PDA

View Full Version : Not a word ...



Gerry Clinchy
02-07-2013, 08:02 PM
... about Panetta's testimony on Benghazi today?

The POTUS had said his first order was to "secure our personnel" ... but Panetta says that the order to cross borders was not given, and only the POTUS can do that. Was Panetta supposed to infer the order was given? Should the POTUS have been more specific on crossing the borders?

Without such authorization to cross borders, the only assets that could be committed to aid Benghazi were the reaction force from Tripoli.

It appears that the POTUS went to bed after his initial briefing; and that Panetta never specifically informed Hillary.

Presuming all testimonies were the truth ... if I were a DOS employee almost anywhere I would be heading home.

Gerry Clinchy
02-07-2013, 08:08 PM
Here's a link that includes a video of Panetta's testimony
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/panetta-obama-absent-night-benghazi_700405.html


Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, "up to us."In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Panetta said that, save their 5 o'clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

So, it looks like the buck stops at Panetta? Not sure I can buy that. However, Panetta will be gone now ... and all this will be forgotten by 2016.

JDogger
02-07-2013, 09:00 PM
... and all this will be forgotten by 2016.

Count on it. JD

M&K's Retrievers
02-08-2013, 12:16 AM
2016?? Hell, it's not even acknowledged tonight.

road kill
02-08-2013, 05:18 AM
Gerry, I saw that and could not beleive Panetta said it.
I was going to put something up, but was busy with several hundredother people dischargeing thousand of rounds with our evil weapons.
Great thread!


But, "at this point does it really matter?"

BonMallari
02-08-2013, 09:32 AM
I didnt even hear about it until I listened to a replay of the Mark Levin show late last night..the media including Fox and Drudge dont even seem to care anymore, really shameful that this will go quietly in the night

Tom. P.
02-08-2013, 09:37 AM
Nothing thats going on in this Country now is a major concern! To the Liberal mind that is! It is amazing what the left can get by with.But it's equally apalling that the! Republicans voice is absent except for a few.I guess a person could find plenty of reasons to be disgusted
with both parties.
Where is Our common sense gone?

Franco
02-08-2013, 09:51 AM
Rand Paul's comments after Penetta testimony.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-inexcusable-87315.html

road kill
02-08-2013, 10:01 AM
Rand Paul's comments after Penetta testimony.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-inexcusable-87315.html

I like the emboldened red part!!!




Paul, who is considering a 2016 run for president, reiterated the same criticisms he used against Clinton when she testified last month about the attacks. During the hearing, he said he would have fired her for not reading the security requests.

On Thursday, the tea partier doubled-down: “I’m not asking that she read every cable from Bulgaria to Estonia – but Libya was one of the most five dangerous places in the world easily by anybody’s calculation.”

Franco
02-08-2013, 11:05 AM
I like the emboldened red part!!!

That was Fox News writing that and not Rand saying that.

Fox is the voice on the NeoCons and not the Libertarians. In fact, that is why they did away with Judge Napolitano's show on Fox Buisness. Judge N is a Libertarian.

The NeoCons and Fox were big advocates for invading Iraq and A'stan. Rand and his father were against it. The NeoCons at Fox refuse to cover anything Libertarian and would rather identify Rand as Tea Party. Libertarians are too critical of Fox News and they can't handle it.

road kill
02-08-2013, 12:39 PM
That was Fox News writing that and not Rand saying that.

Fox is the voice on the NeoCons and not the Libertarians. In fact, that is why they did away with Judge Napolitano's show on Fox Buisness. Judge N is a Libertarian.

The NeoCons and Fox were big advocates for invading Iraq and A'stan. Rand and his father were against it. The NeoCons at Fox refuse to cover anything Libertarian and would rather identify Rand as Tea Party. Libertarians are too critical of Fox News and they can't handle it.
The written article is by the Politico not Fox.

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2013, 12:50 PM
If it were a Rand-Hillary face-off in 2016, at least he wouldn't soft-pedal this issue.

Remember, Hillary called Stevens "a friend" ... yet, she wasn't keeping an eye on the Libyan ambassador's safety? And Obama, himself, knew all along that he had gone back to bed and never further inquired while these Americans were dying. I'll give him credit for one thing ... he does have a good poker-face for bluffing. In the debate, Romney backed down from the bluff, and lost the election. If Boehner has half a brain, he should take note of that.

Most of all, it is a tremendous sadness that the two leaders of the country who might have made a difference that night, placed so little value on the life of someone they knew, whom they had placed in harm's way. That person became a pawn in the political game they play. They then proceeded to throw under the bus Rice, Panetta & others. I can only imagine how little value they place on the lives of so many people in our country whom they do not know personally.

road kill
02-08-2013, 12:56 PM
If it were a Rand-Hillary face-off in 2016, at least he wouldn't soft-pedal this issue.

Remember, Hillary called Stevens "a friend" ... yet, she wasn't keeping an eye on the Libyan ambassador's safety? And Obama, himself, knew all along that he had gone back to bed and never further inquired while these Americans were dying. I'll give him credit for one thing ... he does have a good poker-face for bluffing. In the debate, Romney backed down from the bluff, and lost the election. If Boehner has half a brain, he should take note of that.

Most of all, it is a tremendous sadness that the two leaders of the country who might have made a difference that night, placed so little value on the life of someone they knew, whom they had placed in harm's way. That person became a pawn in the political game they play. They then proceeded to throw under the bus Rice, Panetta & others. I can only imagine how little value they place on the lives of so many people in our country whom they do not know personally.
Gerry,
"Who do you want answering the call at 3:00am??"

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2013, 01:42 PM
Gerry,
"Who do you want answering the call at 3:00am??"
Hillary has already demonstrated she wouldn't even hear the phone ringing :-)

luvalab
02-08-2013, 01:52 PM
I didnt even hear about it until I listened to a replay of the Mark Levin show late last night..the media including Fox and Drudge dont even seem to care anymore, really shameful that this will go quietly in the night

The right has media, the left has media.

Neither has journalism.

It is very inefficient for people who want... You know, that stuff... The whaddayacallit...

begins with an N, maybe...

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2013, 04:57 PM
Lindsay Graham questioning Panetta:

GRAHAM: My question is, did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people who were under attack in Benghazi, Libya before the attack ended.
DEMPSEY: No, because the attack ended before we could get off the ground.

7-8 hours ... and they could not get off the ground?


SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’

SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –

SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –

SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces.Did you call him back — wait a minute –

SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –

SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?

SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.

SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.

SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them?

charly_t
02-08-2013, 04:59 PM
If it were a Rand-Hillary face-off in 2016, at least he wouldn't soft-pedal this issue.

Remember, Hillary called Stevens "a friend" ... yet, she wasn't keeping an eye on the Libyan ambassador's safety? And Obama, himself, knew all along that he had gone back to bed and never further inquired while these Americans were dying. I'll give him credit for one thing ... he does have a good poker-face for bluffing. In the debate, Romney backed down from the bluff, and lost the election. If Boehner has half a brain, he should take note of that.

Most of all, it is a tremendous sadness that the two leaders of the country who might have made a difference that night, placed so little value on the life of someone they knew, whom they had placed in harm's way. That person became a pawn in the political game they play. They then proceeded to throw under the bus Rice, Panetta & others. I can only imagine how little value they place on the lives of so many people in our country whom they do not know personally.

You are correct.............butter would not melt in Obama's mouth. He is one very good acter.

And most of those people in politics do not care about those who elected them.

Dan Storts
02-08-2013, 06:57 PM
Lindsay Graham questioning Panetta:


7-8 hours ... and they could not get off the ground?

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/INDENT]

We can scramble fighter jets to intercept a commercial aircraft, which has been off course 2 minutes and not returned a tower response, within 15 minutes. We could not help these people for over 7 hours?

You do know how to reach the President correct? The carrier carrying F-16, which can fly max. M-2 and cruise at 11 to 1200MPH, were approximately 600 miles away. That call would have helped them within 45 minutes, correct?

However, refueling would have been a issue and that could be their only defense. He would have to come out and state the fact and gave him a way to save some face.

This a stage show because nobody is under oath.

BuddyJ
02-08-2013, 07:57 PM
We can scramble fighter jets to intercept a commercial aircraft, which has been off course 2 minutes and not returned a tower response, within 15 minutes. We could not help these people for over 7 hours?

You do know how to reach the President correct? The carrier carrying F-16, which can fly max. M-2 and cruise at 11 to 1200MPH, were approximately 600 miles away. That call would have helped them within 45 minutes, correct?

However, refueling would have been a issue and that could be their only defense. He would have to come out and state the fact and gave him a way to save some face.

This a stage show because nobody is under oath.

The whole theater of politics is a stage show. I don't believe any of them. The way the pubs are selling us down the river I think they are all commies and the two parties are as fake as Saturday night wrestling. Rand Paul sucks too, he is an idiot!

Eric Johnson
02-08-2013, 08:54 PM
We can scramble fighter jets to intercept a commercial aircraft, which has been off course 2 minutes and not returned a tower response, within 15 minutes.

That would be an air to air mission and the fighters are on alert for that. There aren't aircraft on alert for an emergency air-to-ground mission. Even the F/A18 in it's ground attack mode isn't really equipped for the pin-point accuracy needed for this. (The F/A18 is a warfighter, not a sniper.) Further, the night capabilities of the aircraft available has to be considered. For instance, Operation El Dorado Canyon (bombing of Libya in 86) was constrained because only the F-111 of the Air Force at RAF Upper Heyford and RAF Lakenheath and the A-6 of the Navy could attack with precision at night.

The ideal system for this mission was the AC-130 but those are slow-movers and there apparently wasn't one within immediate striking distance. They're normally based in the UK.

What will probably happen is that DoD will assess all aspects of the situation and be better prepared for such an instance in the future. This is as it always has been, we always plan how to better win the last war.

What is going on now is really just political posturing and I personally hold it against both sides. If Congress were intent on anything else, they'd have the Pentagon prepare an internal report on "Lessons Learned" and present it in secret.

Gerry Clinchy
03-03-2013, 07:10 PM
I stumbled across this while looking for something else. From USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/07/penetta-dempsey-benghazi-analysis/1898301/

It has a pretty good outline of the Panetta and Dempsey testimony. There testimony would seem to indicate, that the first support that got to the site was 23 hours after the attack began. Panetta said they "made adjustments" since then. I sure hope so!

This was the first time I heard that the "battle" was two 20-minute skirmishes 6 hours apart. The former SEALS died in the 2nd skirmish ... so if these geniuses could have gotten somebody there within 4 hours, those people might be alive today. Good thing these fellas were not in charge of D-Day.

Gerry Clinchy
04-23-2013, 05:59 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rand-paul-hillarys-benghazi-story-unraveling/,
As time goes on Hillary's testimony continues to unravel. This WND article cites other reporting by CBS and NY Times, among others, that lays out that the gun shipping to Syrian rebels was very much like a plan laid out by Hillary, herself. Odd that she would testify that she had no knowledge of such activity? Rand Paul was the one who actually posed the question to her, and he is also quoted in this article (This article was posted to the WND website less than 24 hrs ago).

It would seem that the US is far more involved in helping these Syrian rebels than is generally believed ... in addition to the many millions in humanitarian aid that has been given to them.

If GW Bush was doing this stuff the media would be mopping the floor with him. Certainly, Bush made his share of bloopers, but the media was all over him for it. The media has let Hillary, Panetta and all of those who knew the facts, retreat to the shadows on this hot mess of Benghazi.

menmon
04-24-2013, 06:28 AM
It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

Socks
04-24-2013, 09:01 AM
It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

Well let's suppose you're right. My counter arguement would be that is irrevalvent(sp?) to what happened and why.

Eric Johnson
04-24-2013, 09:19 AM
I've just started reading this.

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/libya-progress-report.pdf

road kill
04-24-2013, 09:27 AM
It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.
If you are correct, then why not just tell the story?
Why LIE about a video?????

Gerry Clinchy
04-24-2013, 11:19 AM
It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.
As with Clinton, the "sin" is not dealing in the arms for the rebels (that is probably controversial, but not outright illegal). The perjury is the crux of the issue. The whole point of having 3 branches of govt is for checks and balances, so that the executive branch (which controls the military) is monitored in their actions.

If the material was a matter of national security, then the legislative branch, in their function of oversight, could have been requested to be given confidential briefings in the interest of national security. National security, I don't think, gives the right to lie to each other. In this case, I believe it was a matter of political expedience for an administration facing election, being unwilling to reveal that its policies had created this particular tragedy; and that the failure to give assistance to the ambassador appears to have been yet another means to cover up the failure of such policies/strategies.

Surely, the electorate should not be privvy to all military operations. The electorate did not know the time and date of D-Day in advance. That's reasonable. Under the rule of law, perjury is not condoned. Politicians lie in campaigns a lot .. but they are not under oath. Hopefully, when we find out that they have lied, we refuse to re-elect them. (Of course, that doesn't happen as often as it should!)

These public servants screwed up. They are human, and that happens. They lied about it to protect their own behinds. It's easy to see, with more information, how badly the truth would have impacted the election.

road kill
04-24-2013, 11:50 AM
As with Clinton, the "sin" is not dealing in the arms for the rebels (that is probably controversial, but not outright illegal). The perjury is the crux of the issue. The whole point of having 3 branches of govt is for checks and balances, so that the executive branch (which controls the military) is monitored in their actions.

If the material was a matter of national security, then the legislative branch, in their function of oversight, could have been requested to be given confidential briefings in the interest of national security. National security, I don't think, gives the right to lie to each other. In this case, I believe it was a matter of political expedience for an administration facing election, being unwilling to reveal that its policies had created this particular tragedy; and that the failure to give assistance to the ambassador appears to have been yet another means to cover up the failure of such policies/strategies.

Surely, the electorate should not be privvy to all military operations. The electorate did not know the time and date of D-Day in advance. That's reasonable. Under the rule of law, perjury is not condoned. Politicians lie in campaigns a lot .. but they are not under oath. Hopefully, when we find out that they have lied, we refuse to re-elect them. (Of course, that doesn't happen as often as it should!)

These public servants screwed up. They are human, and that happens. They lied about it to protect their own behinds. It's easy to see, with more information, how badly the truth would have impacted the election.

So, one side wanting the TRUTH is "political" and the other side LIEING and HIDING the FACTS is OK???

Gerry Clinchy
04-24-2013, 12:39 PM
So, one side wanting the TRUTH is "political" and the other side LIEING and HIDING the FACTS is OK???
Not to me, Stan; but, to some people it seems to be.

Gerry Clinchy
04-24-2013, 01:51 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/white_house_behind_alteration_of_benghazi_talking_ points_report.html

Answer to Hillary Clinton as to why it matters: You and the president lied.

The article describes the "evolution" of the talking points put out after the incident.

menmon
04-24-2013, 02:23 PM
If you are correct, then why not just tell the story?
Why LIE about a video?????

They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.

road kill
04-24-2013, 02:35 PM
They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.
So, if McCain was president, you would have accepted the "video" response??

Don't purge yourself, the answer is NO!!!!

And why wouldn't you?
Because it's BULL-PLOP!!!!


That's why I don't accept it!!!!

huntinman
04-24-2013, 04:47 PM
Sambo is Back!!

Brad Turner
04-24-2013, 05:45 PM
They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.

They told us what they wanted us to believe so that they wouldn't look bad during an election. They are still lying. If McCain was our president, the media would be relentless in trying to uncover the truth. Unfortunately, most people don't care.

huntinman
04-24-2013, 06:03 PM
They told us what they wanted us to believe so that they wouldn't look bad during an election. They are still lying. If McCain was our president, the media would be relentless in trying to uncover the truth. Unfortunately, most people don't care.


If McCain were our president, the media would be relentless in trying to uncover anything it could to bring down McCain... Truth? The media? Don't think so...

Brad Turner
04-24-2013, 06:09 PM
Touché.......:)

BonMallari
04-24-2013, 06:39 PM
They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.

the Naval aviator in McCain would have called for air support, you could bet on that....but had he mishandled the situation like this admin I would call for their heads too...Hillary got out just ahead of the lynch mob...They will reform in 2016 and make the swift boats look like a day at wet and wild

Eric Johnson
04-24-2013, 11:11 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/white_house_behind_alteration_of_benghazi_talking_ points_report.html

The article describes the "evolution" of the talking points put out after the incident.

This article refers to "a report". I think it's the same report that was released today that I cited above.

Gerry Clinchy
04-25-2013, 12:03 AM
They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.
You really believe they did not lie?

Obama was the only person who could have given the order to cross the air space to move the assets. He did not give that order. Therefore, he did not do all that he could to help those people at the annex. He told Panetta to do stuff, but left him without the only order that could have moved the needed assets in time to do any good. He carefully worded his response to Romney in the debate that circumvented that particular fact.

They purely stonewalled their incompetent response to a critical situation.

Like Stan, I wouldn't care who the President would have been who behaved this way. It would still have been incompetence to begin with; and then a lie to cover the incompetence.

Gerry Clinchy
04-27-2013, 09:40 AM
JD will be annoyed that I am adding to my own thread ... sorry JD.
From John Ransom at Townhall.com

Here’s what you may not know: Talking points generated by security agencies for events like the Benghazi assault are official documents. [/COLOR]The alteration of the talking points in order to protect senior members of the State Department and/or the White House is a felony that calls for up to 12 years in prison, a $25,000 fine and immediate dismissal from the service of the United States government --including elected officials-- with a lifetime ban from further federal employment.

The authors also reveal that Hillary Clinton denied requests directly for additional security, which is in contradiction to her testimony to congress that she never saw a request for extra security from Benghazi.

“Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department,” says the report (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/globalaffairs/benghazi.pdf). “For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.”

The word “signature” here is key. A signature—not a stamp or autopen—means that Clinton must have seen and signed the cable personally.
By testifying that she did not know of the request, Clinton opens herself up to contempt of congress charges.]
On Sean Hannity yesterday I heard an interview with Sean Smith's mother. I think the show might have been a repeat of an earlier show, based on later parts of the show.

Smith's mother, at the time of the interview, (possibly just before 4/15) still had received no real information from the govt. Sean was being given an award for foreign service. The govt was providing expenses for travel and lodging for Smith's wife and children from the Netherlands; but a letter notified mom that anyone else who wished to attend, would have to pay their own expenses. Her DIL also advised mom that any contact with the govt would have to be through her (DIL). (It appeared from the conversation that the DIL might be a Dutch national.)

