The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425
Results 241 to 249 of 249

Thread: Not a word ...

  1. #241
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,768
    It's time we abandon our party affiliations and rather than being good Dems or good Repubs we all become good Americans. MJH345

  2. #242
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,931

    Default

    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....
    Last edited by Eric Johnson; 05-17-2013 at 11:11 PM. Reason: Added new info
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  3. #243
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    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!
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #244
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Ambassador twice rejects increases in security http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...l#.UZd-qbWsiSo
    ABC reports of white house 12 revisions to talking points were wrong http://www.businessinsider.com/bengh...on-karl-2013-5

  5. #245
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #246
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,931

    Default

    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.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  7. #247
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    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?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #248
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    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 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 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
    Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 05-18-2013 at 05:48 PM.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #249
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...l#.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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •