun truck, and Bob wanted to get some additional manpower, because the departure of the whole team with all of the weaponry meant that the CIA annex would be completely unprotected.
The co-author claims that the team decided to go on their own, but Bob, the deputy, and the team lead testified that the team lead made that decision, and that he had the authority to do so.
With all due respect to the three guys who were there and stand by the "stand down" story, it should also be noted that those same three guys are very much trying to support book sales, their own public speaking appearances and make some political allies. So far it seems like it's their word against the station chief's, who denies that he gave the stand down order.
It would be better if the other two contractors who aren't in the public eye could comment, but they're probably staying incognito for a reason.
They don't call me Col. Homer cause I'm some dumbass army guy!share
Every clear thinking person in this county knows the President, Clinton and Susan Rice lied about what happened. Every one.
We know it took far far too long to send in a response team.
At best you can blame that on gross incompetence. While the President and Clinton were concerned with talking points, Americans were fighting for their lives.
I'll believe the people who were doing the fighting and watching their friends die, you believe the politicians that sent Susan Rice to five Sunday morning talk shows to knowingly lie to the American public.
So you are either ignorant or being purposely misleading or disingenuous.
"The chief of base at the CIA Annex in Benghazi for his part testified that he did not use the term “stand down,” but confirmed that he told his security team to wait and not to deploy yet while he tried to obtain reinforcements from local Libyan security forces. The alleged orders to wait were also described by other witnesses."
So I guess this is another attempt by the spinners to parse words.
Bottom line, they were told to "WAIT".
Secretary Clinton talked about the "Fog of War" from thousands of miles away. "WAIT" vs "Stand Down." Wow... Really?
And he could have said "WAIT" and in the heat of the moment they could have heard "STAND DOWN." Or he could really said "STAND DOWN". It was an intense situation.
As far as getting to the compound sooner, the difference between the two commands are virtually meaningless.
But instead of seeking any kind of truth, you just spin. So I guess it all depends on the definition of the word "is'.
It is pretty obvious that they were told to stand down, why else would they wait with going if they were going anyway, whether or not the chief said WAIT, HALT, GIVE ME 10 MINUTES, it all literally means "stand down"
Why would these guys lie, to become famous? That's outrageous, the only ones who has a reason to lie is the government here. You think these guys are lying for movie profits, or book profits, that's idiotic, read about them and you'll see that's by far not the case at all, if they wanted to get rich of this they would have made a whole ton of different choices, especially with the movie release.
Everyone agrees they were told to wait. Everyone.
It took 70 years to identify the six flag raises on Iwo Jima.
The CIA Chief could have said stand down, he could have just said wait. It's semantics, it doesn't matter. The six heroes were delayed and it likely cost Chris Stevens and Sean Smith their lives. The movie puts that on the CIA chief, who was trying to get local help. In hind-sight, it's easy to second guess.
In the movie, it is crystal clear he said "Stand Down" on his own and in anger. The movie does not even attempt to lay any blame on Secretary Clinton or President Obama.
The movie is as political as Black Hawk Down. It's something out of nothing.