Mom was obviously emotional and ticked off with how the whole situation was being handled subsequent to the photo-op with the caskets, at which she had been present. I remember the distraught mother of a soldier killed in the ME whom the media adored for confronting GW ... but nobody seems much interested in this mom's grief.

Uncle Bill
04-27-2013, 12:07 PM
They did tell you what happen but it was not good enough. No one is lying about anything. There was some misinformation in the begining but that was cleared up as the fact became known. But you guys want something that is not there, because you want to hurt the adminstration. If McCain was your president would you be doing what you are doing? Don't purge yourself the answer is no.


Wellllllllll...lookeeee here...the return of the IHOP 'wizard-of-smart'. Welcome back Mr. Oracle. Obviously the proctologist's operation was successful eh?


UB

huntinman
04-27-2013, 12:19 PM
Wellllllllll...lookeeee here...the return of the IHOP 'wizard-of-smart'. Welcome back Mr. Oracle. Obviously the proctologist's operation was successful eh?

UB

Not so sure about that UB12810

Gerry Clinchy
04-29-2013, 05:59 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/obama-administration-officials-have-threatened-whistle-blowers-on-benghazi/
Is this true? Have certain people been threatened because of information they are willing to provide to Congressional investigators?

The State Dept says they've investigated fully, so "... that should be enough."

Gerry Clinchy
04-30-2013, 09:41 PM
Fox interview with an "operator".

Last night on Fox Special Report, their correspondent, Adam Housley, interviewed an unidentified special operator -- face was blacked out, voice changed for the interview -- about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. And during the interview the special operator said this about the attack.


WHISTLEBLOWER: I know for a fact that C-110, the UCOM SIF, was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe, and they had the ability to react and respond. We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.rator" in the area around Benghazi:

WHISTLEBLOWER: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because the security was unknown situation. ... at a minimum you send forces there to facilitate the exfill or medical injuries. We could have sent a C-130 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.


Housley then said, "So you say many connected to Benghazi feel threatened, they're afraid to talk? So far, confidential sources have fed some information, but nobody's come forward publicly on camera until now."

WHISTLEBLOWER: The problem is, you know, you got guys in my position, you got guys in the special operations community who are still active and still involved, and they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high level commanders.

Gerry Clinchy
05-01-2013, 11:50 AM
President Obama said he is unaware of longstanding efforts by Republican lawmakers to question survivors of the Benghazi attacks but pledged to investigate the issue.“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying,” the president said during a White House news conference on Tuesday. “So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to.”


Obama’s pledge to find out more came as officials at the State Department pushed back against allegations -- first aired Monday on Fox News -- that career employees at the agency have been threatened if they furnish new information about the Benghazi attacks to members of Congress.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/obama-pledges-inquiry-on-benghazi-survivors-testimony/#ixzz2S3k7ipd9
I have to believe that POTUS gets daily briefings on multiple issues in the news. While the mainstream media may not be giving this issue coverage, certainly the administration staff would be aware of what's going on. Why would the staff not keep the POTUS informed of this activity when they knew he would be giving a press conference?

He seemed to keep better informed about the Trayvon Martin case than about the developments following the Benghazi incident.

huntinman
05-01-2013, 12:18 PM
I have to believe that POTUS gets daily briefings on multiple issues in the news. While the mainstream media may not be giving this issue coverage, certainly the administration staff would be aware of what's going on. Why would the staff not keep the POTUS informed of this activity when they knew he would be giving a press conference?

He seemed to keep better informed about the Trayvon Martin case than about the developments following the Benghazi incident.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]


Obama knows WTH is going on. Couldn't you see his nose growing? The man is not that dumb... He is just pathological.

Gerry Clinchy
05-04-2013, 10:30 PM
They've released the names of three of the whistle-blowers from the State Dept. on the Benghazi matter.

One of them had already testified: (one of the few people who testified back then who showed any outrage at the way the event was handled by DC)


Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.


"For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating,

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/#ixzz2SNuraU3Y

luvmylabs23139
05-04-2013, 10:53 PM
I have to believe that POTUS gets daily briefings on multiple issues in the news. While the mainstream media may not be giving this issue coverage, certainly the administration staff would be aware of what's going on. Why would the staff not keep the POTUS informed of this activity when they knew he would be giving a press conference?

He seemed to keep better informed about the Trayvon Martin case than about the developments following the Benghazi incident.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

OH, never mind that he and his wife are more informed about gay basketball players than anything else!

Gerry Clinchy
05-05-2013, 04:27 PM
From National Review, May 5, 2013:

A top-ranking diplomat in Libya is set to testify that the Americans on the ground at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi believed from the outset that, contrary to the claims of administration officials, the September 11 attack was carried out by terrorists. CBS’s Face the Nation this morning revealed portions (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/) of an interview that the diplomat, 22-year State Department veteran Gregory Hicks, gave to the House Oversight Committee.
“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” he said. Hicks told the commitee that U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s contention that the attack resulted from angry protests over an anti-Muslim YouTube video, which contradicted the statements of Libyan president Mohammed al-Magarief, were viewed as an insult by the Libyan government and made the FBI’s investigation of the attack more difficult. “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks said of Rice’s five interviews on Sunday news programs just days after the attack. “The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Hicks also contradicted the White House’s claim that it contacted American officials in Libya on the night of the attack, telling investigators that he never heard from administration officials.
Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, who this week will hold hearings on the Benghazi attack at which Hicks will testify, told CBS’s Bob Schieffer that Rice’s remarks indicate at best a “misinformation campaign” orchestrated by the Obama administration and at worst a full-blown coverup.

Gerry Clinchy
05-06-2013, 10:45 PM
Listening to Hannity while in the car today. One of his caller's was one of the fellows who was the remote pilot for one of the drones over the annex on Sept. 11. He went off duty before the incident was over. Funny that nobody has asked to interview any of those guys. He said there would have been only six people working that sector, so it would be easy to track down whoever was working that night. He had started by watching the actual embassy, but was then directed to watch the annex. He said that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people outside the embassy.

Due to the arrangements with the Libyan govt, he said that the drones were not allowed to be armed. Makes me then wonder about the former SEAL who believed that at least one drone was armed since he supposedly risked his life to identifie the target for that drone. Reasonable, however, to figure they wouldn't want to "advertise" an armed drone if the drones were not supposed to be armed.

So far anyone who was close to the action, or privy to what was happening, that night says they were stunned when they heard Rice's statements on the Sunday talk shows, since it was so far from the truth.

Limbaugh made an interesting statement: he said that it is actually possible that Hillary & Obama, and the rest of their coterie really didn't expect the people at the embassy to die. The reason: that they truly believe that once Obama came into office, these ME countries could no longer possibly hate us since Bush was gone. That kind of delusional thinking would be just as, if not more, frightening than plain incompetency. After all, how could the POTUS just tell Panetta to "handle it", go off to bed, and never check back to see what was going on? This would only maike sense if the conspiracy theorists were correct in assuming that this was to be a "mock" kidnapping of Stevens to set up a trade for some terrorist that had been captured. But how could they lose track of what was really happening there? Why would not Stevens have been aware of the plan? Would they have kept Stevens out of the loop so that such a setup would appear real?

From the advance leaks of the probable testimony of these whistleblowers, it seems as if some spit is going to hit the fan on Wednesday. Will thiese testimonies prove Hillary guilty of perjury? Will she get off as easily as Slick Wilie did?

JDogger
05-06-2013, 11:15 PM
Listening to Hannity while in the car today. One of his caller's was one of the fellows who was the remote pilot for one of the drones over the annex on Sept. 11. He went off duty before the incident was over. Funny that nobody has asked to interview any of those guys. He said there would have been only six people working that sector, so it would be easy to track down whoever was working that night. He had started by watching the actual embassy, but was then directed to watch the annex. He said that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people outside the embassy.

Due to the arrangements with the Libyan govt, he said that the drones were not allowed to be armed. Makes me then wonder about the former SEAL who believed that at least one drone was armed since he supposedly risked his life to identifie the target for that drone. Reasonable, however, to figure they wouldn't want to "advertise" an armed drone if the drones were not supposed to be armed.

So far anyone who was close to the action, or privy to what was happening, that night says they were stunned when they heard Rice's statements on the Sunday talk shows, since it was so far from the truth.

Limbaugh made an interesting statement: he said that it is actually possible that Hillary & Obama, and the rest of their coterie really didn't expect the people at the embassy to die. The reason: that they truly believe that once Obama came into office, these ME countries could no longer possibly hate us since Bush was gone. That kind of delusional thinking would be just as, if not more, frightening than plain incompetency. After all, how could the POTUS just tell Panetta to "handle it", go off to bed, and never check back to see what was going on? This would only maike sense if the conspiracy theorists were correct in assuming that this was to be a "mock" kidnapping of Stevens to set up a trade for some terrorist that had been captured. But how could they lose track of what was really happening there? Why would not Stevens have been aware of the plan? Would they have kept Stevens out of the loop so that such a setup would appear real?

From the advance leaks of the probable testimony of these whistleblowers, it seems as if some spit is going to hit the fan on Wednesday. Will thiese testimonies prove Hillary guilty of perjury? Will she get off as easily as Slick Wilie did?

Gerry, your citing of Hannity and Rush gives serious lack of credulity to you or your posts. JD

huntinman
05-07-2013, 12:20 AM
Gerry, your citing of Hannity and Rush gives serious lack of credulity to you or your posts. JD

JD... that's with you. Most here could give a rip about what you consider credible. You want to defend President Pinocchio? Go right ahead... Credibility? Sure.

mngundog
05-07-2013, 09:02 AM
JD... that's with you. Most here could give a rip about what you consider credible. You want to defend President Pinocchio? Go right ahead... Credibility? Sure.
You probably couldn't give a rip, but none the less, ones credibility is called into question when they follow a crackhead like Limbaugh.

huntinman
05-07-2013, 09:24 AM
You probably couldn't give a rip, but none the less, ones credibility is called into question when they follow a crackhead like Limbaugh.


You are from MN and you say something like that?

charly_t
05-07-2013, 11:43 AM
You probably couldn't give a rip, but none the less, ones credibility is called into question when they follow a crackhead like Limbaugh.

Uuummm....I hate to say this because I don't watch the man but some crackheads are smarter than many who aren't doing drugs in this country !

huntinman
05-07-2013, 01:29 PM
Uuummm....I hate to say this because I don't watch the man but some crackheads are smarter than many LIBS in this country !

minor edit Charly;-)


:BIG::grab::BIG::grab:

mngundog
05-07-2013, 01:43 PM
Uuummm....I hate to say this because I don't watch the man but some crackheads are smarter than many who aren't doing drugs in this country !
Charly you should take a few minutes to listen to him, years of illegal drug abuse has no doubt done damage his brain, yet he still has followers, but then again so did David Koresh.

huntinman
05-07-2013, 02:02 PM
Charly you should take a few minutes to listen to him, years of illegal drug abuse has no doubt done damage his brain, yet he still has followers, but then again so did David Koresh.

So do Barack Obama and Bill Ayers... just a couple of guys from the neighborhood.

coachmo
05-07-2013, 02:08 PM
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh but anyone that would compare him to a crackhead and to David Koresh can't be real smart. I have to hand it to you though, you're a prime example of someone showing off the liberal love for everyone. What a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!

mngundog
05-07-2013, 02:18 PM
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh but anyone that would compare him to a crackhead and to David Koresh can't be real smart. I have to hand it to you though, you're a prime example of someone showing off the liberal love for everyone. What a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try to follow along............ I wasn't comparing him to a crackhead, I was calling him a crackhead, he himself admits to being a druggy. I hoped I dumbed that down enough for you :D

coachmo
05-07-2013, 02:31 PM
He was hooked on pain pills so that classifies him as a crackhead? You seemed to glaze over the fact that you compared him to Koresh. You don't need to dumb anything down for me but thanks anyway. Just keep showing that liberal love! FYI you're still a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anytime, anywhere you want to have a debate on any topic I'll more than gladly oblige. It's easy to be an internet genius like yourself!

huntinman
05-07-2013, 02:31 PM
Try to follow along............ I wasn't comparing him to a crackhead, I was calling him a crackhead, he himself admits to being a druggy. I hoped I dumbed that down enough for you :D

You got the dumb part right

road kill
05-07-2013, 02:37 PM
Try to follow along............ I wasn't comparing him to a crackhead, I was calling him a crackhead, he himself admits to being a druggy. I hoped I dumbed that down enough for you :D

Thanks, but it was plenty dumb already.

mngundog
05-07-2013, 02:40 PM
He was hooked on pain pills so that classifies him as a crackhead? You seemed to glaze over the fact that you compared him to Koresh. You don't need to dumb anything down for me but thanks anyway. Just keep showing that liberal love! FYI you're still a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Coach you just said you don't need me to dumb it down, then you ask about the Koresh comparison? Make up your mind. :D

mngundog
05-07-2013, 02:42 PM
Thanks, but it was plenty dumb already.
Stan do you think that it a little ironic that a guy who for years said that druggies need to be placed behind bars, is the same guy who admits to being a druggie for years?

huntinman
05-07-2013, 02:52 PM
Stan do you think that it a little ironic that a guy who for years said that druggies need to be placed behind bars, is the same guy who admits to being a druggie for years?

you are really digging deep to have something to talk about when this is all you have. This was years ago when this story broke. Are you onto something new? Or are you just now figuring it out?

road kill
05-07-2013, 02:53 PM
Stan do you think that it a little ironic that a guy who for years said that druggies need to be placed behind bars, is the same guy who admits to being a druggie for years?

Hey, I was being a smartazz.
You would have been disappointed had I let that go.

I don't care for Limbaugh.

But I care even less about Obama, also an admitted drug user, are you finding irony there?

duk4me
05-07-2013, 02:57 PM
You guys are funny. Rush, Whitney, and Michael all just drug addicted entertainers. I originally put Elvis in there but I like Stan and didn't want to insult his dog. ;-)

coachmo
05-07-2013, 03:05 PM
As I mentioned before I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh; however, he's far from a crackhead or Koresh.

Gerry Clinchy
05-07-2013, 03:08 PM
Gerry, your citing of Hannity and Rush gives serious lack of credulity to you or your posts. JD
JD, did you read the post, or just turn off at the mention of Hannity. If the caller to Hannity was a "fake", then one would have to impugn Hannity for allowing that on his show. However, the bottom line was the fact that ... regardless of how my thought emerged, it was MY thought that it is strange that nobody has wanted to interview the fellas who were manning the cameras that night.

The Limbaugh thought was also interesting "twist" ... that the people involved actually have created a fantasy that they fully believe. That doesn't mean it's true. It just means that it's another way of looking at their motivation.

It has become un-PC to make any mention of Hannity or Limbaugh (and some others). I may not agree with everything they say or believe, but that does not mean they are stupid people or never have any useful insights. I also have listened to Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager. Any of them seems a whole lot brighter than Chris Matthews or Bill Mahr. I watched the POTUS debate analyses on CNN.

It's our individual responsibility to filter information that is out there.

Poor Bill Mahr, he failed to do that, and now he suddenly discovered what the new tax laws in CA will mean to him. Duh? He suddenly feels that taking 50% of someone's income for taxes is more than a "fair share" ought to be.

road kill
05-07-2013, 03:09 PM
You guys are funny. Rush, Whitney, and Michael all just drug addicted entertainers. I originally put Elvis in there but I like Stan and didn't want to insult his dog. ;-)

Elvis is hooked on ducks, that is his crack.............

coachmo
05-07-2013, 03:18 PM
Gerry, facts, what are facts? The liberals never let facts stop them! They are masters of using the media to exploit people, events, etc. You would think with all of the intellectual midgets spewing the left-wing propaganda they would hesitate to mock, ridicule or belittle anyone on the right but that's not their style, or lack of style!!

duk4me
05-07-2013, 03:28 PM
Elvis is hooked on ducks, that is his crack.............

I heard he had an obsession with ducks. I've been known to go into a quack attack myself.;-)

mngundog
05-07-2013, 03:53 PM
As I mentioned before I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh; however, he's far from a crackhead or Koresh.
Rush is an admitted crackhead, he was using oxy (an opiate) to get high the same way a heroin user uses heroin to get high. He admits to this, why is it so hard for you to admit to it?

huntinman
05-07-2013, 04:01 PM
Rush is an admitted crackhead, he was using oxy (an opiate) to get high the same way a heroin user uses heroin to get high. He admits to this, why is it so hard for you to admit to it?

Many people have issues with various things... Yours seems to be common sense.

mngundog
05-07-2013, 04:09 PM
Many people have issues with various things... Yours seems to be common sense.

Bill, very few people are hypocrites to the extent that Rush is. You shouldn't feel to need to defend the undefendable. Hero worship is a personal problem, I not know in your case if its treatable, good luck.

huntinman
05-07-2013, 04:15 PM
Bill, very few people are hypocrites to the extent that Rush is. You shouldn't feel to need to defend the undefendable. Hero worship is a personal problem, I not know in your case if its treatable, good luck.

Not defending anyone, just pointing out your shortcoming

charly_t
05-07-2013, 05:30 PM
minor edit Charly;-)


:BIG::grab::BIG::grab:

Funny ! ......................

coachmo
05-07-2013, 11:21 PM
Mngundog, if Limbaugh is like David Koresh then that would make Obama similar to Jim Jones, correct?

mngundog
05-08-2013, 11:02 AM
Mngundog, if Limbaugh is like David Koresh then that would make Obama similar to Jim Jones, correct?
Now your following along. Yes Obama and Limbaugh both have followers that believe anything they say, much like Koresh and Jones, it pretty spooky.

coachmo
05-08-2013, 11:32 AM
Mngundog, if you're going to patronize me (which you patronizing anyone is a stretch in my opinion) please use the correct contraction of you and are. It's you're not your following along. I mean if you're going to pretend to be smarter than me at least play the part correctly!

Gerry Clinchy
05-08-2013, 08:15 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/transcript-whistle-blower-account-sept-11-libya-terror-attack/
Transcript of Hicks' testimony today.

Sorry, JD, it is from Fox ... but it also is a transcript, not anyone's "opinion".

It's kind of hard to follow the events, since things were also happening in Tripoli, as they received a threat of an attack on that facility as well, and they evacuated their residential facility ... while they were also trying to coordinate the assistance to Benghazi. Hicks' testimony would indicate that Hillary knew what was going on.

There is certainly an indication here that a response team, ready to leave, was told to stand down. Maybe you could call it "heresay" from Hicks, so they could call Gibson to testify first-hand that those were the orders he received.

