Presumably for two reasons. The first is that the true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The second is that a true account of what happened in Benghazi that night would have revealed that the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack by Islamic terrorists on Americans as a crisis. The commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room; he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.
This is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Is it too much to hope that President Obama is privately ashamed of his inattention and passivity that night?I think he is ashamed. Here's what I've been assuming happened: It looked like our people were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance. But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours. The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support. It was always too late to help. It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours.... When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did?
IN THE COMMENTS: CWJ said:
Althouse's surmised timeline if true is the ultimate in —
"What difference, at this point, would it make?"
Perhaps Hillary was telling us more than met the eye.
Posts
394 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 394 of 394edutcher sez ... I liked you better when you just walked away ...
Really?
Oh I see what she did there. She screwed up and then blamed someone else for misunderstanding.
So it was actually a sarcasm by example kind of thing. Very sophisticated indeed. Certainly too deep for me. I would still like to stick around for the free drinks, if you don't mind.
Aridog, Edutcher is a legend in his own mind.
Inga said...
Continuing conservative conspiracy theories are not worthy of further inspection.
Um, we've been talking about Panetta's testimony. Not "conspiracy theories".
We are only now beginning to get an idea of what the president knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it.
Pretty much, nothing.
"Benghazi is most certainly worthy of close inspection, and was investigated, hearings were held."
Perhaps you can tell us in your own words what the higher levels of the U.S. government did that night. Just three or four sentences.
Just because it might be on TV...
The point is, it essentially hasn't been on TV except for Fox.
Chip, conservatives are using Panetta's testimony and trying to fit them into a puzzle of their own making.
Panetta said he last talked to Obama at 5 PM on 9/11.
Why isn't the press interested in what Obama was doing instead of being in the Situation Room making Gutsy Calls™?
I mean, besides schmoozing Netanyahu for an hour.
Althouse, assuming that Obama is capable of feeling shame may be an error. However the rest of your analysis does not depend upon his feeling shame. He would have acted in the same manner, ashamed or not.
The best part is Inga casting about, latching onto people she thinks are going to be allies.
C'mon sweetheart. You've been so good the last few days. Hardly crazy at all.
I mean it. I've been impressed. Don't stop now!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend:)
Discussion on this point is futile. Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the left. It's Presidential infallibility that he was granted. Consulate burned, staff murdered, all just air pockets in the flight to his Vegas fundraiser.
Maybe he can take over as Pope now that Ratzinger is retiring.
Meanwhile, there's a man in jail for releasing a video that Susan Rice could flog on the talk shows as the "cause" of the attack.
Welcome to Obama's America.
You have to remember that Inga believes that all Muslims are uncontrollable emotional freaks that kill reflexively when they see or hear anything remotely offensive - including laughably shoddy YouTube videos with practically nil view counts - she's a bigot.
Those poor brown peoples need Inga's and Obama's wise protection and control (cue the drones)...
Inga said: "Benghazi is most certainly worthy of close inspection, and was investigated, hearings were held."
And what did we learn about what our government did that night?
Discussion on this point is futile
Here's why, on the post following yours:
Meanwhile, there's a man in jail for releasing a video that Susan Rice could flog on the talk shows as the "cause" of the attack.
Some of us knew this back in September, well before Obama was re-elected by a low-information electorate. But even if the media had been doing their damn jobs and exposing the executive malfeasance displayed by Obama and his team on September 11th, that same low-information electorate would probably STILL have re-elected him. Sad but true.
Aridog said...
edutcher ... your assertion is bunk, again. I'd really like to quit this ...but egregious error is just too much: Why do you do this? Just because either of us says it doesn't make it so....unless there's some corroboration. Here's mine:
Wall Street Journal 02 Dec 2009 LINK
Not sure link will work for everyone...so here's the main quote:
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan ...[snip]... Gen. McChrystal had requested more than 40,000 reinforcements. While the Obama administration is hoping to get more than 5,000 additional troops [ISAF] from North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, which would edge closer to Gen. McChrystal's total .
More than 40,000 troops. He got 17,000.
Nice try. Washington Times The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday or Wednesday that it will send one additional Army brigade and an unknown number of Marines to Afghanistan this spring. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the total is about 17,000 troops.
How many support? Looks like about half.
You love picking fights with me and always lose.
Give it up.
garage mahal said...
Here's why, on the post following yours:
Amusing. Garage, who has literally never engaged any topic in good faith [including this one where his first comment is intended to derail the discussion], claims his inability to engage in good faith is the fault of others.
Aridog, resistance is futile. :)
Apparently, Inga didn't learn anything from the (warning, sarcasm ahead) close inspection provided by the Benghazi hearings.
It may have been too late to save the Americans but it's never too late to punish the terrorists while they are still hanging around by killing as many as possible in such savage and remorseless ways as to teach a sobering lesson.
And, of course it wasn't too late, but as pointed out above, even if it were, we still should have gone in immediately for the bodies.
But, there was apparently a carrier battle group about 300 miles off shore. It was suggest that it would have taken an hour to get planes over Benghazi. I don't think so, not unless they had to arm the planes and get them up on the flight deck. But, we are apparently talking planes already prepped and ready to go, just waiting orders, and the carrier strike planes can get there quite a bit under an hour at full military power. Even if we are talking Italy or further off in the Med, it wouldn't have taken all that much longer. And, there are indications that fast reaction troops were on alert in Italy, again just across the Med from Libya and Benghazi. Not that much further, really, than the contractors who did fly in from Tripoli.
Instead of securing the consulate, and maybe doing a bit of heavy handed retribution along the way, no State Department, military, CIA, FBI, etc. people apparently showed up for a week or so, and a a result, the compound was pretty well picked over, and news people were able to find a bunch of noteworthy information - that should have been secured before dawn that night.
Here's why, on the post following yours:
Meanwhile, there's a man in jail for releasing a video that Susan Rice could flog on the talk shows as the "cause" of the attack.
Yet his video was the Administration's reason for the attack. Until of course they realized it was an idiotic excuse.
Again, it obviously doesn't bother you that the President didn't follow up on his orders to see the staff was protected but instead jetted off the next day to Vegas for a fundraiser.
