Althouse: Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

October 26, 2012

Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

William Kristol: "So who in the government did tell 'anybody' not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?"

Draw the necessary inferences. This is important.

299 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 299 of 299

Alex said...: Inga - do you even give a shit about our exploding debt?; 10/26/12, 10:02 PM
test said...: meth,

The idiots didn't kill our guys. You have to distinguish between people who kill and people who are just stupid.; 10/26/12, 10:03 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Inga insists that her daughter is voting for Obama. That may be true, or it may just mean that Inga's daughter figures she'll get a lot less nagging if she tells her mother she's voting for Obama, and then votes however she pleases in the privacy of the voting booth.; 10/26/12, 10:03 PM
Alex said...: You mean the conservative Inga daughter is voting for Obama?; 10/26/12, 10:04 PM
Conserve Liberty said...: @garage
Was this posted somewhere other than you here just now? Google doesn't show anything.

You are hot tonight.

Google "Jake Tapper Benghazi"

Pay particular attention to October 10th, and then today.; 10/26/12, 10:04 PM
Wince said...: I think Obama, Biden, Clinton and Panetta should be dragged into Judge Judy's court before the election.

She'll get to the bottom of it in less than half an hour.; 10/26/12, 10:05 PM
ricpic said...: Above all else Hussein must not offend Islam. It's a success! Benghazi's a success! American lives lost but NO CONFRONTATION WITH ISLAM!!! That's the horror that sits in the White House.; 10/26/12, 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: My best guess for what transpired that day, is that it was a perfect storm scenario, what could possibly go wrong did, through no fault of anyone but the terrorists.

I do however think the state department was negligent in having insufficient security in such a volatile country, or not withdrawing embassy personnel when the Brits did and if that trickles up to the President, so be it.; 10/26/12, 10:07 PM
Unknown said...: Question for Garage and Inga.

Would you be outraged if it does end up that Obama's administration decided not to help the Americans killed in Benghazi?; 10/26/12, 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Alex, I have four children, three are liberals one is conservative, and the conservative is voting for Romney, as is her right. I still love her as much as when she was a lib. One of the liberals in serving in the miltary, not the conservative.; 10/26/12, 10:12 PM
Titus said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 10:13 PM
Titus said...: I agree, this is important and huge.

Althouse, just say you are supporting and voting for Romney NOW so you can alleviate their pain and disgust in you.

tits.; 10/26/12, 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: If there was some way that help could've gotten to them in time, yes of course, I'd be outraged.; 10/26/12, 10:13 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Please define "perfect storm."

That would seem to indicate that there was a sequence of events that we were completely unable to stop.; 10/26/12, 10:21 PM
yashu said...: Granted Geraldo Rivera is an idiot, but he mouthed the same talking points that I've seen other Obama supporters use- ie: this can't be a real issue since Romney didn't bring it up at the debate... As if candidate Romney is the arbiter of what the media should investigate.

NB a month ago Joe Scarborough and others in the MSM excused themselves for not questioning Obama re Benghazi by blaming Romney: because Romney had, in their view, butted in, made a statement (on Cairo) and thereby "politicized" things, the MSM were justified in not pursuing the story. Scarborough claimed that if Romney *hadn't* said anything, the MSM would have pursued the story more aggressively. Damned if you do.

Now, the rationale is: because Romney has *refrained* from bringing up Benghazi in the last debate, has refrained from pushing the issue himself, the MSM is justified in not pursuing the story. Because Romney hasn't said anything, the MSM is excused for not pursuing the story. Damned if you don't.; 10/26/12, 10:31 PM
Tim said...: Inga said...

"If there was some way that help could've gotten to them in time, yes of course, I'd be outraged."

This is not only stupid, it is morally wrong.

The first problem is, once the attack began, the president and his administration made no effort whatsoever to rescue the Americans under attack. Worse yet, they issued orders to NOT AID the targets of the attack.

Your willful denial of this problem makes you both stupid and morally bankrupt.

The president had an obligation to ensure the safety of American representatives in Libya.

He failed.

Once they were under attack, he had an obligation to defend them and rescue them.

He failed.

Once they died because of his failure to secure their safety, and then to defend and rescue them, he had an obligation to tell the truth of the matter to the victims families and America.

He failed.

Yet you, steadfast as ever, defend all of this, for no discernible reason whatsoever.

Your moral compass is broken. Worse yet, I have no sense it ever worked.; 10/26/12, 10:33 PM
Caroline said...: The pieces are coming together. Here's how I see it- Obama made a call to not send in help, quite possibly for legitimate reasons (I don't know enough to argue either way- I'm open-minded). The fight went on longer than he expected, and people died, which may have also been unexpected- a lot of things are unexpected to the out-of-touch progressives.

Obama, fearing that the truth about his decision would hurt his chances for reelection, decided to use the video story that was floating around after the Egypt riots as a cover, assuming the media would carry him until after the election. He almost made it, except that the foreign media, Fox News and the internet are not in his pocket. And the story he picked was so obviously not true - once details came out from Libya- that it was laughable even to us rubes here at Althouse. A true sign of just how incompetent he is, and how stupid he thinks we are.