These people acted with bravery ... too bad DC did not. I think those in DC who failed to act knew when the dust settled that they had screwed up big time when faced with a crisis. They HAD to lie about it ... the MSM helped them do it ... if they hadn't, then there would have been no second term for Obama. Were it not for the help from the Libyans and the action of the people in Tripoli, there could have been even more Americans dead.

The phone rang (not even in the middle of the night in DC, but during 9 to 5 hours) ... and nobody answered. They totally folded when faced with even this localized crisis. I can't begin to imagine how they would respond to a larger crisis.

You can go ahead and try to defend this performance under pressure ... but I won't feel safer until there is new leadership in the WH.

Gerry Clinchy
05-08-2013, 10:05 PM
More transcript:
GOWDY: So Mr. Hicks, let's find out the truth. The president of Libya responded to the attack and labeled it an attack by Islamic extremists, possibly with terror links, correct?
HICKS: Yes, sir.
GOWDY: So hours after our ambassador and three others are killed in Benghazi, the president of Libya says it was an attack with possible terror links, correct?
HICKS: Yes, sir. That's what I recall.
GOWDY: Did the president of Libya ever mention a spontaneous protest related to a video?
HICKS: No, sir.
GOWDY: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?
HICKS: He said, "Greg, we're under attack."
GOWDY: Would a highly decorated, career diplomat have you told you or Washington had there been a demonstration outside this facility that day?

HICKS: Yes, sir. He would have.
GOWDY: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?
HICKS: No, sir. He did not.
GOWDY: So fast forward, Mr. Hicks, to the Sunday talk shows and Ambassador Susan Rice. She blamed this attack on a video. In fact, she did it five ... different ... times. What was your reaction to that?
HICKS: I was stunned, my jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed.
GOWDY: Did she talk to you before she went on the five Sunday talk shows?
HICKS: No, sir.
GOWDY: You were the highest ranking official in the Libya at the time, correct?
HICKS: Yes, sir.
------------------
From Nordstrom's opening testimony:
NORDSTROM: What happened prior, during, and after the attack matter. It matters to me personally, and it matters to my colleagues -- (choking up) to my colleagues at the Department of State. It matters to the American public, for whom we serve, and most importantly -- (clearing throat) excuse me -- it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/11/mother_of_american_slain_in_benghazi_tells_cnn_how _the_obama_regime_lied_to_her) Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on September 11th, 2012.
-----------------
It would appear that Nordstrom did not take kindly to Hillary's, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

I'd say it also matters whether this administration would act any differently to protect the foreign service employees who remain in harm's way in dangerous posts today.

JDogger
05-08-2013, 10:44 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/transcript-whistle-blower-account-sept-11-libya-terror-attack/
Transcript of Hicks' testimony today.

Sorry, JD, it is from Fox ... but it also is a transcript, not anyone's "opinion".

It's kind of hard to follow the events, since things were also happening in Tripoli, as they received a threat of an attack on that facility as well, and they evacuated their residential facility ... while they were also trying to coordinate the assistance to Benghazi. Hicks' testimony would indicate that Hillary knew what was going on.

There is certainly an indication here that a response team, ready to leave, was told to stand down. Maybe you could call it "heresay" from Hicks, so they could call Gibson to testify first-hand that those were the orders he received.

These people acted with bravery ... too bad DC did not. I think those in DC who failed to act knew when the dust settled that they had screwed up big time when faced with a crisis. They HAD to lie about it ... the MSM helped them do it ... if they hadn't, then there would have been no second term for Obama. Were it not for the help from the Libyans and the action of the people in Tripoli, there could have been even more Americans dead.

The phone rang (not even in the middle of the night in DC, but during 9 to 5 hours) ... and nobody answered. They totally folded when faced with even this localized crisis. I can't begin to imagine how they would respond to a larger crisis.

You can go ahead and try to defend this performance under pressure ... but I won't feel safer until there is new leadership in the WH.

Gerry, since you called on me directly I'll take a minute to respond. The only thing revealed today was that bitter partisan disagreement continues to take away from the legitimate business of congress. To the detriment of us all. I'll not attempt to defend any performance, but just ask this question....Who do you see waiting in the wings to provide the leadership you desire? You can make a guess. JD

caryalsobrook
05-08-2013, 10:47 PM
Gerry, since you called on me directly I'll take a minute to respond. The only thing revealed today was that bitter partisan disagreement continues to take away from the legitimate business of congress. To the detriment of us all. I'll not attempt to defend any performance, but just ask this question....Who do you see waiting in the wings to provide the leadership you desire? You can make a guess. JD

Why would you expect answers to your questions when you never answer questions posed to you??????????????????

JDogger
05-08-2013, 11:06 PM
Why would you expect answers to your questions when you never answer questions posed to you??????????????????

Still beating that dead horse? I answered your question. Sorry it wasn't the answer you wanted. Besides, like I said before, I'm not inclined to answer loaded questions. Need a ladder? JD

Gerry Clinchy
05-09-2013, 12:25 AM
Gerry, since you called on me directly I'll take a minute to respond. The only thing revealed today was that bitter partisan disagreement continues to take away from the legitimate business of congress. To the detriment of us all. I'll not attempt to defend any performance, but just ask this question....Who do you see waiting in the wings to provide the leadership you desire? You can make a guess. JD
JD, I didn't "call on you", but was simply apologizing in advance for the source of the material. However, since this was transcript, it is verifiable.

I think I expressed in another thread that I like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for what appears to be their intelligence, conservative pragmatism, and straightforwardness. But it's not time to vote yet. I think that was the Dream Team thread where I asked the same question. I don't recall if you commented on that thread.

Still, I'm not feeling safe after reading Hicks' testimony. Do you feel safe in view of how this event was handled?

Remember how Biden, in the debates, told us that we didn't have to worry about Iran getting nuclear capability because we have intel services? But what if the people in command aren't listening to their intel on the ground ... as appears to be the case with Benghazi ... if it interferes with their political "narrative"? Heck, with this crew, they'd be waiting until Iran had a missile in the air before they admitted to it.

I disagree that this is not the legitimate business of Congress. It is exactly why our Constitution provided for checks and balances. I don't recall such a complaint over the Watergate investigation. Just my recollection, so feel free to comment if I've overlooked that. This may have a bipartisan flavor ... I think that's to be expected since the Ds are certainly not going to blow the whistle on their own party's POTUS incompetence. Isn't that the whole point of the concept of "the loyal opposition"? Is there any reason why any of those responsible for this tragic incompetence, for what certainly appears to be a partisan, political motive (the election) not be held accountable?

When Nixon's chicanery of Watergate was revealed, he resigned. I really don't want Obama to resign, because Biden would probably be even worse. I'd just like us to get through the remainder of this term without a more serious crisis for this crew to screw up. And I would also like it to be assured that Hillary, with her obvious disregard for American lives, shirking of responsibility, and dishonesty ever has a chance to even be a candidate for POTUS.

caryalsobrook
05-09-2013, 12:51 AM
Still beating that dead horse? I answered your question. Sorry it wasn't the answer you wanted. Besides, like I said before, I'm not inclined to answer loaded questions. Need a ladder? JD
As usual, just so much BS. But then what should I expect. Better yet, what should anybody expect. First you say you answered my question. Then you say you are inclined not to answer loaded questions. Which is it? But then as you say, you are not inclined to answer loaded questions. So as you say, you always have an excuse not to answer. Come to think of it, you always have an excuse for everything.

Terri
05-09-2013, 01:11 AM
I believe I heard that one of the whistle blowers is a registered democrat. I do not know which one, but would be interested to know which one.

Terri

Ken Bora
05-09-2013, 06:53 AM
I believe I heard that one of the whistle blowers is a registered democrat. I do not know which one, but would be interested to know which one.

Terri

the bald guy with white goatee.
voted for hillary in primary and for "The O" in the general E, 2 times.
he is the face of voter remorse for sure.

road kill
05-09-2013, 07:27 AM
the bald guy with white goatee.
voted for hillary in primary and for "The O" in the general E, 2 times.
he is the face of voter remorse for sure.

I don't believe this issue is about "party politics."

This is about the way Americans were treated and the subsequent cover up.

Buzz
05-09-2013, 08:30 AM
Gerry, since you called on me directly I'll take a minute to respond. The only thing revealed today was that bitter partisan disagreement continues to take away from the legitimate business of congress. To the detriment of us all. I'll not attempt to defend any performance, but just ask this question....Who do you see waiting in the wings to provide the leadership you desire? You can make a guess. JD

I peek in on RTF when I have a few rare free minutes and see that nothing has changed. Shameless cheering on of pure partisan smear politics.

mjh345
05-09-2013, 08:54 AM
I don't believe this issue is about "party politics."

This is about the way Americans were treated and the subsequent cover up.

This issue has admittedly, not been high on my radar for quite some time. However Im a bit jaundiced towards the DC crowd and feel that "party politics" plays way too big a role in most of what they do..

Since I havent followed this issue could you please give me the party affiliation of the Congress members who started and are leading this non partisan process?

huntinman
05-09-2013, 09:21 AM
How about the party affiliation of the four dead Americans and the Commander in Chief... Who decided to sleep through through the night while the Embassy was under siege?

Raymond Little
05-09-2013, 02:18 PM
How about the party affiliation of the four dead Americans and the Commander in Chief... Who decided to sleep through through the night while the Embassy was under siege?

Bob & Weave or Deflect but I still call it "Cover Up".

coachmo
05-09-2013, 03:00 PM
Raymond,
That's all they ever do, well, except for cast blame on everyone with different views than their own. I'm referring to "liberals" for you liberals that can't grasp the comment.

huntinman
05-09-2013, 04:07 PM
At this point, what does it matter?

coachmo
05-09-2013, 04:24 PM
It always matters!

Henry V
05-09-2013, 11:18 PM
10 pages of echo over 6+ months. Jon Stewart had a great segment on this last night. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory Well worth watching.

Here is another article that may be of interest http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2013/05/09/sorry-gop-benghazi-wont-hurt-hillary-clinton-or-the-democrats-in-2016?int=4f18d8

11 hearings before 5 committees. 20 staff briefings. 25,000 pages of documents and yet you all still think there is a grand coverup. Amazing. Yesterday was the big event, three "whistleblowers" to testify to a republican committee and yet today, there is still no evidence of a conspiracy. In fact, yesterday's testimony provided little new information and certainly reveals nothing inconsistent with previous testimony, particularly Panetta's. You folks seems to be at the same place you started
......Hicks' testimony would indicate that Hillary knew what was going on.

There is certainly an indication here that a response team, ready to leave, was told to stand down. Maybe you could call it "heresay" from Hicks, so they could call Gibson to testify first-hand that those were the orders he received.

These people acted with bravery ... too bad DC did not. I think those in DC who failed to act knew when the dust settled that they had screwed up big time when faced with a crisis. They HAD to lie about it ... the MSM helped them do it ... if they hadn't, then there would have been no second term for Obama. Were it not for the help from the Libyans and the action of the people in Tripoli, there could have been even more Americans dead.

Just curious, where was your concern for all the attacks on diplomats during the Bush years? I found no mention of them in a search here. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all

Gerry Clinchy
05-10-2013, 12:25 AM
Shameless cheering on of pure partisan smear politics.
Buzz, was not the cover-up, itself, a matter of politics? A crisis handled poorly just two months before an election? At least, nobody has died as a result of these hearings.

And if it is accurate that Nordstrom (I think he was the fellow with the goatee), believed in Obama (voted for him), then there must be a compelling reason for him to come forward with his testimony which would detract from the administration. It would not appear that his motives are political. For each of these people, their careers in foreign service could be at an end.

Henry, I cannot agree that there is no evidence of conspiracy. I read the links you provided (didn't watch the video since the speakers on my laptop really suck). Hicks testimony referred to the editing of the reports to remove references to radical Islamists. One cannot refute Rice's statements on the talk shows v. the testimony of Hicks et al; and there is a way to verify Hicks' testimony. In my interpretation of the word "conspiracy", there were multiple people who edited the reports to come up with the eventual statements that Rice made which were untrue. Did they not "conspire"? Hillary made an ad to run in Pakistan about the terrible video. To what degree does the conspiracy constitute a dereliction of duty, and/or perjury? I'm not a lawyer.

I think the largest issue on Benghazi is not simply that an attack occurred on an embassy facility ... it is about the incompetence that led to the embassy's lack of protection in a very dangerous environment; the lack of preparedness to respond to the crisis; and then the covering up (and even doing that pretty incompetently).

The highest profile super-power in the world (the U.S.) could not scramble the rescue needed; could not find a tanker for the planes that would have needed a tanker? If that is truly the case, then we are surely over-paying for a military capability that seems not to exist when the chips are down.

Perhaps Reagan survived Iran-Contra because he went before the country and admitted that it had occurred, although he said he didn't know about it when it was occurring. (true or not, I don't know) This is different than the Benghazi event. Hillary's "What difference ... does it make?" showed her disdain for any accountability for her actions.

The one link mentions several attacks on varied embassies, but I think the point has been made that no ambassador has been killed for many years. The question would also be whether anyone tried to deny that attacks took place; or whether there was their obfuscation as to why the attacks took place. There are embassies in dangerous places. It is not surprising that there have been attacks in those places. What stands out in Benghazi is the lack of preparedness in security leading up to 9/11/12, and what appears to be disarray and paralysis in protecting the personnel once the attack was underway.

I have made no reference to "weakness" being the cause of the attack, except for the weakness of the security lacking to offer protection to the facility.

huntinman
05-10-2013, 09:03 AM
The point that Henry and other libs love to gloss over is that the administration WATCHED this attack and DENIED HELP, while our men were KILLLED!!!

Pretty cold blooded.

road kill
05-10-2013, 09:12 AM
The point that Henry and other libs love to gloss over is that the administration WATCHED this attack and DENIED HELP, while our men were KILLLED!!!

Pretty cold blooded.

Page 3, liberal play book.....
"HhhHhhEEeeEEeeSSsSSsstTttTTTttAAaaAAAAaaARRrrRRrrT ttTttTeeEeeeEeeeddDdddDiIiiIiiItTtttTtt!!!!!":razz:

Henry V
05-10-2013, 10:45 AM
This is turning into political theater plain and simple. I understand you do not like the answers being given, nor the outcome of the independent report, nor the testimony at 15 hearings, nor what is in the thousands of pages of documents on this.

Was this a tragedy, yes. Should policies be changed to prevent such problems in the future, yes. Did we learn from all the attacks on diplomats during the last administration, I hope so, but clearly not enough. Did the congress fail to fund additional security, yes.

Nothing has changed since this thread started. Yesterday's testimony added nothing substantive. Here is a recount of the Panetta and Demsey hearing.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is determined to position small, quick reaction forces closer to global crises after the rapid assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September kept U.S. armed forces from responding in time to save four Americans.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Thursday that they moved quickly to deploy commando teams from Spain and Central Europe last Sept. 11, the chaotic day of the assault on the U.S. installation in Benghazi, but the first military unit didn't arrive until 15 hours after the first of two attacks.

"Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response," Panetta said in likely his last Capitol Hill appearance before stepping down as Pentagon chief.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of an election-year cover-up of a terrorist attack in the nearly five months since the assault, and they kept up the politically charged onslaught on Thursday. The military also found itself under attack, with at least one senator accusing the Joint Chiefs chairman of peddling falsehoods.

Faced with repeated questions about where units were during the attack and what they were doing, Dempsey said the military is taking steps to deal with the next crisis.

"We've asked each of the services to examine their capability to build additional reaction-like forces, small, rapidly deployable forces," Dempsey said. "A small MAGTF for the Marine Corps, for example, a Marine air-ground task force. And the Army is looking at some options as well to increase the number of these resources across the globe, where the limiting factor, though will always be basing."

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, put it in layman's terms: "So you are moving the fire stations nearer the ...?"

"We're trying to build more firemen. The question is whether I can build the stations to house them," Dempsey answered.

In more than four hours of testimony, Panetta and Dempsey described a military faced with not a single attack over several hours, but two separate assaults six hours apart; little real-time intelligence data and units too far away to mobilize quickly. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attacks.

Between midnight and 2 a.m. on the night of the attack, Panetta issued orders, telling two Marine anti-terrorism teams based in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Libya, and he ordered a team of special operations forces in Central Europe and another team of special operations forces in the U.S. to prepare to deploy to a staging base in Europe.

The first of those U.S. military units did not actually arrive in the region until well after the attack was over and Americans had been flown out of the country. Just before 8 p.m., the special operations team landed at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. An hour later, the Marine team landed in Tripoli.

Defense officials have repeatedly said that even if the military had been able to get units there a bit faster, there was no way they could have gotten there in time to make any difference in the deaths of the four Americans.

"The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world," Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That failed to placate Republicans on the panel. In one fierce exchange, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called Dempsey's statement "one of the more bizarre" and argued that if the administration had taken security threats seriously, aircraft and other military could have been located at Souda Bay, Crete.

"For you to testify before this committee that ... consistent with available threat estimates is simply false; that our military was appropriately responsive," McCain said. "What would have been an inappropriate response since ... no forces arrived there until well after these murders took place?"

The general said the military was concerned with multiple threats worldwide and, based on time and positioning of forces, "we wouldn't have gotten there in time."

Several committee Republicans pressed Panetta and Dempsey about their discussions with President Barack Obama on that fateful day and his level of involvement, suggesting that after the initial conversation the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening.

"During the eight-hour period, did he show any curiosity?" Graham asked.

Panetta said there was no question the president was concerned about American lives. Exasperated with Graham's interruptions, Panetta said forcefully, "The president is well-informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it."

At one point in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.

Panetta also pushed back against Republican criticism that the Obama administration ignored warning signs about the attack. The Pentagon chief insisted there were no signs of or specific intelligence about an imminent attack. In the six months prior to the assault, the government was apprised of 281 threats to diplomatic missions, consulates and other facilities worldwide, he said.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., pressed Dempsey on why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren't sent to Libya. Dempsey said it would have taken up to 20 hours to get the planes ready and on their way, and he added that they would have been the "wrong tool for the job."

Panetta later explained to the committee, "You can't willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. ... You have to have good intelligence."

huntinman
05-10-2013, 10:54 AM
Yep, that's the approach all of our leaders for the last two hundred years would have taken... Well, maybe Carter:rolleyes:

road kill
05-10-2013, 11:03 AM
This is turning into political theater plain and simple. I understand you do not like the answers being given, nor the outcome of the independent report, nor the testimony at 15 hearings, nor what is in the thousands of pages of documents on this.

Was this a tragedy, yes. Should policies be changed to prevent such problems in the future, yes. Did we learn from all the attacks on diplomats during the last administration, I hope so, but clearly not enough. Did the congress fail to fund additional security, yes.