Inga: The hearings were held. The investigation you wanted was conducted. We learned at the very end of the hearings, from Panetta, that they knew that night, 9-11-12, that it was a terrorist attack. Panetta said that under oath. Earlier testimony said the exact opposite. The actions of the administration in the days following said the exact opposite. And none of this matters to you and Garage. It is meaningless politics.
Bruce,
Your 10:58am take is very interesting, and quite worrisome. Worrisome because it screams, "Impeachable!"
There. I used that word. Impeachable because, while the President is the sole head of the executive branch, it's still not the case that he gets to run it any way he wants with absolutely no accountability. The concerted end-run around the confirmation process (put up someone confirmable for a Cabinet seat, then just exile them and run your own program via an unaccountable "czar") just demands the ultimate pushback from the legislative branch.
There is nothing that President Obama can do that will result in the mainstream media or the low information electorate holding him accountable.
It will be verdict of history that will damn him as the miserable failure that he is and place him squarely between Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan as among the worst Presidents in the history of our Republic.
The debacle that was Benghazi will just be the tip of the iceberg.
Panetta said that under oath. Earlier testimony said the exact opposite. The actions of the administration in the days following said the exact opposite. And none of this matters to you and Garage. It is meaningless politics.
I can't imagine anything that Obama could do that would elicit a shred of criticism from his followers. When he grants himself the authority to conduct drone strikes on US citizens and they yawn, do you really think they give two shits about some consulate staff murdered by Islamic terrorists?
"Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack."
All hands were working the campaign. No fingers to spare. Viva Las Vegas, suckers.
This belief is particularly strong with women and may be even more important than the repellent Right to Lifers - in explaining why women went 56-44 for Obama while Romney carried a slight 52% plurality of men.
Really?
Were the breakdowns wrong?
It looks like white women Romney 56, Barry 42.
Dead Julius obfuscates...Just because it might be on TV, doesn't mean that viewers don't recognize it as political blah-blah-blah, propaganda put through the sausage machine, and a good time to take a piss.
Double negatives always confuse me because I think they're intrinsically bad style and not thought through. Let me take that confusion out:
Just because it might be on TV, does mean that viewers recognize it as political blah-blah-blah, propaganda put through the sausage machine, and a good time to take a piss.
But people do care about some things political on TV--not all, but some. And on social media too. What Julia is so predictably trying to say is just "Nothing to see here, now move along."
You think Obama is ashamed but presented no evidence that supports that conclusion. You can not simply assume that his ability to feel empathy and responsibility fall within cultural norms.
Also, your ideas don't square with the facts. There is no evidence that hour after each hour (even for the first few hours) Obama was aware that the fight was still ongoing but made decision after decision that it was "too late." Instead, the facts show that he made no special efforts to learn about the situation in Benghazi or to provide any instruction to his cabinet members.
In short, the fabled "3 am" phone call came before 5 pm on a weekday but neither Obama nor Clinton bothered to pick up the phone even though it was September 11th.
Gender Gap in 2012 largest on Gallup history
Unfortunately for Republicans, women come in all colors. If they depend on the white woman's vote to get their candidate over the top..... It won't.
Edutcher ... do you ever give up your obsession about always being right?
Your citation is conjecture dated February 2009, by an anonymous source, while mine cites President Obama speaking at West Point, on 02 December 2009, where he formally announced the Afghan "surge" numbers.
Now who is wrong, your anonymous source from February 2009 or President Obama from December 2009 speaking publicly for the record?
Really...this is just too much. And I apologize to everyone else for the band width I've spent on it. I shall try to resist henceforth. If you say the Afghan surge was 17,000, so be it...can't trust that Obama guy right!
Julia don't need no man, she just needs big Uncle Sam.
I wonder why there's more inequality?
"your ideas don't square with the facts. There is no evidence that hour after each hour (even for the first few hours) Obama was aware that the fight was still ongoing but made decision after decision that it was "too late." Instead, the facts show that he made no special efforts to learn about the situation in Benghazi or to provide any instruction to his cabinet members."
THAT is an excellent point.
When he grants himself the authority to conduct drone strikes on US citizens and they yawn, do you really think they give two shits about some consulate staff murdered by Islamic terrorists?
But the right is on board with Obama on drone strikes, including Americans. The only group making a stink are dirty hippie bloggers.
A couple of facts.
From the Senate report:
1. We did have a recon drone overhead early in the attack.
"As noted earlier, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) at the Department of Defense (DOD) directed an unarmed surveillance aircraft to the skies over the Benghazi compound at 3:59 p.m. EST. It arrived there at 5:10 p.m. EST (11:10 p.m. Benghazi time)."
2. We did not have a carrier in the Med on 9/11.
"There was no Marine expeditionary unit, carrier group or a smaller group of U.S. ships closely located in the Mediterranean Sea that could have provided aerial or ground support or helped evacuate personnel from Benghazi."
The second quote doesn't state clearly that a carrier was not in the Med, just that one wasn't "closely located." But I'm pretty sure one was not.
Link
Garage: That is bullshit. No conservative I know is in favor of the use of drones against American citizens. Full stop. You might think that a pretty idea but it is wrong. The fact is that the famously pacifist left wing has gone silent because their man is in office.
Even when you are presented with testimony that the White House did not monitor the situation that night, it's still hard to accept.
garage, are you on board with Obama on drone strikes?
When Bush ran deficits that were regularly called "wasteful deficit spending", did you agree that they were?
When Obama runs deficits that are twice the size of Bush's, but now are called "stimulus", are you ok with his deficits?
garage mahal said...
But the right is on board with Obama on drone strikes, including Americans.
Hilarious.
What is sad is you actually think that silly reply allows you to avoid addressing the topic.
You are full of shit, there are no examples of "the right" you can point to.
You are full of shit, there are no examples of "the right" you can point to.
Are you fucking serious?
garage, are you on board with Obama on drone strikes?
No I'm not on board. Never have been.
Verified thru Stratfor. No carrier in the Med on 9/11.
But the right is on board with Obama on drone strikes, including Americans. The only group making a stink are dirty hippie bloggers.
You were right up until the comma.
Garage is correct: the left is not onboard with Obama's drone policy.
Eleanor Clift is. Has MoDo checked in?
Tina Brown did have a working brain cell.
Even when you are presented with testimony that the White House did not monitor the situation that night, it's still hard to accept
It really is. Maybe that's why it didn't make a dent in the public, as far as re-election goes. We don't really want to believe it.