If he had been forthright from the start, he would have indeed taken heat for his decision, especially from the right; but the sensitive moderates might have given him a pass for being honest; and his base would be pushing to have him canonized. Instead, his actions call into question the character of the man in a negative way that will turn off a number of moderates. It may cost him the election.

(BTW I haven't read all the comments in this thread yet, so I apologize if what I say repeats what others have already said.); 10/26/12, 10:40 PM
Hagar said...: When a United States embassy anywhere comes under fire and requests miltary assitance - not just "security, but military assistance - I cannot imagine that request going anywhere but straight to the President wherever he might be and whatever the time of day. It is a matter of war and peace and for him to decide what is to be done.

That the President refuses to answer questions about this and mumbles about a need to investigate and "finding out who was responsible for the attack," is BS and misdirection.; 10/26/12, 10:44 PM
JAL said...: @ Inga They went by information the CIA had given them at the time

I forget the exact words, but I heard a military guy on the radio who has been on the scene in these kinds of situations in the past and there is a "flash message (<--? not sure that is the right word)" real time which goes out overriding the "email" traffic when there is an incident of this kind. Also the CIA and related folks in the safe house were in contact real time with upper levels.

The info would have been in the Situation Room and in the POTUS ear real time in a very very short time.

And so POTUS went to bed and then flew to Vegas for some applauding crowds who would throw money at his campaign so he could lie again about upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.

"I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."; 10/26/12, 10:45 PM
wyo sis said...: Inga said...
I do think the CIA,State and military know what is going on. If Obama is perpetrating a massive hoax or coverup, someone will come forth and tell the truth."

What proof is needed? What proof is necessary? Whose word is good enough? Do none of the people who have spoken out so far have any credibility? Who is this someone you will believe?; 10/26/12, 10:45 PM
CWJ said...: I don't think I have ever seen our hostess use boldface, much less boldface italics. This IS important. But I still want to know the truth. I can infer plenty, but the story just gets murkier with each new revelation. Which are true, which are false, I just don't know.

Look, I don't want to believe what I think I believe. It is just too venal. It is just too horrific. I can't believe I even just typed that word. But the conclusion that the reelection of this one small self-centered excuse for a man trumps truth and our own people seems inescapable.; 10/26/12, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Bullshit Tim, my moral compass is in good working order. What you fail to grasp as a conservative purist, is that other people are moral human beings, even if they don't see eye to eye with you. I don't need to defend my moral code to you, but because I generally like you, I did.

Your outlook is very narrow Tim.; 10/26/12, 10:50 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: garage and Inga are suffering from epistemic closure.

They are reason Obama can get away with flat out lies, and the MSM can get away with not covering the news.

Because unless the MSM covers an issue, asks a question and Obama admits fault, they won't believe it.

So they aren't discussing/arguing in good faith. They are impervious to logic or evidence. They are true believers in the liberal/progressive cause, and they only accept liberal/progressive input/evidence to change their views.; 10/26/12, 11:03 PM
Alex said...: Bullshit Tim, my moral compass is in good working order. What you fail to grasp as a conservative purist, is that other people are moral human beings, even if they don't see eye to eye with you. I don't need to defend my moral code to you, but because I generally like you, I did.

Oh yeah for much longer are we going to have to put up with your self-righteous bullshit Inga?; 10/26/12, 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Says the Moby.; 10/26/12, 11:05 PM
Kansas City said...: The more I think about it, the less significant is the CIA statement. It is just denying the report that the CIA guys in Benghazi were told not to help the consulate. It also may be separating the CIA from the later decision not to send in the military. But Panetta has already said he and the generals made that decision. The question now is whether Obama and Panetta can stonewall the details of that decision until the election. Can they get away with the lame explanation offered by Panetta? Can they get away with no details regarding what was requested and why the requests were denied? Obama said today he did not "personally" know of requests for help. That is probably a lie, but it effectively throws Panetta under the bus. I assume Panetta will be a loyal politician and back up the president and, if necessary, take the fall. Will the generals? Of course, the record already reflects Panetta and Obama were meeting an hour into the attack. How could Obama not have been told of any requests for help?; 10/26/12, 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Surrrre Nathan, you love the NYT, MSNBC, CBS, right? Maybe you even like Keith Olberman?; 10/26/12, 11:08 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: The President is absolutely lying/concealing information.

He says he will investigate to "find out what happened."

But there are multiple aspects of "what happened."

One of the aspects is what happened in Libya from the perspective of the US citizens on the ground, eyewitnesses, etc.

It has been more than 6 weeks. There has been plenty of time to find out and analyze what they know.

So we aren't waiting to find out anything there.

Another aspect is what happened in the State Dept chain of command, what happened in the CIA chain of command, and what happened in the Defense chain of command.

The President is at the top of all those chains. All he has to do is ask, and he has the answers to those.

So we aren't waiting to find out anything there.

That's 2/3 of issue.

The only thing we don't know is the terrorists plan/timeline.

But why doesn't President Obama authorize the release of what we do already know?

He is our employee. We have a right to know.

By not releasing that information, he is deliberately slow rolling us, deliberately keeping us from knowing what we should know.

