Is Benghazi Obama's Waterloo?

[drobeski 3,061]

The same ass clowns buying this crap story also bought the video story.

[TheBlade 3]

They are feeding you the baby food you crave, and you are lapping it up.

 

It took this long for this version to come out?

25 minutes to leave the compound?

25 minutes to get there and "apparently" be unsuccessful at getting weapons from the military?

Were they laser-sighting mortars, and if so, why if not for bombing support?

Nobody "at any level of the CIA" denied help?

 

That's the same thing I thought. It took this long for THIS to be released?? Yet they spend all of that time blaming a YouTube video?? Something still smells rotten here.

 

The sad part is, if they had released this weeks ago this whole thing would be a moot point. Would've been perfect to basically close the door on this unfortunate incident. But, I'll repeat, something still smells rotten here.

[MDC 7,458]

They are feeding you the baby food you crave, and you are lapping it up.

 

It took this long for this version to come out?

25 minutes to leave the compound?

25 minutes to get there and "apparently" be unsuccessful at getting weapons from the military?

Were they laser-sighting mortars, and if so, why if not for bombing support?

Nobody "at any level of the CIA" denied help?

 

Hopefully during Obummer's second term we'll get answers to all these questions and find out why the president wears mom jeans and a ring that says "Allah is God - death to America."

[Frank M 181]

They are feeding you the baby food you crave, and you are lapping it up.

 

It took this long for this version to come out?

25 minutes to leave the compound?

25 minutes to get there and "apparently" be unsuccessful at getting weapons from the military?

Were they laser-sighting mortars, and if so, why if not for bombing support?

Nobody "at any level of the CIA" denied help?

 

 

 

Whatever, birther. Keep creaming your jeans at every stupid little tidbit that comes out.

 

"25 minutes to leave the compound? OBAMAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! "

[IGotWorms 4,058]

They are feeding you the baby food you crave, and you are lapping it up.

 

It took this long for this version to come out?

25 minutes to leave the compound?

25 minutes to get there and "apparently" be unsuccessful at getting weapons from the military?

Were they laser-sighting mortars, and if so, why if not for bombing support?

Nobody "at any level of the CIA" denied help?

 

Dude, you're getting really out there. I mean, do you really believe the Obama Administration purposefully left a defenseless ambassador there to die? What could their motivation possibly be for that? I mean, I might listen to you if there was a possible motive, like say the government wanted an excuse to invade Libya, but so far I've heard jack squat.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

That's the same thing I thought. It took this long for THIS to be released?? Yet they spend all of that time blaming a YouTube video?? Something still smells rotten here.

 

Well let's see, the CIA just disclosed that they had extensive operations in Benghazi and in fact have a secret base there. Could it be that they were hoping to keep that information from certain persons, like, say, the terrorists and perhaps even the Libyan government?

 

Nah, that would be too logical

[drobeski 3,061]

Dude, you're getting really out there. I mean, do you really believe the Obama Administration purposefully left a defenseless ambassador there to die? What could their motivation possibly be for that? I mean, I might listen to you if there was a possible motive, like say the government wanted an excuse to invade Libya, but so far I've heard jack squat.

They requested more security multiple times, it was denied over and over. For focks say they even go hazard pay increases due to the deteriorating security concerns, yet got no help.

So you tell us the motive, because they did die.

[nikki2200 4]

They are feeding you the baby food you crave, and you are lapping it up.

 

It took this long for this version to come out?

25 minutes to leave the compound?

25 minutes to get there and "apparently" be unsuccessful at getting weapons from the military?

Were they laser-sighting mortars, and if so, why if not for bombing support?

Nobody "at any level of the CIA" denied help?

 

First of all... is the CIA normally in the habit of releasing minute by minute details of their operations to the public? Is that normal.

 

Second of all... do you think it's possible that due to recent stories being reported on by FoxNews and such based on "leaked" classified information that mayhaps they found it appropriate to release this information?

 

As for your 25 MINUTES????? 25 MINUTES???? I am going to go out on a limb here and say there could have possibly been some other things that may have went down during this encounter with al-Qaeda that they are not making public because well..... it's classified central intelligence business and not yours? Maybe?

 

So basically I am supposed to believe a story from some unidentified source of unidentified military/intelligence rank, who illegally handed over a classified e-mail to various media outlets, contents of which are unknown. I'm obligated to believe that story. But I should automatically write off the CIA's explanation of events because they are clearly lying.

Okie dokie.

 

What I can't for the life of me figure out though.... is why you people feel that you are entitled to be made privy to every minute detail of this. Why? Did you stand behind Michael Moore in calling Julian Assange a modern day hero for making the public aware of the secrets of various military operations? Did you? Or is that only bad when it relates to a Republican?

 

There is a Republican led committee investigating this. Why don't you let the people in charge do their jobs and quit playing armchair anti-terrorism official. JESUS.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

They requested more security multiple times, it was denied over and over. For focks say they even go hazard pay increases due to the deteriorating security concerns, yet got no help.

So you tell us the motive, because they did die.

 

No, you tell me a motive.

 

Look, it's quite possible there was a massive fock up somewhere. That's been known to happen. But if you guys want to go beyond that and start throwing out wild conspiracy theories that the compound was purposefully left defenseless or something, then you're gonna have to at least give me some reason for why that might be. Otherwise you're just a focking nut who hates Obama.

[drobeski 3,061]

First of all... is the CIA normally in the habit of releasing minute by minute details of their operations to the public? Is that normal.

 

Two days after the bin laden hit we had details. All over the front pages.

[drobeski 3,061]

No, you tell me a motive.

 

Look, it's quite possible there was a massive fock up somewhere. That's been known to happen. But if you guys want to go beyond that and start throwing out wild conspiracy theories that the compound was purposefully left defenseless or something, then you're gonna have to at least give me some reason for why that might be. Otherwise you're just a focking nut who hates Obama.

The administration knows why, they left them defensless knowing they were in harms way. They did it, not I numbskull.

[donhaas 18]

New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks

By Hayes Brown on Nov 2, 2012 at 9:47 am

 

A slew of new reporting this morning debunks Fox News reports claiming that the Obama administration withheld assistance during the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. With these revelations, the combined conservative narrative as led by Fox News — that the Obama administration failed to respond adequately during the attack and that mainstream media has not covered Benghazi enough — is in further disarray.

The Los Angeles Times’ version of the CIA’s role focuses the most heavily on pushing back on Fox’s spin:

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin claimed in an “exclusive” report last week that the CIA denied Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the attack, permission to help repel the assault. Griffin’s reporting spun off into a bevy of conspiracy theories on the far right. The Pentagon, White House, and CIA had all previously denied refusing requests for support. The New York Times reports on the Pentagon’s involvement:

[A] senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.

The new reports also contain previously unreported details about the CIA’s role in Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta did order U.S. forces into the region, but the CIA was the first to respond to the attack, arriving on the scene in under half an hour.

The lack of security at the outpost in Benghazi, far removed from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, has been the subject of inquiry by both Fox News and Congressional Republicans. The Wall Street Journal sheds new light onto why that was the case. The CIA and State Department had entered into a series of secret deals in which the Agency would provide emergency security to the diplomats operating within Libya.

While the State Department primarily relied upon local Libyan militias for day-to-day protection, as well as contracted British private security, the arrangement between it and the CIA explains why the outpost seemed under-protected. The revelation also will prompt a renewed look at the State Department’s decisions to remove Department of Defense-provided security from the Embassy in Tripoli, which were highly scrutinized during Rep. Darrel Issa’s hearings.

The primary role of the CIA was intelligence gathering and covert operations within Benghazi. Agents there operated out of an annex originally reported to be an offshoot of the diplomatic mission, revealed officially — and accidentally — during Issa’s highly politicized hearing into the Benghazi attacks. The Agency’s large presence may also help explain why the diplomatic compound was open to journalists and looters for weeks after the attack, as more vital intelligence documents were collected.

Washington Post’s David Ignatius has gone as far as to produce a detailed minute-by-minute timeline, of the events that night. These reports together give the clearest picture yet of the events in Benghazi. Rather than the Obama Presidency unraveling as the news organization has claimed, it appears to be Fox News’ narrative that is coming undone instead.

 

 

Link

[IGotWorms 4,058]

The administration knows why, they left them defensless knowing they were in harms way. They did it, not I numbskull.

 

You can't even fathom one guess? Obviously your theory sucks balls when there's such a gaping hole you can't even fill with wild conjecture.

[drobeski 3,061]

You can't even fathom one guess? Obviously your theory sucks balls when there's such a gaping hole you can't even fill with wild conjecture.

I dont have a theory, I just stated the facts. The guys asked for more security, they were denied, they are dead. Why ?

[drobeski 3,061]

New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks

By Hayes Brown on Nov 2, 2012 at 9:47 am

 

A slew of new reporting this morning debunks Fox News reports claiming that the Obama administration withheld assistance during the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. With these revelations, the combined conservative narrative as led by Fox News — that the Obama administration failed to respond adequately during the attack and that mainstream media has not covered Benghazi enough — is in further disarray.

The Los Angeles Times’ version of the CIA’s role focuses the most heavily on pushing back on Fox’s spin:

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin claimed in an “exclusive” report last week that the CIA denied Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the attack, permission to help repel the assault. Griffin’s reporting spun off into a bevy of conspiracy theories on the far right. The Pentagon, White House, and CIA had all previously denied refusing requests for support. The New York Times reports on the Pentagon’s involvement:

[A] senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.

The new reports also contain previously unreported details about the CIA’s role in Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta did order U.S. forces into the region, but the CIA was the first to respond to the attack, arriving on the scene in under half an hour.

The lack of security at the outpost in Benghazi, far removed from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, has been the subject of inquiry by both Fox News and Congressional Republicans. The Wall Street Journal sheds new light onto why that was the case. The CIA and State Department had entered into a series of secret deals in which the Agency would provide emergency security to the diplomats operating within Libya.

While the State Department primarily relied upon local Libyan militias for day-to-day protection, as well as contracted British private security, the arrangement between it and the CIA explains why the outpost seemed under-protected. The revelation also will prompt a renewed look at the State Department’s decisions to remove Department of Defense-provided security from the Embassy in Tripoli, which were highly scrutinized during Rep. Darrel Issa’s hearings.

The primary role of the CIA was intelligence gathering and covert operations within Benghazi. Agents there operated out of an annex originally reported to be an offshoot of the diplomatic mission, revealed officially — and accidentally — during Issa’s highly politicized hearing into the Benghazi attacks. The Agency’s large presence may also help explain why the diplomatic compound was open to journalists and looters for weeks after the attack, as more vital intelligence documents were collected.

Washington Post’s David Ignatius has gone as far as to produce a detailed minute-by-minute timeline, of the events that night. These reports together give the clearest picture yet of the events in Benghazi. Rather than the Obama Presidency unraveling as the news organization has claimed, it appears to be Fox News’ narrative that is coming undone instead.

 

 

Link

So they arent dead after requesting more security and being denied? And the administration didnt create a fake lie video story to cover up what really happened ?

[Gepetto 1,370]

The Navy Seal Tyrone Woods requested backup and was denied. He and another went in on their own. Now it sounds like the CIA is taking the credit.

 

Yet, the CIA has already stated that they didn't send in reinforcements and explained that the reason why is they didn't know the situation on the ground and it's not safe to send in people when they are unaware of the situation.

 

Now the CIA is also saying they never denied requests for help.

 

Those are direct contradictions. CIA is not fooling this guy.

[gocolts 300]

First of all... is the CIA normally in the habit of releasing minute by minute details of their operations to the public? Is that normal.

 

Second of all... do you think it's possible that due to recent stories being reported on by FoxNews and such based on "leaked" classified information that mayhaps they found it appropriate to release this information?

 

As for your 25 MINUTES????? 25 MINUTES???? I am going to go out on a limb here and say there could have possibly been some other things that may have went down during this encounter with al-Qaeda that they are not making public because well..... it's classified central intelligence business and not yours? Maybe?

 

So basically I am supposed to believe a story from some unidentified source of unidentified military/intelligence rank, who illegally handed over a classified e-mail to various media outlets, contents of which are unknown. I'm obligated to believe that story. But I should automatically write off the CIA's explanation of events because they are clearly lying.

Okie dokie.

 

What I can't for the life of me figure out though.... is why you people feel that you are entitled to be made privy to every minute detail of this. Why? Did you stand behind Michael Moore in calling Julian Assange a modern day hero for making the public aware of the secrets of various military operations? Did you? Or is that only bad when it relates to a Republican?

