BO Admin. Lied About Benghazi

paso, on the surface you have a point but I think you are missing the point. Does the fact that someone died in an attack necessitate an investigation? Not necessarily.

One thing when looking at your list there were very few Americans killed in those attacks. Now, I don't value American lives more than people from other countries but we are talking about the US government and he it protects its citizens.

I don't think the Benghazi situation required an investigation because people died, even Americans. I think the investigation was needed because there were so many inconsistencies. Did you know the Libyan President described the attack as a Islamic terror attack soon after the incident? He pointed to Islamic terrorists and our government blamed a movie a US citizen made, repeatedly. That alone should make you want to know why such a huge difference in description.

Then you have the fact that no support was sent during the attack itself. Doesn't that warrant questioning? How about the fact that twice military backup units were told to "stand down" after they had boarded planes to go help. Doesn't that make you curious?

On top of that, there were requests for increased security before the attack occurred. I think that is the least questionable issue at this point. It was a mistake that looking back could have prevented the problem. But I am not going to judge the DOS just because I have the benefit of hindsight.

But don't the other issues make you curious?
 
The rw circle jerk continues.....


popcorn.gif
 
rolleyes.gif
zzz.gif
I'll bet that all of my students, who had to be in the top 25% of their class, were lots smarter than you. Lots. And I have a Master's Degree with Highest Honors. A 4.0 GPA. You??? An idiot.
 
Good Lord
He sounds as stupid as Panetta and Clinton
so Gates is saying we didn't have a ready force in the Middle East?
whiteflag.gif

Because of course we didn't need one?
there was nothing going on that would call for a ready force was there?

No intelligence on the ground? So I guess the ambassador's phone call. Sean smith's call and of course the 2 former seals telling them what was going on PLUS the drone hovering overhead didn't give them enough intel?

There were also other CIA people there who were giving reports .
I'd say they had more intel than they had for most of their other special ops operations.

There people begging for help. There special ops people in Tripoli already to board a plane to help. Saying special ops/ ready forces. couldn't be sent in because they didn't have enough intel is an insult to those people who were trained for just such a mission.
Tell Lt.Col Gibson and his special forces team not enough intel was available . They were ready to go.


This is just a case of Gates offering cover for Panetta
 
Gates may have been appointed by Bush, but he obviously was/is in bed with the BO Admin.

We got caught with our pants down, again, and it may have been too late at that point. But, BO Admin. was warned repeatedly that al-Qaida was very active in the area and Amb. Stevens begged for reinforcements and BO did nothing because he was selling the "al-Qaida is defeated" line of BS!!!
 
So basically Gates is commenting on a situation of which he had no specific understanding.

I don't think anyone would send in people without any intelligence. So the comment represents common sense. However, everyone involved had one HUGE bit of intelligence which was, A US AMBASSADOR AND STAFF WAS UNDER ATTACK. At that point wouldn't the most prudent thing to do be to send in some force to provide support for escape and gather more understanding of the situation? Here's a better question that should have been asked of Robert Gates, if you were in Benghazi on Sept 11, 2012 and were being attacked and then called for help would you have wanted and/or expected your government whom you are serving to send help even though the threat wasn't well understood? I think I know his answer.
 
This is looking more and more rotten. No believable explanation has been given on why no rescue attempt was made. I feel sorry for any ambassador in a high-risk environment. Big hit to the credibility of the US.
 
Former Sec. of Defense Gates is as respected as they come. The slanderous statements about his military tactical judgements are preposterous. Every day I thank God that the fringe right (and left for that matter) has limited political power in federal government.

What's clear in this sordid affair is the BO admin certainly tried to spin the story. It's also clear that preparation for an attack like this was woeful. Of course, our military is beyond stretched around the world thus any belief that an attack like this can be eliminated is pure fantasy. The best hope is to repel it long enough to react. Secretary Gates laid out the Mogadishu defense and was torn apart by the board military experts.