And by slow-rolling his employers, he allows some of his employers to play stupid and ignorant, and demand full and incontrovertible proof from Obama's own lips before criticizing the President in any way.

So for political purposes, President Obama is with-holding information.

Any arguments with that logic?; 10/26/12, 11:17 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Inga,
Surrrre Nathan, you love the NYT, MSNBC, CBS, right? Maybe you even like Keith Olberman?

I watch them, at times.

I never reject anything because of the source. I only reject things when they contradict what I already know from other sources.

But you have to admit that the MSM embargoes stories it doesn't like.

There is absolutely newsworthy items that CBS, MSNBC, Keith Olbermann ignore for apparently ideological reasons.

I don't have to ever accept anyone's word for anything, and I don't.

I compare to my own experience, and give weight to those whose previous opinions have borne out.

Has Olbermann ever been right about anything important?; 10/26/12, 11:21 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: Inga,
Why do you need incontrovertible proof to believe that Obama didn't fulfill his duties to Amb. Stevens, but you believe any old bullshit about Romney even when it contradicts known facts about his life?

Answer: epistemic closure

Your only source of truth/facts/opinion are liberal sources. Nothing else is real to you. Other people aren't real to you.

My evidence for this opinion of you is that it is the only way most of the things you say make sense.; 10/26/12, 11:23 PM
Alex said...: Inga "the she wolf" will believe any tripe that Obama spews.

God I love that moniker. Thanks Baron Zemo. I never would have thought it up. LOL!!!!; 10/26/12, 11:25 PM
Henry said...: Do you know where this story is on the New York Times home page?

No where. The lead story is about Gangnam Style.

First you click on "World".

It is not on the "World" home page. The lead story is about a landfill in India.

Then you click on "Africa". The lead story is about an attack on a hospital.

Second slug down is Leon Panetta making excuses.

Fifth slug down is about the response of the Obama adminstration.

Third click in.

Fifth slug down.

Tools.; 10/26/12, 11:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Nathan, other people aren't real to me? Good grief.; 10/26/12, 11:36 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's one for ya Alex, Moby dick.; 10/26/12, 11:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Has Limbaugh ever been right about anything important?; 10/26/12, 11:39 PM
eddie willers said...: I believe Obama has genuine plausible deniability on most issues because his staff realized long ago that their Commander-in-Chief was not very bright and was disinterested in anything but lowering his handicap.

I'm sure their mindset is "Why take it him?"; 10/26/12, 11:44 PM
wyo sis said...: Limbaugh is often right about important things about which he has expertise.
Inga is often right about important things she knows about.
It's a good idea to look at more than one source, but it's also important to recognize expertise.
Panetta is a person with expertise. He says he didn't tell potential military assistance to stand down.
People who know about chain of command say Obama had to know about the attack.
It's the only logical assumption.; 10/26/12, 11:51 PM
Alex said...: wth does Inga the "she wolf" know about anything?; 10/26/12, 11:52 PM
wyo sis said...: Inga is a nurse and she knows a lot about it. I'd take her advice about a health problem.; 10/26/12, 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Wyo sis, I don't watch Fox or MSNBC very often as they are very partisan. I do read publications that lean left and right, plus I'm here on this conservative blog, am I not? I read all the comments here. I didn't care for Olberman in the same way I don't care for Limbaugh.; 10/26/12, 11:57 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
Has Limbaugh ever been right about anything important?

Its not Rush that you should be listening to, it's the caller. You might get an education.

But at any rate, can you point to one thing the caller says (not Rush Limbaugh, the caller)that isn;t accurate?; 10/27/12, 12:02 AM
wyo sis said...: Inga
I follow information from all sides as well. I make comments on HuffPo under a different name. I'm very conservative, but I can be convinced by evidence.
What has happened with this Benghazi attack stinks to high heaven and because of inaccurate and misleading information from the White House and the Obama administration and state department we are now trying to understand what really happened.
What we do know is:
1. An American ambassador was allowed to be murdered along with 3 other people who went to his aid.
2. They were placed in a dangerous situation and denied adequate security.
3. There was a cover-up of what really happened.

Any one of these acts is proof that the people in charge are at the very least stupid and irresponsible and because of that 4 people died.

Not qualities I look for in a US president.; 10/27/12, 12:11 AM
donald said...: Wow gm and inga want that sweet meat down their throats. Bad.; 10/27/12, 12:12 AM
CWJ said...: Inga wants to wait until all the facts come out. Inga doesn't want to speculate. But Allie Oop wanted the film makers hide nailed to the wall for endangering Americans overseas. Allie Oop repeatedly wanted us to consider that film guy was in league with terrorists. Allie Oop just wouldn't let that go.

We should be happy that Inga is SO much more circumspect than Allie Oop.; 10/27/12, 12:17 AM
Carnifex said...: @Inga

I know a guy that denies that the holocaust occurred. He wasn't there, he never saw it, it never happened. You sweetheart, are turning into that flake.

Consider this when you pull the lever for Zero. You're daughter is in a warzone true? So, when the shit hits the fan, do you really, really believe Zero gives a flying fuck whether she lives or dies?