Nothing has changed since this thread started. Yesterday's testimony added nothing substantive. Here is a recount of the Panetta and Demsey hearing.
Your quote is an article from February 7th.
Irrelevant to the recent hearings.
They were still in LIE mode then.

Even ABC is opening up on the doctoring of the "talking points."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Daily Koz regards.............

coachmo
05-10-2013, 11:36 AM
Doesn't it seem like no matter what evidence or information is learned the same people argue about the relevancy of this situation? Wasn't that Hillary Clinton's stance from the start that it was basically irrelevant? I mean what could be done now that the tragedy had taken place (sarcasm)?

road kill
05-10-2013, 11:39 AM
Doesn't it seem like no matter what evidence or information is learned the same people argue about the relevancy of this situation? Wasn't that Hillary Clinton's stance from the start that it was basically irrelevant? I mean what could be done now that the tragedy had taken place?
The people that failed to respond appropriately and then LIED to cover it up could be brought to justice.


Just sayin'............

mngundog
05-10-2013, 11:50 AM
The people that failed to respond appropriately and then LIED to cover it up could be brought to justice.


Just sayin'............
I thought that when the Republican party found out someone lied and Americans died because of the lies, they built a library in their name, instead of bringing them to justice.

road kill
05-10-2013, 11:56 AM
I thought that when the Republican party found out someone lied and Americans died because of the lies, they built a library in their name, instead of bringing them to justice.
Except that is spin and did not happen that way.
Ask Hillary and Ted and Bill, they all stated the same as the President.
Want me to post the videos of them saying so???????
BTW--If so, someone else will have to, I am heading to Iowa to run Mr Elvis!:D


These people KNEW before they stated "video" was the cause that it wasn't.
They KNEW before they edited the word terrrorism from the talking points that it WAS terrorism..

BTW---Bush hasn't been President for over 5 years now.
Perhaps you might shift your focus to the DEBACLE that is occurring before your kool-aid stained eyes.

mngundog
05-10-2013, 12:06 PM
Except that is spin and did not happen that way.
Ask Hillary and Ted and Bill, they all stated the same as the President.
Want me to post the videos of them saying so???????
BTW--If so, someone else will have to, I am heading to Iowa to run Mr Elvis!:D


These people KNEW before they stated "video" was the cause that it wasn't.
They KNEW before they edited the word terrrorism from the talking points that it WAS terrorism..

BTW---Bush hasn't been President for over 5 years now.
Perhaps you might shift your focus to the DEBACLE that is occurring before your kool-aid stained eyes.
Very true, but it seemed like it was just last week that his lies were being celebrated, the same types of lies that the Republicans are trying to condemn, they need to made up their minds which way it should be.
Don't get me wrong if their was a cover-up they should be held accountable, however its a little disheartening that a cover-up in their own party is completely ignored, or even celebrated.

coachmo
05-10-2013, 12:54 PM
RK, I was being sarcastic about the liberals and giving a Hillary-type response. I'm in complete agreement on the parties involved being brought to justice. Mngundog, glad your back. I hope your understanding of the English language has improved since you last commented about my intelligence! If memory serves me correctly, more than a few dozen elected democrats voted to empower President Bush with the authorization of force to be used in Iraq (if you are referring to Iraq).

Gerry Clinchy
05-10-2013, 12:57 PM
I found some interesting thoughts in this American Thinker article:

Second, Hicks dropped a bombshell: The USA never asked Libya for permission to fly through Libyan airspace to defend the consulate in Benghazi. The Obama administration never intended to come to the defense of Ambassador Stevens. Hicks -- fluent in Arabic and familiar with Libya's government -- testified that Libya would have granted permission. This might have been suspected from Panetta's testimony, but Hicks added verification.Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) keeps reminding us that no one knew how long the attack would last. In fact, it was 3 days later when the embassy staff in Tripoli returned from evacuation to an annex. So at the time, U.S. F-16's might still have been needed long past the first 7 hours. Hicks confirmed that he thought the situation was still dangerous for 3 days. Yet the U.S.A. never requested Libyan permission in case U.S. aircraft might be needed.
Third, Hicks asked the U.S. military to help immediately at the start of the 7-hour siege of the Benghazi consulate. F-16 fighter jets could have reached Benghazi in 2 to 3 hours from the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, Hicks testified. The embassy's defense attaché was told that F-16's could be over the Consulate in 2-3 hours.
That means the ambassador and 3 other Americans did not need to die. Remember that 2 died near the middle and 2 near the end of the 7-hour ordeal. Jets could have arrived prior to the last 4-5 hours of the assault. Hicks testified that Libyans were deeply afraid of U.S. airpower after months of bombing during the 2011 revolution. Just knowing that U.S. jets were in the area would have sent the consulate attackers fleeing, Hicks testified.
However, Hicks repeatedly emphasized that there were no U.S. fuel tankers in the area to refuel the jets in the air. F-16's have a range of -- fuel supply for -- 2,000 nautical miles. The distance from Aviano to Benghazi is 1,050 miles. If I had been president, I would ordered "Fly 'em dry!" and let the jets land in Tripoli after buzzing over the Benghazi Consulate for 90 minutes to two hours. A second flight of F-16's could have flown straight to Tripoli to refuel at the airport in Tripoli first. So, thinking outside of the box a bit, would not have required the jets to "bomb the hell out of the place".
But this is the failure of Obama's presidential leadership. What about NATO? Obama should have been on the phone to the leaders of Greece, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, asking -- "What do ya got nearby?" Why are we considering only U.S. assets and ignoring the rest of Europe, just across the Mediterranean? Good point, I think, about calling on allies for assets we might not have had ourselves. Isn't that the whole point of having allies?
It is only 450 miles from Athens, Greece. Greece's Hellenic Air Force purchased 170 F-16s not long ago. Greece's F-16's were only 1 hour away from Benghazi. France has been conducting military air operations in North Mali and Chad in Africa.
Greek F-16s could have been buzzing the Benghazi consulate within 90 minutes, scaring the attackers within an inch of their lives. If we had an actual president in the White House, if this had been an actual presidency (like, say, that of Ronald Reagan), Barack Obama would have been on the phone to Greek President Karolos Papoulias instead of sleeping while American diplomats died.
The largest U.S. Air Force base in Europe is Ramstein in Germany, only 1,367 miles from Benghazi. So by the time the F-16's from Aviano were running dry, a fuel tanker from Ramstein Air Force Base could have been pulling up alongside to refuel the F-16s. Or fighters from Ramstein could have relieved the Aviano jets, allowing those to land in Tripoli.
Also, Lt. Col. Oliver North asked on Fox News why weren't assets pre-positioned on the anniversary of 9/11? There should have been assets on standby in the overall region.
Fourth, there was indeed a "stand down" order preventing U.S. special forces from defending the Consulate, Hicks confirmed. Special forces at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli were ordered to "stand down" by General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Lt. Col. Gibson was a commander assigned to the embassy in Tripoli from Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA). Gibson and the special forces team were "furious" at being ordered not to help the diplomats in Benghazi, Hicks testified. Hicks quoted Gibson as saying, "This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military."
Hicks had arranged from Libya's government a C-130 aircraft owned by Libya to fly to Benghazi to evacuate the Consulate. Col. Gibson and Hicks agreed that the special forces team would fly on the C-130 to Benghazi to protect the diplomats being evacuated. But over the summer, authority over the special forces contingent in Libya had been transferred from the embassy to AFRICOM. Gen. Ham ordered the special forces team to stay in Tripoli.
These were highly-trained individuals with specialized skills who would have played crucial roles in Benghazi. They were also fresh troops to relieve the exhausted team in Benghazi after fighting all night.
Fifth, a "FEST" response was denied by Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department. A "Foreign Emergency Support Team" is the U.S. Government's solution for this type of crisis. We learned that a FEST contains members of many agencies and departments, so that the FEST can access the full range of U.S. Government resources.
Mark Thompson immediately requested deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team to Libya. The U.S. State Department refused. It was "not the right time" to deploy a FEST, Hillary Clinton's leadership decided. Thompson was Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at the Department of State, in continuous contact with the embassy in Tripoli. Thompson explained that a FEST airplane is always on standby to respond to just this type of emergency. Doesn't seem to say how far away the FEST plane was.
But this is nonsense. A FEST is uniquely qualified to assess the situation on the ground, evaluate everything, and coordinate appropriate action from across the U.S. Government. A FEST is a command center on-site, specially equipped and trained. So, a FEST on-site is the appropriate means to evaluate the circumstances. So, it is absurd to suggest a FEST deployment would be "too soon."
An email from Kathleen Austin-Ferguson, the White House discouraged FEST response. Did you notice that it was both "too soon" and also "too late" to tack any effective action to protect our diplomats in Libya? When bureaucrats and politicians don't want to do something there are certain standard tactics they use.
Moreover, wouldn't you think that if a Deputy Assistant Secretary for counterterrorism is declaring an emergency and asking for a FEST response, that the Secretary Hillary Clinton would be told? If not, someone should be fired. If yes, Hillary should have been fired. Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks had ordered the annex chief to activate the emergency response plan. Shouldn't that be immediately reported to both Clinton and Obama?
Sixth, it is already being widely reported this week that talk of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim YouTube video was a monstrous and massive lie. However, an important point should be noted. Hicks testified that the massive lies by Ambassador Susan Rice caused a severe rift with the Libyan government.
Libya knew the video had nothing to do with it. So Libya's government was shocked and puzzled. Libya stopped cooperating for about 2 weeks.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/what_the_hearings_mean.html#ixzz2SuYcKLQx


I admit that I had trouble following all of Hicks' testimony since things were going on in different places (Tripoli's embassy & Benghazi), and this article separates out some details to make individual events clearer.

Henry V
05-10-2013, 01:04 PM
Your quote is an article from February 7th.
Irrelevant to the recent hearings.
They were still in LIE mode then.

Even ABC is opening up on the doctoring of the "talking points."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Daily Koz regards.............

Well, it is glad to see that you know how to use a search engine and can post more than one sentence.

Exactly where are the lies in the Panetta testimony and how is his testimony in any way contradicted by yesterday's testimony or that of anyone else such as Clinton and Petreaus? Did the report from the independent investigator find there to be lies? No.

Funny that you think my post of the Panetta testimony is irrelevant. Panetta's testimony is entirely relevant to this discussion which, as you will note, started with a post about his testimony back in February. How come you never posted that you also think the unsupported BS posted among the 10 pages here is irrelevant?

You are all welcomed to keep saying and thinking that that there were big lies, a coverup, etc. No matter how the situation was handled after the attacks none of you would be satisfied.

JDogger
05-10-2013, 01:11 PM
Except that is spin and did not happen that way.
Ask Hillary and Ted and Bill, they all stated the same as the President.
Want me to post the videos of them saying so???????
BTW--If so, someone else will have to, I am heading to Iowa to run Mr Elvis!:D


These people KNEW before they stated "video" was the cause that it wasn't.
They KNEW before they edited the word terrrorism from the talking points that it WAS terrorism..

BTW---Bush hasn't been President for over 5 years now.
Perhaps you might shift your focus to the DEBACLE that is occurring before your kool-aid stained eyes.
Which test?

road kill
05-10-2013, 01:20 PM
Very true, but it seemed like it was just last week that his lies were being celebrated, the same types of lies that the Republicans are trying to condemn, they need to made up their minds which way it should be.
Don't get me wrong if their was a cover-up they should be held accountable, however its a little disheartening that a cover-up in their own party is completely ignored, or even celebrated.

Maybe nothing was done because he didn't lie.
Just because you have Bush derangement syndrome doesn't mean he lied.

This administration knowingly lied about benghazi.

Buzz
05-10-2013, 01:35 PM
Maybe nothing was done because he didn't lie.
Just because you have Bush derangement syndrome doesn't mean he lied.

This administration knowingly lied about benghazi.


I get a kick out of the fact that you all think that every time there is some crime or incident that happens around the world, our "leadership" steps up the the microphone and spills their guts with the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. None of you have ever heard of keeping cards close to your vest while in the middle of an investigation so as not to tip those you're after off that you're on to them. Nope, never happens.

The whole brew ha ha over Benghazi is completely based on the fact that Republicans felt that they should have been able to capitalize on the tragedy to damage Obama in the eyes of the electorate & elect their guy Mitt. Now they are bitter because their tactics didn't work, they feel that Obama is not legit because if the "truth" had come out, their boy would be sitting in the Oval Office as we speak... It was clear as a bell. What was the first thing that Republicans did after the attacks? They certainly didn't come together and circle the wagons against foreign threats. The jumped in with both feet attacking AMERICANS, beginning with Obama, the administration, the Secretary of State, and anyone else they could get their sites on - right down the line. They will continue these attacks in an attempt to delegitimize Clinton and be sure and tarnish her chances in 2016.

The whole thing is dirty filthy gutter partisan politics, nothing more. I kind of view RTF as a microcosm of the cheering section.

Well that was fun. Back to showing nothing but arses and elbows...

road kill
05-10-2013, 01:57 PM
I get a kick out of the fact that you all think that every time there is some crime or incident that happens around the world, our "leadership" steps up the the microphone and spills their guts with the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. None of you have ever heard of keeping cards close to your vest while in the middle of an investigation so as not to tip those you're after off that you're on to them. Nope, never happens.

The whole brew ha ha over Benghazi is completely based on the fact that Republicans felt that they should have been able to capitalize on the tragedy to damage Obama in the eyes of the electorate & elect their guy Mitt. Now they are bitter because their tactics didn't work, they feel that Obama is not legit because if the "truth" had come out, their boy would be sitting in the Oval Office as we speak... It was clear as a bell. What was the first thing that Republicans did after the attacks? They certainly didn't come together and circle the wagons against foreign threats. The jumped in with both feet attacking AMERICANS, beginning with Obama, the administration, the Secretary of State, and anyone else they could get their sites on - right down the line. They will continue these attacks in an attempt to delegitimize Clinton and be sure and tarnish her chances in 2016.

The whole thing is dirty filthy gutter partisan politics, nothing more. I kind of view RTF as a microcosm of the cheering section.

Well that was fun. Back to showing nothing but arses and elbows...

The truly frightening aspect of this is I think you really believe what you posted!:shock:

Gerry Clinchy
05-10-2013, 02:06 PM
ABC News has added to the story now:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she [/COLOR]appeared on five talk shows (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/) the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-responds-to-release-of-real-time-emails-about-benghazi-attack/) in November.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/msm_benghazigate_cofferdam_breached.html#ixzz2SuuS T7Iv


ABC helpfully supplies the complete set of revisions (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf).

Also interesting

Note also that Hillary Clinton was not under oath when she misled Congress. Hillary was a staffer working on the impeachment of Nixon, after all. She knows better than to perjure herself. The stakes for her are political not penal.

I did not know that. I thought she was under oath. Smartie pants!

This author further explains why none of this is reason for impeachment. And he concludes that is not necessarily bad news ...

And why should we seek to get him out of office? The alternative is Joe Biden, hardly an improvement.

huntinman
05-10-2013, 02:23 PM
I get a kick out of the fact that you all think that every time there is some crime or incident that happens around the world, our "leadership" steps up the the microphone and spills their guts with the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. None of you have ever heard of keeping cards close to your vest while in the middle of an investigation so as not to tip those you're after off that you're on to them. Nope, never happens.

The whole brew ha ha over Benghazi is completely based on the fact that Republicans felt that they should have been able to capitalize on the tragedy to damage Obama in the eyes of the electorate & elect their guy Mitt. Now they are bitter because their tactics didn't work, they feel that Obama is not legit because if the "truth" had come out, their boy would be sitting in the Oval Office as we speak... It was clear as a bell. What was the first thing that Republicans did after the attacks? They certainly didn't come together and circle the wagons against foreign threats. The jumped in with both feet attacking AMERICANS, beginning with Obama, the administration, the Secretary of State, and anyone else they could get their sites on - right down the line. They will continue these attacks in an attempt to delegitimize Clinton and be sure and tarnish her chances in 2016.

The whole thing is dirty filthy gutter partisan politics, nothing more. I kind of view RTF as a microcosm of the cheering section.

Well that was fun. Back to showing nothing but arses and elbows...

Drive by poster, eh?

mngundog
05-10-2013, 02:26 PM
Maybe nothing was done because he didn't lie.
Just because you have Bush derangement syndrome doesn't mean he lied.

This administration knowingly lied about benghazi.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,"-George W Bush
Well he either lied when he said this, or he lied when he later said that they didn't find any, either way he lied, there's no way around that, to say otherwise would make one a .............:D

huntinman
05-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Well he either lied when he said this, or he lied when he later said that they didn't find any, either way he lied, there's no way around that, to say otherwise would make one a .............:D

This is why it's called Bush Derangement Syndrome... :rolleyes:

mngundog
05-10-2013, 02:57 PM
This is why it's called Bush Derangement Syndrome... :rolleyes:
Wow, I never thought I would hear you say one bad thing about the guy. :D

Dustin D
05-10-2013, 03:20 PM
The most transparent government in history…..
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/white-house-holds-offrecord-benghazi-briefing-163704.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/white-house-holds-offrecord-benghazi-briefing-163704.html)

mngundog
05-10-2013, 03:41 PM
Way to go ABC for blowing this wide open!! Anyone watch the press conference?

Franco
05-10-2013, 06:08 PM
Was there a cover up of the State Dept's ineptness? Yes, without a doubt!

Where troops in a positin to help, told to stand down as Fox reported? No. Not unless you think the Head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff lied.

huntinman
05-10-2013, 06:51 PM
Was there a cover up of the State Dept's ineptness? Yes, without a doubt!

Where troops in a positin to help, told to stand down as Fox reported? No. Not unless you think the Head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff lied.

May have... Starting to look like Petraeus may have changed his story a time or two... Of course they had something to hold over him. Those guys at that level are political animals... They are liable to say anything, especially if their jobs are riding on it.

Gerry Clinchy
05-10-2013, 07:05 PM
Was there a cover up of the State Dept's ineptness? Yes, without a doubt!

Where troops in a positin to help, told to stand down as Fox reported? No. Not unless you think the Head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff lied.
Franco, how do you explain the discrepancy that Gibson had men boarding a plane when he was told that he did not have authorization to proceed?

I would expect that Gibson will have to testify ... he should know who gave him that message. Hicks mentioned which command it came from, but not the particular individual who gave the order.