This was 9/11, and an Ambassador was murdered and the White House just checked out? Really? And meanwhile the guys left making the decisions decided to just let him (and whoever else was there) die?
There are of course many MSNBC type liberals who will rationalize away anything Obama does.
Seeing Red beat me to it, Meade. I've heard no one on the left say jack. Except, garage.
That grinning maven of malevolent disregard, Hillary Rodham, her foul, corrupt, visage is the true symbol of slick liberal/media domination of the American political elite.
That grinning maven of malevolent disregard, Hillary Rodham, her foul, corrupt, visage is the true symbol of slick liberal/media domination of the American political elite.
Well, I think that Bruce Hayden and the others who are saying that the President is running foreign policy in a different way than we think, that he is using Special Ops guys / drones is a very interesting theory. Then you throw in the statement someone else made, namely "an intelligent and thinking enemy will still, ALWAYS make us pay a butchers bill if we jump into any war. Or jeopardize what any enemy sees as their vital interests...". Then I picture the President thinking he can do stuff secretly and the enemy won't know, neither will the Democrats. And this is his inexperience showing because secrets always come out when they matter to your enemy. So the enemy retaliated for the drone attacks and Obama and his tight little team did not expect that. Then they behaved just the way the Professor said - just kept thinking now it's over, now it's really over. And finally they ended up doing something unforgivable - leaving brave men to die while they quivered and wondered what to do. Really it is pretty obvious that if you attack a group that flew children into the Twin Towers then that group isn't going to obey any law in their response. But I think the White House guys were surprised. And couldn't ask for help because then their secret wars would all come out. Too much Tom Clancy? Maybe
Via Insty:
STANDARDS: Tina Brown: Obama Would “Be Impeached By Now For Drones, If He Was George W. Bush.” Luckily for him, he’s not, so he can get away thing things Bush never dreamed of. Which is why if you care about civil rights and human rights, you should always vote Republican in Presidential elections. Because, while they may or may not be better, they definitely get away with a lot less.
Related: Eleanor Clift: Drones are “a blessing.”
Drones not just chasing bad guys overseas.
FAA Releases New Drone List—Is Your Town on the Map?
FLA says no. I think another state also is writing law forbidding this.
garage, I applied for a building permit a couple of years ago. I had to go to Balsam Lake, the county seat to get it. I called first, and when I got there they had an aerial view of my place, and I had to show them where the building was going to sit.
Go to Google and type in your address. If there is a Google map, you'll be able to see your house from the street. Scan left or right, and you'll see your neighbors house. You can go 180º and see the house across the street. 360º will bring you back to your house.
@AllenS
I wonder who supplies google with those aerial views.
Google street view is done manually I believe by people driving around with cameras.
I don't think that Google creates the aerial views. That's probably the government that records that. The street views are all Google.
Yes, garage, I'm pretty sure that I saw one of those cars in Cloquet, MN last year. It's mounted on top of a smallish car about 4 foot tall post with what looks like 4 camera lenses going N S E and W.
That's probably all they do is drive up and down the road coordinating with a GPS.
I looked up the house I was born in, in Detroit, MI. 19303 Danbury. It's right on the corner.
Scarey.
Shanna said: "It really is [hard to accept the White House did not monitor events that night]. Maybe that's why it didn't make a dent in the public, as far as re-election goes. We don't really want to believe it."
Because of stalling by the Obama Administration, the public did not know until well after the election.
Drones not just chasing bad guys overseas.
Yeah, this is slippery slope stuff. Bad precedents being set.
Cook is also a supposed lefty who is anti-drone.
It is not hard to assume what happened in Benghazi.. Ann's assumed timeline is again shallow, where is the beef kind of shallow analysis. Obama did not much involve the state or the defense in this gun running operation.. CIA may have known it which is why Patraeus was taken down. The proof that State was not fully in on Obama's plan is the fact that they didn't know Stevens was going to be in Benghazi that day/night (that report that came out said that). Hillary refused to go on TV and instead Rice went. Hillary would not go because she was not in the loop and she threatened to spill the beans if she was forced to go on TV. In fact, it is not known anywhere what Hillary was doing during the attack -- the only vague reference she made was watching the attack with heartbreak (or something to that effect). How embarrassing for her to admit she was not in on this. How much more embarrassing and damaging for Obama to admit that. This was a WH (and may be CIA) operation and Panetta and Hillary were left out of it.
It's just impossible that no one tried to call the President as things got worse, unless he ordered them not to do it. Even then they'd think, "the President didn't realise how bad things were going to get". And they'd be thinking: "I can't make the decision to send help and maybe start a war and I can't decide not to send help. This is the President's call." Must have thought that way. Yet they say they didn't call him and he isn't chastising them. Really it is impossible to understand.
Original Mike said...
Because of stalling by the Obama Administration, the public did not know until well after the election.
We knew everything we needed to know before the election. The Administration made no effort to protect/save our guys, lied about the cause to deflect attention, and tried to cover up their decisions and actions.
The simple truth is the left doesn't care as long as the government checks go out.
"We knew everything we needed to know before the election."
Yes, Marshall, but your and my vote were not enough.
I see Inga, the dupiest dupe ever duped, is here. she has the long term memory of a large mouth bass.
Yes, garage, I'm pretty sure that I saw one of those cars in Cloquet, MN last year. It's mounted on top of a smallish car about 4 foot tall post with what looks like 4 camera lenses going N S E and W.
Yea I seen one of these too. They are Priuses.
But the right is on board with Obama on drone strikes, including Americans.
Now you're just making stuff up.
There are of course many MSNBC type liberals who will rationalize away anything Obama does.
Funny because it seems like you have a knee jerk defense of any criticism of him on this blog.
Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones? (here in the U.S. or overseas). Happy to correct the record.
Seeing Red beat me to it, Meade. I've heard no one on the left say jack. Except, garage.
In all fairness, if you follow people like Glenn Greenwald, you'll see that he's as against this as anyone.
Say what you want about the guy - at least he's consistent.
I was born in, in Detroit, MI. 19303 Danbury
The 7 Mile & Dequindre area. A lovely neighborhood...
:)
Original Mike said...
Yes, Marshall, but your and my vote were not enough.