As far as service personel voting for Zero, I'm not surprised, you can find stupid all over the country.

You anyway so far you've declared that you don't trust anything you hear on Rush that disagrees with your view point, or Fox. So you get your information from MSNBC? That's real reporting there. Or maybe NBC, with their history of doctoring tapes to make conservatives look bad. In fact almost all the media conspires against conservatives...MMM...

Well, as long as you and Madcow Maddow are happy. That's all that matters in the world.

I'm not gonna waste time chastising Garage, he ain't worth it.; 10/27/12, 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Carnifex, my daughter happens to be highly intelligent, she got 99 on her ASVABS. She is ahead if her peers with the same years in, in rank. So kindly do not call my daughter stupid.

Also, no I don't watch MSNBc anymore than I do Fox.; 10/27/12, 12:36 AM
Dante said...: Just be thankful it wasn't a nuclear bomb, with more to follow. Nine days of deciding the best way to respond might be too long.; 10/27/12, 12:39 AM
Carnifex said...: Here's what I hope President Romney(the words burn don't they Garage?) does on his first day in office. He calls a press conference. When all the usual suspects are gathered he looks at the crowd and sez,"NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT's reporters? You are banned from any press briefings I am involved in, get out now."

After the bitching and whining(much like we hear from Oop, and Garage), when they are gone he announces to Foxnews, and well, I guess just them, that he is having Zero and his entire administration arrested for trial for treason, for Fast and Furious, for not enforcing the law of the land, for Benghazi, for aiding and abetting traitors and enemies of the US. And don't tell the other networks anything because they need to learn on how to dig and report a story after 60 years of toting the liberal progressives water"

But he won't because he's a rino. That's the funniest part in all this. GM, and Oop, and all the rest of the Zero asskissers will love Romney. I myself can't stand him, but he's so much better than Zero it's not funny.; 10/27/12, 12:41 AM
Carnifex said...: @Inga

Stupid is not a function of book smarts. She votes for Zero, she's stupid. Period, dot, end of sentence.; 10/27/12, 12:43 AM
Dante said...: wyo sis:

What has happened with this Benghazi attack stinks to high heaven and because of inaccurate and misleading information from the White House and the Obama administration and state department we are now trying to understand what really happened.

Don't forget the press. I don't see them trying to help the American people to understand. But Ann isn't hiding behind any skirts. She pointed out, by what I assume is her own thinking, the idea of the video made no sense a day or so after the attacks.; 10/27/12, 12:43 AM
Carnifex said...: Anyone who votes for Zero is stupid.

Too stupid to ever be allowed to vote ever again, in my book. Lucky for you guys I'm not ambitious :-); 10/27/12, 12:45 AM
Anonymous said...: "So kindly do not call my daughter stupid."

There are many people who are smart academically who lack basic common sense.

I've no doubt that there are many brilliant people in Cambridge MA, as Titus tells us constantly. And yet they voted repeatedly for the drunk who left a woman to die. They voted for Barney Frank. They're about to vote for Princess Paleface.

I don't care how rich or smart they are in other areas of their lives. Politically, they're dumber than sticks of gum.; 10/27/12, 12:45 AM
Dante said...: @Inga:

Carnifex, my daughter happens to be highly intelligent, she got 99 on her ASVABS. She is ahead if her peers with the same years in, in rank. So kindly do not call my daughter stupid.

She doesn't seem to have much of a sense of self preservation with all the Obamao cuts. Maybe not stupid, but idealistic?

In any event, I don't see much sense for anyone in the military to not vote for Romney.

It's like being in the 47%, who you gonna vote for?; 10/27/12, 12:48 AM
bagoh20 said...: Fox is covering the story in depth.

As far as I can tell from surfing they are the only ones. Everybody else is talking about the youth vote, Jay-Z, Obama's ground game, the most recent imaginings of a Romney "binders"- type gaffe, and various other election minutia.

It's pretty damned amazing. Fox news is THE news in a sea of silliness and abandonment of duty.

Abandonment of duty.
Abandonment of duty.

Remember this day.; 10/27/12, 12:48 AM
Carnifex said...: I once saw an article in our local paper. It was about this local biologist who announced that squirrels would sometimes bury nuts in the ground, and sometimes they would fake burying nuts in the ground. See, the squirrels bury nuts, and birds watch them. When the squirrel leaves, the bird swoops down and steals the nut. To counteract this thievery, the squirrels would dig a hole, place nothing in it, cover the hole and run off with the nut still in his mouth. The birds swoop in, and root around, and root around, looking for the nut that isn't there. The squirrel meanwhile, has buried the nut in an unobserved location.

This local biologist was gonna make a name for himself for discovering this fact. The local paper did him proud.

I read the story and started laughing my ass off. You can't imagine how long people have been hunting squirrels and have seen this behavior. Hundreds of years? I myself had seen it since I was 8 years old. And this guy with a phd. was gonna be famous for something country people have known about for centuries.