If both Panetta and Head of JCOS both agreed that no rescue should be attempted (for their reasons stated in testimony), then someone had to tell Gibson to cease and desist from his intended attempt at assistance. That would, by default, indicate that someone had to give a "stand down" order, wouldn't it? I suppose that one could quibble over the semantic differences between "not being authorized" v. "stand down".

It would appear that Gibson, who was closer to the action, felt he could do some good; maybe at least to buy some time for the beseiged so that other assets could arrive. It is possible that someone had already decided that no other assets would be sent, and knew that that could also cost them the men that Gibson would have taken into the action.

When ABC has now released their twelve edits from the administration, giving proof to the "scrubbing" of the talkiing points, it is not out of the realm that HJOCS also lied. I believe it well known that the high levels of the Pentagon can be very political within their hierarchy.

txrancher
05-10-2013, 07:07 PM
Some forget but I will never forget when politicians are this corrupt! The problems has always been short memories and a promise from the tip of a forked tongue. On the Republican side somebody needs to step out and lead, most are afraid they will become the sacrificial lamb.

roseberry
05-10-2013, 07:17 PM
Was there a cover up of the State Dept's ineptness? Yes, without a doubt!

Where troops in a positin to help, told to stand down as Fox reported? No. Not unless you think the Head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff lied.

uhhhh, give me a history lesson, are we talking petreaus? if so, i think he lied to his own wife. if he lies to his wife i think he would lie to me?;-)

i haven't followed this closely so i may not know who we are talking about and my history is always suspect.

Franco
05-10-2013, 07:57 PM
Gen. Martin Dempsey is Head of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff.

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-benghazi-attacks-u-politics-235831420.html

Gregory Hicks, who was second in command at the embassy in the capital Tripoli during the attacks, gave emotional testimony in Congress on Wednesday, in which he contended that more could have been done to stop the assault. He said a U.S. military aircraft could have been scrambled from Italy in a few hours, contradicting testimony by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it would have taken 20 hours. Hicks also said that a team of four special forces officers could have been sent from Tripoli but was ordered not to go.


................

Which one should we believe? Until the investigation is complete, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Gen. Dempsey.

helencalif
05-10-2013, 07:57 PM
The whole thing is starting to unravel. We have learned that Petraeus reported a terrorist attack on Sept 13 and changed it on Sept 14 to a spontaneous demonstration over a video. Lie? You bet. If Petraeus can lie to get in step with the POTUS, if the Secretary of State can lie... if the Ambassador to the UN can lie... so can the JCOS.

Remember... this is the POTUS who promised great transparency. Well, slow but sure, it is becoming transparent on what happened, who knew what, and when.

Will somebody please find out what Obama was doing that eventful night? Besides packing his bags for his campaign trip to Las Vegas.

helencalif
05-10-2013, 08:02 PM
20 hours to get a military plane and personnel from Italy to Bengazi? These forces are there to be ready to leave quickly. Grab a map and see how far it is from Italy to Bengazi.

Eric Johnson
05-10-2013, 08:07 PM
Gerry-

There are some reasons why journalists are not great tactical thinkers. Too often they think that just by saying something, it will be true.

1. There are no KC-135's at Ramstein. The KC-135 wing is located at RAF Mildenhall. That's a long drag. They would recover at other bases but they'd have about a 6 hour flight just to get in position to tank. Therein lies the problem. If the tankers started immediately when the attack started, it would be about 6 hours before they'd be there. That means the F-16's couldn't get there must sooner. Of course, at least they'd have been there.

2. I really doubt that the USAF would put F-16's into Tripoli just from the logistics standpoint, No tires, no oxygen bottles, questionable fuel, no drag chutes, no security, etc. It's tough putting this kind of bird on the ground at a strange field in the US. When you put "white on the rails" (armed) aircraft into a marginally secure field with no logistics, you are asking for trouble. Heck, there's a really, really dangerous substance in the F-16 and it would almost make the F-16 a terrorist target. Each F-16 carries about 5 gallons of hydrazine which is both highly toxic and highly explosive. We had a General in an F-16 cockpit (on the ground) once who pushed the wrong button and dumped the hydrazine. It took 6 hours to get him out of the cockpit.

3. Actually there's a germ of an idea there. Launch from Aviano and recover into Crete (Greece has F-16's of the same "model" as the US)

Actually, the whole episode shows a significant weakness is US defense policy/actions vis a vis the terrorists. We need 2-3 days from a standing start to position the forces and logistics to support them. Terrorists need only a successful airline schedule. It's kind of a case of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Once we have a day or two, we can beat the snot out of anybody but until then...

Raymond Little
05-10-2013, 09:40 PM
2 pages and no Socialist contributions... Priceless!

huntinman
05-10-2013, 10:03 PM
All the excuses for not helping the folks in Benghazi are just so much BS... Since when did Americans think it OK to just sit and watch our folks get gunned down by a bunch of two bit savages and not do a damn thing to help them? Talk about UNAMERICAN!! It's SHAMEFUL. Anyone with a conscience would be hanging their heads in shame. Obama is a failure as a President, Hillary was a joke as Sec of State.

Raymond Little
05-10-2013, 10:16 PM
Socialist have no shame.

Gerry Clinchy
05-10-2013, 10:30 PM
Eric, I always find that your posts have such good facts to offer.

Since there was some hope in using Greece and Crete ... then from some brainstorming why wouldn't the military think of that ... you did :-) And it was our allies in Europe who called upon the US to offer assistance in Libya, so it would be entirely appropriate for them to cooperate in this situation.

I don't know what kind of aircraft Gibson's men were getting on, but they had some kind of aircraft. I don't recall if Hicks mentioned what it was.

It would appear that they do have some kind of "fast response" teams ... that appears to be what Gibson was involved with ... but they were "not authorized to go."

What we have overlooked is that Magariaf was the only Muslim country leader to outrightly condemn the Benghazi terrorists, but the administration made him look bad with their false narrative. Additional policy error.

Eric Johnson
05-10-2013, 11:06 PM
Well...for one thing I'm not constrained by anything like budgets or habit or...

Lt Col Gibson was going to put people on either a charter or a commercial airline (!). I don't believe they had dedicated air support. There is a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). They are an ad hoc team composed of people from several departments tasked according to the emergency. They are supported by a Nat Guard unit in NJ at Mcguire AFB on military 757's. They should have been sent but Gibson's team was really a support team for Tripoli that was just going to go to Benghazi. My guess is that the FEST was held up by people who weren't used to dealing with crises and so they were afraid to pull the trigger out of fear of looking like pansies. That's the real fault. We had pros in the right places it would seem but they were constrained by amateurs.

The military in Africa are in a strange circumstance. They are assigned to Africa (USAfriCom) but their HQ is in Stuttgart, GE. About 1,500 folks are there for planning and HQ purposes in parallel with EuCom (European Command). So anything in Libya required the USAfriCom folks in Stuttgart to go to the Eucom folks in Stuttgart to ask for help because AfriCom doesn't have the vast array of resources. USAfriCom just stood up in about 2005-06 under Rumsfeld. Until then, the Africa mission was split between Eucom and PACOM. Part of what I expect from this episode is that USAfriCom will become more robust and perhaps re-locate to someplace closer to the action. For instance, in the 1980's there was a base named Comiso AB on the island of Sicily. It has a runway and full complement of housing and logistics facilities. It was built for the US-NATO GLCM mission but closed when that mission was cancelled by treaty. Comiso could be opened/renovated and become the new HQ Africa Command. Look where it sits and what an advantage it would have over Stuttgart, GE.

Down East Labs 217
05-11-2013, 07:06 AM
Gerry-

There are some reasons why journalists are not great tactical thinkers. Too often they think that just by saying something, it will be true.

1. There are no KC-135's at Ramstein. The KC-135 wing is located at RAF Mildenhall. That's a long drag. They would recover at other bases but they'd have about a 6 hour flight just to get in position to tank. Therein lies the problem. If the tankers started immediately when the attack started, it would be about 6 hours before they'd be there. That means the F-16's couldn't get there must sooner. Of course, at least they'd have been there.

2. I really doubt that the USAF would put F-16's into Tripoli just from the logistics standpoint, No tires, no oxygen bottles, questionable fuel, no drag chutes, no security, etc. It's tough putting this kind of bird on the ground at a strange field in the US. When you put "white on the rails" (armed) aircraft into a marginally secure field with no logistics, you are asking for trouble. Heck, there's a really, really dangerous substance in the F-16 and it would almost make the F-16 a terrorist target. Each F-16 carries about 5 gallons of hydrazine which is both highly toxic and highly explosive. We had a General in an F-16 cockpit (on the ground) once who pushed the wrong button and dumped the hydrazine. It took 6 hours to get him out of the cockpit.

3. Actually there's a germ of an idea there. Launch from Aviano and recover into Crete (Greece has F-16's of the same "model" as the US)

Actually, the whole episode shows a significant weakness is US defense policy/actions vis a vis the terrorists. We need 2-3 days from a standing start to position the forces and logistics to support them. Terrorists need only a successful airline schedule. It's kind of a case of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Once we have a day or two, we can beat the snot out of anybody but until then...

The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) was in the Mediterranean. It has Harrier jump jets and the a floating platform to take off from. The State Dept. never gave it a second thought. We always have a MEU in the Mediterranean.

Gerry Clinchy
05-11-2013, 10:12 AM
It occurs to me that ABC confirmed that the edits of the public statements turned out quite a different story than the one that was being fed to the public for the past nine months. Would we know this even now if the three fellas who came forward had not done so?

Is it a big stretch to believe that other information that was given to the public was also "modified"? If the MEU (which seems logical) were an alternative, how many people in the general population would be aware of that? Or of the use of Greece and Crete? I would not be one of those people. I would only be astounded to know that it would take a full day for the military to respond to a skirmish like the one at Benghazi ... which actually wasn't true, since Gibson could have given some relief had he been allowed to go; perhaps enough time to save the lives of the two former SEALs..

As people chastise the Rs for being "political", these witnesses are three people who were ostensibly supporters of the present administration. (as was Stevens) Nordstrom, even in his first testimony, was more forthright than others who testified. My understanding is that these individuals "volunteered" their testimony. Is it perceived that they did so for political reasons? Or did they volunteer because they believed that our leaders should be held accountable for their actions, not for political reasons ... but in spite of their political leanings? That would take a great deal of character, IMHO. This would not have been easy for them to do.

It appears that maybe they could no longer remain silent after hearing Hillary's testimony? Was that what put them "over the top"? (as evidenced by Hicks' opening statement)

I was also impressed by the resourcefulness of these people. They knew who to call to get action ... to prepare the hospitals for the wounded; to get through to the highest levels in the Libyan govt. To have the support of the Libyan govt to prevent them from falling into an ambush, they must have had some respect of those Libyan officials. In that regard, it is probably a loss to our country that the careers of these people (in foreign service) are very likely over.

helencalif
05-11-2013, 10:27 AM
I have no insight or knowledge of military forces. As an average person, I think our military forces can react quickly. Quickly? I am appalled with what is being said ... the US has these military units, planes, and equipment all over Europe etc, but none can get to Benghazi in less than 20-24 hours. Obviously the terrorists knew this.

What (or where) is next?

huntinman
05-11-2013, 10:41 AM
I have no insight or knowledge of military forces. As an average person, I think our military forces can react quickly. Quickly? I am appalled with what is being said ... the US has these military units, planes, and equipment all over Europe etc, but none can get to Benghazi in less than 20-24 hours. Obviously the terrorists knew this.

What (or where) is next?

Helen, you are correct. We have the capability, just not the will. Our own leader watched these men die. They could have done something. They had a duty to try.

Eric Johnson
05-11-2013, 03:30 PM
The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) was in the Mediterranean. It has Harrier jump jets and the a floating platform to take off from. The State Dept. never gave it a second thought. We always have a MEU in the Mediterranean.

I've been told that the Iwo was in the Eastern Med at the time but not where exactly. The Harrier has a combat radius of about 500 nm. There are lots of places in the Med that are 500+ nm from Benghazi. I don't know if a MEU has the capability to tank like an Nimitz class aircraft. Certainly if they were 500+ miles away, the fleet could have made up some of the distance, but not much, so as to shorten the return. The MD60 (helicopter) only has about half the range as the Harrier.

Eric Johnson
05-11-2013, 03:39 PM
Helen-

We have only about a third of the forces in Europe as we did in the 1980's. Heck, friends and I sometimes play the game of great bases to visit that aren't there anymore....Heyford, Alconbury, Bentwaters, Zaragosa, Zweibrucken, Rhine-Mein, Bitburg, Hahn, ....the list goes on and on.

The problem is that it's not possible to have the right answer to every problem located at every base.

huntinman
05-11-2013, 04:33 PM
"Stand Down" is not the right answer when your men are under fire. Regardless of the logistics... Again, all this talk is a smokescreen. You don't watch Americans to perish without DOING SOMETHING. Going to bed is not the right answer.

Eric Johnson
05-11-2013, 05:15 PM
"Stand Down" is not the right answer when your men are under fire.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely discussing the options and why so many of them weren't available. My guess is that the troops in Tripoli, just the 4, should have been sent while the Foreign Emergency Support Team was flown in. Chances are, the reason why this didn't happen is that some politico in State or the WH was just too terrified to act since they'd never been in this position. Stop and think. Historically world affairs have created at least one situation that a President had to handle. Benghazi was the first for this President and he didn't handle it well.

By contrast we have the Achille Lauro incident in which one American died. When the hijackers fled aboard a commercial aircraft, Reagan directed the Navy to force the plane to land in Sicily and the hijackers were captured and tried for murder. Then there's the Mayaguez incident with President Ford. That got all screwed up but we did something and Ford was praised for it. We had about 50 marines killed or wounded but we did something.

charly_t
05-11-2013, 05:51 PM
.................................................. ........... Benghazi was the first for this President and he didn't handle it well.

.................................................. .......................

Agree 100%. I don't care if a person likes him or not it would seem to me that he was not equiped to lead this nation under any circumstance. Trouble is he does not seem to learn very quickly. He should have woke people up if they were asleep and said 'what can we do about this'. Having two daughters one would think in being a parent he would have learned to recognize an emergency when one came along.

helencalif
05-11-2013, 07:06 PM
I have been paying attention re-Benghazi. I don't recall ever hearing just what the POTUS did after 5 p.m. ET. No phone calls. Held no meetings. Attended no meetings called by others. I guess he packed his bags for Vegas and went to bed.

I can see it now... it's 3 a.m. in the Oval Office, the red phone is ringing.... ringing, ringing. A janitor goes by mopping floors, walks over to the phone, and picks it up. "Hello? ... He ain't here."

BonMallari
05-12-2013, 03:32 AM
"Stand Down" is not the right answer when your men are under fire. Regardless of the logistics... Again, all this talk is a smokescreen. You don't watch Americans to perish without DOING SOMETHING. Going to bed is not the right answer.

As the son of a military man, I cant accept the excuse "...we wouldnt have got there in time.." there are numerous HRT(hostage rescue team), Special forces, Delta, and SEAL teams whose sole purpose in training is for situations just like this, there are air strike teams who can scramble at a moments notice and be airborne within minutes...ITS WHAT THE MILITARY IS TRAINED TO DO...

Their are a couple of joint Chiefs of Staff who should lose a Star or maybe rattle a few cages for NOT having a unit ready to go, they need to apologize to the families of the dead, and then they need to apologize to the American public for not coming to the rescue of their countrymen

Even Sam Houston tried to make it to the Alamo....not trying is unacceptable, its cowardice

Eric Johnson
05-12-2013, 04:56 AM
Just to pose a couple of random thoughts to the mix--

1. Nothing is said now about the storming of the embassy in Cairo though it is the purported reason for the Benghazi attacks. I suddenly don't recall anything else being said since that day. Is it possible that the folks in the WH and State were concentrating on these? For instance, could the refusal to use the Marine Exp Unit aboard the Iwo Jima been because nobody knew which way to turn? Why hasn't the Cairo episode been mentioned except in the Benghazi talking points. For instance, why wasn't the FEST sent to Cairo either? What about the other attacks on embassies? I think that there were 4 that week.

2. The military in this county follows a strict concept of civilian command and control. There were likely all kinds of military options and ideas floating around but the civilians put the kibosh on these. Why haven't we heard from any of the military guys yet? I'm not saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but the commanders of the Unified Combat Commands (EuCom, AfricaCom) or lower. There's a book in there someplace but we'll likely have to wait for a retirement to take place.

A book just released Tuesday (and I'm only a third through it) called Pirate Alley is by Stephan Coonts. The scenario is different but the military-civilian relationship portrayed is very correct. It shows just how screwed up things can get when you have civilians who don't care a whit about the military suddenly start micromanaging the military in a crisis.

Down East Labs 217
05-12-2013, 05:46 AM
The lack of assistance is not the militaries fault. They can only act as directed by the civilian commander in chief. They have plans in place for almost every situation possible. They have teams ready for almost every plan. However, the military can not act until ordered to do so. They can not enter a hostile country with out orders to do so. They can not save embassy personnel without orders to act. When the military does not act, it is not because they choose not to. It is because our elected officials did not authorize them to act.

Do not blame our military for this, blame the true culprit. The one man that was getting his full night sleep while our men were fighting for their lives.

Richard

Duck Blind
05-12-2013, 06:13 AM
This is what you get when you have liberal lawyers running the country.

Bet the response would have been different if Chelsea C. was in Benghazi.

My 2 Cents.

Gerry Clinchy
05-12-2013, 09:14 AM
1. Nothing is said now about the storming of the embassy in Cairo though it is the purported reason for the Benghazi attacks. I suddenly don't recall anything else being said since that day. Is it possible that the folks in the WH and State were concentrating on these? For instance, could the refusal to use the Marine Exp Unit aboard the Iwo Jima been because nobody knew which way to turn? Why hasn't the Cairo episode been mentioned except in the Benghazi talking points. For instance, why wasn't the FEST sent to Cairo either? What about the other attacks on embassies? I think that there were 4 that week.

Eric, as I recall, the Cairo embassy had been evacuated in advance of the demonstration taking place, as they had received advance warning from the Egyptian govt. So, in that case things went as planned.

Hillary (according to Hicks' testimony) had no problem giving the order for the Tripoli diplomats to evacuate their facility.

I think Bon hit the nail on the head ... they were "paralyzed" ... not what we expect of those making the life-or-death decisions. Then they tried to cover up their failure in that regard. Panetta might have very well been telling the truth ... but telling it in a way that obfuscated that they just didn't have the leadership to make the kinds of decisions needed in an emergency.