 

There is a Republican led committee investigating this. Why don't you let the people in charge do their jobs and quit playing armchair anti-terrorism official. JESUS.

Holy fock.

 

In this administration, it is the norm. The only difference here is that somehow, leaked stuff is putting Obama in a bad light instead of the usual leaking which is only aimed at helping Obama.

 

As far as folks thinking they are entitled to be made privy to every detail goes, I don't believe that is the case. However, there is a simple explanation that seems to be flying over your head. Obama lied his ass off for focking 2 weeks about. Now, you act all shocked that folks want to know the truth.

[jerryskids 6,812]

Dude, you're getting really out there. I mean, do you really believe the Obama Administration purposefully left a defenseless ambassador there to die? What could their motivation possibly be for that? I mean, I might listen to you if there was a possible motive, like say the government wanted an excuse to invade Libya, but so far I've heard jack squat.

One theory might be that they didn't want the negative exposure associated with a larger-scale military response, being all Arab Springy and all, so they hoped that the local folks could get stuff under control. In which case they chose... poorly.

[BudBro 183]

New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks

By Hayes Brown on Nov 2, 2012 at 9:47 am

 

A slew of new reporting this morning debunks Fox News reports claiming that the Obama administration withheld assistance during the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. With these revelations, the combined conservative narrative as led by Fox News — that the Obama administration failed to respond adequately during the attack and that mainstream media has not covered Benghazi enough — is in further disarray.

The Los Angeles Times’ version of the CIA’s role focuses the most heavily on pushing back on Fox’s spin:

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin claimed in an “exclusive” report last week that the CIA denied Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the attack, permission to help repel the assault. Griffin’s reporting spun off into a bevy of conspiracy theories on the far right. The Pentagon, White House, and CIA had all previously denied refusing requests for support. The New York Times reports on the Pentagon’s involvement:

[A] senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.

The new reports also contain previously unreported details about the CIA’s role in Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta did order U.S. forces into the region, but the CIA was the first to respond to the attack, arriving on the scene in under half an hour.

The lack of security at the outpost in Benghazi, far removed from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, has been the subject of inquiry by both Fox News and Congressional Republicans. The Wall Street Journal sheds new light onto why that was the case. The CIA and State Department had entered into a series of secret deals in which the Agency would provide emergency security to the diplomats operating within Libya.

While the State Department primarily relied upon local Libyan militias for day-to-day protection, as well as contracted British private security, the arrangement between it and the CIA explains why the outpost seemed under-protected. The revelation also will prompt a renewed look at the State Department’s decisions to remove Department of Defense-provided security from the Embassy in Tripoli, which were highly scrutinized during Rep. Darrel Issa’s hearings.

The primary role of the CIA was intelligence gathering and covert operations within Benghazi. Agents there operated out of an annex originally reported to be an offshoot of the diplomatic mission, revealed officially — and accidentally — during Issa’s highly politicized hearing into the Benghazi attacks. The Agency’s large presence may also help explain why the diplomatic compound was open to journalists and looters for weeks after the attack, as more vital intelligence documents were collected.

Washington Post’s David Ignatius has gone as far as to produce a detailed minute-by-minute timeline, of the events that night. These reports together give the clearest picture yet of the events in Benghazi. Rather than the Obama Presidency unraveling as the news organization has claimed, it appears to be Fox News’ narrative that is coming undone instead.

 

 

Link

the latest news isn't from fox, it's from cbs. it's posted earlier in the thread twice (2x) for your review if needed. so, the attempt to "discredit" fox should tip you smart leftists off to the real intent of the article...to spread more horseshiit on obama's balls for you to lick off.

[Reality 3,121]

The discrepancies are through the roof in this whole thing. The motive for the cover-up is pure incompetence from top to bottom. The cover-up is going to have much more fallout than just admitting the fock up from the get go ever would have.

 

From the responses only people who believe Obama can do no wrong are falling for this garbage.

[drobeski 3,061]

This guy nails it

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/m-cowardly_lying.html#.UJUDjH0Db4Y.facebook

 

 

Cowardly Lying

By William L. Gensert

 

 

Everyone has heard of Baghdad Bob. He was the guy who went on TV every night during the Iraqi War insisting to the world that Iraq was winning, despite American tanks rolling up behind him as he spoke.

 

What's the difference between Baghdad Bob and Benghazi Barack? Obama has long pretended that the private sector is "doing fine," and that he is winning this race for the presidency. The economy may be moribund, but he built it, and he thinks that if he repeats the lie often enough, people will believe it.

 

Baghdad Bob had one big lie: Saddam was winning. Benghazi Barack has a myriad of little lies, spinning a web of delusion and deceit with every telling.

 

He pretends he is the "energy president." This is perhaps his boldest fib. The refutation is seen on every corner, where gasoline prices are posted publicly for all to see. Yet he thinks if he says it, his media backers will run with it -- and they have. But America is no longer buying his lies.

 

Many drive to work every day -- if they are lucky enough to still have a job. Or...they drive the kids to activities -- if their diminished cash flow still allows. We are an automobile-driving nation and $4 gasoline is the most onerous tax burden ever levied on a shrinking middle class.

 

...And he's not done. By the time the EPA is finished killing the coal industry, and probably fracking in Barack II, the Sequel, the populace will be living with rolling blackouts and electric bills triple what they were in the bad old days of Bush. Miss him yet? I do.

 

He brags of preventing another depression. I often tell people that when I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, I prevented a nuclear war. At least I can make a case that my vote helped elect a man whose policy of peace through strength collapsed the Soviet Union, resulting in an end to the era of mutually assured destruction.

 

What can Barack say? The notion that the almost trillion dollars he borrowed from our children's future to reward friends and political backers saved America and prevented a depression is just so much fantasy. Like all things Barack, it's 80% bull and 30% crap. It's the same math that gave us those millions of nonexistent green energy jobs and billions of dollars lost on battery manufacturers and wind and solar energy companies.

 

He insults our intelligence with such tripe. Jobs "saved or created" is just another expression of failure. We're still waiting for his pivot to employment -- another term would be four more years of foreplay for the president and nothing for us.

 

Some slob scraping to earn enough money to feed his family was just not sexy enough for our narcissistic president. But ObamaCare -- that was something he could put his name on! Besides, fostering a healthy job-creating economic revival would have been so much hard work, leaving him nary a moment to line up his putt, or vacation, or party with Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Besides, didn't he give that same slob food stamps to feed his family and promise his daughter an abortion, free of charge?

 

People are so selfish; they don't appreciate all he's done for them.

 

Obama boasts that he saved the automobile industry in America. There are precious few businesses that can't be made to look more successful by squandering $25 billion borrowed from China on them. It's a statement of Obama's incompetence that GM is still a basket case, and facing yet another bankruptcy -- even after wasting all that money.

 

Obama killed bin Laden. To hear him tell it, after being born in a manger in Hawaii, he rappelled from a Black Hawk helicopter to a roof in Abbottabad to take Osama out with the aura of his brilliance -- or perhaps his steely stare and legendary gutsiness. This is the most unseemly claim of all -- usurping credit from Navy SEALs, with all his Is, mes and mys.

 

Barack Obama has no problem taking credit from SEALs, but saving their lives is another matter entirely.

 

Certainly, he was bobbing and weaving about the circumstances surrounding the assassination of our ambassador in Benghazi, both immediately after the attack and for weeks afterward -- and in fact, even now. And by bobbing, I mean lying -- or as he would probably call it, "telling America a story." He denied repeated requests for adequate security beforehand and denied repeated requests for help during the attack -- for no other reason than that it would have obliterated the administration's meme of a destroyed al-Qaeda.

 

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed orders and sacrificed their lives to come to the defense of American citizens during the firefight in Benghazi on 9/11, when our own president would not. Those men were ex-SEALs, and they gave their lives defending Americans, whereas Barack went to bed to get enough rest for his campaign event in Vegas the next day -- a president has got to have his priorities.

 

He was afraid that saving American lives would possibly cost him votes, and he couldn't have that.

 

Mr. Obama left our diplomats in Libya unprotected and then wouldn't allow our military to intervene when they were attacked, because to do so would have ruined his campaign line that GM is alive and al-Qaeda is dead. And with nothing but failure on his resume, he could not let people see the falsity of his claim that the tide of war is receding and that he has singlehandedly defeated al-Qaeda and terrorism.

 

The difference between a leader and a coward is that a leader does what is necessary, when it is necessary, for a greater good, despite the personal risks. A coward does what is expedient and beneficial for himself, despite the risk to others.

 

Barack Obama is a coward. He has spent the time since the death of bin Laden pretending that al-Qaeda was defeated. To come to the aid of our embassy staff in Libya would have thrown that meme out the window, jeopardizing his re-election. At some point, Obama decided that the lives of four Americans were not as important as his re-election. What kind of man does that?

 

"This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with integrity and honor. My son showed moral courage." This is what Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, declared the other day.

 

The same cannot be said of the cowardly, lying Benghazi Barack.

 

Barack Obama apparently decided that the lives of four Americans paled in comparison to all the good he could do during a second term. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," the president once famously claimed.

 

Tyrone Wood, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Christopher Stevens are still waiting.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Your fake outrage is amusing. You know who else is still waiting?

Alabama (13):

 

 

Army Sgt. Aubrey D. Bell, 33, Tuskegee, Ala., Oct. 27

 

 

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Bruce E. Brown, 32, Coatopa, Ala., Sept. 4

 

 

Army Pfc. John E. Brown, 21, Troy, Ala., April 14

 

 

Army Spc. Paul J. Bueche, 19, Daphne, Ala., Oct. 21

 

 

Marines Chief Warrant Officer Robert William Channell Jr., 36, Tuscaloosa, Ala., April 22

 

 

Army Sgt. Timothy M. Conneway, 22, Enterprise, Ala., June 28

 

 

Army Spc. Charles G. Haight, 23, Jacksonville, Ala., Dec. 26

 

 

Army CWO Philip A. Johnson Jr., 31, Mobile, Ala., Jan. 8

 

 

Army Pfc. Howard Johnson II, 21, Mobile, Ala., March 23

 

 

Army Sgt. Jason D. Jordan, 24, Elba, Ala., July 20

 

 

Army Spc. Cedric L. Lennon, 32, West Blocton, Ala., June 24

 

 

Army Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt, 24, Birmingham, Ala., April 6

 

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher R. Willoughby, 29, Phenix City, Ala., July 20

 

 

___

 

 

Arizona (13):

 

 

Army Sgt. Benjamin W. Biskie, 27, Tucson, Ariz., Dec. 24

 

 

 

 

 

Army Spc. Isaac Campoy, 21, Douglas, Ariz., Oct. 28

 

Army Sgt. Sean K. Cataudella, 28, Tucson, Ariz., Aug. 30

 

Army Command Sgt. Major Eric F. Cooke, 43, Scottsdale, Ariz., Dec. 24

 

Army Spc. Spencer T. Karol, 20, Woodruff, Ariz., Oct. 6

 

Army Staff Sgt. William T. Latham, 29, Kingman, Ariz., June 18

 

Navy Seaman Joshua McIntosh, 22, Kingman, Ariz., June 26

 

Marines Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez, 26, San Luis, Ariz., March 28

 

Army Capt. Eric T. Paliwoda, 28, Goodyear, Ariz., Jan. 2

 

Army Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson, 27, Flagstaff, Ariz., Sept. 15

 

Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, 22, Tuba City, Ariz., March 23

 

Navy Lt. Nathan D. White, 30, Mesa, Ariz., April 2

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams, 31, Phoenix, Ariz., March 23

 

___

 

Arkansas (3):

 

Army Spc. Jonathan M. Cheatham, 19, Camden, Ark., July 26

 

Navy Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr., 25, Little Rock, Ark., March 25

 

Army Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead, 33, Little Rock, Ark., Sept. 12

 

___

 

California (55):

 

Army Spc. Genaro Acosta, 26, Fair Oaks, Calif., Nov. 11

 

Army Pfc. Steven Acosta, 19, Calexico, Calif., Oct. 26

 

Navy Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, La Mesa, Calif., March 22

 

Army Cpl. Evan Asa Ashcraft, 24, West Hills, Calif., July 24

 

Army Staff Sgt. Stephen A. Bertolino, 40, Orange, Calif., Nov. 29

 

Marines Sgt. Michael E. Bitz, 31, Ventura, Calif., March 23

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Kelly Bolor, 37, Whittier, Calif., Nov. 15

 

Army Staff Sgt. Steven H. Bridges, 33, Tracy, Calif., Dec. 8

 

Army 2nd Lt. Todd J. Bryant, 23, Riverside, Calif., Oct. 31

 

Army Staff Sgt. Richard A. Burdick, 24, National City, Calif., Dec. 10

 

Army Pfc. Jose Casanova, 23, El Monte, Calif., Oct. 13

 

Army Spc. Andrew F. Chris, 25, San Diego, Calif., June 25

 

Army Spc. Arron R. Clark, 20, Chico, Calif., Dec. 5

 

Army Spc. Michael A. Diraimondo, 22, Simi Valley, Calif., Jan. 8

 

Marines Cpl. Jose A. Garibay, 21, Costa Mesa, Calif., March 23

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Cory Ryan Geurin, 18, Santee, Calif., July 15

 

Marines Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez, 22, Indio, Calif., April 12

 

Marines Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez, 20, Los Angeles, Calif., March 23

 

Army Cpl. Sean R. Grilley, 24, San Bernardino, Calif., Oct. 16

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 28, Los Angeles, Calif., March 21

 

Army Sgt. Michael S. Hancock, 29, Yreka, Calif., Oct. 24

 

Army Sgt. Keicia M. Hines, 27, of Citrus Heights, Calif., Jan. 14

 

Army Sgt. Troy Jenkins, 25, Ridgecrest, Calif., April 24

 

Army Pvt. Devon D. Jones, 19, San Diego, Calif., April 4

 

Marines Capt. Andrew David La Mont, 31, Eureka, Calif., May 19

 

Army Pfc. Karina S. Lau, 20, Livingston, Calif., Nov. 2

 

Army Pfc. Pablo Manzano, 19, Heber, Calif., Aug. 25

 

Marines Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes, 28, Chino, Calif., May 18

 

Army Sgt. Atanacio Haro Marin Jr., 27, Baldwin Park, Calif., June 3

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall, 50, Sacramento, Calif., April 8

 

Marines Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores, 21, Los Angeles, Calif., March 25

 

Marines Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa, 33, Tracy, Calif., March 27

 

Army Staff Sgt. Eddie E. Menyweather, 35, Los Angeles, Calif., Nov. 23

 

Army Spc. Michael G. Mihalakis, 18, San Jose, Calif., Dec. 26

 

Army Pfc. Jesse D. Mizener, 24, Auburn, Calif., Jan. 7

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore, 21, San Marcos, Calif., May 19

 

Army Spc. Jose L. Mora, 26, Bell Gardens, Calif., Oct. 24

 

Army Spc. Paul T. Nakamura, 21, Sante Fe Springs, Calif., June 19

 

Army CWO2 Christopher G. Nason, 39, Los Angeles, Calif., Nov. 23

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day, 20, Santa Rosa, Calif., March 25

 

Army 1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco, 26, Delano, Calif., April 25

 

Army Pfc. Daniel R. Parker, 18, Lake Elsinore, Calif., Aug. 12

 

Army Staff Sgt. David S. Perry, 36, Bakersfield, Calif., Aug. 10

 

Army Spc. Justin W. Pollard, 21, Foothill Ranch, Calif., Dec. 30

 

Army Spc. Rel A. Ravago IV, 21, Glendale, Calif., Nov. 23

 

Marines Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez, 19, Norwalk, Calif., May 12

 

Marines Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker, 21, San Diego, Calif., March 23

 

Army Pvt. Sean A. Silva, 23, Rosemont, Calif., Oct. 9

 

Marines Cpl. Erik H. Silva, 22, Holtville, Calif., April 3

 

Marines 1st Sgt. Edward Smith, 38, Vista, Calif., April 5

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith, 42, Calif. hometown not available, April 2

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez del Solar, 20, Escondido, Calif., March 29

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Jason Andrew Tetrault, 20, Moreno Valley, Calif., July 9

 

Army Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez, 29, San Diego, Calif., Nov. 2

 

Army Sgt. Ryan C. Young, 21, Corona, Calif., Dec. 2

 

___

 

Colorado (8):

 

Army Staff Sgt. Daniel A. Bader, 28, Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 2

 

Army Sgt. Thomas F. Broomhead, 34, Canon City, Colo., May 27

 

Army Staff Sgt. Mark A. Lawton, 41, Hayden, Colo., Aug. 29

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn, 36, Longmont, Colo., April 3

 

Army Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe, 27, Arvada, Colo., April 3

 

Army Staff Sgt. Barry Sanford Sr., 46, Aurora, Colo., July 7

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum, 22, Thornton, Colo., March 23

 

Army Sgt. Michael E. Yashinski, 24, Monument, Colo., Dec. 24

 

___

 

Connecticut (5):

 

Army Pfc. Jeffrey F. Braun, 19, Stafford, Conn., Dec. 12

 

Marines Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse, 22, Waterford, Conn., March 23

 

Army Pfc. Anthony D. D'Agostino, 20, Waterbury, Conn., Nov. 2

 

Army Staff Sgt. Richard S. Eaton Jr., 37, Guilford, Conn., Aug. 12

 

Army Spc. Wilfredo Perez Jr., 24, Norwalk, Conn., July 26

 

___

 

District of Columbia (2):

 

Army Spc. Darryl T. Dent, 21, Washington, D.C., Aug. 26

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald, 29, Washington, D.C., June 25

 

___

 

Delaware (3):

 

Army Spc. Ryan P. Long, 21, Seaford, Del., April 3

 

Marines Sgt. Brian D. McGinnis, 23, St. George, Del., March 30

 

Army Spc. Jarrett B. Thompson, 27, Dover, Del., Sept. 7

 

___

 

Florida (16):

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles, 18, Tampa, Fla., April 7

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing, 20, Cedar Key, Fla., March 23

 

Army Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon, 20, Palm Bay, Fla., March 29

 

Marines Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley, 26, Fort Myers, Fla., March 23

 

Marines Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez, 25, Hialeah, Fla., April 14

 

Army CWO Ian D. Manuel, 23, Jacksonville, Fla., Jan. 8

 

Army Sgt. Keman L. Mitchell, 24, Hilliard, Fla., May 26

 

Army Staff Sgt. Michael B. Quinn, 37, Tampa, Fla., May 27

 

Army Cpl. John T. Rivero, 23, Gainesville, Fla., April 17

 

Army Cpl. Robert D. Roberts, 21, Winter Park, Fla., Nov. 22

 

Army Pfc. Charles M. Sims, 18, Miami, Fla., Oct. 3

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith, 33, Tampa, Fla., April 4

 

Army CWO Aaron A. Weaver, 32, Inverness, Fla., Jan. 8

 

Army Pfc. Jeffrey Wershow, 22, Gainesville, Fla., July 6

 

Army Sgt. Mason Douglas Whetstone, 30, Jacksonville, Fla., July 17

 

Army Spc. Robert A. Wise, 21, Tallahassee, Fla., Nov. 12

 

___

 

Georgia (15):

 

Army Spc. Jamaal R. Addison, 22, Roswell, Ga., March 23

 

Army Sgt. Michael T. Crockett, 27, Soperton, Ga., July 14

 

Army Staff Sgt. Ricky Crockett, 37, Broxton, Ga., Jan. 12

 

Army Staff Sgt. Wilbert Davis, 40, Hinesville, Ga., April 3

 

Army Spc. Marshall L. Edgerton, 27, Rocky Face, Ga., Dec. 11

 

Army Staff Sgt. Bobby C. Franklin, 38, Mineral Bluff, Ga., Aug. 20

 

Army Pvt. Benjamin L. Freeman, 19, Valdosta, Ga., Oct. 13

 

Army Sgt. Nathaniel Hart Jr., 29, Valdosta, Ga., July 28

 

Army Spc. Christopher J. Holland, 26, Brunswick, Ga., Dec. 17

 

Army Spc. Nathaniel H. Johnson, 22, Augusta, Ga., Jan. 8

 

Army Spc. John K. Klinesmith Jr., 25, Stockbridge, Ga., June 12

 

Army Capt. Edward J. Korn, 31, Savannah, Ga., April 3

 

Army Spc. David T. Nutt, 32, Blackshear, Ga., May 14

 

Army Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon, 19, Conyers, Ga., March 29

 

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Jerry L. Wilson, 45, Thomson, Ga., Nov. 23

 

___

 

Hawaii (1):

 

Army Staff Sgt. Cameron B. Sarno, 43, Waipahu, Hawaii, Sept. 1

 

___

 

Idaho (4):

 

Army Cpl. Richard P. Carl, 26, King Hill, Idaho, May 9

 

Army Pfc. Jerrick M. Petty, 25, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Dec. 10

 

Army Capt. James A. Shull, 32, Kamiah, Idaho, Nov. 17

 

Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, Boise, Idaho, March 25

 

___

 

Illinois (20):

 

Marines Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, St. Anne, Ill., March 20

 

Army Pvt. Matthew D. Bush, 20, East Alton, Ill., Aug. 8

 

Army Spc. Ryan G. Carlock, 25, Colchester, Ill., Sept. 9

 

Army Spc. William David Dusenbery, 30, Fairview Heights, Ill., Nov. 15

 

Marines Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford, 30, Decatur, Ill., March 23

 

Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln D. Hollinsaid, 27, Malden, Ill., April 7

 

Army Spc. Corey A. Hubbell, 20, Urbana, Ill., June 26

 

Marines Cpl. Evan T. James, 20, La Harpe, Ill., March 24

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleiboeker, 19, Irvington, Ill., May 13

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Jakub Henryk Kowalik, 21, Schaumburg, Ill., May 12

 

Army Staff Sgt. Andrew R. Pokorny, 30, Naperville, Ill., June 13

 

Army Pfc. Brandon Ramsey, 21, Calumet City, Ill., Aug. 8

 

Army Spc. Brandon J. Rowe, 20, Roscoe, Ill., March 31

 

Marines 1st lt. Timothy Louis Ryan, 30, Aurora, Ill., May 19

 

Army Spc. Uday Singh, 21, Lake Forest, Ill., Dec. 1

 

Army Pfc. Christopher A. Sisson, 20, Oak Park, Ill., Sept. 2

 

Army 1st Lt. Brian D. Slavenas, 30, Genoa, Ill., Nov. 2

 

Army Spc. John R. Sullivan, 26, Countryside, Ill., Nov. 15

 

Army Staff Sgt. Michael J. Sutter, 28, Tinley Park, Ill., Dec. 26

 

Army Pvt. Scott M. Tyrrell, 21, Sterling, Ill., Nov. 20

 

___

 

Indiana (16):

 

Army Spc. Ronald D. Allen Jr., 22, Mitchell, Ind., Aug. 25

 

Army Sgt. Jarrod W. Black, 26, Peru, Ind., Dec. 12

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Craig A. Boling, 38, Elkhart, Ind., July 8

 

Army Spc. Roy Russell Buckley, 24, Portage, Ind., April 22

 

Army Spc. Luke Frist, 20, Brookston, Ind., Jan. 5

 

Army Pvt. Jesse M. Halling, 19, Indianapolis, Ind., June 7

 

Army Spc. William A. Jeffries, 39, Evansville, Ind., March 31

 

Army Spc. Chad L. Keith, 21, Batesville, Ind., July 7

 

Army Pvt. Robert L. McKinley, 23, Peru, Ind., July 8

 

Army Staff Sgt. Frederick L. Miller Jr., 27, Hagerstown, Ind., Sept. 20

 

Army Pvt. Shawn D. Pahnke, 25, Shelbyville, Ind., June 16

 

Army Spc. Brian H. Penisten, 28, Fort Wayne, Ind., Nov. 2

 

Marines Sgt. Duane R. Rios, 25, Griffith, Ind., April 4

 

Army Spc. Gregory P. Sanders, 19, Hobart, Ind., March 24

 

Army Cpl. Darrell Smith, 28, Otwell, Ind., Nov. 23

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith, 20, Anderson, Ind., May 10

 

___

 

Iowa (9):

 

Marines Gunnery Sgt. Jeffrey E. Bohr Jr., 39, Ossian, Iowa, April 10

 

Army Pvt. Michael J. Deutsch, 21, Dubuque, Iowa, July 31

 

Army Sgt. Paul F. Fisher, 39, Marion, Iowa, Nov. 6

 

Army Pvt. Kurt R. Frosheiser, 22, Des Moines, Iowa, Nov. 8

 

Army Pfc. David Kirchhoff, 31, Anamosa, Iowa, Aug. 14

 

Marines Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus, 28, Davenport, Iowa, March 24

 

