TexasCHLforum.com

Andrew wrote:Mr. Doherty's brother doesn't agree:
"This information regarding Glen’s role is different than what our State Department liaison told me on the morning of Glen’s funeral, and which I subsequently shared in my eulogy and which many others have shared since. Our family is no less proud of Glen’s heroism in rushing in and giving his life to help with the battle that saved the lives of 20-30 American diplomatic personnel, but the facts are important"
http://gregdoherty.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... zi-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Doherty's brother I will believe. Hopefully you also noticed where he wrote "The attackers numbered well over a hundred; nearly a hundred of them died in the attack." Makes the claim of 60 seem modest.

Andrew wrote:They didn't die at the Consulate, they weren't over whelmed by mass attacks, the died during a motar attack, at the CIA annex 1.2 miles away, they weren't alone, a reaction team from Tripoli had managed to enter Benghazi, one member of the Tripoli team was in fact Glen Doherty, so it would have been impossible for him to have been at the Consulate or to have fought for four hours at his friend's side.

Were the actions undertaken by Woods and Doherty heroic, yes. Is the info provided in the blogpost true, no. Remember the real men, acknowledge their very real and heroic actions, don't support falsehood that could lead to the ridicule of their sacrifice.

Andrew, I'm sorry, but that is plainly wrong, as this story shows. They were not at the CIA annex, unless by that you mean the place where Stevens was staying, which is the Consulate. Furthermore, both Doherty and Woods were CIA agents, not part of the team from Tripoli, so that post is more wrong than it is right. They returned to the CIA Annex after rescuing the people at the Consolate, where they again came under attack. That fight lasted four hours, and eventually the two were killed by mortar fire, but not before taking out a lot of enemy forces.

As I said, we will never know the truth about what happened, but I guarantee you those SEALs didn't die before killing a lot of enemy. They were part of the team that was on site within 25 minutes after the initial reports of trouble.

Further corroboration:
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/20515-n ... t-victims/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/dec ... ticle-copy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/afr ... ate-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And yes, I'm aware that Wapo has Doherty as part of the team from Tripoli, but that's plainly wrong and Wapo has reasons to lie about it. I don't trust them to tell the truth at all. The Wapo "story" was posted on an editorial blog, to provide cover for their lies. (We never printed that story. It was a blogger that made those statements.)

Andrew wrote:Inspiring, yes. True, no.
http://newslines.org/wiki/fact-checks/d ... 0-jihadis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I ain't buying it. This "refutation" wants you to believe that two Navy SEALs who fought for hours before dying didn't kill a single person? That stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

I'll put it this way. We'll probably never know what really happened in Benghazi, but I guarantee you those SEALs took some enemy with them. Guaranteed.

stroo wrote:Inspiring if true. But according to multiple reports at the time, the two former Seals were killed by a mortar round at that annex. They weren't killed by being overwhelmed by the attacking forces. I am not saying this is false but it is not consistent with reports at the time. I hope at least the part about them killing large numbers of the attackers is true.

You're assuming the mortar round story is true. Why?

http://rosieontheright.com/they-earned- ... can-valor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amazing story.