So don't tell me about tests, and scores to show how smart someone is. Can you fix a car? Butcher a hog? Fly a plane? Draw? Sing? Throw a meal together out of odds and ends? Book learning just means your good at taking tests. It doesn't mean you're smart.; 10/27/12, 12:57 AM
Carnifex said...: Here's what I would use as a barometer for voting. Solve a Rubik's Cube, and a algebraic equation, then you can be deemed smart enough to vote.

I got to admit, it takes me about 16 hours to solve a cube. That last tile always gets me.; 10/27/12, 1:06 AM
wyo sis said...: There is a memorizable formula for solving the cube.
I guess the ability to memorize and implement the formula could be considered an indication of smarts. I can't do it.

As for the equation. It would depend on the difficulty, but if it were very hard it would keep me from voting.

Neither is any more a measure of smarts than the tests you scorn.

It would be a good test if a person could hear a logical fallacy and be able to tell what the fallacy is. Of course, I might fail that one too.

It's a good thing the founding fathers had more confidence in the ability of free people to choose their leaders than you have.

I agree that it's frustrating to know stupid people vote. But it's much worse to think about any group setting up a test that could exclude those they deem unworthy.; 10/27/12, 1:36 AM
Nora said...: Rescue operation and the aftermaths could prevent Obama from attending fundriser in Vegas, and he could not allow that, could he.; 10/27/12, 1:52 AM
Brian H said...: This reminds me more and more of Rwanda, where the CiC refused to even allow action by the paltry forces on-scene, much less reinforce them.; 10/27/12, 2:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Carnifex,

Sometimes, it's simply stupid to think that one candidate is so much better or different than the other. Many of you here have hope and change syndrome, hooked onto the wagon with just another ass pulling it.

I almost wish Romney would win, just to see the dissapoinment when your donkey can't pull that wagon up the hill any better than mine.; 10/27/12, 4:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Can you save a life Carnifex? No? My daughter can and has, so if you congratulate yourself on being intelligent based on what you can do, saving lives would count for something.

Carnifex you are a jerk, next time your hernias almost kill you, you won't get any sympathy from me like last time.; 10/27/12, 4:40 AM
Nora said...: "Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.""

On the second thought: Did anyone at any level in the CIA told somebody to help those in need?; 10/27/12, 4:54 AM
Gary Rosen said...: "it's simply stupid to think that one candidate is so much better or different than the other"

Has Paul Ryan ever said to someone at their son's funeral "How long has your son had balls the size of cue balls"? We noticed that you and garage and ritmo and the rest did not have the cue balls to comment on that thread. Care to say something now, to prove how smart and sophisticated you are?; 10/27/12, 5:00 AM
Issob Morocco said...: Now the State Dept. has scrubbed the Larry Schwartz Bio page. There yesterday, gone this morning.

Hello Larry, feeling a bit cold and lonely now?

Nov. 6th; 10/27/12, 6:09 AM
amyshulk said...: "It takes an order."

"Some one gave the order not to engage because the default was otherwise."

I think you guys have it backwards - they await the GO order, they are horses champing at the bit, watching for the gate to open.; 10/27/12, 6:12 AM
amyshulk said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/27/12, 6:12 AM
amyshulk said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/27/12, 6:13 AM
Steve Austin said...: The mainstream media know that if they report on this, Obama loses the election.

We are used to them covering the GOP differently. But usually it pertains to more mundane things like a gaffe or particular position on an issue. Here we have a full blown cover up of a terrorist attack. Obama did get that 3am call. But then tried to claim to the American people the phone didn't ring that night, and it if did, it was a prank call.

This is a very scary change in our society and it is why most of us in this thread are extremely upset.; 10/27/12, 6:38 AM
Caroline said...: After sleeping on it, I don't like my 10:40pm comment for two main reasons: 1) I think the motivation for the video cover story is more readily explained by it being an attempt to cover up his failed ME policies. A successful Al-Quaeda attack that resulted in the deaths of Americans on the anniversary of Sept. 11 was too embarrassing to admit after his boasts that he had weakened Al-Quaeda by killing Osama .

2) It seems unlikely Obama would have had the guts to make a decision to not send support. It seems more plausible that he dithered- maybe he decided to take a wait-and-see approach, and gather more intel- and it was indecision that caused the requests for support to be ignored.

Like my husband said, we'll probably have to wait for the inevitable Woodward book to find out what really happened.; 10/27/12, 6:46 AM
DEEBEE said...: This proves Obamaitis is virulently contagious. Every high official of the admin is voting present.; 10/27/12, 6:50 AM
Rusty said...: Inga said...
Can you save a life Carnifex? No? My daughter can and has, so if you congratulate yourself on being intelligent based on what you can do, saving lives would count for something.

Carnifex you are a jerk, next time your hernias almost kill you, you won't get any sympathy from me like last time.

Oh yeah!
My dad can beat up your dad!

Can you possibly be more immature?

Get your daughter on here.
Her I'd like to talk to. Because I suspect she joined the army to get away from you.; 10/27/12, 7:07 AM
Shanna said...: This is a very scary change in our society and it is why most of us in this thread are extremely upset.

Thank you. This Benghazi thing has made me extremely angry. I don’t think I’m the only one.

It seems more plausible that he dithered- maybe he decided to take a wait-and-see approach, and gather more intel- and it was indecision that caused the requests for support to be ignored.