Army Pvt. Kenneth A. Nalley, 19, Hamburg, Iowa, May 26

 

Army Spc. Aaron J. Sissel, 22, Tipton, Iowa, Nov. 29

 

Army CWO Bruce A. Smith, 41, West Liberty, Iowa, Nov. 2

 

___

 

Kansas (5):

 

Army Sgt. Jacob L. Butler, 24, Wellsville, Kan., April 1

 

Marines Pfc. Ryan R. Cox, 19, Derby, Kan., June 15

 

Army Spc. Josph L. Lister, 22, Pleasanton, Kan., Nov. 20

 

Army Spc. Dustin K. McGaugh, 20, Derby, Kan., Sept. 30

 

Army Spc. Kyle G. Thomas, 23, Topeka, Kan., Sept. 25

 

___

 

Kentucky (4):

 

Army Sgt. Michael D. Acklin II, 25, Louisville, Ky., Nov. 15

 

Army Cpl. Gary B. Coleman, 24, Pikeville, Ky., Nov. 21

 

Army Sgt. Darrin K. Potter, 24, Louisville, Ky., Sept. 29

 

Army Spc. James Powell, 26, Radcliff, Ky., Oct. 12

 

___

 

Louisiana (5):

 

Army Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard, 20, Lake Charles, La., April 4

 

Army Staff Sgt. Craig Davis, 37, Opelousas, La., Jan. 8

 

Army Spc. Levi B. Kinchen, 21, Tickfaw, La., Aug. 9

 

Army Sgt. Floyd G. Knighten Jr., 55, Olla, La., Aug. 9

 

Army Sgt. Taft V. Williams, 29, New Orleans, La., Aug. 12

 

___

 

Maine (2):

 

Marines Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, Waterville, Maine, March 20

 

Army Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham, 33, Lewiston, Maine, April 4

 

___

 

Massachusetts (9):

 

Army Sgt. Glenn R. Allison, 24, Pittsfield, Mass., Dec. 18

 

Army Staff Sgt. Joseph P. Bellavia, 28, Wakefield, Mass., Oct. 16

 

Army Spc. Mathew G. Boule, 22, Dracut, Mass., April 2

 

Army Staff Sgt. Joseph Camara, 40, New Bedford, Mass., Sept. 1

 

Army Sgt. Justin W. Garvey, 23, Townsend, Mass., July 20

 

Army Pfc. John D. Hart, 20, Bedford, Mass., Oct. 18

 

Army CWO3 Kyran E. Kennedy, 43, Boston, Nov. 7

 

Marines 1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips, 25, Pembroke, Mass., April 4

 

Marines Capt. Benjamin W. Sammis, 29, Rehoboth, Mass., April 4

 

___

 

Maryland (5):

 

Thomas Doerflinger Spring, Md (thank you Jeffrey J Nugent)

 

Navy Lt. Kylan A. Jones-Huffman, 31, College Park, Md., Aug. 21

 

Marines Cpl. Jason David Mileo, 20, Centreville, Md., April 14

 

Army Spc. George A. Mitchell, 35, Rawlings, Md., April 7

 

Army Sgt. Jeffrey C. Walker, 33, Havre de Grace, Md., Jan. 8

 

Marines Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, 29, Baltimore, Md., March 20

 

___

 

Michigan (20):

 

Army Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg, 22, Canton, Mich., Sept. 14

 

Army Spc. Artimus D. Brassfield, 22, Flint, Mich., Oct. 24

 

Army Pfc. Damian S. Bushart, 22, Waterford, Mich., Nov. 22

 

Army Capt. Paul J. Cassidy, 36, Laingsburg, Mich., July 13

 

Army Staff Sgt. Thomas W. Christensen, 42, Atlantic Mine, Mich., Dec. 25

 

Marines Pfc. Juan Guadelupe Garza Jr., 20, Temperance, Mich., April 8

 

Army Spc. Richard A. Goward, 32, Midland, Mich., April 14

 

Army Staff Sgt. Stephen C. Hattamer, 43, Gwinn, Mich., Dec. 25

 

Army Staff Sgt. Paul J. Johnson, 29, Calumet, Mich., Oct. 20

 

Army Pfc. Jason M. Meyer, 23, Howell, Mich., April 8

 

Marines Maj. Kevin G. Nave, 36, White Lake Township, Mich., March 26

 

Army Master Sgt. William L. Payne, 46, Otsego, Mich., May 16

 

Army Sgt. Michael F. Pedersen, 26, Flint, Mich., April 2

 

Army Staff Sgt. Brett J. Petriken, 30, Flint, Mich., May 26

 

Army Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds, 25, East Lansing, Mich., May 3

 

Army Sgt. Todd J. Robbins, 33, Hart, Mich., April 3

 

Air Force Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather, 29, Clio, Mich., April 8

 

Army Staff Sgt. Mark D. Vasquez, 35, Port Huron, Mich., Nov. 8

 

Army Spc. Donald L. Wheeler, 22, Concord, Mich., Oct. 13

 

Army Pfc. Jason G. Wright, 19, Luzerne, Mich., Dec. 8

 

___

 

Minnesota (3):

 

Army Sgt. Brian R. Hellermann, 35, Freeport, Minn., Aug. 6

 

Army Pfc. Edward J. Herrgott, 20, Shakopee, Minn., July 3

 

Army Staff Sgt. Dale A. Panchot, 26, Northome, Minn., Nov. 17

 

___

 

Mississippi (10):

 

Army Staff Sgt. Kenneth R. Bradley, 39, Utica, Miss., May 28

 

Army Spc. Larry K. Brown, 22, Jackson, Miss., April 5

 

Army Cpl. Henry L. Brown, 22, Natchez, Miss., April 8

 

Army Spc. James A. Chance III, 25, Kokomo, Miss., Nov. 6

 

Marines 2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers, 30, Harrison County, Miss., March 21

 

Army Spc. Raphael S. Davis, 24, Tutwiler, Miss., Dec. 2

 

Army Spc. Jeremy DiGiovanni, 21, Pricedale, Miss., Nov. 15

 

Army Pfc. Damian L. Heidelberg, 21, Shubuta, Miss., Nov. 15

 

Marines Sgt. Jonathan W. Lambert, 28, New Site, Miss., June 1

 

Army Staff Sgt. Joe N. Wilson, 30, Crystal Springs, Miss., Nov. 2

 

___

 

Missouri (10):

 

Army Spc. Jonathan P. Barnes, 21, Anderson, Mo., July 26

 

Army Spc. Joel L. Bertoldie, 20, Independence, Mo., July 18

 

Army Sgt. Travis Lee Burkhardt, 26, Edina, Mo., June 6

 

Army Pfc. Jesse A. Givens, 34, Springfield, Mo., May 1

 

Marines Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson, 22, Smithville, Mo., March 22

 

Army Staff Sgt. Jamie L. Huggins, 26, Hume, Mo., Oct. 26

 

Army Spc. Joshua M. Neusche, 20, Montreal, Mo., July 12

 

Army Capt. Benedict J. Smith, 29, Monroe City, Mo., Nov. 7

 

Army Pfc. Jeremiah D. Smith, 25, Odessa, Mo., May 26

 

Army Sgt. Donald R. Walters, 33, Kansas City, Mo., March 23

 

___

 

Montana (1):

 

Army 1st Lt. Edward M. Saltz, 27, Bigfork, Mont., Dec. 22

 

___

 

North Carolina (13):

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson, 26, Durham, N.C., April 2

 

Army Cpl. Mark A. Bibby, 25, Watha, N.C., July 21

 

Army Lunsford Brown II, 27, Creedmoor, N.C., Sept. 20

 

Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring, 40, Fayetteville, N.C., Oct. 26

 

Army Pvt. Joseph R. Guerrera, 20, Dunn, N.C., Oct. 26

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Alan Dinh Lam, 19, Snow Camp, N.C., April 22

 

Army Spc. James I. Lambert II, 22, Raleigh, N.C., July 31

 

Army Sgt. David B. Parson, 30, Kannapolis, N.C., July 6

 

Army Sgt. Scott C. Rose, 30, Fayetteville, N.C., Nov. 7

 

Army Sgt. Leonard D. Simmons, 33, New Bern, N.C., Aug. 6

 

Army Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon, 32, Fayetteville, N.C., March 28

 

Army Sgt. Michael L. Tosto, 24, Apex, N.C., June 17

 

Army Pfc. Joey D. Whitener, 19, Nebo, N.C., Nov. 15

 

___

 

North Dakota (3):

 

Army Spc. Jon P. Fettig, 30, Dickinson, N.D., July 22

 

Army Pfc. Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, 21, Grand Forks, N.D., Nov. 15

 

Army Sgt. Thomas J. Sweet II, 23, Bismarck, N.D., Nov. 27

 

___

 

New Hampshire (1):

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Robert E. Rooney, 43, Nashua, N.H., Sept. 25

 

___

 

New Jersey (10):

 

Army Spc. Ryan Travis Baker, 24, Browns Mills, N.J., Nov. 15

 

Army Spc. Michael Edward Curtin, 23, Howell, N.J., March 29

 

Army Spc. Kyle A. Griffin, 20, Emerson, N.J., May 30

 

Army Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway, 39, Willingboro, N.J., April 10

 

Army Spc. Simeon Hunte, 23, Essex, N.J., Oct. 1

 

Army Spc. Marlon P. Jackson, 25, Jersey City, N.J., Nov. 11

 

Army Spc. Gil Mercado, 25, Paterson, N.J., April 13

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Gladimir Philippe, 37, Roselle, N.J., June 25

 

Army Spc. Marc S. Seiden, 26, Brigantine, N.J., Jan. 2

 

Army Spc. Narson B. Sullivan, 21, North Brunswick, N.J., April 25

 

___

 

New Mexico (1):

 

Army Spc. James H. Pirtle, 27, La Mesa, N.M., Oct. 4

 

___

 

New York (21):

 

Marines Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett, 21, Buffalo, N.Y., March 23

 

Army Pfc. Charles E. Bush Jr., 43, Buffalo, N.Y., Dec. 19

 

Army Pvt. David Evans Jr., 18, Buffalo, N.Y., May 25

 

Army Pfc. Jacob S. Fletcher, 28, Bay Shore, N.Y., Nov. 13

 

Army Sgt. David Travis Friedrich Sgt., 26, Hammond, N.Y., Sept. 20

 

Marines Cpl. Bernard G. Gooden, 22, Mount Vernon, N.Y., April 4

 

Army Pfc. Raheen Tyson Heighter, 22, Bay Shore, N.Y., July 24

 

Army Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr., 19, Forestport, N.Y., April 6

 

Army Pfc. Rayshawn Johnson, 20, Brooklyn, N.Y., Nov. 3

 

Army Staff Sgt. Kevin C. Kimmerly, 31, North Creek, N.Y., Sept. 15

 

Army Sgt. Heath A. McMillin, 29, Canandaigua, N.Y., July 27

 

Army Spc. Irving Medina, 22, Middletown, N.Y., Nov. 14

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski, 26, Buffalo, N.Y., March 22

 

Army Staff Sgt. Joseph E. Robsky Jr., 31, Elizaville, N.Y., Sept. 10

 

Marines Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez, 21, New York, N.Y., March 23

 

Army Spc. Rasheed Sahib, 22, New York, N.Y., May 18

 

Marines Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda, 26, New York, N.Y., April 11

 

Marines Lance Cpl. William W. White, 24, New York, N.Y., March 29

 

Army Sgt. Eugene Williams, 24, Highland, N.Y., March 29

 

Army Spc. Michael L. Williams, 46, Buffalo, N.Y., Oct. 17

 

Army Capt. George A. Wood, 33, Marcy, N.Y., Nov. 20

 

___

 

Nebraska (6):

 

Army Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell, 27, Omaha, Neb., May 21

 

Army Sgt. Dennis A. Corral, 33, Kearney, Neb., Jan. 1

 

Marines Capt. Travis A. Ford, 30, Ogallala, Neb., April 4

 

Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class David J. Moreno, 26, Gering, Neb., July 17

 

Army Staff Sgt. Christopher W. Swisher, 26, Lincoln, Neb., Oct. 9

 

Army Spc. James R. Wolf, 21, Scottsbluff, Neb., Nov. 6

 

___

 

Nevada (3):

 

Army Capt. Joshua T. Byers, 29, Sparks, Nev., July 23

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Donald J. Cline Jr., 21, Sparks, Nev., March 23

 

Marines 2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr., 31, Tonopah, Nev., March 23

 

___

 

Ohio (15):