Just pointing out the stalling didn't effect the election. The information was available to anyone interested. The leftists for whom such facts would be difficult to rationalize were studiously ignoring the issue. As today's thread shows they maintain that practice and will continue to do so as long as convenient. Low information voters won't stir unless the media hype bursts their bubbles, and there's literally nothing that could come out of this that would trigger that type of media response.
I Callahan said...
In all fairness, if you follow people like Glenn Greenwald, you'll see that he's as against this as anyone.
Interesting that when Bush was in office other media repeated and emphasized his criticisms. Now that it's inconvenient for Democrats he's not the go-to guy for commentary. Shocking.
wildswan said...
"Yet they say they didn't call him and he isn't chastising them. Really it is impossible to understand."
I agree.
Beyond that, on a purely human level, I don't understand how Obama could not have inquired continuously throughout the night about what was happening. Unless it was the Pontius Pilate instinct taking over.
Jay,
It was always too late to help
Really?
I think Ann is trying to explain the state of mind of the president.
"The information was available to anyone interested."
I would beg to differ, Marshall. I think the public record at that time was a big black hole. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why, but if you are inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt, as most people are, you'd have to say you didn't know what he did that night.
And I have to say that even I, someone who thinks Obama may be the worst president we've ever had, was flabbergasted to hear Panetta's testimony.
Garage. I am opposed to the use of drones in the US and overseas if targeting Americans not in the act of terror. I am fine with their use in targeting known terrorists and willing to accept the fact that there is collateral damage.
"I think Ann is trying to explain the state of mind of the president."
Although, as pointed out by Byond Politics, Obama never had the facts necessary to have played out Althouse's hypothetical drama.
How was the 2012 election like 1992?
It's the economy, stupid, paying too much attn to foreign matters.
Which begot 1993, 1996, 1998 & 2000.....
Really interesting times ahead...............
chickelit said...
What's also sad is Cedarford's early and vocal support for Romney (ca. 2008-12) give way to an apparent reversion to his anti-McCain and pro-Obama stance of 2008.
==================
It is not impossible for any American to find one Republican acceptable, while another is just too war thirsty to vote for.
Or determine that Kerry as a Democrat was too dishonorable to vote for, despite Bush being an inept President.
In Romneys case, he and Ryan would have focused on the economy and strongly resisted destroying their Administration on new Neocon adventures, no matter how much money they took from big money zionists like Sheldon Adleson.
I heard drones are searching for renegade ex-cop Dorner in So Cal.
Garage. I am opposed to the use of drones in the US and overseas if targeting Americans not in the act of terror.
Little too vague? The government can just say the people they targeted were associated with terror.
Original Mike said...
"The information was available to anyone interested."
if you are inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt, as most people are, you'd have to say you didn't know what he did that night.
We knew within a few days what he didn't do: order our military to do everything they could to save our guys. Everything else is noise: Obama trying to find the best excuse for the talking heads.
Obama was incurious as if he knew what was going on and why it was going on..
Put me down as in favor of drone usage. However, here's my problem: If Bush were to have used them to the extent that Obama is currently doing, you'd hear a different story from the libs on TV and in print. Can you imagine the outrage if Bush had whacked some American teenager?
That's why I brought up Bush's wasteful deficit spending, compared to Obama's stimulus spending equaling twice what Bush spent.
I absolutely hate double standards and hypocracy.
garage mahal said...Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones? (here in the U.S. or overseas). Happy to correct the record.
I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous here or it was a simple error so I'll rewrite your question before answering. It is not a one dimensional yes/no issue so it will be more than one question.
Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones being used here in the U.S.
Yes. Emphatically. For any reason other than to passively assist in an ongoing and overt law enforcement search (think the LAPD guy in the Sierras or a wilderness search and rescue. In other words, I have no issue with an unarmed drone being overtly used in the same capacity as a light plane or chopper is currently being used. I have every issue with them being used to covertly run surveillance against any US citizen unless there is a court order allowing it (think wiretap rules).
Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones being used against US citizens overseas?
I accept that there are valid reasons for a US citizen overseas to be specifically or secondarily monitored by a drone as long as they are afforded the same protections he or she would have in the states (again, think wiretap).
If that citizen is in the presence of terrorists not of his or her own free will - a hostage - then I will accept a well considered derision being collateral damage in a strike on the terrorists.
If that citizen is collaborating with terrorists of his or her own free will then I will accept a well considered derision based on military necessities in the field that he or she not be given special consideration over the risk of being collateral damage in any strike on his or her terrorist associates.
In no case do I accept that there is any valid reason for any US citizen overseas to be specifically targeted for a deadly attack by a drone without all due and diligent process.
@Rabel said... reference carriers...
whether or not there was a carrier in the Med, we had Sigonella Sicily. The major base from which the Libya air war was carried out. It is 450 miles across water to Benghazi. It is where the drones, both armed and unarmed are launched. That night, no armed drone was launched, nor F-16's.
The CIA station chief in Tripoli rented a plane, put 6 CIA guys and some local guns onboard and flew 400 miles to benghazi and got there in a couple of hours. Nothing came from Sigonella, because "it was too dangerous"
"But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours. The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support. It was always too late to help. It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours.... When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did?"
So, they followed the four-stage process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD1d-6P6qI
Yes, Minister -- what doesn't it address?
"order our military to do everything they could to save our guys."
He said he did. It was a lie, but most people aren't willing to believe that of their president.
DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. It was two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours. The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect. And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.
After the first 20-minute battle, something really should have been done. If it could have saved even one life and all that.
For any reason other than to passively assist in an ongoing and overt law enforcement search (think the LAPD guy in the Sierras or a wilderness search and rescue. In other words, I have no issue with an unarmed drone being overtly used in the same capacity as a light plane or chopper is currently being used. I have every issue with them being used to covertly run surveillance against any US citizen unless there is a court order allowing it (think wiretap rules).
The problem is the government will use the excuse that they're going after "bad guys" or "terrorists" while they're mining all sorts of information on you. or anyone else they want to.
CNN Transcripts
Interview with Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, from Crowly State of the Union
PANETTA: This is not 911. You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That's the nature of it. Our people are there. They are in position to move, but we've got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something is going to happen.
Garage. The govt. can and does lie which is a point that otherwise does not seem to faze you.
"You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That's the nature of it. Our people are there. They are in position to move, but we've got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something is going to happen."