Gibson, and the people in Tripoli, were what we expect. They found an aircraft by thinking outside of the box. They put together men to at least relieve the besieged facility. The paper pushers, perhaps, should have taken a cue from those people who could put together a plan. That's what they have been trained to do as military ... to act in the face of bad odds or the unexpected.

Buzz
05-12-2013, 09:34 AM
Just to pose a couple of random thoughts to the mix--

1. Nothing is said now about the storming of the embassy in Cairo though it is the purported reason for the Benghazi attacks. I suddenly don't recall anything else being said since that day. Is it possible that the folks in the WH and State were concentrating on these? For instance, could the refusal to use the Marine Exp Unit aboard the Iwo Jima been because nobody knew which way to turn? Why hasn't the Cairo episode been mentioned except in the Benghazi talking points. For instance, why wasn't the FEST sent to Cairo either? What about the other attacks on embassies? I think that there were 4 that week.

2. The military in this county follows a strict concept of civilian command and control. There were likely all kinds of military options and ideas floating around but the civilians put the kibosh on these. Why haven't we heard from any of the military guys yet? I'm not saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but the commanders of the Unified Combat Commands (EuCom, AfricaCom) or lower. There's a book in there someplace but we'll likely have to wait for a retirement to take place.

A book just released Tuesday (and I'm only a third through it) called Pirate Alley is by Stephan Coonts. The scenario is different but the military-civilian relationship portrayed is very correct. It shows just how screwed up things can get when you have civilians who don't care a whit about the military suddenly start micromanaging the military in a crisis.


From what I understand, the Democrats tried to get military officials involved in the hearing, but those witnesses were excluded by the Republicans on the committee. Here is an excerpt from Cummings' opening statement. I agree with him. If Issa is going to accuse our military leaders of being involved in a conspiracy, then he should give them a chance to speak for themselves. Issa demonstrates that he is among those who "don't care a whit about the military."


Mr. Chairman, if this Committee is going to suggest that General Dempsey, General Ham, and General Clapper are involved in a conspiracy of withholding military assets and then covering it up, and if this Committee is going to accuse Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen of failing to fully investigate these attacks, the least you could have done is invite these officials here today to answer these serious charges face-to-face.

I respect the witnesses who are here today to offer their testimony. But today’s hearing is not the full story. I hope we will eventually hear from our military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials. Then, I hope we can turn to the real work of this Committee, which is ensuring that the Department implements the recommendations to improve the security of our diplomatic officials serving overseas.

huntinman
05-12-2013, 10:20 AM
From what I understand, the Democrats tried to get military officials involved in the hearing, but those witnesses were excluded by the Republicans on the committee. Here is an excerpt from Cummings' opening statement. I agree with him. If Issa is going to accuse our military leaders of being involved in a conspiracy, then he should give them a chance to speak for themselves. Issa demonstrates that he is among those who "don't care a whit about the military."

If they REALLY want to get to the bottom of it, maybe our Commander in Chief could offer some insight on his whereabouts for the duration of the night? And why something wasn't done to help those folks? Why tiptoe through the tulips? Lets get right to the top dog...

shawninthesticks
05-12-2013, 10:26 AM
If they REALLY want to get to the bottom of it, maybe our Commander in Chief could offer some insight on his whereabouts for the duration of the night? And why something wasn't done to help those folks? Why tiptoe through the tulips? Lets get right to the top dog...


Hard to do when the top dog has a whole administration covering his ass for every move.

Gerry Clinchy
05-12-2013, 12:29 PM
Buzz, they did have Gen. Dempsey testify; presumably the top of the chain ... except for the CIC. One might have thought that getting the CJOS would have meant getting all the details available. Subsequent testimony, however, indicates that they may need to start with Gibson, and move up the chain. one link at a time.

If the CIC gave the order to do everything possible to secure the personnel under seige, then who, along the chain of command disobeyed the CIC's order? If the CIC told them to do everything possible, did that include the authorization to go into Libyan airspace? If he did meet with Panetta (and whoever else attended that meeting, presumably some military would have been involved), for a half-hour or more, then would that question not have come up in the conversation that the CIC was the only one who could authorize that? I wouldn't see this information as "classified" ... rather it is simply stating common knowledge SOP; and the question is only whether the order was given or not. Or were the people in the meeting too inexperienced to ask for the authorization they would need to take sufficient action to secure the personnel? If military personnel were included in the briefing, certainly they would have known this?

Eric Johnson
05-12-2013, 12:50 PM
Two points on your post....

1. The "Chiefs" had already testified. In some respects, Issa was running what lawyers call a "perjury trap". They had the Chiefs on record. Now get the other guys and see what they say. Likely Rep. Cummings knew this was the direction of the hearings and he just whated to blow some smoke. Evidenced by all the Dem cries that the Reps had voted against the budget for security. Well, first of all they didn't vote against the security budget. If they voted, it was against expanding it but there was plenty of money as evidenced by the fact the Ms. Clinton was going to try to increase the status of the Benghazi installation....with money. The enhanced security that was talked about Wed. would have cost a relative pittance. Besides, whatever the Republicans vote for WRT budget, the Senate Democrats will block the issue entirely.

2. The military guys don't ever testify unless the civilians in the chain of command allow it. When they do testify, it's usually with civilian "minders" at their side. They testified before but it was on what happended after the attacks. What we want to know is what options were discussed and why they were discarded while the attacks were on-going. If there's any indication that the hearing is going to go into this and the military/civilian decision process, watch for the roadblocks to come up. Besides, my question was on wondering what the Unified Command Commanders or lower thought the options were.

Basically, the civilian leadership at the State Dept. and the National Security Council got caught like deer in the headlights, refused to give any authorization to do anything, and now are caught. Let's remember that Ms. Clinton, when she was First Lady, held the military in complete and utter contempt. Now that's come home to roost.

I'd love to know the experience levels of the senior leadership at State that day. I doubt they'd had a crisis experience other than what color of clothes to wear to work. The smart money would have backed off, let the guys with the bullets and bombs work, and then bask in the glory. Instead, they were so worried about an election that they couldn't think straight and just plain paniced. Hardly credentials for seior leadership whether at the State Dept or the Scouts.

Brad Turner
05-12-2013, 01:05 PM
Pretty telling interview on Meet The Press this morning. Both Issa and Pickering were on. Pickering said that the ARB investigation had nothing to do with the statements made post attack. He also was under the impression that the names of witnesses were provided to the congressional commitee, which is apparently not the case.

Feinstein was also on the show and when asked what the administration should have done defirently, she said they (basically) should have told the truth from the beginning. She said it was so blantanly obvious that it was a terrorist attack they should have told the truth. Does this mean that if it wasn't obvious, that it would have been okay to mislead the American public? When asked why she thought they didn't, she said she didn't know because it probably wouldn't have made a difference in the election. Really?!?! Then I want to know why they lied!

The democrats keep saying that the investigation should only be concerned with how the tragedy was allowed to happen and not who was responsible for the unpreparedness. I agree that we have to make changes so that we are more prepared, but someone has to take responsibility for screwing up. All this blame shifting just confirms that our leaders are not held accountable for their actions.

I also found it interesting that Paul was quoted as saying that the actions of Clinton, during this debacle, should disqualify her from higher public office. It is my opinion that she left the State Department to distance herself from this mess and the democrats are doing everything in their power to protect her electability in 2016.

Gerry Clinchy
05-12-2013, 02:37 PM
Brad, you make a good point about accountability. If people screw up and there are no consequences, then why would one expect that those in charge will be more diligent the next time?

The same thought can be applied to the fellas who took home big paychecks when taxpayers had to bail out the banks who were "too big to fail". And to the GSA fellow who had some great parties at taxpayer expense. Seems nobody has yet been held accountable for the mess known as Fast & Furious ... except the guy who blew the whistle on it. Others could probably add to the list.

huntinman
05-12-2013, 04:00 PM
20 hours to get a jet to Benghazi? What were they going to do pack it up and walk there with it?

13107

mngundog
05-12-2013, 04:05 PM
20 hours to get a jet to Benghazi? What were they going to do pack it up and walk there with it?

13107
If General Dempsey lied under oath, shouldn't he be court-martialed?

Gerry Clinchy
05-12-2013, 04:09 PM
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/markbaisley/2013/05/12/benghazi-for-dummies-n1593213
A very good timeline of the Benghazi events ...

Ken Bora
05-12-2013, 04:56 PM
20 hours to get a jet to Benghazi?

wonder how long an ICBM would have taken?

huntinman
05-12-2013, 05:22 PM
wonder how long an ICBM would have taken?

I like your thinking...

Brad Turner
05-12-2013, 05:31 PM
If General Dempsey lied under oath, shouldn't he be court-martialed?

Was he under oath? I know that Clinton was not...

mngundog
05-12-2013, 06:00 PM
Was he under oath? I know that Clinton was not...
Good point, I'm not sure if he took an oath or not, but either way he committed a crime if he lied to the committee. Should he be court martialed if he lied about his testimony?

Down East Labs 217
05-12-2013, 06:28 PM
Good point, I'm not sure if he took an oath or not, but either way he committed a crime if he lied to the committee. Should he be court martialed if he lied about his testimony?

And if Clinton lied under oath, should we send her through the court system, demote her and retire her. I personally think the General lied. If he did, than make him pay by demoting him and retire him. However, if Clinton lied I will bet a months pay the same does not happen to her through the civilian courts. The military is always prosecuted and punished for the things civilians get away with. Double standard of life.

Richard

txrancher
05-12-2013, 07:10 PM
Richard the Marine is showing, but you are right. I hope to get to a meeting soon since I'm back in NC.


Monty

Eric Johnson
05-12-2013, 07:15 PM
Brad, you make a good point about accountability. If people screw up and there are no consequences, then why would one expect that those in charge will be more diligent the next time?

Weren't two people "fired" for their decisions on this but then were later found to have simply been moved to different jobs?

Down East Labs 217
05-12-2013, 07:54 PM
Richard the Marine is showing, but you are right. I hope to get to a meeting soon since I'm back in NC.


Monty

Monty

Welcome back to the Crystal Coast. Next club meeting is this Tuesday night at Logans in Jacksonville. And yes the Marine still surfaces after all these years. I am glad it still does.

Richard

Dan Storts
05-12-2013, 08:11 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ113kNNiL4

Romney would not allow this ad to run during the election.

mngundog
05-12-2013, 09:18 PM
And if Clinton lied under oath, should we send her through the court system, demote her and retire her. I personally think the General lied. If he did, than make him pay by demoting him and retire him. However, if Clinton lied I will bet a months pay the same does not happen to her through the civilian courts. The military is always prosecuted and punished for the things civilians get away with. Double standard of life.

Richard
Yes, if we are going the try to send baseball players to jail for lying to congress, I believe politicians and the General should be held to that same standard. Double standard life shouldn't apply.

Gerry Clinchy
05-12-2013, 09:32 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ113kNNiL4

Romney would not allow this ad to run during the election.
Romney took the high road on squelching this ad, I think, based on the timing of what was only suspected then, but not yet confirmed.

The Ds had no such reservations in allowing ads that accused Romney of causing the death of that steelworker's wife. Perhaps he was too naive to be POTUS after all.

huntinman
05-13-2013, 12:15 AM
Romney took the high road on squelching this ad, I think, based on the timing of what was only suspected then, but not yet confirmed.

The Ds had no such reservations in allowing ads that accused Romney of causing the death of that steelworker's wife. Perhaps he was too naive to be POTUS after all.


The R's were all afraid of being called racists if they attacked Obama for anything. He was never touched in either election. Spineless. He was playing hardball and the R's were playing powderpuff.

Marvin S
05-13-2013, 08:28 AM
The R's were all afraid of being called racists if they attacked Obama for anything. He was never touched in either election. Spineless. He was playing hardball and the R's were playing powderpuff.

It is no different than running against a female - though things are supposed to be equal in those circumstances, one has to be very careful what they say or how they depict that individual. Been there done that :). The voters in the middle are very squeamish about insulting those they feel have been deprived.

Dan Storts
05-13-2013, 09:56 AM
What will happen if certain group of individuals have their feeling hurt by this type of ad? They would have lost the election? Maybe but playing nice guy, except in the primaries, didn't work for him or McCain. Millions stayed home in Romney's case.

road kill
05-13-2013, 10:06 AM
20 hours to get to Benghazi?

And some of you buy that line of crap???

You funny!

Dan Storts
05-13-2013, 11:04 AM
20 hours to get to Benghazi?

And some of you buy that line of crap???

You funny!


Yes and it takes 10 hours from Chicago to Rome but you have to stop in London first. This is a commercial flight.

Sweet dreams Michelle, sweet dreams Barack and there is the answer.

The potential mistake of the administration is they awoke a sleeping giant in General Petraeus, by blaming the CIA.

road kill
05-13-2013, 12:15 PM
"There is no there there."

Gerry Clinchy
05-13-2013, 01:38 PM
I saw it reported that one of the Congressman on the committee says that other whistleblowers have been in touch with them. For those who doubt that that those who have already testified are mistaken in their beliefs, we may begin to get more of the details filled in if more come forward.

The thing about a cover-up like this is that if even one person of conscience breaks the Code of Silence, then others are likely to be emboldened to do the same.

While so far there seems to be no legal basis for impeachment, if additional details continue to show the untrustworthiness of those in charge, it will be a blot on the first black President's term. One could forgive incompetence more easily than prevarication for self-interest.

Buzz
05-13-2013, 02:32 PM
20 hours to get to Benghazi?

And some of you buy that line of crap???

You funny!

Quote from Former Defense Secretary Gates - "Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability"


The interview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

road kill
05-13-2013, 02:45 PM
Quote from Former Defense Secretary Gates - "Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability"


The interview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

The "cartoonish" view would be 20 hours to get to Benghazi.
Don't be foolish, that is a LIE!!!

It will be proven so.
There were personell in Tripoli ready to go, they were told to stand down.
It does not take 20 hours to get from Tripoli to Benghazi.
There is nothing you can post to change that.

No effort was made and a LIE was fabricated to cover up the ineptitude of the Commander in Chief of the US military.

PATHETIC!!!!!

Buzz
05-13-2013, 03:23 PM
The "cartoonish" view would be 20 hours to get to Benghazi.
Don't be foolish, that is a LIE!!!

It will be proven so.
There were personell in Tripoli ready to go, they were told to stand down.
It does not take 20 hours to get from Tripoli to Benghazi.
There is nothing you can post to change that.

No effort was made and a LIE was fabricated to cover up the ineptitude of the Commander in Chief of the US military.

PATHETIC!!!!!


And now Gates is part of the cover-up I guess...

Did you even click on the link?

Dan Storts
05-13-2013, 03:51 PM
And now Gates is part of the cover-up I guess...

Did you even click on the link?

Only trust a Bush appointee when they support a common agenda.

road kill
05-13-2013, 04:34 PM
And now Gates is part of the cover-up I guess...

Did you even click on the link?

Note the location of Tripoli, note the location of Benghazi.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x64/TAR3K/wg-libya-2063-400x300.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/TAR3K/media/wg-libya-2063-400x300.gif.html)

Personell were at the ready in Tripoli and ordered to "stand down."

20 hours??

BULL PLOP!!!

Ken Bora
05-13-2013, 04:51 PM
Note the location of Tripoli,!!!

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. Obama is the President who didn’t know about the silent “P”
:confused:

huntinman
05-13-2013, 05:00 PM
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. Obama is the President who didn’t know about the silent “P”
:confused:

And because of his administration refusal to give proper sucrity to those who serve our country, he could use the word with the P... we had four of them that night.

Franco
05-13-2013, 05:28 PM
What military assets did we have in Tripoli that could have helped in rescue?

achiro
05-13-2013, 05:58 PM
Multiple military sources have stated that there were 3 teams within 3 hours of the attack. Honestly though, the point I don't hear made enough is that it doesn't matter if it was 30 minutes or 30 hours, what matters is that nobody knew how long the attack would last and even if all the troops that arrived did was clean-up then at least they were on there way. I read yesterday that the last two died 7 hours into the attack. They died knowing that nobody was coming to help. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach then you have no soul.

road kill
05-13-2013, 05:58 PM
What military assets did we have in Tripoli that could have helped in rescue?
Try to keep up, you must have missed Hicks testimony.
Lt Colonel Gibson..........

Franco
05-13-2013, 06:08 PM
Try to keep up, you must have missed Hicks testimony.
Lt Colonel Gibson..........

Here is a transript of Hicks testimony.
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20130508/NEWS01/130508017/Transcript-Testimony-Gregory-Hicks-Benghazi

He only talks about flying a "response team" into Bengazi.

One of the CIA operatives said they couldn't fly into Bengazi fearing a trap since several hundred surface to air missles "Stingers" were missing since the fall of Gadaffi.

huntinman
05-13-2013, 07:25 PM
American military doesn't operate out of fear.... American politicians do.

Franco
05-13-2013, 08:21 PM
Page 4 of Hick's testimony.

The Tripoli response team departs at about midnight and arrives at about 1:15 in Benghazi. If I may step back again to Tripoli and what's going on there at this point. At about 10:45 or 11:00 we confer, and I asked the defense attache who had been talking about AFRICOM and with the joint staff, ''Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?`` And he answered that, the nearest help was in Aviano, the nearest -- where there were fighter planes. He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get onsite, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, ''Thank you very much,`` and we went on with our work.
Phase III begins with news that the ambassador - the ambassador's body has been recovered, and David McFarland, if I recall correctly, is the individual who began to receive that news from his contacts in Benghazi. We began to hear also that the ambassador has been taken to a hospital. We don't know initially which hospital it is, but we -- through David's reports we learned that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar Sharia, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.

.............................................

Lt Gibson's orders were to secure the airport in Bengazi for the evacuation.

Gerry Clinchy
05-13-2013, 08:45 PM
Here is a transript of Hicks testimony.
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20130508/NEWS01/130508017/Transcript-Testimony-Gregory-Hicks-Benghazi

He only talks about flying a "response team" into Bengazi.

One of the CIA operatives said they couldn't fly into Bengazi fearing a trap since several hundred surface to air missles "Stingers" were missing since the fall of Gadaffi.
Hicks indicates that a plane was found with a pilot who was willing to make the flight.

Yup, Stingers missing and a whole lot of other stuff. Oops! The policy wonks forgot about that in the haste to get rid of Gadaffi.

Obama is still trying to "sell" the fact that he used the generic phrase "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech. In view of the ensuing narrative about the video, even the MSM is not buying that now. Then he mentioned a testimony on 9/19 describing the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism. The person who gave that testimony did so when asked by a Congressional inquiry; and that person contends he was disciplined for having done so. On 9/20 the administration then began to back off from the video narrative. They didn't have much choice.