 

Army Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona, 42, Niles, Ohio, May 19

 

Army Spc. Todd M. Bates, 20, Bellaire, Ohio, Dec. 10

 

Army Spc. Brett T. Christian, 27, North Royalton, Ohio, July 23

 

Army Spc. Steven D. Conover, 21, Wilmington, Ohio, Nov. 2

 

Army 1st Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy, 38, Cleveland, Ohio, March 23

 

Marines Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner, 19, Ohio City, Ohio, April 2

 

Army Pfc. Gavin L. Neighbor, 20, Somerset, Ohio, June 10

 

Army Pfc. Branden F. Oberleitner, 20, Worthington, Ohio, June 5

 

Army Pfc. Kevin C. Ott, 27, Orient, Ohio, June 25

 

Army Staff Sgt. Aaron T. Reese, 31, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Dec. 10

 

Army Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold, 23, Hamilton, Ohio, May 8

 

Army Pvt. Brandon Sloan, 19, Bedford Heights, Ohio, March 23

 

Army Pfc. Kenneth C. Souslin, 21, Mansfield, Ohio, Dec. 15

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Brian K. Van Dusen, 39, Columbus, Ohio, May 9

 

Army Spc. James C. Wright, 27, Delhi Township, Ohio, Sept. 18

 

___

 

Oklahoma (7):

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair, 24, Broken Arrow, Okla., March 24

 

Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Doyle W. Bollinger Jr., 21, Poteau, Okla., June 6

 

Army Sgt. Ross A. Pennanen, 36, Shawnee, Okla., Nov. 2

 

Army Spc. Stephen M. Scott, 21, Lawton, Okla., Aug. 23

 

Army Pvt. Jason M. Ward, 25, Tulsa, Okla., Oct. 22

 

Army Sgt. Steven W. White, 29, Lawton, Okla., Aug. 13

 

Marines Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White, 27, Shawnee, Okla., May 19

 

___

 

Oregon (8):

 

Army Spc. Joseph M. Blickenstaff, 23, Corvallis, Ore., Dec. 8

 

Marines Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, 24, Portland, Ore., July 2

 

Marines Capt. Aaron J. Contreras, 31, Sherwood, Ore., March 30

 

Army CWO Erik C. Kesterson, 29, Independence, Ore., Nov. 15

 

Army Spc. Nathan W. Nakis, 19, Corvallis, Ore., Dec. 16

 

Army Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever, 36, Pendleton, Ore., April 8

 

Army Spc. Brandon S. Tobler, 19, Portland, Ore., March 22

 

Army Spc. Christopher J. Rivera Wesley, 26, Portland, Ore., Dec. 8

 

___

 

Pennsylvania (28):

 

Army Capt. Tristan N. Aitken, 31, State College, Pa., April 4

 

Army Sgt. Andrew Joseph Baddick, 26, Jim Thorpe (news - web sites), Pa., Sept. 29

 

Army 1st Lt. David R. Bernstein, 24, Phoenixville, Pa., Oct. 18

 

Army Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker, 34, Apollo, Pa., April 5

 

Army Pfc. Timothy R. Brown Jr., 21, Conway, Pa., Aug. 12

 

Army Sgt. Ernest G. Bucklew, 33, Enon Valley, Pa., Nov. 2

 

Army 1st Sgt. Christopher D. Coffin, 51, Bethlehem, Pa., July 1

 

Army Staff Sgt. Christopher E. Cutchall, 30, McConnellsburg, Pa., Sept. 29

 

Army Capt. Brian Faunce, 28, Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 18

 

Army Spc. Michael T. Gleason, 25, Warren, Pa., May 30

 

Army Spc. Christopher A. Golby, 26, Johnstown, Pa., Jan. 8

 

Army Sgt. Timothy L. Hayslett, 26, Carlisle, Pa., Nov. 15

 

Army Sgt. Eric R. Hull, 23, Upper Middletown, Pa., Aug. 18

 

Army Spc. Craig S. Ivory, 26, Port Matilda, Pa., Aug. 17

 

Army Spc. Maurice J. Johnson, 21, Levittown, Pa., Nov. 1

 

Army Spc. Zachariah W. Long, 20, Milton, Pa., May 30

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione, 22, Lansdale, Pa., April 1

 

Army Spc. William J. Maher III, 35, Yardley, Pa., July 28

 

Army Sgt. Joseph Minucci II, 23, Richeyville, Pa., Nov. 13

 

Army Spc. Rafael L. Navea, 34, Pittsburgh, Pa., Aug. 27

 

Army Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr., 20, Harborcreek, Pa., April 3

 

Army Sgt. Jaror C. Puello-Coronado, 36, Pocono Summit, Pa., July 13

 

Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, Easton, Pa., March 22

 

Army Lt. Col. Anthony L. Sherman, 43, Pottstown, Pa., Aug. 27

 

Army Pfc. Corey L. Small, 20, East Berlin, Pa., July 3

 

Army Sgt. Nicholas A. Tomko, 24, Pittsburgh, Pa., Nov. 9

 

Army Staff Sgt. Kimberly A. Voelz, 27, Carlisle, Pa., Dec. 14

 

Army Spc. Douglas J. Weismantle, 28, Pittsburgh, Pa., Oct. 13

 

___

 

Rhode Island (3):

 

Army Spc. Michael Andrade, 28, Bristol, R.I., Sept. 24

 

Army Sgt. Gregory A. Belanger, 24, Narragansett, R.I., Aug. 27

 

Army Sgt. Charles T. Caldwell, 38, North Providence, R.I., Sept. 1

 

___

 

South Carolina (12):

 

Army Pfc. Michael S. Adams, 20, Spartanburg, S.C., Aug. 21

 

Army Pvt. Algernon Adams, 36, Aiken, S.C., Oct. 28

 

Army Sgt. George Edward Buggs, 31, Barnwell, S.C., March 23

 

Army Spc. Rian C. Ferguson, 22, Taylors, S.C., Dec. 14

 

Air Force Staff Sgt. Patrick Lee Griffin Jr., 31, Elgin, S.C., May 13

 

Army Capt. Kimberly N. Hampton, 27, Easley, S.C., Jan. 2

 

Marines Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings, 19, Boiling Springs, S.C., March 23

 

Army Spc. Darius T. Jennings, 22, Cordova, S.C., Nov. 2

 

Army Pfc. Vorn J. Mack, 19, Orangeburg, S.C., Aug. 23

 

Army Staff Sgt. Paul M. Neff, 30, Fort Mill, S.C., Nov. 7

 

Army Spc. Orenthial J. Smith, 21, Allendale, S.C., June 22

 

Army Sgt. Anthony O. Thompson, 26, Orangeburg, S.C., Sept. 18

 

___

 

South Dakota (4):

 

Army Pfc. Michael R. Deuel, 21, Nemo, S.D., June 18

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen, 31, Lead, S.D., May 9

 

Army CWO2 Scott A. Saboe, 33, Willow Lake, S.D., Nov. 15

 

Army Capt. Christopher F. Soelzer, 26, Sturgis, S.D., Dec. 24

 

___

 

Tennessee (12):

 

Army Staff Sgt. Nathan J. Bailey, 46, Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 12

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett, 35, Seymour, Tenn., Sept. 12

 

Army Spc. Thomas A. Foley III, 23, Dresden, Tenn., April 14

 

Army Spc. Kenneth W. Harris Jr., 23, Charlotte, Tenn., Aug. 20

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Gregory B. Hicks, 35, Duff, Tenn., Jan. 8

 

Army Staff Sgt. Morgan D. Kennon, 23, Memphis, Tenn., Nov. 7

 

Army Staff Sgt. David L. Loyd, 44, Johnson, Tenn., Aug. 5

 

Marines Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon, 21, Gallatin, Tenn., March 23

 

Army Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, 43, Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 16

 

Army Sgt. Roger D. Rowe, 54, Bon Aqua, Tenn., July 9

 

Army 2nd Lt. Richard Torres, 25, Clarksville, Tenn., Oct. 6

 

Army CWO Alexander S. Coulter, 35, Bristol, Tenn., Nov. 17

 

___

 

Texas (40):

 

Army Sgt. Edward J. Anguiano, 24, Brownsville, Texas, March 23

 

Marines Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Todd Arnold, 30, Spring, Texas, April 22

 

Army Spc. Richard Arriaga, 20, Ganado, Texas, Sept. 18

 

Marines Pfc. Chad E. Bales, 20, Coahoma, Texas, April 3

 

Army Sgt. Michael Paul Barrera, 26, Von Ormy, Texas, Oct. 28

 

Army Capt. Ernesto M. Blanco, 28, San Antonio, Texas, Dec. 28

 

Army CWO Clarence E. Boone, 50, Fort Worth, Texas, Dec. 2

 

Army Staff Sgt. Gary L. Collins, 32, Hardin, Texas, Nov. 8

 

Army Spc. Zeferino E. Colunga, 20, Bellville, Texas, Aug. 6

 

Army Pvt. Rey D. Cuervo, 24, Laguna Vista, Texas, Dec. 28

 

Air Force Capt. Eric B. Das, 30, Amarillo, Texas, April 7

 

Army Pfc. Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, 21, Houston, Oct. 1

 

Army Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, El Paso, Texas, March 23

 

Army Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez, 36, El Paso, Texas, April 2

 

Army Pvt. Robert L. Frantz, 19, San Antonio, Texas, June 17

 

Army 1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza, 43, Robstown, Texas, April 28

 

Army Pfc. Ray J. Hutchinson, 20, League City, Texas, Dec. 7

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar, 32, Granbury, Texas, April 2

 

Army Pfc. John P. Johnson, 24, Houston, Texas, Oct. 22

 

Marines Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan, 42, Brazoria, Texas, March 23

 

Marines Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, Houston, Texas, March 20

 

Army Spc. James Kiehl, 22, Comfort, Texas, March 23

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata, 35, El Paso, Texas, March 23

 

Marines Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin, 21, Fort Worth, Texas, April 7

 

Army Sgt. Daniel K. Methvin, 22, Belton, Texas, July 26

 

Army Pfc. Anthony S. Miller, 19, San Antonio, Texas, April 7

 

Army Pfc. Stuart W. Moore, 21, Livingston, Texas, Dec. 22

 

Army Sgt. Keelan L. Moss, 23, Houston, Texas, Nov. 2

 

Army Spc. Joseph C. Norquist, 26, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 9

 

Army Staff Sgt. Hector R. Perez, 40, Corpus Christi, Texas, July 24

 

Army Spc. Jose A. Perez III, 22, San Diego, Texas, May 28

 

Army Sgt. Ariel Rico, 25, El Paso, Texas, Nov. 28

 

Army 2nd Lt. Jonathan D. Rozier, 25, Katy, Texas, July 19

 

Army Sgt. John W. Russell, 26, Portland, Texas, Nov. 15

 

Army Spc. Christian C. Schulz, 20, Colleyville, Texas, July 11

 

Army Cpl. Tomas Sotelo Jr., 22, Houston, Texas, June 27

 

Army Spc. Joseph D. Suell, 24, Lufkin, Texas, June 16

 

Army Sgt. Melissa Valles, 26, Eagle Pass, Texas, July 9

 

Army Pfc. Stephen E. Wyatt, 19, Kilgore, Texas, Oct. 13

 

Army Sgt. Henry Ybarra III, 32, Austin, Texas, Sept. 11

 

___

 

Utah (4):

 

Marines Staff Sgt. James W. Cawley, 41, Roy, Utah, March 29

 

Army Capt. Nathan S. Dalley, 27, Kaysville, Utah, Nov. 17

 

Army Spc. David J. Goldberg, 20, Layton, Utah, Nov. 26

 

Army Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais, 23, Ogden, Utah, April 3

 

___

 

Virginia (13):

 

Army Capt. James F. Adamouski, 29, Springfield, Va., April 2

 

Army Command Sgt. Maj. James D. Blankenbecler, 40, Alexandria, Va., Oct. 1

 

Army Pvt. Jason L. Deibler, 20, Coeburn, Va., May 4

 

Army Sgt. Michael E. Dooley, 23, Pulaski, Va., June 8

 

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Cornell W. Gilmore I, 45, Stafford, Va., Nov. 7

 

Army 1st Lt. Joshua C. Hurley, 24, Clifton Forge, Va., Nov. 1

 

Army 2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor, 24, Clifton, Va., April 7

 

Marines Sgt. Michael V. Lalush, 23, Troutville, Va., March 30

 

Marines Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr., 31, Richmond, Va., March 25

 