I think the problem with that is that the thing went on for 7 hours. There is no way that didn’t hit the presidents desk and if he didn’t make a decision, that is in effect the same as making one.

Many of you here have hope and change syndrome, hooked onto the wagon

No Allie, it’s more like any port in a storm, although I don't think Romney's a bad guy any change will be small. Government doesn't change quickly, there are too many levers. But basic competence and putting people in place who can actually make a damn decision to save americans rather than worrying about...whatever the HELL they were worried about here would be a start. Also, someone who is capable of doing basic math.

I got to admit, it takes me about 16 hours to solve a cube. That last tile always gets me.

I guess taking the stickers off and switching them around is cheating…; 10/27/12, 7:23 AM
Rusty said...: It seems unlikely Obama would have had the guts to make a decision to not send support. It seems more plausible that he dithered- maybe he decided to take a wait-and-see approach, and gather more intel- and it was indecision that caused the requests for support to be ignored.

Not ignored.
Denied.
Ignoring is inaction.The question is asked and you do not acknowledge it was asked.

The requests were actively denied.The question was asked and a negative answer was given.

Our peoples lives were at risk and the answer to their cries for help was,"no".; 10/27/12, 7:38 AM
Bryan C said...: "Sometimes, it's simply stupid to think that one candidate is so much better or different than the other."

It's even more stupid to become personally invested in defending a bad decision because the alternative may, in theory, be just as bad as the situation you're already in. That's nothing but learned helplessness.

You have a known quantity in Obama, Inga. At best, he's incompetent and feckless Commander in Chief. At worst, he's a cowardly liar who cares nothing for the lives of brave people like your daughter. If you like what you've got, then vote for him and hope he changes into the man of your dreams. If you are not satisfied, there's a very simple way to address the situation.; 10/27/12, 8:35 AM
Caroline said...: Not ignored.
Denied.
Ignoring is inaction.The question is asked and you do not acknowledge it was asked.

The requests were actively denied.The question was asked and a negative answer was given.

Yes; somewhere in the chain a negative answer was given. If the word from above is that the dithering CinC needs more info before he can give the "go" call for action, or whatever it is called, then the request for support gets denied. I'm well aware that not making a decision is still a decision.

Or maybe one or more advisers made the "no" call and Obama went along. I can picture that. But I'm not trying to absolve him of responsibility. He is the CinC. He bears the responsibility for the outcome, whether he made the decision or not.

I'm also not trying to defend him. Quite the contrary. A commander has to be willing to make the tough calls, and bear the responsibility for the results of those calls. I'm simply pointing out that I have trouble picturing that sort of resoluteness in this former community organizer/lecturer.; 10/27/12, 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: "Many of you here have hope and change syndrome, hooked onto the wagon with just another ass pulling it."

I have seen no evidence here - or anyplace else on the Internet - that conservatives believe that unicorns will crap lollipops if Romney wins and the world will be magically healed. Nobody has given Romney the god-king status the left has bestowed on Obama. (We're voting for Mitt because we want a competent adult at the helm for a change instead of the miserable failure we have now. With Romney, there's a small chance we can turn away from the cliff this country is headed for. With Obama, there is no chance at all.

No, Inga, there is absolutely no moral equivalence here, no matter how many times you assert that. If you see evidence of hero-worship on the right, please provide evidence. Simply stating "you're just the same, so there" won't cut it.; 10/27/12, 8:44 AM
Roger J. said...: I cannot help but think the major decision point in the President's calculus was "how will the play in the election." Of course, I don't know that, but it does help me sort out things.; 10/27/12, 8:49 AM
X said...: Inga said... If Obama is perpetrating a massive hoax or coverup, someone will come forth and tell the truth.

what do you think the subject of this post is dummy?; 10/27/12, 8:50 AM
Cedarford said...: There are 3 Timelines.

1. What did or did not happen with security preps prior to the multiple attacks. The 11 embassies and the lethal attack at Benghazi. Who knew what, who made the decisions.

2. The Benghazi attack timeline.Who knew what, who made the decisions. CIA, State, WH, AFRICOM. At what point in the attack did Zero disengage from following events so he could go to sleep and rest for his Las Vegas fundraiser/meeting with Beyonce`.
Perhaps add the other 11 attacks directly triggered by Islamists exploiting the Nakoula video.

3. The Coverup of the 1st Sucessful large scale terrorist attack since 9/11/2001. Who knew what, when, who were the decision-makers.

Far more significant than 20-20 woulda shouldas on the security preps and the rescue of the Heroes! hypotheticals - in hindsight - is focusing on the Coverup.
Because the coverup is ongoing and covers elements of Hillary, Obama, CIA, NSC silence on the security decisions and attack events - that took a month to finally emerge from the coverup.

Nixon had no idea about the Watergate burglary as it was plotted, he said he would have never, ever authorized such a stupid thing himself. But he "gave his enemies a sword to run him through with" when he elected to cover up to protect subordinates and optimize his reelection vote.; 10/27/12, 9:03 AM
Rusty said...: JL

It was not meant as criticism. I just don't like to give the other side a lever to defend the indefensible.; 10/27/12, 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: "Can you save a life Carnifex?"