-- Fact: They knew what was going to happen and had received numerous warnings from people on the ground. The only reason that they didn't have resources available is a complete, organization-wide failure of leadership to pay attention to threats to their people.
PANETTA: This is not 911. You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That's the nature of it. Our people are there. They are in position to move, but we've got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something is going to happen.
Inga makes an excellent point. An American ambassador assigned to a country in political and social turmoil with no security detail should not expect immediate help from his country when the consulate comes under attack.
Thanks for pointing this out
whether or not there was a carrier in the Med, we had Sigonella Sicily. The major base from which the Libya air war was carried out. It is 450 miles across water to Benghazi. It is where the drones, both armed and unarmed are launched. That night, no armed drone was launched, nor F-16's.
-------
DEMPSEY: You know, it wasn't a seven-hour battle. It was two 20-minute battles separated by about six hours. The idea that this was one continuous event is just incorrect. And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.
Why is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs lying?
garage mahal said...The problem is the government will use the excuse that they're going after "bad guys" or "terrorists" while they're mining all sorts of information on you. or anyone else they want to.
That is currently true with light planes, choppers, and satellites ( with accuracy near enough to a low flying drone as to make no difference).
I was not talking government anyway in the way you mean the term here. That is in the realm of tin hat , black helicopter fear. I was talking law enforcement and search and rescue by local, state, or federal entities being run overtly.
I do not see any good reason that drone technology cannot be used in the US for valid search and rescue reasons - to save lives - or legally justifiable law enforcement reasons - to aid in capturing a known miscreant in difficult or open terrain. There is precedence here - light planes and choppers used by the organizations in place already doing that sort of thing.
" Jack! "
'And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some significant physics involved.'
Disingenuous information at best. There may not have been aircraft closer than Djibouti armed at the moment the attack started but there were war capable aircraft within 500 miles and arming a military aircraft for a ground sortie is very fast (depending on the ordinance obviously.
Obfuscating information at worst. Military commanders in the region would have immediately prepped sorties and awaited word to go. Or they would not long be military commanders in the region.
Inga said...
Aridog, resistance is futile. :)
However, for you Inga Bulgy-Eyes, the wine bottles never resist your futile efforts. Chin Chin you drunken barfly.
AllenS,
Whatcha doin in Cloquet?
Inga,
Now you are just scaring me. That Dempsey quote is damning. Was he really trying to claim that there were no air assets nearer than Djibuti, or is he playing semantics ("armed"). We have air bases in Italy and Germany for heaven's sake. Check a map, even Germany is closer than Djibuti I think.
That someone in Dempsey's position would play word games like this (assuming your quote is accurate)is downright orwellian.
CWJ, the quotes come from the CNN transcripts. Can someone give me a good compelling reason as to why he would lie?
Matthew,
"Yes, Minister -- what doesn't it address?"
Well, that's why we also have Hot Shots Part Deux and Monty Python and the Holy Grail l".
Speaking of the latter, if you ever tire of watching it, get the extended edition and check out the Japanese overdub with English subtitles. Who says an old classic can't be improved upon!
Inga, up the comprehension level. He's not saying you lied about Dempsey's words.
Panetta and Dempsey telegraph to other US diplomats around the world: You can gauge your safety from your distance from Somalia.
I just Googled my address, and I can see that the picture was taken just this past fall. I noticed that the ground was turned up where I had used the dozer, and in front of the shop, I can see my two doors for the Jeep project. I must have just finished putting the white primer on them. So, there updating all of the time. Maybe they used a drone.
Can someone give me a good compelling reason as to why he would lie?
National security?
"Some of the initial assessments here were not on the money," Panetta said, in what will likely be his last testimony before the committee. "Some of the initial assessments were made, they should have taken more time to assess the full situation of what had taken place."
Dempsey also said there was an "intelligence gap."
There are two false assumptions that work against a Pentagon response, he added. One is that the military can be as responsive as necessary, and this is not always the case, he said. The other is that the military is "all-seeing and all-knowing."
"There are some places on the planet where we have some gaps. I think North Africa is one of them," Dempsey said.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/07/top-us-general-benghazi-threats-were-not-unique
Kirk, I went to look for some parts for my 1955 John Deere 40C. No luck. Do you live up there?
Three things:
1)The stuff featuring Jay in this thread is fucking priceless. And you all know it. Even Jay knows it.
2)"Bill Kristol is like a prophet. In reverse."
Beautifully said and we have the video of him talking, over the years, to undisputably prove it. Here's something everyone on this blog who knows who Kristol is, knows: by linking to Kristol, Ann lowers herself.
3)Ermagerd.
Kirk Parker, YOU up your comprehension, I did not say nor did I think he said I was lying.
Inga, It's not me. It's geography that says he's lying, unless he's playing word games with adjectives like "armed." I didn't make the earth. I didn't make Italy and Germany closer to Benghazi than Djibouti. I'm not questioning you. The quote is damning on its face.
Igna - Since your quoting Panetta's testimony, you are aware that he said he never heard from the White House the entire night. You're OK with that?
B
Got to disagree with you on domestic drones. They just passed a bill through both houses authorizing drones in civilian airspace that doesn't restrict their use for surveillance by police and federal government agencies. And alloted $63.4 billion to the FAA.
Only 20 voted no in the senate. We have real lions in the senate.
You know if the right and left ganged up together on stuff they agree on this shit would be stopped in a heartbeat.
But, of course, Benghazi. So, no.
Checking my National Geographic ATLAS OF THE WORLD, and using just a regular tape measure, and measuring from the middle of Italy to Benghazi, I get 3 inches. From Djibuti to Benghazi it's 8 inches. So there.
AllenS, try southern Sicily. What's the reading from your tape measure on that?
CWJ, I understand you are not questioning me. I don't know why Dempsey would state such a thing, I'm trying to figure out WHY he would lie about it.
Hi Inga.
You asked me to give you a reason why he would lie.
OK, here it is. To cover his ass and keep his job. That has been a compelling reason for many people for hundreds of years.
The reason I said your quoting him scared me is that we (and your daughter)should expect something better than that from someone in his position.
That is scary.
If someone from the government said anything, literally any single thing, that confirmed Inky's biases, she would believe it.
I bet she considers herself a big lover of freedom too.