I suspect we can ill afford the levels of protection that everyone is assuming should have been in place. This view is reinforced by the Darrel Issa voted for legislation to cut the budget by >$100M. Could resources be more efficiently used? Of course but that's a pretty facetious argument when balanced against the challenges facing the state department and defense worldwide.

This was a very sad incident that is a result of a fanatical religious element that can and does exist everywhere. Simply put, their resolve is greater than ours. They've been fighting this religious war for centuries so any belief that we can outlast them ignores the facts. This is the new normal. At best we can hope to marginalize them and limit incidents where they are less impact-full, like Libya.
 
I don't want to come off as an *** to those of you chastising Gates but the fact is you don't know what you are talking about. I have worked along side some of those guys doing the intel prep that Gates talks about.

Everyone of those dudes is a badass partly because of the skill and training they have but mostly because they only know one speed. They will always stand up and say 'SEND ME'. That doesn't mean that it is always a good idea.

You don't launch improv rescue missions with virtually no intel. Our guys are as good as they are precisely because they have intel and a plan. fly in, land, commandeer a vehicle, navigate through bengazi (not knowing how big the threat is), not knowing where the embassy folks are, secure the embassy folks and get out or find a secure location to hold out. That ain't easy stuff. Low probability of success, very high risks. Most commanders would wait and hope a better opportunity presents itself.

The very assertion that buzzing them with a jet would have had any lasting effect should clue you in to Hicks tactical credibility. Not too mention the very risky nature of such a tactic. He's a state department guy. He may be a great american but you should certainly take his assessment of the tactical situation with a spoon of salt.

Certainly the administration needs to answer for sanitizing the reports to redact 'terrorist' and even more so for covering up the spin effort but to assert that anyone in the chain willingly sacrificed those people is just wrong.

And certainly the fact that the GOP is continuing to attack this has as much to do with undermining Clinton as it does with any 'shock' about the coverup. So who's hypocrisy is worse? Both groups are made up of self-important, power hungry slugs.
 
I guess the point of all this is that an ambassador isn't very important. If it was the president of the US, I don't think the military would hesitate sending in troops. If it was Hillary Clinton, I don't think there would be hesitation either. Where is the line drawn, because clearly some Americans are more important than others?

With that said, who put the ambassador in this position? It was an apparently unsecured facility without much ability to send information to the outside. I assume that no cameras were available and they had limited ability to communicate with the US. It doesn't seem very useful to me, but nonetheless, someone sent the ambassador there and told him that he would be protected? Who was that? Whoever it was is responsible for his death.
 
Roger, you made me laugh! And even though I am a conservative Republican, I can't get over the fact that Rick Perry is an Aggie. Surely we can find someone better!
 
Since the Boston bombing, rolling through the Benghazi hearings and how that has gone, then the IRS revelations and the AP phone records ending up in the State Dept, and listening to Jay Carney for all this time....

What kind of NFL team franchise would the Obama Administration make? What kind of college football program would it make?

Obama as Head Coach. Jay Carney as DB coach. Since there aren't a lot of men in top posts.... Hilary Clinton... Linebackers coach. Cheryl Mills...Defensive Line coach. Ben Rhodes (Deputy National Security Advisor). Susan Rice... Special Teams return game.

Offhand I can't think of an Offensive Coordinator, Quarterbacks coach, Wide Receivers coach or Offensive Line coach.

Joe Biden... ball boy.

Would Jim Harbaugh be scared of this group?
 
Perhaps there are reasons. I would like to hear them though. "Leave no man behind" is a mainstay in almost all military branches all over the world. If a soldier knows that whatever happens he is not alone and won't be left behind, he will take much more risk. Also, its an ethics principle that you have to help you comrades. These people were put in harms way and were not offered protection. Whoever told them that they had protection, yet put them in harms way in an unsecured location without means to communicate what was happening on the ground, and did not provide backup when asked, is responsible for the ambassador's death. And before we can prevent it from happening in the future, we need to determine how it happened in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top