Marines Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr., 20, Winchester, Va., April 12

 

Army CWO5 Sharon T. Swartworth, 43, Virginia, Nov. 7

 

Army Capt. John R. Teal, 31, Mechanicsville, Va., Oct. 23

 

Air Force Maj. William R. Watkins III, 37, Danville, Va., April 7

 

___

 

Vermont (5):

 

Army Spc. Solomon C. Bangayan, 24, Jay, Vt., Jan. 2

 

Marines Cpl. Mark A. Evnin, 21, Burlington, Vt., April 3

 

Army Pvt. Kyle C. Gilbert, 20, Brattleboro, Vt., Aug. 6

 

Army Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen, 40, Bennington, Vt., April 2

 

Army Capt. Pierre Piche, 29, Starksboro, Vt., Nov. 15

 

___

 

West Virginia (1):

 

Army Pfc. Richard W. Hafer, 21, Nitro, W.Va., Nov. 15

 

___

 

Washington (7):

 

Army Spc. Robert T. Benson, 20, Spokane, Wash., Nov. 4,

 

Marines Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns, 22, Vancouver, Wash., May 9

 

Army 2nd Lt. Benjamin J. Colgan, 30, Kent, Wash., Nov. 1

 

Army Spc. Justin W. Hebert, 20, Arlington, Wash., Aug. 1

 

Army Sgt. Curt E. Jordan Jr., 25, Greenacres, Wash., Dec. 28

 

Army Spc. Duane E. Longstreth, 19, Tacoma, Wash., Aug. 7

 

Army Pfc. Kerry D. Scott, 21, Mount Vernon, Wash., Oct. 6

 

___

 

Wisconsin (9):

 

Army Pfc. Rachel Bosveld, 19, Waupin, Wis., Oct. 26

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Dan H. Gabrielson, 39, Frederic, Wis., July 9

 

Army Sgt. Warren S. Hansen, 36, Clintonville, Wis., Nov. 15

 

Army Maj. Mathew E. Schram, 36, Brookfield, Wis., May 26

 

Army Maj. Christopher J. Splinter, 43, Platteville, Wis., Dec. 24

 

Marines Sgt. Kirk Allen Straseskie, 23, Beaver Dam, Wis., May 19

 

Army Spc. Paul J. Sturino, 21, Rice Lake, Wis., Sept. 22

 

Army Spc. Eugene A. Uhl III, 21, Amherst, Wis., Nov. 15

 

Army 2nd Lt. Jeremy L. Wolfe, 27, Menomenie, Wis., Nov. 15

 

___

 

Wyoming (4):

 

Army Capt. Robert L. Lucero, 34, Casper, Wyo., Sept. 25

 

Army Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek, 20, Rock Springs, Wyo., April 14

 

Army 1st Lt. Leif E. Nott, 24, Cheyenne, Wyo., July 30

 

Marines Sgt. Brendon Reiss, 23, Hanna, Wyo., March 23

 

___

 

Amerian Samoa (2):

 

Army Pvt. Jonathan I. Falaniko, 20, Pago Pago, American Samoa, Oct. 27

 

Army Spc. Farao K. Letufuga, 20, Pago Pago, American Samoa, Aug. 5

 

___

 

Puerto Rico (7):

 

Army Sgt. Francisco Martinez, 28, Humacao, Puerto Rico, Nov. 4

 

Army Spc. Richard P. Orengo, 32, Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, June 26

 

Army Sgt. Joel Perez, 25, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, Nov. 2

 

Army Spc. Ramon Reyes Torres, 29, Caguas, Puerto Rico, July 16

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Jose A. Rivera, 34, Bayamon, Puerto Rico, Nov. 5

 

Army Sgt. Juan M. Serrano, 31, Manati, Puerto Rico, July 24

 

Army Spc. Frances M. Vega, 20, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, Nov. 2

 

 

Dave Kaspersin

Email to:drk@dyrec.com Click here to send me a letter.

 

If Obama's worst foreign policy blunder only got four people killed, he's the best foreign policy President in American History, and should get a focking medal.

[drobeski 3,061]

Your fake outrage is amusing. You know who else is still waiting?

 

 

If Obama's worst foreign policy blunder only got four people killed, he's the best foreign policy President in American History, and should get a focking medal.

You might want to look into the death toll since he changed the rules of engagement in afganastan.

Heres an educational article for you, but I am sure business insider is too bias for you to take the time to read.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/one-marines-views-on-afghanistan-2012-8

 

 

MARINE: Strict Rules Of Engagement Are Killing More Americans Than Enemy In This Lost War

 

 

When I deployed to Afghanistan as an infantry squad leader in 2004, I had the utmost confidence in my superiors, our mission to restore order to Afghanistan, and to help the Afghan people.

 

At the time of my deployment, we had clear rules of engagement (ROE): if you ever feel that your life is threatened, you can respond with force to include deadly force.

 

Beyond this, we also patrolled our area of operations with the knowledge that if we ever radioed "troops in contact," our requests for air or artillery support would be approved.

 

Thankfully, I never had to make that radio call. During my seven-month tour with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines in Khost Province, combat was light. We encountered many more weapons caches than we did enemy attacks. I never once fired my weapon. The hotspot at the time was Iraq. Our war, it seemed, was won.

 

When I returned and transitioned to a role as an infantry instructor in 2006, my peers—who only had deployed to Iraq—quipped that I was part of the “forgotten war.”

 

And where are we today?

 

Six years after hearing those jokes, the war is forgotten by everyone except the men and women who continue to fight it. My mostly quiet wartime memory of 2005 has exploded into a battlefield of heavy combat with the casualties to go along with it.

 

And yet all the blood, destruction—all the efforts of our military—cannot change the unfortunate and highly probable outcome that our 2014 exit from Afghanistan will be marked as a failure.

 

I don’t want to believe it, but we are losing this war.

 

Each day our soldiers and Marines leave the wire, only to face increasing attacks from a determined enemy. An insurgency that continues to enjoy support—even from inside a corrupt government in Kabul as well as Islamabad.

 

And they don’t just face Taliban AK-47s and improvised explosives. They also continue to face the guns of their supposed allies, Afghan National Army and Police forces, who have killed over 30 U.S. military personnel just this year alone.

 

As we try to win hearts and minds, the Taliban uses fear—and in a culture of tribalism and tradition, it is fear that works.

 

Instead of being afraid of the might of U.S. firepower, enemy fighters use our rules of engagement and restrictions on air support against us. When faced with a split-second decision of whether to shoot, soldiers many times must hesitate—or be investigated. Or, as in the case of the 2009 Battle of Ganjgal, excessive restrictions on air and artillery assets unfortunately meant excessive American deaths.

 

“We are willing to restrict ourselves to the point of helplessness to avoid even a possibility of civilian casualties,” said one military officer who I’ll refer to as Evan, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I have personally watched the same man arm and disarm 12 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) over a week, with no strikes allowed due to collateral concerns.”

 

The failure of the war does not rest at the hands of the brave troops who patrol every day. It lies with top military leadership and politicians, who have effectively choked our troops so badly that their mission has become impossible.

 

“I cannot emphasize just how badly the pullout date has ruined our efforts over here,” said Evan. “Down to the lowest soldier, there is a very palpable sense that everything we’ve done is too little, too late.”

 

As many leaders and politicians continue to plead with a public weary to continue their support for the war, they say, as they said similarly during the war in Vietnam, that “the deaths of our soldiers should not be in vain.”

 

I disagree. The death of a brother in arms, while tragic and equally heartbreaking, should not be used as a political tool. The fallen heroes of this war are lost forever and will never see a battlefield again. They should not be used to further justify its expansion.

 

There is an economic theory that supports my reasoning: It’s called a sunk cost dilemma. The theory presents a problem of having to choose between ending an activity immediately or choosing to continue with an uncertain outcome that already involves considerable investment. The investment, whether it be time, money, or in the case of the Afghan war, lives, can never be recovered, and is called a sunk cost.

 

I believe that we should allow our soldiers to be able to fight this war. As Lt Col. Christian Cabaniss tells his Marines in the documentary Obama’s War, “Make no mistake, we are experts in the application of violence.”

 

Despite being experts at warfare, the military, much like a professional boxer, will never win a fight when their hands are tied behind their back. Unfortunately, it is our own Generals and politicians that have done the tying.

 

“We’ve embraced the counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine without remembering to maintain the true power of the US military, which is an unstoppable killing machine,” Evan told me. “Now the buzz words are ‘development’ [and] ‘partnership’. These things brief well, but they must be used hand in hand with a tolerant and permissive ROE that allows us to flex our full potential when we need to.”

 

As we look forward to 2014 and our strategy of withdrawal that President Obama has announced, I can tell you some of what the future holds. As the example of the sunk cost dilemma states, we are choosing to continue with an uncertain outcome. This is not entirely true.

 

If we do not allow our military to carry out their mission—to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, as is the infantry’s goal, and support them with the assets they need, then the next two years will be marked with more American deaths, many more wounded, continued training failure and eventual stall in recruitment of Afghan security forces, and a country left in ruins.

 

Make no mistake: our enemy is resilient. But they are not impossible to defeat. When our Marines and soldiers were unleashed—with tanks, artillery, air support, and rules of engagement that favored the U.S. instead of the insurgency during the second Battle of Fallujah in 2004—the fighters soon realized how tough our military was.

 

“We are fighting, but the Marines keep coming!” said a frantic Fallujah insurgent to other fighters in an intercepted radio communication. “We are shooting, but the Marines won’t stop!”

 

We need to stop lying to ourselves.

 

Let our troops do the job that we, united as Americans, know they can do, or withdraw them immediately and save us a predictable and tragic two more years of war.

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/one-marines-views-on-afghanistan-2012-8#ixzz2BB94uBfZ

[nikki2200 4]

Holy fock.

 

In this administration, it is the norm. The only difference here is that somehow, leaked stuff is putting Obama in a bad light instead of the usual leaking which is only aimed at helping Obama.

 

As far as folks thinking they are entitled to be made privy to every detail goes, I don't believe that is the case. However, there is a simple explanation that seems to be flying over your head. Obama lied his ass off for focking 2 weeks about. Now, you act all shocked that folks want to know the truth.

 

No. The simple explanation that is flying over YOUR head is the fact that there very well may be a very good reason for the lying.

 

The simplest most logical solution for the made up story about the youtube video could have very well been because they didn't want to give al-Qaeda credit for it publicly. They want the recognition and that recognition gives them power. Or it could have been something worse than that, that involves national security that should not be made public. Because making it public to all the armchair counter-intelligence experts banging their fists on their computer desks, also gives that information to our enemies.

 

Let's say it was a major fock up. Lets say out intelligence, our internal communications, our availability of resources broke down and that was the cause of this incident. Announcing this to the world would make you all sleep better at night grinning into your pillows because now you know Obama focked up. But does that not also make the terrorists aware of exactly broke down and expose our weaknesses to them????

 

I'll bring up Julian Assange again... he exposed a lot of secrets on military operations after the fact that showed American failures during the Bush years. Did you people think this was a good thing? As far as I can remember most of the people on this bored of the Republican variety were calling for him to be executed in town square for espionage.

 

There is a reason that information is "classified" and it is not made open to the public. Because it puts the lives of our soldiers and our intelligence agents and our government officials in danger. For all we know the situation is still ongoing. And even if it was a fock up, it should be dealt with internally within the military and the CIA to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

But you people demanding answers and the media outlets trying to obtain and publish classified information because you hate the President so much are going to get someone killed some day. That's not a guess, it's a fact.

[drobeski 3,061]

No. The simple explanation that is flying over YOUR head is the fact that there very well may be a very good reason for the lying.

 

The simplest most logical solution for the made up story about the youtube video could have very well been because they didn't want to give al-Qaeda credit for it publicly. They want the recognition and that recognition gives them power. Or it could have been something worse than that, that involves national security that should not be made public. Because making it public to all the armchair counter-intelligence experts banging their fists on their computer desks, also gives that information to our enemies.

 

Let's say it was a major fock up. Lets say out intelligence, our internal communications, our availability of resources broke down and that was the cause of this incident. Announcing this to the world would make you all sleep better at night grinning into your pillows because now you know Obama focked up. But does that not also make the terrorists aware of exactly broke down and expose our weaknesses to them????

 

I'll bring up Julian Assange again... he exposed a lot of secrets on military operations after the fact that showed American failures during the Bush years. Did you people think this was a good thing? As far as I can remember most of the people on this bored of the Republican variety were calling for him to be executed in town square for espionage.