Too funny.
One inch equals about 250 miles.
S Sicily to Benghazi is about 1 5/8 inches.
I'd love to see Inky square this circle.
From the attack:
he team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
Gee Inky, why would Dempsey lie?
Let me guess Inky, thinking is too hard for you.
So you believe General Dempsey to be dishonorable?
You're not OK with it, are you Inga?
If only that stupid Navy Seal on the ground repeatedly painting the target knew that there was no way the military could support him because they were too far away.
I'm sure he did it just for shits & giggles, right Inky?
I'm trying to figure out WHY he would lie about it.
Inga, why does it matter WHY he lied? Is there some mitigating circumstance that would make his lie acceptable?
And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. There is some significant physics involved. And the time available, given the intelligence available, I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.
What a pathetic, lying sack of shit.
This is a big book. This page on Africa consists of both pages and measures 18" x 24".
One of the best things that I ever bought.
I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.
So Inky, do you actually believe this?
And if so, why?
So you believe General Dempsey to be dishonorable?
You tell me, Inga. Is lying to Congress while under oath dishonorable?
Inga?
Hi Inga,
That's what frightens me.
Original Mike,
No I'm not OK with it.
Now, the map of the US. Different scale. 600 miles is 4 inches. From DC to LA distance is 9 1/4 inches.
Inga said...
CWJ, I understand you are not questioning me. I don't know why Dempsey would state such a thing, I'm trying to figure out WHY he would lie about it.
Many wondered why Althouse doubted Ben Carter's ability to write a speech the other day. But sometimes answers are just not forthcoming.
4 inches is a thousand. Need new glasses.
AllenS said...
Checking my National Geographic ATLAS OF THE WORLD,..
I used to have one of those too...but I left it behind in Europe.
garage mahal said...
But, of course, Benghazi. So, no.
Right. Too bad left and right can't agree allowing terrorists to Americans is bad.
You know what else is really cool about this book? It has the time zones. Dig this: Australia has 3 time zones. The one in the middle is only different by 30 minutes, not an hour. India, Iran and Saudia Arabia do the same thing. Why?
"No I'm not OK with it."
I'm glad to hear it. I really am.
Next question. What does that say about Obama?
I'm not asking you to answer it. Just think about it.
garage mahal said...B
Got to disagree with you on domestic drones. They just passed a bill through both houses authorizing drones in civilian airspace that doesn't restrict their use for surveillance by police and federal government agencies. And alloted $63.4 billion to the FAA.
I won't argue that. Merely point out that I was speaking to your original question of whether a conservative who frequents this site is ok with the various scenarios of drone deployment. The scenarios I am ok with concerning deployment of drones in US airspace are the two I mentioned.
That their surveillance use is not restricted is a scenario I made it pretty clear I am not ok with unless it follows guidelines similar to wiretapping restrictions - you need to convince a sitting judge to issue a court order.
And a few moments with "My Pet Goat" was a disgrace of monumental incompetence.
The left has no real values.
"And a few moments with "My Pet Goat" was a disgrace of monumental incompetence."
Yeah, how 'bout that?
And a few moments with "My Pet Goat" was a disgrace of monumental incompetence.
Hey, it got Michael Moore a Palm d'Or and record-length standing ovation. Disgruntled lefties around here are still reciting the script of that movie.
"Reading LEFT WING talk on Benghazi is like reading cartoons filled with empty panels, no words and no pictures.
And as the lefty says "Sorry, it's not worth a second of real reflection or thought."
EXACTLY!
Ah, by the way folks. Unless I am mistaken, and I scanned Dempsey's testimony quickly, he never mentioned Djibouti. What you are referring to is a CNN interview.
In Dempsey's actual hearing testimony, he was asked to defend preparedness, but not the actual response that evening other than to say that their was no request from State for a military response.
So its full circle for this thread. Nothing yet to support any argument that the WH, State, and the commander in chief did not leave those 2 guys to die. Nor any support for the contention that the assets were not available given 6 hours.
Best I can tell from this mess, Obama owes his second term to the independent actions of a single CIA staffer who grabbed a bunch of armed guys and a plane and got the other 20 or so people out of their intact.
Had he not, I doubt the best efforts of the media could have protected Obama from the specter of 4 dead and upwards of 20 more either dead or hostages.
AllenS wrote:
"When Bush ran deficits that were regularly called "wasteful deficit spending", did you agree that they were?"
Obama certainly did. He called them unpatriotic even.
"When Obama runs deficits that are twice the size of Bush's, but now are called "stimulus", are you ok with his deficits?"
Ah, see, but you're assuming that dems and libs who were preaching about evil Bush overspending actually care about overspending.
Of course they are ok with obama's deficits.Don't expect some kind of consistency here. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.
Actually I guess you can expect consistency if one is being two faced consistently.
AllenS wrote:
"When Bush ran deficits that were regularly called "wasteful deficit spending", did you agree that they were?"
Obama certainly did. He called them unpatriotic even.
"When Obama runs deficits that are twice the size of Bush's, but now are called "stimulus", are you ok with his deficits?"
Ah, see, but you're assuming that dems and libs who were preaching about evil Bush overspending actually care about overspending.
Of course they are ok with obama's deficits.Don't expect some kind of consistency here. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.
Actually I guess you can expect consistency if one is being two faced consistently.
Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones? (here in the U.S. or overseas). Happy to correct the record.
I'm a conservative, I suppose that's what you mean by "con." Overseas, absolutely fine. There is a new kind of threat, and drones, while imperfect, probably save lives overall, and potentially in very big ways. Is it fair? No. Is it Moral? that's a bit more tough.
Drones in the US? The only circumstance I can imagine is if there are seriously dangerous people (9/11 or worse), would their use be warranted. It's just too easy, and there isn't enough balance.
The topic has changed, but this kind of inaction seems pretty standard for Mr. Obama. He seems completely unable to seize a moment, be it in Iran, in the "Arab Spring," or at any other time. And certainly not in Benghazi.
I think the guy simply gets stupefied, because he doesn't have a clear agenda, and won't do anything without having the bases covered. Like in that second meeting, in which Candy injected herself in a way she never should have. If the truth could be known, I would put a wager down on that one, that he knew she would protect him, and it was a setup.
If the truth could be known, I would put a wager down on that one, that he knew she would protect him, and it was a setup.