How do you know he can't? Plenty of people who are not in rescuer or caregiver roles know basic first aid, the Heimlich maneuver and CPR, without ever having to use those skills.

I know many people in healthcare. They have undoubtably saved lives from time to time. And yet, they don't go around using their caregiver status as some sort of moral trump card. They know they're just doing their goddamn jobs.; 10/27/12, 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: My inferences:

1. The security arrangements for the ambassador were incompetent, perhaps, criminal.

2. There were no video related protests in Benghazi on 9/11.

3. Real time data (video and other) about the status on the ground in Benghazi were available to the highest levels of government (including POTUS) from at least the beginning of the Ansar al Sharia terrorist attack.

4. Emergency procedures triggered automatically (standing orders) the deployment of all available resources which means that men and guns could have been in the air and on the ground in Benghazi within 2 hours.

4. The behavior of Americans on the ground during the attack (laser painting targets) suggests that air resources might have been in place.

5. Regardless, resources could have been in place before any Americans died.

6. Standing orders would have required a defense of the Consulate by all available resources.

7. That didn't happen.

8. POTUS ordered our rescue efforts to stand down.

9. POTUS immediately launches a lame cover-up campaign.

10. The charade is now falling apart.

11. Some within the MSM smell blood (and money) and will now push this story.

12. Obama is toast.; 10/27/12, 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "Inga said... If Obama is perpetrating a massive hoax or coverup, someone will come forth and tell the truth."

You're the daughter of Austrian immigrants and yet you have a touching faith in the honesty and integrity of Dear Leader and in the essential benevolence of Big Government.

I find that odd. I'm of Eastern European descent and a study of that region's history has led me to very different conclusions.; 10/27/12, 9:27 AM
Cedarford said...: Rusty said...
It seems unlikely Obama would have had the guts to make a decision to not send support. It seems more plausible that he dithered- maybe he decided to take a wait-and-see approach, and gather more intel- and it was indecision that caused the requests for support to be ignored.

Not ignored.
Denied.
Ignoring is inaction.The question is asked and you do not acknowledge it was asked.

============
No, dithering and claiming to "need more information and until then we must wait"...is a classic ploy of bad leaders (and some good ones) to deny requests without going on record as denying it.
Sometimes it is to avoid accountability, in others, like it being an absolute lodestone guiding principle in Japanese business management and how lawyers work.. it is to extend the time and personal cost of having to say "Yes" or an absolute "No" until perhaps the situation has resolved itself. All while preserving organizational harmony.

Dithering as basically saying "no, not at this time until more facts come in and I have perfect wisdom on the situation..is something you would expect from an academic. No career harm can come from it. But fatal in a ER trauma surgeon, a businessman, a combat officer or NCO.

But dither is what OBama does, even in the bin Laden thing when he had scads of information.

A really bad leader dithers until he announces its time to turn in for the night and not be disturbed..but if underlings really, really need to disregard his instructions to wait and see - they can - as long as it's their asses on the line.; 10/27/12, 9:28 AM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
My best guess for what transpired that day, is that it was a perfect storm scenario, what could possibly go wrong did, through no fault of anyone but the terrorists.

THat doesn't answer the question of why a rescue attempt wasn't called despite multiple requests for one and despite them having eyes in the sky monitoring the whole thing for HOURS. You have yet to acknowledge the fact that it is an impossibility, unless many people completely ignored protocol and were asleep at the wheel, that the question of what to do with the embassy didn't immediately go up the chain to those that could actually provide orders as to what to do.
So they had to have the knowledge, and had to have not issued an order to save the embassy.
Now, I will say there are some extenuating circumstances whereby giving the order might not work, but if that's the case we then need to know WHY the order wasnt' given and who declined to give the order.
You saying it's a perfect storm is ludicrous. Tyrone Woods, the soldier who was killed, heard the distress calls and ignored orders and tried to rescue people (and got killed because of it). He was in a safe house a mile away and when no one came to the embassies aid he did it on his own.

Now, if he was not at the scene but went there, after being ordered not to, who gave that order. Do you really think that the President would give an order to rescue an embassy and soldiers would disregard a direct order from the president and say "Nah, fuck the embassy"? It had to come from the top.
So, you have to then ask what was the reason why the order wasnt' given. You can't just toss it up to "shit just happens".
IF this were Bush's White House, would you chalk up an embassy being attacked to "shit just happens". If it was your daughter in a life or death situation where no one came to her rescue would you chalk it up to "perfect storm. Shit just happens".
Get past your partisanship already and be honest.
For crying out loud.; 10/27/12, 10:19 AM
BaltoHvar said...: Surface to Air Missles were discussed up-thread. There is a large piece of this horrible debacle we do not know as far as I can tell. What motivated the attack? Of course not the “video” per se. The jihadis were after something.

Was it to kidnap the Ambassador, and once they realized he was dead, they melted away? Very plausible. But the aftermath had that been successful seems too complex given the Country was not in their control, and a safe-house from which they could negotiate would be difficult to keep secured.