 

There is a reason that information is "classified" and it is not made open to the public. Because it puts the lives of our soldiers and our intelligence agents and our government officials in danger. For all we know the situation is still ongoing. And even if it was a fock up, it should be dealt with internally within the military and the CIA to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

But you people demanding answers and the media outlets trying to obtain and publish classified information because you hate the President so much are going to get someone killed some day. That's not a guess, it's a fact.

Do you consider them denying the added security that was requested multiple times a "major fock up"

You talk all this need to keep it secret crap, but failed to address my point that there was all kinds of classified details "leaked" within hours of the bin laden raid.

Its all political, then and now. You realize this right or are you that partisan that you cannot accept that fact.

[Gepetto 1,370]

Our government is handling the news released to it's own citizens like 1980's Communist Soviet Union.

[Little Rusty 18]

The same ass clowns buying this crap story also bought the video story.

exactly

[gocolts 300]

No. The simple explanation that is flying over YOUR head is the fact that there very well may be a very good reason for the lying.

 

The simplest most logical solution for the made up story about the youtube video could have very well been because they didn't want to give al-Qaeda credit for it publicly. They want the recognition and that recognition gives them power. Or it could have been something worse than that, that involves national security that should not be made public. Because making it public to all the armchair counter-intelligence experts banging their fists on their computer desks, also gives that information to our enemies.

 

Let's say it was a major fock up. Lets say out intelligence, our internal communications, our availability of resources broke down and that was the cause of this incident. Announcing this to the world would make you all sleep better at night grinning into your pillows because now you know Obama focked up. But does that not also make the terrorists aware of exactly broke down and expose our weaknesses to them????

 

I'll bring up Julian Assange again... he exposed a lot of secrets on military operations after the fact that showed American failures during the Bush years. Did you people think this was a good thing? As far as I can remember most of the people on this bored of the Republican variety were calling for him to be executed in town square for espionage.

 

There is a reason that information is "classified" and it is not made open to the public. Because it puts the lives of our soldiers and our intelligence agents and our government officials in danger. For all we know the situation is still ongoing. And even if it was a fock up, it should be dealt with internally within the military and the CIA to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

But you people demanding answers and the media outlets trying to obtain and publish classified information because you hate the President so much are going to get someone killed some day. That's not a guess, it's a fact.

 

I have now seen it all. Obama lying his ass off at the expense of an American Citizen to cover his own ass and you not only seem fine with it, but are defending it. BEYOND BELIEF.

 

Not sure why you keep harping on this some things are a matter of national security and should not be made public. That seems obvious. Problem is, Obama himself opened up all this by lying his ass off. If it was a matter of national security, maybe he should have said that instead of throwing some guy in jail and laying the complete blame of 4 dead Americans, including an Ambassador, on an American citizen exercising one of our most coveted rights.

 

Funny how you have no problem with Obama leaking sh1t left and right in an attempt to make himself look good yet come unglued when something is leaked that shows just how inept Obama really is.

[Reality 3,121]

I have now seen it all. Obama lying his ass off at the expense of an American Citizen to cover his own ass and you not only seem fine with it, but are defending it. BEYOND BELIEF.

 

Not sure why you keep harping on this some things are a matter of national security and should not be made public. That seems obvious. Problem is, Obama himself opened up all this by lying his ass off. If it was a matter of national security, maybe he should have said that instead of throwing some guy in jail and laying the complete blame of 4 dead Americans, including an Ambassador, on an American citizen exercising one of our most coveted rights.

 

Funny how you have no problem with Obama leaking sh1t left and right in an attempt to make himself look good yet come unglued when something is leaked that shows just how inept Obama really is.

 

[jerryskids 6,812]

No. The simple explanation that is flying over YOUR head is the fact that there very well may be a very good reason for the lying.

 

The simplest most logical solution for the made up story about the youtube video could have very well been because they didn't want to give al-Qaeda credit for it publicly. They want the recognition and that recognition gives them power. Or it could have been something worse than that, that involves national security that should not be made public. Because making it public to all the armchair counter-intelligence experts banging their fists on their computer desks, also gives that information to our enemies.

 

Let's say it was a major fock up. Lets say out intelligence, our internal communications, our availability of resources broke down and that was the cause of this incident. Announcing this to the world would make you all sleep better at night grinning into your pillows because now you know Obama focked up. But does that not also make the terrorists aware of exactly broke down and expose our weaknesses to them????

 

I'll bring up Julian Assange again... he exposed a lot of secrets on military operations after the fact that showed American failures during the Bush years. Did you people think this was a good thing? As far as I can remember most of the people on this bored of the Republican variety were calling for him to be executed in town square for espionage.

 

There is a reason that information is "classified" and it is not made open to the public. Because it puts the lives of our soldiers and our intelligence agents and our government officials in danger. For all we know the situation is still ongoing. And even if it was a fock up, it should be dealt with internally within the military and the CIA to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

But you people demanding answers and the media outlets trying to obtain and publish classified information because you hate the President so much are going to get someone killed some day. That's not a guess, it's a fact.

The bolded is plausible. But a total fock-up is the best case scenario. The problem with your analysis is that it presumes that we have no other information leading up to the event. But we do -- we know that repeated requests for increased scenario were refused. Given these facts, it is proper to consider them in the decisions which were made.

 

First, why was the security refused? The most plausible reason is that increased security would provide bad optics -- a lack of confidence that the Arab Spring had created a peaceful transition. With this theory in place, how would the administration react to the events in Benghazi? As I had stated earlier (in this thread or elsewhere), I suspect that they hoped that the forces in place could thwart the attack, because a stronger military response would look bad.

 

Obviously that didn't work. So we go through weeks of blaming video guy, to no wait we said it was an act of terror from the get go, to this latest report which is supposed to assuage us that they did everything they could, but the info and timelines in this report don't pass the sniff test and contain nothing remotely classified to justify the weeks of delay in providing it.

 

Did Obama want the ambassador to die? That's silly. Was he willing to risk the lives of people in that compound in the interest of positive optics? I think so. If you disagree with my analysis, please tell me why. If your reason is "secret stuff," please feel free to speculate as to what secret stuff led to the refusal of additional security. That's the question we need to answer first, if we are to understand the thinking behind the (lack of) response that evening.

[nikki2200 4]

The bolded is plausible. But a total fock-up is the best case scenario. The problem with your analysis is that it presumes that we have no other information leading up to the event. But we do -- we know that repeated requests for increased scenario were refused. Given these facts, it is proper to consider them in the decisions which were made.

 

First, why was the security refused? The most plausible reason is that increased security would provide bad optics -- a lack of confidence that the Arab Spring had created a peaceful transition. With this theory in place, how would the administration react to the events in Benghazi? As I had stated earlier (in this thread or elsewhere), I suspect that they hoped that the forces in place could thwart the attack, because a stronger military response would look bad.

 

Obviously that didn't work. So we go through weeks of blaming video guy, to no wait we said it was an act of terror from the get go, to this latest report which is supposed to assuage us that they did everything they could, but the info and timelines in this report don't pass the sniff test and contain nothing remotely classified to justify the weeks of delay in providing it.

 

Did Obama want the ambassador to die? That's silly. Was he willing to risk the lives of people in that compound in the interest of positive optics? I think so. If you disagree with my analysis, please tell me why. If your reason is "secret stuff," please feel free to speculate as to what secret stuff led to the refusal of additional security. That's the question we need to answer first, if we are to understand the thinking behind the (lack of) response that evening.

 

OK. Well since this whole thing appeared to be a CIA operation, NOT a military or State Department operation, could it be as simple as a basic turf war between the agencies? I know nothing about this and I watch TV, but they are always fighting with each other over who's in charge on TV and from what I gather the CIA gets upset when another agency tries to step on its toes. Is it not plausible that the CIA told the State Department "We have everything under control." And this whole thing really was the CIA's fault, but in admitting what went wrong, they are exposing cracks in their intelligence or security or availability of resources to the terrorists? Let alone the computer desk bangers demanding to know why the CIA was even there in the first frigging place which I'm pretty sure hasn't been explained to the public and I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be.

 

The fact that the CIA was there in the first place makes this whole thing weird. And probably explains a lot of the secrecy. I don't believe the CIA is typically in the business of airing their operations out for the world to see.

 

This was not a military related event; it was the CIA. And the CIA probably had a good reason for being there in the first place... which was probably top secret. I said secret.

 

I read something the other day that the head of the CIA was purposely not at the air force base when the bodies were flown home because they were trying to hide the fact that the CIA was involved. I don't think we found out that it was a CIA base that was attacked until recently.

 

In your brain... is it remotely possible that there was a secret operation that was in progress and it went bad, and they are trying to keep the details of the whole thing quiet for reasons of national security or the security of the men that we may still have out there on the field?

 

Or is it more reasonable to just take as a fact that Obama himself screwed this whole damn thing up and is directly responsible for 4 American deaths and all the lying and secrecy is an attempt to hide his incompetence from the people?

[nikki2200 4]

OMG. I just did a google search and found this exact topic. Article was published on Friday by the WSJ about how there was a breakdown between the CIA and the State Department. And most of the staff at the embassy were actually CIA agents. And that a lot of officials in Washington were not even aware of the CIA presence there although there was an agreement that the CIA was to provide security to the region because of whatever the hell it was they had going on there.

 

Of all of the questions surrounding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, one that has seemed especially puzzling is the apparently insufficient security there. A new report from the Wall Street Journal sheds light on this, revealing what the paper says was a secret and possibly confused arrangement between the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency.

 

The CIA is said to have been the dominant U.S. presence in Benghazi, where it had a “symbiotic” relationship with the State Department consulate that served as cover for its staff. “The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security,” the Journal says, “although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn’t have the same understanding about its security responsibilities.”

 

But, on Sept. 11, the arrangement for the CIA to provide “emergency” security to the consulate apparently did not unfold as the State Department had expected:

 

Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren’t on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

 

The CIA’s secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn’t know about.

 

Two questions immediately strike me about this. The first: what is the gap between what the State Department expected from the CIA force and what it got on Sept. 11?

 

The CIA had force of “roughly 10,” located at their separate “annex” building a mile away. The night of the attack, they sent a seven-man team that arrived in 50 minutes, including a delay of several minutes as agency officials tried and failed to contact Libyans who had been hired to provide security. The CIA force remained at the consulate for one hour before leaving with all the Americans except for the ambassador.

Is State’s gripe with the CIA that they didn’t arrive more quickly? That they weren’t able to better secure the consulate? Or that they did not ultimately succeed in protecting their ambassador? A congressional investigator cited the CIA’s delay in responding as evidence that “the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.”

 

This gets to my second question: If the State Department believed it could rely on the CIA for emergency security, and if the congressional investigator sees the incident as a failure of the State-CIA security arrangement, then why were Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff seeking additional consulate security from local and national Libyan authorities before the attack? Based on unsigned letters discovered at the consulate grounds weeks after the attack, it appears that Stevens did not see the building’s day-to-day security as adequate and was asking for more.

This day-to-day Libyan-provided security is distinct from the “emergency” CIA security, but if Stevens saw the former as insufficient, then why now is there so much focus on the latter’s inability to save the day?

I’ll try to dig into these questions more tomorrow. In the meantime, read Greg Miller’s beat-by-beat on what happened after the violence began.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/02/wsj-state-dept-and-cia-had-secret-botched-deal-for-benghazi-security/

 

I'm going to read the WSJ report now. Why wasn't it posted here?

[drobeski 3,061]

OK. Well since this whole thing appeared to be a CIA operation, NOT a military or State Department operation, could it be as simple as a basic turf war between the agencies? I know nothing about this and I watch TV, but they are always fighting with each other over who's in charge on TV and from what I gather the CIA gets upset when another agency tries to step on its toes. Is it not plausible that the CIA told the State Department "We have everything under control." And this whole thing really was the CIA's fault, but in admitting what went wrong, they are exposing cracks in their intelligence or security or availability of resources to the terrorists? Let alone the computer desk bangers demanding to know why the CIA was even there in the first frigging place which I'm pretty sure hasn't been explained to the public and I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be.

 

The fact that the CIA was there in the first place makes this whole thing weird. And probably explains a lot of the secrecy. I don't believe the CIA is typically in the business of airing their operations out for the world to see.

 

This was not a military related event; it was the CIA. And the CIA probably had a good reason for being there in the first place... which was probably top secret. I said secret.

 

I read something the other day that the head of the CIA was purposely not at the air force base when the bodies were flown home because they were trying to hide the fact that the CIA was involved. I don't think we found out that it was a CIA base that was attacked until recently.