You just put your finger on something that bothers me a great deal: this urge "to protect him" -- which I think is female. Where does this come from? Is it emotional and thus irrational? What are its limits? What kind of countering information would it take for a Candy Crawley not to act so?
"The topic has changed, but this kind of inaction seems pretty standard for Mr. Obama. He seems completely unable to seize a moment, be it in Iran, in the "Arab Spring," or at any other time. And certainly not in Benghazi."
That certainly is a recurring theme.
AllenS,
My wife is originally from there. (Emigrated to the PNW when she was in 5th grade.)
Nice place, but haven't been there in quite a while, the relatives are quite dispersed these days.
shame on you Ann. I thought you were well informed, but obviously you aren't. There was plenty of time to send in help to at least aid the TWO brave souls who stayed to defend an empty building (after saving 20 odd souls) that, according to all diplomatic rules, was USA sovereign ground. Only our bastard CIC went to bed and couldn't care less because, I guess, they didn;t look like him.
I Callahan said...
Seeing Red beat me to it, Meade. I've heard no one on the left say jack. Except, garage.
In all fairness, if you follow people like Glenn Greenwald, you'll see that he's as against this as anyone.
Say what you want about the guy - at least he's consistent.
==================
The difference I see was liberal Democrats were just due process advocates and enemy lovers of convenience - it was a good tool to bash Bush with. Then dropped when Black Messiah was elected.
Whereas a true lefty like the progressive Jewish, gay Greenwalt is an enemy lover of conviction..even though he is too dense to "get" that the enemy he moans and blubbers over would gladly kill him for any of 4 good reasons if they could, and get away with it.
1. Infidel.
2. Gay pervert offending to the eyes of Allah.
3. A vile Jew, who Mohammend wrote are a wicked, untrustworthy lot.
4. American.
Parachute Greenwalt into any radical Islamist land with his biography printed on the parachute and he wouldn't last half an hour unless they wanted a nice Islamoid snuff video made.
Mark said...
Meanwhile, there's a man in jail for releasing a video that Susan Rice could flog on the talk shows as the "cause" of the attack.
==============
Sorry Mark, though he intended on inciting Muslims to kill and harm Americans and did put thousands of Americans overseas at risk in other attacks and protests 9/11-15/2012, he did not trigger the Benghazi attack.
But no matter, the felon scumbag violated numerous parts of his probation provisions, so was snt back to serve the remainder of his felony sentencing - same as other felon scumbags that can't stay clean once they are out of jail...
Are there any cons on this blog that are explicitly against drones?
I'm going to come out against Drones. Because of Skynet.
Why yes, I was watching T2 last night, why do you ask?
I am explicitly pro drone, both when Obama does it and when Bush did it (a lot less). What I can't stand are hypocrites who are sanctimonious about it but only when certain people are in power.
So that would mean I respect Robert Cooke on this. He's been consistent and isn't a hypocrite about it. Robert Cooke and Glenn Greenwald are not the majority of liberals. And certainly not the media.
Also, I can't even say I'm totally against using drone strikes to kill Americans who are waging war against us overseas.
For example. We all KNOW that Adam Gadaan was working with Al Qaeda (to answer the charge "how do we know that an American is really working for Al Qaeda for sure?" That is often brought up). If we found a high ranking Al Qaeda target and were about to do a drone strike to kill him but found out Adam Gaddhan might be in the same compounded SHOLDNT take the shot simply because Adam Gaddaan was once American or is still American?
That strikes me as silly as saying we should give KSM a civilian trial or Miranda when arresting him as if it was a police action and not a war.
Now, that's different than saying a president should be using drones to blow up his opponents because he doesn't like his policies or at home. But overseas, if you are running around Afghanistan fighting our troops you are a target. If you are nearby a high value target we would kill with a drone strike you are collateral damage.
Two hypotheticals. Suppose on the eve of the Iraq war all those human shields from America who chickened out and came home actually did stay in Iraq. Should we have ceased bombings because an American might get blown up? If you are ok with Americans getting killed by those bombs then what is the problem with a drone strike.
Second, suppose we are dealing with flight 93 in the states and not even overseas. Jets are sent out to overtake the plane and shoot it out of the sky so it doesn't destroy its target. Wouldn't that mean you would be killing Americans? In the United States no less?
Because of stalling by the Obama Administration, the public did not know until well after the election.
They still do not know.
Dempsey And the nearest -- for example, the nearest aircraft -- armed aircraft, happened to be in Djibouti, the distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the distance from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles.
Oh really.
I have great confidence in reporting to the American people that we were appropriately responsive given what we knew at the time.
"appropriately responsive"
?
Translation: "we did nothing because we knew nothing which occurred becasue we were not doing our job"
?
Right.
Chef Mojo said...
Why is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs lying?
He has a girlfriend?
Inga. Dempsey lied. Whether under oath or in a TV interview. You need to ask yourself some serious questions here.
If we find out the Americans are fighting us overseas, should we send out a squad of soldiers, a la Saving Private Ryan to find him and arrest him and give him Miranda rights rather than dropping a bomb on him, simply because he has an American passport?
So then, we should in fact do what libs said we should be doing with terrorists in general? treating it like a police action and not a war?
I had objections along grounds that to do what libs wanted there would be completely unrealistic in a war zone. Yet now the same argument is made by some libertarians and libs as if it was somehow not just as unrealistic in a war zone.
Which is why again I sometimes think libertarians are just liberals with slightly better ideas on economics than liberals.
Should areas where Americans fighting with the enemy be drone free zones? Wherever those American targets fighting against us are where must not bomb?
I suppose then zawahari should walk around with Adam Ghaddan wherever he goes. That way we could never drop a bomb on him. Does that make sense?
Original question: "Why did the White House deceive us after the Benghazi attack?" has pretty much been answered in that Barack Obama is not fit to be president and Commander in Chief.
Going back a few months -- when information was still pretty garbled, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS did some good reporting.
The Counterterrorism Security Group was never convened.
Apparently President Obama would have had to convene it, but he left his "good friend" Chris Stevens alone in Benghazi. After all, he had to make the 11 PM news cycle by calling Netanyahu and then getting to bed for his fund- raiser.
Despicable.
"But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch".
I guess Abu Ghraib is open under new management. (Change name of prison to whatever its called in Afganistan). In your name libs.