Or was it the weapons the U.S. Operatives were there to retrieve? That would be an objective that had high up-side. A quick, overwhelming strike, and a score of cached weaponry. But not just RPGs and AK-47 – but rather SAMs – even cheap, low tech SAMs of some kind.

There were also initial “probing” attacks. Bombs tossed, and even a hole blown open in a wall. Probing to see what the reaction would be? When nothing was done to shore up the compound, and the idea or fact that missiles, even a handful, were likely there, then that seems like a really good reason to then organize an attack to take those weapons. Easy to get get, then easy to keep and hide for later use.

Sending in the C-130 then was a feint to NOT just saber-rattle during the siege, but to possibly reveal if the jihadis had and would use a SAM, even if it was a cheap one that would likely miss the C-130 given the missile's relatively low-tech. When none were fired, the Administration (POTUS?) folded, perhaps fearing a Mogadishu debacle trying to rescue the U.S. Operatives that remained. And worst of all, that decision had a election/political variable the Administration needed to minimize. Thus the blaming of the “video” to give cover, and hope the aftermath would die down. But rightfully so, it has not and the righteous outrage continues.; 10/27/12, 10:32 AM
Cedarford said...: People die. We face an intelligent enemy...and sometimes even thousands of armed high tech Hero Americans with full air cover cannot get us to "Zero Hero Deaths" each day.
The Islamoids nailed us with 4500 deaths and 43,000 casualties (many lifetime impairing maimings of brains, limbs. eyes, etc,)

Given that, there would have been no shame in Obama admitting, like US commanders have had to, that "Today the enemy succeeded".

And announce they would strive to do better.
That it was deemed that a Hollywood rescue attempt was deemed to likly cause more casualties than they would save, that the Benghazi event was only realized to be fundamentally different than the 11 other attacks directly attributable to the scumbag Copts Blasphemy inciting video..

But we got a major coverup. With details of security lapses, the refusal to consider more aid to beseiged Americans, even the fact that it was the 1st successful large scale attack involving Al Qaeda since 2001 - covered up.; 10/27/12, 10:37 AM
Tim said...: "I don't need to defend my moral code to you, but because I generally like you, I did."

Except, and you may wish to re-read your statement, you did not defend your moral code.

You simply asserted you had one.

That's not a defense.; 10/27/12, 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: C-ford, what is it with your constant need to denigrate the entire concept of heroism? While I agree the term is overused in contemporary America, you constantly jeer at the very idea that heroism even exists.

Woods behaved heroically. Mock that all you wish, you only come across as a sneering, petty little man - no different than the leftists in that respect.; 10/27/12, 10:52 AM
Gary Rosen said...: C-fudd, I already busted you on your "three timelines" meme you are trying to put out to make yourself look "smart" when you just ripped it off without attribution from an article by James Rosen (no relation) in the WSJ. Nice to know you get your copycat talking points from jooooos in the media bwahahaha.

Not that I disagree, of course I'm outraged at Obama's lies and malfeasance here but Cedarford is a complete fraud who pretends to knowledge when he is nothing but an ignorant douchebag. He's also lying like a rug in his phony "profile" - he claims to have two daughters (who he proceeds to insult in a way few real fathers would) but in a comment on another blog he once said he had a *son*.; 10/27/12, 11:30 AM
Tim said...: exiledonmainst said...

"C-ford, what is it with your constant need to denigrate the entire concept of heroism? While I agree the term is overused in contemporary America, you constantly jeer at the very idea that heroism even exists."

Small men need to tear down big men.

It makes them feel bigger than they are, or could ever be.; 10/27/12, 11:35 AM
Original Mike said...: Both the CIA and the Pentagon have said they did not deny requests for backup. Obama will not answer the question (e.g. his interview in Denver yesterday).; 10/27/12, 11:39 AM
jr565 said...: INga wrote:
I almost wish Romney would win, just to see the dissapoinment when your donkey can't pull that wagon up the hill any better than mine.

WOuldn't it be nice if democrats recognized this back when they were talking about bringing smarter diplomacy and economics in the form of Obama to the White House.; 10/27/12, 11:39 AM
Gary Rosen said...: Tim: +10000; 10/27/12, 12:52 PM
Gary Rosen said...: exiledonmainst - not only does C-fudd sneer at a man who gave his life for his country, but I bet he's jim dandy with Biden's vile "cue balls" comment to Woods' father at his *funeral*. Cedarford is a slimy, gutless little rat.; 10/27/12, 12:55 PM
Sheridan said...: IMO Cedarford sees himself as a true "Cynic" in the classical, philosophical sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

His training in engineering and science reinforces his world view. Believing he is completely pragmatic, Cedarford cannot be shamed, insulted or diverted from his path.

He understands that his method of expression often inflames our emotions. But, he's perfectly okay with that.

If you engage with him, it has to be along lines of logic. Ignore his emotional taunts (JEWS! HEROES!).; 10/27/12, 2:24 PM
Gary Rosen said...: "His training in engineering and science"

You mean his career pumping gas?

"If you engage with him, it has to be along lines of logic"

The creepy, sweaty little fraud does not deserve the respect.; 10/27/12, 4:51 PM