 

In your brain... is it remotely possible that there was a secret operation that was in progress and it went bad, and they are trying to keep the details of the whole thing quiet for reasons of national security or the security of the men that we may still have out there on the field?

 

Or is it more reasonable to just take as a fact that Obama himself screwed this whole damn thing up and is directly responsible for 4 American deaths and all the lying and secrecy is an attempt to hide his incompetence from the people?

It wasnt a state dept event ? Wow you are clueless.

Go watch the testimony, ita available on a govt web site. Get caught up or.shut up.

[nikki2200 4]

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

 

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

 

The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.

 

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

 

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

 

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

 

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.

 

The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.

 

"The details they gave us were very sparing," Ms. Quigley said, adding they were "extremely professional, highly compassionate."

 

The extent of the CIA role in Benghazi, and the central role the spy agency played in the run-up and aftermath of the attack, puts a spotlight on Mr. Petraeus, who took over as director of the agency last year.

 

At one point during the consulate siege, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned the CIA director directly to seek assistance. Real-time intelligence from the field was scarce and some officials at State and the Pentagon were largely in the dark about the CIA's role.

 

Mr. Petraeus didn't attend funerals held later for the two CIA contractors, irking some administration officials and CIA veterans.

 

After an attack in 2009 on a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, one of the deadliest suffered by the agency, then-Director Leon Panetta immediately lifted the cover of the seven CIA officers and contractors killed, publicly acknowledged the agency's loss, and attended several of the funerals.

 

In Libya, the relationship between the State Department and CIA was secret and symbiotic: The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations. The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security, although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities.

 

The spy agency was the first to set up shop. It began building up its presence there soon after the Libyan revolution started in February 2011. The uprising overturned what had been a tight working relationship between the Gadhafi regime's spy services and the Americans, creating a gap that the CIA presence sought to fill, officials said.

 

The CIA worked from a compound publicly referred to as the "annex," which was given a State Department office name to disguise its purpose. The agency focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats, said an American security contractor who has worked closely with CIA, the Pentagon and State. A main concern was the spread of weapons and militant influences throughout the region, including in Mali, Somalia and Syria, this person said.

 

Libyan officials say they were kept in the dark about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. "The Americans had people coming and going with great frequency. Frankly, our records were never clear [about] who was out there" in Benghazi, said a senior Libyan government official in Tripoli.

 

In mid-2011, the State Department established its consulate in Benghazi, to have a diplomatic presence in the birthplace of the Libyan revolution. At the annex, many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as "light cover," carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.

 

Protecting the CIA annex was a roughly 10-man security force. The State Department thought it had a formal agreement with the CIA that called for that force to be used in emergencies to bolster security for the consulate.

 

The State Department has been criticized by lawmakers and others for failing to provide adequate security for its ambassador, especially in light of an attack there in June and after other violence prompted the U.K. to pull out of the city. In October, Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for any security lapses.

 

Among U.S. diplomatic officials in Libya, the nearby CIA force and the secret agreement allayed concerns about security levels.

 

"They were the cavalry," a senior U.S. official said of the CIA team, adding that CIA's backup security was an important factor in State's decision to maintain a consulate there.

 

In the months leading up to the attack, Mr. Stevens and others sent a series of diplomatic messages to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. Nevertheless, security at the consulate wasn't beefed up and Mr. Stevens's movements weren't restricted, according to congressional investigators.

 

On the night of the attack, the consulate, on a 13-acre property, was protected by five American diplomatic security officers inside the walls, supported by a small group of armed Libyans outside. The CIA's security force at the annex sometimes provided backup security for the ambassador when he traveled outside the consulate.

 

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

 

Soon after the shooting started, a diplomatic security officer at the consulate hit an alarm. By 9:40 p.m. local time—3:40 p.m. on the East Coast—the officer called the annex's security team, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic-security headquarters in Washington.

 

It took a seven-man team from the CIA security roughly 50 minutes to get to the consulate after it was alerted, according to administration officials.

 

Within 25 minutes, the team headed out of the annex to the consulate compound, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. It took another 25 minutes to reach the compound, in part because the team stopped to get heavy weapons and came under fire as they moved in, the official said.

 

The CIA team left the consulate around 11:30 p.m. with all American officials from the compound, except for the missing U.S. ambassador, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. They came under fire as they left.

 

Shortly after they arrived back at the annex, the annex began receiving small-arms fire and RPG rounds, the official said. The CIA security team returned fire and the attackers dispersed around 1 a.m.

 

The congressional investigator said the delay showed that the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.

 

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

 

At the State Department that night, officials frantically tried to find out what was happening. In recent interviews, some administration officials criticized the CIA for not being forthcoming with information.

 

At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.

 

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon's command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military's Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants.

 

But the images didn't help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

 

Meanwhile, in Tripoli, another CIA team mobilized to provide additional security for the CIA annex and help evacuate Americans from Benghazi. The team went to the Tripoli airport with a suitcase full of cash to find a plane to fly to Benghazi. They were delayed because Libyan authorities insisted the Americans be accompanied by a larger Libyan force on the ground in Benghazi, which took time to assemble, U.S. officials say. Libyan officials attribute the delay to the Americans not sharing key logistical details with them.

 

At about 7 p.m.—1 a.m. in Benghazi—the team touched down at the Benghazi airport. The team had to negotiate for transport into Benghazi, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. When the team learned the ambassador was missing and the annex attackers had dispersed, they focused on the security situation at the hospital, where the ambassador was thought to be.

 

By the time the team was able to arrange transportation with an armed escort, the intelligence official said, they had learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead and the security at the hospital was unclear, so they decided to go to the annex to help with the evacuation. The ambassador was pronounced dead shortly after 2 a.m.

 

Using GPS locaters, team members raced to the annex, arriving at 5:15 a.m. Within minutes, the annex was under fire again. The two security officers were killed by mortar fire, the senior U.S. intelligence official said, adding that attack lasted 11 minutes.

 

The emphasis on security at the CIA annex was underscored the day after the attack. With all U.S. personnel evacuated, the CIA appears to have dispatched local Libyan agents to the annex to destroy any sensitive documents and equipment there, even as the consulate compound remained unguarded and exposed to looters and curiosity seekers for weeks, officials said. Documents, including the ambassador's journal, were taken from the consulate site, and the site proved of little value when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents finally arrived weeks later to investigate.

 

U.S. officials said they prioritized securing the annex because many more people worked there and they were doing sensitive work, while the consulate, by design, had no classified documents. The American contractor said the top priority was destroying sensitive documents.

 

In the aftermath of the assault, questions have been raised within the administration and on Capitol Hill about Mr. Petraeus's role in responding to the attack. On Oct. 10, lawmakers grilled senior State Department officials about the attack. At one point, lawmakers and officials alluded for the first time to the existence of the CIA facility. That set off alarms at the agency and at the State Department because that information was classified.

 

Some senior administration officials say they were surprised Mr. Petraeus went to that night's private Washington screening of the movie "Argo," about a covert CIA operation in 1979 in Tehran.

 

A senior U.S. intelligence official said Mr. Petraeus has been "fully engaged from the start," citing a particular focus on the rescue mission, and that he received daily updates and personally reviewed intelligence reports after the attack. Another senior official said he was in constant communication with his team even when attending other events on Oct. 10.

 

In ensuing weeks, tensions over the matter spread to the FBI and Capitol Hill. The FBI didn't initially get to review surveillance footage taken at the compound because officials say it was being analyzed by the CIA. The CIA, in turn, wasn't able to immediately get copies of FBI witness interviews, delaying the agency's analysis of what happened outside the consulate and at the annex.

 

A senior congressional investigator said the secrecy has made it harder to figure out what errors were made, because classification restrictions have allowed the CIA to avoid public and congressional scrutiny for its conduct. Information about the CIA's role has largely been limited to congressional intelligence committees, which are reviewing the attacks but have not launched investigations into them.

 

The CIA abandoned the annex after it had been scrubbed clean of any sensitive materials, according to U.S. and Libyan officials.

The significance of the annex was a well-kept secret in Benghazi. A neighbor said that he never saw Libyan security guards at the annex compound and that the street never had any extra police presence or security cordon. "If the CIA was living there, we never knew it," the neighbor said.

 

In early October, the owners of what had been the annex property moved back inside. Recently, a woman and her two children could be seen driving in and out of the front gate. A gardener said they are the wife and children of the Libyan property owner.

 

The woman declined to comment, then slammed the security gate shut behind her.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html?KEYWORDS=CIA+Takes+Heat+for+Role+in+Libya

 

Well this appears to be the answer.... Really... No one read this?

[nikki2200 4]

It wasnt a state dept event ? Wow you are clueless.

Go watch the testimony, ita available on a govt web site. Get caught up or.shut up.

 

Oh really?

[nikki2200 4]

I really hope all this information being made public doesn't alert the bad guys in other places that the CIA may be operating in their backyard under the guise of State Department officials. That would really suck. Especially if someone died.

[BudBro 183]

i read today that the fight may have been extended by the terrorists in an attempt to lure more assets (seals) into the fight. general ham was told to stand down after authorizing help, and the cia, who knew what was happening, may have called off help in order to keep aircraft from being shot down with american stinger missiles being used by the terrorists. so, yay for not getting more people killed, but bad in that it sheds more light on the weapons we have put into the hands of terrorists whom we recruited to overthrow qadaffi and assad to install muslim brotherhood. and the 2 seals were killed at the cia annex late in second attack which moved to the cia annex from the consulate.

[nikki2200 4]

i read today that the fight may have been extended by the terrorists in an attempt to lure more assets (seals) into the fight. general ham was told to stand down after authorizing help, and the cia, who knew what was happening, may have called off help in order to keep aircraft from being shot down with american stinger missiles being used by the terrorists. so, yay for not getting more people killed, but bad in that it sheds more light on the weapons we have put into the hands of terrorists whom we recruited to overthrow qadaffi and assad to install muslim brotherhood. and the 2 seals were killed at the cia annex late in second attack which moved to the cia annex from the consulate.

 

Oh. You may have been a valid reason for telling them to stand down - such as avoiding more loss of life - as opposed to Obama sitting behind his control screen going, "muahahahahahahaha LET THEM DIE!"

 

I said from the beginning I thought whatever happened was pretty bad and pretty scary. I felt as soon as Romney dropped it and Hillary so fervently took the blame almost pleading for it to go away something was really weird.

 

God knows what they could have walked off with from that CIA annex. They may not have known it was even a CIA quarters at the time (crosses fingers) so hopefully it wasn't that bad. But I could totally see, after reading that report, why the government may want to try to keep this out of the media. Ya know... national security secret stuff and all.

 

And instead of letting the people who are in charge of keeping us safe do their jobs, we have the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys of the world doing us the great public service of DEMANDING ANSWERS BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE LIED TO!!!!!

 

Hooray for the truth seekers!!!

[Reality 3,121]

Oh. You may have been a valid reason for telling them to stand down - such as avoiding more loss of life - as opposed to Obama sitting behind his control screen going, "muahahahahahahaha LET THEM DIE!"

 

I said from the beginning I thought whatever happened was pretty bad and pretty scary. I felt as soon as Romney dropped it and Hillary so fervently took the blame almost pleading for it to go away something was really weird.

 

God knows what they could have walked off with from that CIA annex. They may not have known it was even a CIA quarters at the time (crosses fingers) so hopefully it wasn't that bad. But I could totally see, after reading that report, why the government may want to try to keep this out of the media. Ya know... national security secret stuff and all.

 

And instead of letting the people who are in charge of keeping us safe do their jobs, we have the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys of the world doing us the great public service of DEMANDING ANSWERS BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE LIED TO!!!!!

 

Hooray for the truth seekers!!!

 

So it was really stupid for the President to blame it entirely on a YouTube video?

 

From reading your posts it's pretty amazing the hoops people will jump through to protect their guy, huh?

[nikki2200 4]

So it was really stupid for the President to blame it entirely on a YouTube video?

 

From reading your posts it's pretty amazing the hoops people will jump through to protect their guy, huh?

 

Nah. He should have held an internationally televised press conference announcing to the whole world that the CIA had secret quarters set up in Benghazi spying on al-Qaeda, or whatever it was they were doing there, which was subsequently attacked by al-Qaeda with heavy artillery killing 4 Americans. That would have been the smart thing to do. Maybe publish all the names of the agents that were working there as part of the operation just for the sake of full transparency.

 

I'm done with this conversation.