Forward. Hope and Change.
Vomit.
JAL wrote:
Apparently President Obama would have had to convene it, but he left his "good friend" Chris Stevens alone in Benghazi. After all, he had to make the 11 PM news cycle by calling Netanyahu and then getting to bed for his fund- raiser.
wait, so the argument is that nothing happened because there is no policy in place that would deal with incidents that occur after Obama goes to bed?
Did General Dempsey lie? Is Dempsey mendacious? Was that uttered load, before Congress and on CNN, a wad of half truths? Was it obfuscation?
See, its not true Dempsey didn't respond...hell, within 24 hours, he determined "Pastor" Terry Jones, of a Florida church of what's happening now, was the problem, so he telephoned him about the video...on 12 Sep 2012. His precedent was Sec. of Defense Gates doing the same thing in 2010.
Consider the matter that Dempsey, or at least his G2 (Intel) and G6 (Commo), knew well before his phone call to Jones that the consulate and annex were attacked by military means, not a protest run amok. It is unimaginable that a G2 would not inform his/her boss of a message notifying of such an attack ... just as it is unimaginable that the "duty officer" or "officer of the day" in Benghazi would not have sent out a high priority message notifying State and Defense within 10 minutes of the start on 11 September.
Short version: Dempsey intentionally enhanced the "protest" theory. What else on earth would motivate the highest ranking officer in the US military to make such a phone call? He's an old TRADOC (the Army's board of education) guy...e.g., and vary unlikely to not coordinate his talking points...just as Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and President Obama did as far out as 14 thru 16 September.
Now it appears that John Brennan, a deputy in the White House advisor crew, was actually running clandestine military and "civil affairs" operations, using military operators, through JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) without coordination with the Pentagon or CIA.
If you are old enough, you might see a parallel between Brennan & JSOC and LBJ's Robert Komer & CORDS utilizing special operators within MAC-V.
That should scare you. Komer, in his "Rand" book "Organization and Management of the New Model Pacification Program
1966-1969", remarked that counter insurgency is the responsibility of "everybody and nobody."
Not much has changed has it? The lying is good for you. Man up.
"I think he was ashamed."
Really?
"I think he was ashamed."
Really?
60 Minutes and Steve Croft will be all over this to expose the administration and let the American people discover what truly happened.
>>I think he is ashamed. <<
This ridiculous comment proves, once again, that you are still utterly clueless about this man's total lack of morality and complete disregard for the duties and responsibilities of the job he holds.
Imagine if this were a local 9/11 call about, say a school shooting. This would be a case of the cops deciding to not send out officers to deal with the issue - EVER!. Despite their being a chopper overhead telling them what was happening.
Despite two lone off duty officers rushing to the scene and take on the multiple attackers and getting killed in the process.
The Chief of police was asleep and no one below him wanted to wake him or act in his place to send out squad cars.
If this were a police incident, that chief of police would resign in disgrace, or his entire staff would be canned for failure to act.
When you call the White House with that 3AM emergency phone call you get voicemail. Or the switchboard takes the message and will make sure the people who need to will get it during normal business hours.
If this assessment is true (and I think it is), then Obama's victory in November was a blessing in disguise. The American people are blind to who this man is. When the awful truth comes out drip, by drip in fullness, a lesson will be presented to the people. Obama was a terrible choice for President. Hillary was a terrible choice for SOS. Democrats are a terrible choice for our country.
LEARN, PEOPLE. LEARN.
"What I dont understand is how come nobody high up has come forward...
Nobody from the military is resigning in protest over this?"
This isn't how the modern game is played. Leaks are how its done now. This will play out between the various factions inside both State, CIA and DoD and the knives are leaks. At some point some of the tapes (audio and IR) will have snippits leaked. Plus different personnel will find their careers "redirected" or derailed.
Unlike the Bush era the press is acting to suppress rather than distribute the news so the effects will be muted.
Obama never cared about the people killed in Benghazi. None of them looked, as Trayvon Martin did, like his own hypothetical son.
If it was too late to help, it became that way whenever it was decided to tell Ambassador Stephens to STFU about his security concerns.
Imagine if this were a local 9/11 call about, say a school shooting. This would be a case of the cops deciding to not send out officers to deal with the issue - EVER!.
We had a local case last month where a lady ran into the river and called 911. The dispatcher called MEMS but apparently forgot to call the police who could actually help her out of the water, so MEMS called when they got there and when all was said and the lady died. Very, very sad. The dispatcher is in deep shit, understandably, but this was an accident. Imagine if that were a conscious choice?
jr565 said...
Imagine if this were a local 9/11 call ...
Perfect analogy. Thanks.
You don't have to go to Libya to get screwed over by the US government & military. Try Fort Hood ...words escape me. Just read it and if it makes sense to anyone, then perhaps they're part of the problem.
From the article: Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.
Lying is good for you. Man up...
Here's a theory on why Obama was so disengaged with the operational details of the attack's response:
He was attempting to disassociate from the arms to Syria mission based in Benghazi. Details on this theory can be found here:
The 'You Break It, You Own It' Theory on Benghazi: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-you-break-it-you-own-it-theory-on.html
Porkopolis cited on his blog...
Theory: President Obama was not intimately involved/engaged with the operational defense of the Benghazi Consulate because he was upset that key members of his National Security Council had circumvented his policy against arming the Syrian rebels.
Interesting theory, but the very man who was allegedly circumventing his purported policy was none other than John Brennan, Obama's current nominee for D-CIA.
I agree Obama sought detachment once things went wrong, but I am certain Obama and his advisors are mendacious to the ultimate degree about what Obama really backed versus espoused publicly.
In the Obama administration, the first liar doesn't stand a chance. He makes Nixon and Clinton look like amateurs.
The administration's failure to act reflects a politician's view of acceptable losses but many Americans hold the military's view of no-one left behind. Even if our people were dead, we still should have gone for their bodies. Failure to even consider that was bad; lying to cover it up was worse; claiming it makes no difference is abhorrent.
The administration's failure to act reflects a politician's view of acceptable losses but many Americans hold the military's view of no-one left behind. Even if our people were dead, we still should have gone for their bodies. Failure to even consider that was bad; lying to cover it up was worse; claiming it makes no difference is abhorrent.
Post a Comment