However, wasn't the UN speech after that, when the video story was again brought up? Although I don't believe that at the UN it was blamed for Benghazi in so many words.

JDogger
05-13-2013, 10:32 PM
Ok,quick now...whoops, nobody here but the usual whine fest. How fast can you respond. Please name the four people who died in Bengahzi that night. You just have a minute or so. Your resposes to my questions are time stamped by RTF. You will be judged and held accountable by the quicknest of your response. Sleeping, eating, doing other things are not
important.

Look at the time stamp on my post. I'll give you 120 seconds. Then you fail.

JD

JDogger
05-13-2013, 10:44 PM
Oh.... you failed to not repsond immediately. We're you not prepared? Why not? JD

Terri
05-13-2013, 10:59 PM
I have to say this was the weakest post I have read in a longggggg time not counting the one you posted after it. We are not sitting here waiting to be drilled by you, but the people in high positions should be connected at all times and ready to answer when called. Even my husband who is a low level management guy has a phone issued to him and he is on call 24/7. If one does not want to be on call then do not take a position that requires that amount to dedication.


Terri

Ken Bora
05-13-2013, 11:02 PM
Oh.... you failed to not repsond immediately. We're you not prepared? Why not? JD

'cause none of us get paid to pay attention to you! :cool:
had any of us ran for the job of jdog watch dog you would have had a point.

JDogger
05-13-2013, 11:20 PM
I'll answer for you then since no one seems to know;

Amb. Stevens

Sean Smith

Tyrone Woods

Glen Doherty

A genuine tragedy.

Now what is being done to prevent future occurences?

The past 20 pages?

Gerry Clinchy
05-14-2013, 12:16 AM
JD ... to prevent future occurrences, one could start by holding those responsible for malfeasance & incompetence accountable.

Without the information we are getting from this congressional investigation, we would still not be aware of the extent of the lack of preparedness that existed; the fact that nobody "bothered" to call to the attention of SOS of the serious situation (remember, Hillary, by her testimony, was unaware of the Stevens' requests for additional security); that nobody seemed to remember they needed POTUS to get authorization to use Libyan air space; that they did not get permission from someone (whoever could give it) to use an armed drone to help those fellas.

If it would take our military 20 hours to get a response team to one of the hottest spots in the ME on the 9-11 anniversary, heads should be rolling at the Pentagon with replacements for those supposedly responsible for such contingency plans. The fact that the UK diplomats and the Red Cross had pulled out of Benghazi might have been a clue that if we were going to allow our diplomats to go there, it might be a very dangerous place, and there should have been preparations in place to protect those diplomats effectively. It would appear that the CIA had an idea of what was going on, didn't they pass along their info to the military? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? What good is CIA info if nobody pays attention to it? (I hope Biden answers the phone when the CIA reports that Iran has their nuclear bomb & mode of delivery for it. He's depending on that, according to the VP debates, but will he answer the phone?)

Interesting item from National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348125/blame-it-video-was-fraud-cairo-rioting-too
That "infamous" video apparently was not even the major item responsible for the US embassy attack in Cairo. Just the day before, the Blind Sheik's son threatened to burn the Cairo embassy:

On September 10, 2012, the day before rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an Egyptian weekly, El Fagr, reported that several jihadist organizations, including the Blind Sheik’s group (Gamaat al-Islamia, or the Islamic Group) and al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), were threatening to burn the American embassy in Cairo to the ground. The promised action against the embassy was an effort to extort the release of Abdel Rahman and other jihadists jailed by the United States.

We know this thanks to the invaluable Raymond Ibrahim — who makes it his business to scour the Arabic press, where Islamic supremacists are actually covered. Ray published a post (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/) on it in the PJ Tatler. The post echoes my observation (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/27/blind-sheikhs-son-threatens-embassy/), from back in July, that the Blind Sheik’s son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, was threatening to raid the U.S. embassy in Cairo and hold our people hostage to coerce his father’s release.


More significantly, as an alert Bryan Preston notices (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/10/benghazi-a-smoking-gun/?singlepage=true) at PJ Media, Ray’s post the day before the Cairo rioting and Benghazi Massacre dovetails with Stephen Hayes’s latest excellent report (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html) on Benghazi. In discussing the CIA’s first round of talking points — later substantially erased under pressure from the State Department and the White House — Steve points out the Agency’s assertion that “on 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”


Note that neither the Egyptian press report outlined by Ibrahim, nor the CIA report outlined by Hayes, made any mention of the video. The fear was threatened violence from al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists.


There had been a brief mention of the offending video on Sept. 9 at an Egyptian mosque.

JDogger
05-14-2013, 12:55 AM
Or, one could start by implenting plans and strategies to prevent future occurences, and then play kabuki. Which should take precedence, in your opinion? Laying blame? Or fixing the problem?
The problem is not a new one. It has been with us for a long time and is likely to continue, despite the party that holds sway.
I understand the dislike of the current POTUS. I am not a fan. The fact that I disagree with many on the right should not be taken as blind loyalty to the current administration. This is not an 'us VS them' conundrum. Those that paint it as such fail to understand the complexities of the global political world as it exists today.

caryalsobrook
05-14-2013, 01:12 AM
Ok,quick now...whoops, nobody here but the usual whine fest. How fast can you respond. Please name the four people who died in Bengahzi that night. You just have a minute or so. Your resposes to my questions are time stamped by RTF. You will be judged and held accountable by the quicknest of your response. Sleeping, eating, doing other things are not
important.

Look at the time stamp on my post. I'll give you 120 seconds. Then you fail.

JD
You could or would not even answer a multiple part question. REMEMBER?????????????????? So why should anyone answer one of your STINKING QUESTIONS?????????????????????????????

JDogger
05-14-2013, 02:57 AM
You could or would not even answer a multiple part question. REMEMBER?????????????????? So why should anyone answer one of your STINKING QUESTIONS?????????????????????????????

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/LightenupFrancis.jpg

You mean multiple choice don't you? There was only one part....

Ken Bora
05-14-2013, 06:27 AM
..... no one seems to know?......


gosh it is fun to see you get all flubulated when nobody plays with you :cool:

road kill
05-14-2013, 07:47 AM
Hicks indicates that a plane was found with a pilot who was willing to make the flight.

Yup, Stingers missing and a whole lot of other stuff. Oops! The policy wonks forgot about that in the haste to get rid of Gadaffi.

Obama is still trying to "sell" the fact that he used the generic phrase "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech. In view of the ensuing narrative about the video, even the MSM is not buying that now. Then he mentioned a testimony on 9/19 describing the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism. The person who gave that testimony did so when asked by a Congressional inquiry; and that person contends he was disciplined for having done so. On 9/20 the administration then began to back off from the video narrative. They didn't have much choice.

However, wasn't the UN speech after that, when the video story was again brought up? Although I don't believe that at the UN it was blamed for Benghazi in so many words.

There was military personell locked and loaded, ready to go get their comrades, but were told to stand down.
That's GARBAGE!!!
It is being downplayed, but it doesn't take 20 hours to get from Tripoli to Benghazi.
People were ready to go!!!!!

Franco
05-14-2013, 01:25 PM
There was military personell locked and loaded, ready to go get their comrades, but were told to stand down.
That's GARBAGE!!!
It is being downplayed, but it doesn't take 20 hours to get from Tripoli to Benghazi.
People were ready to go!!!!! Hicks said nothing of the sort. I've read his testimony twice. " In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi." The further reinforcements were Lt Gibson and his three men that were ordered to secure the Bengazi airport! I don't care for Hillary either but I suggest we stick with the facts and not the misinformation from Hannity! Nowhere in Hicks' testimony did he refer to another plane and pilot other than the one provided by the Libyans. The one to be used to evacuate from the Bengazi airport.

road kill
05-14-2013, 01:31 PM
Hicks said nothing of the sort. I've read his testimony twice. " In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi." The further reinforcements were Lt Gibson and his three men that were ordered to secure the Bengazi airport! I don't care for Hillary either but I suggest we stick with the facts and not the misinformation from Hannity! Nowhere in Hicks' testimony did he refer to another plane and pilot other than the one provided by the Libyans. The one to be used to evacuate from the Bengazi airport.
Hicks did say something of the sort, I saw him say it.
I don't have to prove it to you, nor will I try.
Others have seen it as well.
The Colonel commented on Hicks "BALLS!!"


I suggest we stick with the facts as well.
You don't get to decide what they are.

Franco
05-14-2013, 01:35 PM
I think you heard what you wanted to hear as there is nothing, zero, zilich about it in his testimony other than what I copied and pasted from it. Feel free to look over his testimony as I posted a word for word link and show us where he said such.

huntinman
05-14-2013, 01:39 PM
Well, I guess Congress should just fold their tents and go home... Franco has spoken.

road kill
05-14-2013, 01:42 PM
I think you heard what you wanted to hear as there is nothing, zero, zilich about it in his testimony other than what I copied and pasted from it. Feel free to look over his testimony as I posted a word for word link and show us where he said such.
Franco, I don't know why you have this constant hard on for me, you should get over it.

Of all the MIS-INFORMATION posted here (much by you) I am the only one you are obsessed with.
Do us both a favor, put me on ignore.
I have absolutely no inclination to try and substantiate anything with you.

One of the funniest posts I ever saw on RTF was when YOU accused someone of grandstanding!!!!

charly_t
05-14-2013, 01:43 PM
My simple thoughts are that in order to fix something you must in this case know where it went wrong and why it went wrong. How in blue blazes can you fix something if you don't know what "part" to replace or fix.
Talking to those involved seems like the way to learn just what, where and when.

Franco
05-14-2013, 01:45 PM
Well, I guess Congress should just fold their tents and go home... Franco has spoken.Some people are interested in the truth. Like I said I don't care for Hillary either. The Administration did look foolish with the bogus stories after the event. But, there is nothing in Hick's testimony stating that those that were murdered could have been saved!

Franco
05-14-2013, 01:48 PM
Franco, I don't know why you have this constant hard on for me, you should get over it.

Of all the MIS-INFORMATION posted here (much by you) I am the only one you are obsessed with.
Do us both a favor, put me on ignore.
I have absolutely no inclination to try and substantiate anything with you.

One of the funniest posts I ever saw on RTF was when YOU accused someone of grandstanding!!!!I only have a problem with anyone when they post bogus information. The reason you can't substantiate anything is because you want to ignore the truth! Instead of just making crap up, why not read Hicks' testimony?

road kill
05-14-2013, 01:51 PM
I only have a problem with anyone when they post bogus information. The reason you can't substantiate anything is because you want to ignore the truth! Instead of just making crap up, why not read Hicks' testimony?

I SAW Hicks say it.
I did not make crap up, you likely know it's true and don't like it.

Your ideology blinds you, you post as much BOGUS crap as anyone here.

And you are the master of the LOOOZYANNA 2 step!

Franco
05-14-2013, 01:54 PM
I SAW Hicks say it.
I did not make crap up, you likely know it's true and don't like it.

Your ideology blinds you, you post as much BOGUS crap as anyone here.

And you are the master of the LOOOZYANNA 2 step!I didn't think you could substantiate your claim! Poor attempt at dodging the truth.

road kill
05-14-2013, 02:00 PM
I didn't think you could substantiate your claim! Poor attempt at dodging the truth.
I clearly stated to you that YOU are not worth the effort.

Slow day down at the station?

Franco
05-14-2013, 02:06 PM
I clearly stated to you that YOU are not worth the effort.

Slow day down at the station?Just proving my point that you are not interested in the truth. Had Hick's said anything contrary to his testimony, he would not only be in trouble, it would be on youtube. I would suggest you read his testimony so as to get an understanding of what happened and when.

road kill
05-14-2013, 02:07 PM
Rescue team #2 told to stand down.
Hicks says so, contrary to Franco's findings.


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146440n



Definition of RESCUE: to free from confinement, danger, or evil


Those BRAVE men were locked and loaded, ready to go in Tripoli, which is NOT 20 hours away from Benghazi.

Franco
05-14-2013, 02:16 PM
The second team was ordered to secure the airport for evacuation from Bengazi!"So the plane went. I think it landed in Benghazi around 7:30. The other thing that we did was -- and I -- and I want to mention Jackie Lavesk's name in this hearing. She was our nurse. We initially thought that we would -- that she should go to Benghazi. One of the special forces with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson's team was -- was our last military-trained medic available. He had a broken foot in a cast. I still remember him walking -- walking to go and get in the car with his machine gun, carrying a machine gun on his shoulder.
Jackie, I -- I -- I refused to allow her to go to Benghazi, because I knew we had wounded coming back. I knew David was severely wounded. And I knew others were wounded as well. And Jackie had just made terrific contacts with a hospital in town. And so, we sent -- we went her -- I sent her to that hospital to start mobilizing their E.R. teams and their doctors to receive our wounded.
So when the charter flight arrived in Tripoli, we had ambulances at the hospital -- at the -- at the airport waiting. Their doctors were ready and waiting for our wounded to come in, to be brought in to the operating room. And they certainly saved David Oven's leg.
And they may have very well have saved his life. And they treated our other wounded as well, as if they were their own.

road kill
05-14-2013, 02:19 PM
The second team was ordered to secure the airport for evacuation from Bengazi!"So the plane went. I think it landed in Benghazi around 7:30. The other thing that we did was -- and I -- and I want to mention Jackie Lavesk's name in this hearing. She was our nurse. We initially thought that we would -- that she should go to Benghazi. One of the special forces with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson's team was -- was our last military-trained medic available. He had a broken foot in a cast. I still remember him walking -- walking to go and get in the car with his machine gun, carrying a machine gun on his shoulder.
Jackie, I -- I -- I refused to allow her to go to Benghazi, because I knew we had wounded coming back. I knew David was severely wounded. And I knew others were wounded as well. And Jackie had just made terrific contacts with a hospital in town. And so, we sent -- we went her -- I sent her to that hospital to start mobilizing their E.R. teams and their doctors to receive our wounded.
So when the charter flight arrived in Tripoli, we had ambulances at the hospital -- at the -- at the airport waiting. Their doctors were ready and waiting for our wounded to come in, to be brought in to the operating room. And they certainly saved David Oven's leg.
And they may have very well have saved his life. And they treated our other wounded as well, as if they were their own.
What a waste of time, you didn't even watch the video.

Franco
05-14-2013, 02:25 PM
I watched the video. You should read Hicks' testimony, pay attention to the time line and what the two rescue teams rolls' were! Lt Gibson's 3 man team(2nd team) were mad that they had to secure the airport for evacuation!

Gerry Clinchy
05-14-2013, 02:49 PM
Franco, I read Hicks' testimony once, so can't claim that my memory is infallible on it ... but it certainly did appear that Gibson and Hicks were both disappointed when Gibson was refused authorization to go to Benghazi with the small response team. Gibson was no young hothead tenderfoot. He must have believed that his small group could be effective. I'd guess it was because Woods and Doherty had proven that even two highly trained military men made a difference in assisting the consulate compound ... saving lives by allowing several to flee to the annex.

Both Hicks and Gibson deserve a lot of credit for using all their ingenuity and contacts with the Libyan govt to put together the pieces for the most successful action of the overall fiasco. The Libyan govt seemed to give them more support than the US govt. If DC has been even a little more pro-active, their efforts might have been even more successful.

Did DC give Hicks high praise for his courage and quick thinking? I haven't seen or heard of that in the news reports.

Is Magaraif now wondering: If these rebels get stronger, will the Obama support me or the rebels. Past track record seems to indicate he has a right to worry.

Franco
05-14-2013, 03:36 PM
Franco, I read Hicks' testimony once, so can't claim that my memory is infallible on it ... but it certainly did appear that Gibson and Hicks were both disappointed when Gibson was refused authorization to go to Benghazi with the small response team. Gibson was no young hothead tenderfoot. He must have believed that his small group could be effective. I'd guess it was because Woods and Doherty had proven that even two highly trained military men made a difference in assisting the consulate compound ... saving lives by allowing several to flee to the annex.

Both Hicks and Gibson deserve a lot of credit for using all their ingenuity and contacts with the Libyan govt to put together the pieces for the most successful action of the overall fiasco. The Libyan govt seemed to give them more support than the US govt. If DC has been even a little more pro-active, their efforts might have been even more successful.

Did DC give Hicks high praise for his courage and quick thinking? I haven't seen or heard of that in the news reports.

Is Magaraif now wondering: If these rebels get stronger, will the Obama support me or the rebels. Past track record seems to indicate he has a right to worry.Gerry, according to Hicks' testimony, Lt Gibson and his 3 men (Team 2)rescue were in Bengazi. They were ordered to secure the airport for evacuation and were mad they couldn't join the fighting. By the time they arrived, the fighting was over. See page 4 and 8 of Hicks' testimony. From page 8...In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.
We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted.
We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal. As Colonel Gibson and his three personnel were -- were getting in the cars, he stopped. And he called them off and said -- told me that he had not been authorized to go. The vehicles had to go because the flight needed to go to Tripoli -- I mean, to Benghazi. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson was furious. I had told him to go bring our people home. That's what he wanted to do -- paid me a very nice compliment. I won't repeat it here.

Down East Labs 217
05-14-2013, 03:57 PM
Gerry, according to Hicks' testimony, Lt Gibson and his 3 men (Team 2)rescue were in Bengazi. They were ordered to secure the airport for evacuation and were mad they couldn't join the fighting. By the time they arrived, the fighting was over. See page 4 and 8 of Hicks' testimony. From page 8...In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.
We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted.
We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal. As Colonel Gibson and his three personnel were -- were getting in the cars, he stopped. And he called them off and said -- told me that he had not been authorized to go. The vehicles had to go because the flight needed to go to Tripoli -- I mean, to Benghazi. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson was furious. I had told him to go bring our people home. That's what he wanted to do -- paid me a very nice compliment. I won't repeat it here.

Who wound up Franco again. He seems to have his panties in a bunch over the exact details of the incident. When all is said and done the truth will come out. The POTUS will take a black eye on this and it is just the beginning of a lot of abuse the POTUS is going to take. His government is out of control. His department heads have no idea what their subordinates are doing and there is a total lack of leadership at every level. This is what happens when the top dog is lackadaisical or lacks leadership skills.

I think the great orator is going to find out people are tired of jumping on the spear for him and they are going to start talking. Once the rivers flow you can not stop them.

This is just the beginning of the end for the great orator.

My opinion

Richard

Franco
05-14-2013, 04:48 PM
Who wound up Franco again. He seems to have his panties in a bunch over the exact details of the incident . When all is said and done the truth will come out. The POTUS will take a black eye on this and it is just the beginning of a lot of abuse the POTUS is going to take. His government is out of control. His department heads have no idea what their subordinates are doing and there is a total lack of leadership at every level. This is what happens when the top dog is lackadaisical or lacks leadership skills.

I think the great orator is going to find out people are tired of jumping on the spear for him and they are going to start talking. Once the rivers flow you can not stop them.

This is just the beginning of the end for the great orator.

My opinion

RichardRichard, details only matter to those concerned with the truth;-)

huntinman
05-14-2013, 04:59 PM
Richard, details only matter to those concerned with the truth;-)

Franco, maybe you should call the media, the POTUS, CONGRESS and everyone else and tell them they have it all wrong. WTH were they thinking trying to get to the bottom of this without consulting you?

mngundog
05-14-2013, 05:05 PM
Franco, I don't know why you have this constant hard on for me, you should get over it.

Of all the MIS-INFORMATION posted here (much by you) I am the only one you are obsessed with.
Do us both a favor, put me on ignore.
I have absolutely no inclination to try and substantiate anything with you.

One of the funniest posts I ever saw on RTF was when YOU accused someone of grandstanding!!!!
Stan, take it as a compliment, it much more entertaining to have a discussion with someone who adds substance to their argument than others who merely rant about how evil the other party is.

caryalsobrook
05-14-2013, 08:11 PM
I am curious. Did anyone believe susan Rice's yarn that the attack was a spontaneous incident precipitated by a youtube video?? And if so, how long did they believe it?

Franco
05-14-2013, 08:53 PM
I am curious. Did anyone believe susan Rice's yarn that the attack was a spontaneous incident precipitated by a youtube video?? And if so, how long did they believe it?

Two months before the election, the Administration was going to do everything they could to downplay a terrorist attack. They were still denying that is was an act of terror two weeks after. The even spent money advertising in Pakistan condeming the youtube video! Only once prior to admitting that it was an act of terror did Obama use the term. Romney never called them out on it.

JDogger
05-14-2013, 09:02 PM
gosh it is fun to see you get all flubulated when nobody plays with you :cool:

Flubulated is as flubulated does....when nobody plays with you....Ja know? JD

No one will ever take a secular progressive or chessie owner seriously....;) JD

Gerry Clinchy
05-14-2013, 09:44 PM
Gerry, according to Hicks' testimony, Lt Gibson and his 3 men (Team 2)rescue were in Bengazi. They were ordered to secure the airport for evacuation and were mad they couldn't join the fighting. By the time they arrived, the fighting was over. See page 4 and 8 of Hicks' testimony. From page 8...In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.
We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted.
We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal. As Colonel Gibson and his three personnel were -- were getting in the cars, he stopped. And he called them off and said -- told me that he had not been authorized to go. The vehicles had to go because the flight needed to go to Tripoli -- I mean, to Benghazi. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson was furious. I had told him to go bring our people home. That's what he wanted to do -- paid me a very nice compliment. I won't repeat it here.
Franco, weren't they delayed somewhere along the way preventing them from getting to Benghazi sooner? Were they delayed in leaving the Tripoli airport?

JDogger
05-14-2013, 11:35 PM
I am curious. Did anyone believe susan Rice's yarn that the attack was a spontaneous incident precipitated by a youtube video?? And if so, how long did they believe it?

I'll answer your question this time Cary since it is straight forward, and not designed to entrap the responder.

No. the answer given by Susan Rice was at first not accurate.

Now, what would you do to prevent such from happening in the future?

As I have said before, these incidents occur despite the best measures to mitigate them.

Would impeacment be appropriate? Even if it carried to removal from office of the POTUS?

That would leave your favorite J. Biden as Potus. Is that what you seek? JD

PS Bide your time. Present an R candidate that can inspire and then sweep the 2016 election.

Your time is coming. JD

BonMallari
05-15-2013, 12:03 AM
I'll answer your question this time Cary since it is straight forward, and not designed to entrap the responder.

No. the answer given by Susan Rice was at first not accurate.

Now, what would you do to prevent such from happening in the future?

As I have said before, these incidents occur despite the best measures to mitigate them.

Would impeacment be appropriate? Even if it carried to removal from office of the POTUS?

That would leave your favorite J. Biden as Potus. Is that what you seek? JD

PS Bide your time. Present an R candidate that can inspire and then sweep the 2016 election.

Your time is coming. JD

Seriously ? the R's are going to be hard pressed to make any of these scandals stick in the 24 hour news cycle, and since they dont control the media, they dont control the narrative

If all my Party yearns for is the thought of impeachment, then it just shows they have nothing in the tank...If they are smart (and you and I probably agree they arent the brightest at times) they would hang all this baggage on the D party and their presumptive nominee and better yet exploit it to their advantage in the Mid Terms...impeachment makes the D a sympathetic martyr, they are better off painting them as a bunch of corrupt incompetents, make people so sick of BHO by 2016 that they never hand the keys to the country to a slick talking community organizer again...my .02

caryalsobrook
05-15-2013, 07:00 AM
I'll answer your question this time Cary since it is straight forward, and not designed to entrap the responder.

No. the answer given by Susan Rice was at first not accurate.

Now, what would you do to prevent such from happening in the future?

As I have said before, these incidents occur despite the best measures to mitigate them.

Would impeacment be appropriate? Even if it carried to removal from office of the POTUS?

That would leave your favorite J. Biden as Potus. Is that what you seek? JD

PS Bide your time. Present an R candidate that can inspire and then sweep the 2016 election.

Your time is coming. JDAt least you answered the question.

Now as to your first part, the question as to the attack was as you say "straight forward". As to the multiple choice question concerning health care. THAT TOO WAS STRAIGHT FORWARD. To say any differently is rediculous if not an out right lie.

Now to answer the rest of your questions.

You have not seen ONE SINGLE POST by me concerning the incident. Other than the you tube explanation which I perceived as rediculous on face of it, I have no opinion. I have no opinion of it since I have taken little effort to gather the facts.

As to the questions concerning impeachment, only an idiot would be too stupid to know what my responses would be to the rest of the questions you pose.

How ANYONE would consider the multiple choice question as entrapment is too stupid to imagine. It was SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD AND SHORT.
I will show you HOW SIMPLE is is. Of the 3, I prefer the old system which is more market oriented and more dependent on charity. To be sure it is not perfect but is in MY OPINION, the best of the three. All may agree or dissagree, as that is their choice, but that is my opinion.

SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS JD????????????????????????????????????

JDogger
05-15-2013, 07:37 AM
At least you answered the question.

Now as to your first part, the question as to the attack was as you say "straight forward". As to the multiple choice question concerning health care. THAT TOO WAS STRAIGHT FORWARD. To say any differently is rediculous if not an out right lie.

Now to answer the rest of your questions.

You have not seen ONE SINGLE POST by me concerning the incident. Other than the you tube explanation which I perceived as rediculous on face of it, I have no opinion. I have no opinion of it since I have taken little effort to gather the facts.

As to the questions concerning impeachment, only an idiot would be too stupid to know what my responses would be to the rest of the questions you pose.

How ANYONE would consider the multiple choice question as entrapment is too stupid to imagine. It was SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD AND SHORT.
I will show you HOW SIMPLE is is. Of the 3, I prefer the old system which is more market oriented and more dependent on charity. To be sure it is not perfect but is in MY OPINION, the best of the three. All may agree or dissagree, as that is their choice, but that is my opinion.

SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS JD????????????????????????????????????

Wow! You really are rather emotional now, aren't you?

caryalsobrook
05-15-2013, 08:08 AM
Wow! You really are rather emotional now, aren't you?

Not emotional, JUST FACTUAL! I do wonder if you will ever accurately interpret my nswers.

Franco
05-15-2013, 08:46 AM
Franco, weren't they delayed somewhere along the way preventing them from getting to Benghazi sooner? Were they delayed in leaving the Tripoli airport? Gerry, nothing that I can find in Hicks' testimony. The transcript that I posted of Hicks' testimony is only 8 pages long. I would suggest anyone that was really interested in what happened that night, read it.

Brad Turner
05-15-2013, 09:10 AM
I have been thinking about the ARB's report on this tragedy and have come to the conclusion that it is fundamentally flawed.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ARB made 28 recommendations for improving security at US embassies, consulates, etc. How can they claim to have thoroughly investigated if the HEAD of the department, in charge of providing the security, is not questioned? Am I missing something here?

As a business owner, if one of your employees miserably failed at their duty would that not warrant termination?

As a manager, are you not responsible for your employees' productivity, efficiency, etc.? If that employee is not competing their duties efficiently, shouldn't you modify their behavior or release them of their duties?

Clinton was in charge of The State Dept. She is responsible for all those employees and if one of them drops the ball, it is a reflection of her shortcomings as a leader. One thing is certain, she should not be promoted.

Gerry Clinchy
05-17-2013, 03:07 PM
Ret. Admiral Lyons had this column in the Washington Times, 5/1/2013.
[QUOTE][The lack of a military response remains another important unanswered question. Even though our military resources, particularly those of the U.S. Sixth Fleet have been drawn down to the point at which they’re essentially nonexistent, there were in-theater resources that could have responded and, most likely, would have saved America lives. These included F-16 fighter aircraft from Aviano, Italy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/italy/), which could have been over the compound in about 90 minutes. There was also a 130-man Marine Force Recon Team at Sigonella, Italy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/italy/), which could have been deployed to arrive at the compound in a matter of a few hours.

These resources would have made a difference, particularly since the attack went on for more than eight hours with no fear of interference or retaliation. Further, no one has yet been able to interview the 30-odd survivors about what actually happened during the attack. Why not?


Why has there been no effort to retaliate against the al Qaeda (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/)-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Shariah, which carried out the attack? Their leaders today sit in outdoor cafes in Benghazi sipping tea.


Our U.S. Sixth Fleet military posture in the Mediterranean is a disgrace. Since World War II up until 2008, we maintained the dominant military force in the Mediterranean, consisting of at least one carrier battle group and an amphibious Ready Group with an embarked Marine battalion, along with logistic support ships and other units. Today, we have one unarmed command ship — my old flagship — the USS Mt. Whitney (LCC-20). This is symptomatic of President Obama’s relentless effort to disarm our military, which is clearly affecting our national security.


Compounding the disarming of our military forces is Mr. Obama’s destabilizing social engineering. The latest example is a directive promulgated by the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff that all flag and general officers will now be evaluated by the subordinates under their commands. Does this make any sense? Is this to make sure that our military leadership is complying with the president’s “diversity” agenda? Will any member of the Joint Chiefs find the courage to stand up and voice objection?


This politically correct directive by the chairman defies all leadership logic. It will destroy unit integrity and morale. It will destroy the fundamental principles of the chain of command concept, which has served this nation honorably for more than 238 years. The integrity of command is not obtained by running a popularity contest. Currying favors with subordinates is alien to military leadership. This nonsense must be stopped.


Our nonresponse to the attack on our Benghazi facilities is in part reflective of our military leadership’s politically correct mentality as well as the administration’s policies to disarm our military forces. The first action that needs to be taken is to get the facts out to the American public on the Benghazi cover-up. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, has sponsored a resolution (H. Res. 36) to establish a select committee to investigate and respond on the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. He has been joined by 122 members, at the latest count. The problem has been that House Speaker John A. Boehner has been stonewalling the establishment of such a committee, using the lame excuse that it will cost money and take a lot of time. Nonsense. The systematic causes that brought about the Benghazi debacle need to be unearthed now, as it will affect our national security in the future.


If the president were a Republican and Nancy Pelosi were the speaker, there would have been no hesitation on her part to find the courage to form such a committee. Hopefully, Mr. Boehner can find his.


Adm. James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

b (http://services.taboolasyndication.com/publisher/thewashingtontimes/rbox?item-id=/news/2013/may/1/lyons-call-courage-over-benghazi)









Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/lyons-call-courage-over-benghazi/#ixzz2Ta7U0a2x
/QUOTE]
He doesn't mention the re-fueling issue earlier discussed. Not sure why. Also, he makes no mention of asking for help from Euro allies for such a mission.

I found this article in trying to validate a mention on Facebook that Lyons will testify and would have damning evidence to offer. I was not able to validate that claim ... was only able to find this article.

Franco
05-17-2013, 03:51 PM
You may want to watch this.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Eric Johnson
05-17-2013, 11:07 PM
Gerry-

Adm Lyons statementis directly contrary to something that I heard. The father of a Marine assigned to the Marine Expeditionary Unit on board the Iwo Jima said that they were in the Eastern Med. That still doesn't answer whether they were close enough to have provided assistance but it does conflict with Adm Lyons statement that no one was in the Med. I shall endeavor to find out more.

Ooops. Found it. The Iwo was moved to the eastern Med from the Red Sea in...Nov 2012. Talk about locking the barn door....

Gerry Clinchy
05-17-2013, 11:47 PM
So, Lyons was correct ... the fact that nothing was in the Med may have been part of the whole scenario of reducing security in that area, as they did in Benghazi, itself.

He mentioned the only thing in the Med was unarmed ... we actually have ships out there that are not armed? Seems counter-intuitive!

Henry V
05-18-2013, 08:29 AM
Ambassador twice rejects increases in security http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZd-qbWsiSo
ABC reports of white house 12 revisions to talking points were wrong http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-talking-points-cnn-abc-jake-tapper-jon-karl-2013-5

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2013, 09:56 AM
Henry, I did read both links.

There is surely a discrepancy between Stevens requesting additional security (I don't think that is disputed), and then his turning down an offer from the military.

We could view this from two perspectives: 1) Military is CYA to indicate that it saw the need to provide more security, but Stevens refused them; 2) There was a reason for Stevens' refusal to the military, that was based on political (policy position) of the DOS to which the military was not privvy. It would seem very reasonable to believe that Benghazi was an extremely dangerous place; the "official" govt's situation in Libya is still in a position of maintaining some order in the chaos of conflicting factions. It is hard to imagine that DOS was not aware of the danger and instability.

As to the emails cited in the second link, we do know that there was a substantial time gap between the period of the attack and the first emails now released.

Looking at just the hard facts, as we know them at this time: 1) Congress had to go from memory in paraphrasing the emails, since they were not allowed to keep copies; 2) It seems pretty obvious that DOS would be among those "equities" that would need protection ... how could they not be among them? Do we really believe that DOS and WH would not want to minimize the fallout just before an election?

I think it is quite clear that many of us on the forum believe that both major parties are very likely to try to spin events that would effect their power and/or election prospects.

It really isn't a matter of partisanship in this case. It is a matter of the citizens holding their elected/appointed officials accountable for screwing up and then concealing their mess. We can't, and shouldn't, just sit back and accept that politics is always a dirty business. Lardy's famous dictum: "You own what you condone."

There is "dirt" in every administration of both parties going back many decades. Does that mean that we never have the right reach a point where it becomes so bad that we have to say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore"?

What is equally disturbing is how many people "on the street" have no clue about any of these events regardless of which side they would take if they were more informed.

Eric Johnson
05-18-2013, 09:58 AM
Gerry-

The USS Mt Whitney and her sister ship the USS Blue Ridge are command posts, Mt Whitney in the Med with the 6th Fleet and the Blue Ridge in Japan with the 7th Fleet. Their role is to serve as the HQ and to provide the command, control and communications capability for the Admiral and staff of the respective fleets. That function could have been shore based but the Navy elected to provide it as a floating HQ so that it could be moved as needed. No more than any other Fleet HQ is armed, these two follow the same pattern. They aren't supposed to be either an offensive or defensive capability but rather to control those ships and forces that are.

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2013, 05:31 PM
If I were the bad guys, and knew the HQ was unarmed ... OTOH, common sense tells me that the HQ must be heavily protected, and it would be very hard for the bad guys to get close enough to do the damage needed?

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2013, 05:38 PM
I have to admit that I have not heard mention of this little detail before today ... yet it has long been available ...

We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-obama-called-hillary-night-benghazi-attack-more-six-hours-after-it-started) one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/) that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

So, Panetta didn't speak with Obama from 5 pm until the next AM ... but Obama and Clinton did have contact with each other. So, while Panetta says he didn't know where Obama was, Hillary must have known.

This would mean that both Obama and Hillary knew what was going on in real time that very night.


In this instance, though, Carney’s hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” It was in the course of this “constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings” that Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective.”

We also know that at 8 p.m. Washington time, Hicks spoke directly with Clinton and some of her top advisers by telephone. Not only was it apparent that a terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia was underway, but Hicks’s two most profound fears at the time he briefed Clinton centered on those terrorists: First, there were reports that Ambassador Stevens might be in the clutches of the terrorists at a hospital they controlled; second, there were rumblings that a similar attack on the embassy in Tripoli could be imminent, convincing Hicks that State Department personnel should evacuate. He naturally conveyed these developments to his boss, the secretary of state. Clinton, he recalled, agreed that evacuation was the right course.

At about 9 p.m. Washington time, Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead. Hicks said he relayed all significant developments on to Washington as the evening progressed — although he did not speak directly to Secretary Clinton again after the 8 p.m. briefing.

We do not have a recording of this call, and neither Clinton nor the White House has described it beyond noting that it happened. But we do know that, just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack. In it, she asserted:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.
Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?

Interestingly, CNS News asked Carney whether, in that 10 p.m. phone call, the president and Secretary Clinton discussed the statement that Clinton was about to issue, and, specifically, whether they discussed “the issue of inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”


Carney declined to answer.

This is from National Review 5/18/2013

Gerry Clinchy
05-20-2013, 10:38 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZPUCJVRX-k

Kind of an interesting sidebar on the security issue at Benghazi.

While Stevens was asking DOS for enhanced security, when it was offered by the military (Gen. Ham), Stevens turned it down in the month prior to the attacks. Twice, according to Ham. This was documented by Ham. Stevens did not tell Ham why he was turning down military assistance. These exchanges between Ham and Stevens were, apparently, private to only Stevens and Ham. I didn't see exact dates of the offers, but maybe I just missed them. Frequent reference is made to Stevens requests for extra security ... which was Aug. 15, also within a month of the attack.

It is conceivable that DOS would have viewed military security as indicative of an unstable situation, and opted to provide security through its customary channels of DOS and local police & militia (as was the case).

Why DOS opted to reject military security assistance is not known, but it would debunk Hillary's assertion that security was not present due to lack of funding (and Hillary's contention regarding funding was also not supported by other testimony prior to Hillary's). The military could give, & offered to give, extra security regardless of DOS funding for same.