logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Benghazi, Cover up, screw up or both
Ted
post Feb 9 2013, 06:30 PM
Post #1


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
The headline takeaway will be what is remembered most: the revelation that Barack Obama never bothered to keep in touch with his chair of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense after being informed that an American consulate was under attack from terrorists.
But if that’s all you hear from this, you’re missing the big picture. Graham managed to elicit a number of damaging statements from the two. Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack; not one boot left the ground outside of Libya. As far as the 281 concurrent threat reports that Panetta and Dempsey claimed kept them from considering Benghazi a special threat, Graham asks how many of those cables came from US Ambassadors stating specifically (as Stevens’ did) that an American installation was incapable of defending itself against a sustained attack and that government buildings nearby were flying al-Qaeda flags — “because I want to know about them, if they do,” Graham adds. Dempsey tries to push that off to State, at which time Graham informs Dempsey that Hillary Clinton claimed never to have seen that cable, even though Dempsey clearly had, which he admits is “surprising.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/08/pane...ck-on-benghazi/
http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/02/08/n...ans-video-2713/


Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Hobbes
post Feb 10 2013, 05:45 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why no(t).

Absolutely not. There is still, months later, misinformation being put out. There has been no forthcoming on why there was massive misinformation to begin with. There has been very little information on why no actions were taken to try to rescue the ambassador. In short, it seems the administration lied about the attack, did nothing to protect the ambassador, and is continuing to stall and delay in providing information about what really happened and why. The only plausible reason for that is that they feel being forthcoming would be against their interest. What does that say?

2. Why (in) 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.

One of the major unanswered questions.

3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?

See above.

4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?


See above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Feb 10 2013, 08:09 PM
Post #3


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



All I have to say about this entire incident is the following:

If there was ever any doubt the main stream media is in bed with the Obama administration, this event has ended that doubt.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Feb 11 2013, 06:55 PM
Post #4


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.

I haven't learned anything about it. In fact, other than occaisional mentions here on ad.gif I haven't heard the attack mentioned once since it happened.


2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.

It looks like plain and simple neglect to me. Yet another case of politicians losing sight of the end game because they are too busy messing about with back stabbing each other.


3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?

Probably because they have too much to lose.


4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

Because popularity doesn't make for good leadership? So far, I'm not impressed by Barack Obama's foreign policy abilities at all. Its almost like the USA doesn't even have a foreign policy any more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Feb 12 2013, 09:53 PM
Post #5


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

A lot of things went wrong which as far as I know is being investigated by the State Department. Of course the republican critics could care less. It is simply an opportunity by a bunch of folks who supported all the lies around Iraq invasion to try and score partisan political points. Reminds me of that line from the Bible - "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Feb 12 2013, 11:21 PM
Post #6


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 04:53 PM) *
Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

A lot of things went wrong which as far as I know is being investigated by the State Department. Of course the republican critics could care less. It is simply an opportunity by a bunch of folks who supported all the lies around Iraq invasion to try and score partisan political points. Reminds me of that line from the Bible - "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." rolleyes.gif


Yes because a U.S. ambassador is murdered quite often due to an attack by Al Queda. On 9/11 no less.

Yes...just a gnat we are all straining at.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Feb 12 2013, 11:40 PM
Post #7


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Feb 12 2013, 03:21 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 04:53 PM) *
Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

A lot of things went wrong which as far as I know is being investigated by the State Department. Of course the republican critics could care less. It is simply an opportunity by a bunch of folks who supported all the lies around [the] Iraq invasion to try and score partisan political points. Reminds me of that line from the Bible - "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." rolleyes.gif


Yes because a U.S. ambassador is murdered quite often due to an attack by Al Queda. On 9/11 no less.

Yes...just a gnat we are all straining at.

The fact that you don't get the ironic distinction suggests you are more than slightly a conservative. flowers.gif

This post has been edited by Dingo: Feb 12 2013, 11:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Feb 13 2013, 12:12 AM
Post #8


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 06:40 PM) *
QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Feb 12 2013, 03:21 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 04:53 PM) *
Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

A lot of things went wrong which as far as I know is being investigated by the State Department. Of course the republican critics could care less. It is simply an opportunity by a bunch of folks who supported all the lies around [the] Iraq invasion to try and score partisan political points. Reminds me of that line from the Bible - "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." rolleyes.gif


Yes because a U.S. ambassador is murdered quite often due to an attack by Al Queda. On 9/11 no less.

Yes...just a gnat we are all straining at.

The fact that you don't get the ironic distinction suggests you are more than slightly a conservative. flowers.gif


The fact that you don't get why this is a big deal suggests you are little more than an apologist for folks who couldn't give a rats behind about you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Feb 13 2013, 01:31 AM
Post #9


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Feb 12 2013, 04:12 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 06:40 PM) *
QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Feb 12 2013, 03:21 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 12 2013, 04:53 PM) *
Questions:
1. Are you happy with all that we have learned about the Benghazi attack? Why or Why now.
2. Why give 7 Hours could we not get any aid or even a single aircraft there.
3. Why are we not hearing from the survivors?
4. Why did Obama only speak to Panetta and Dempsey once in the entire 7 hours?

A lot of things went wrong which as far as I know is being investigated by the State Department. Of course the republican critics could care less. It is simply an opportunity by a bunch of folks who supported all the lies around [the] Iraq invasion to try and score partisan political points. Reminds me of that line from the Bible - "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." rolleyes.gif


Yes because a U.S. ambassador is murdered quite often due to an attack by Al Queda. On 9/11 no less.

Yes...just a gnat we are all straining at.

The fact that you don't get the ironic distinction suggests you are more than slightly a conservative. flowers.gif


The fact that you don't get why this is a big deal suggests you are little more than an apologist for folks who couldn't give a rats behind about you.

Benghazi, a big deal, as compared to the consequences of our invasion of Iraq based on concocted info? No way, but I'm so used to this break down in critical thinking processes from modern conservatives I am no longer surprised. The de-anchoring from reality in favor of a crude made up partisan conspiracy based world view has become the norm. When your gurus becomes Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck it's pretty much over. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Feb 13 2013, 04:25 AM
Post #10


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Benghazi, a big deal, as compared to the consequences of our invasion of Iraq based on concocted info? No way, but I'm so used to this break down in critical thinking processes from modern conservatives I am no longer surprised. The de-anchoring from reality in favor of a crude made up partisan conspiracy based world view has become the norm. When your gurus becomes Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck it's pretty much over. cool.gif



You know if it weren't for liberals telling me I'm a fan of Limbaugh or Beck, I wouldn't know much about them. I've never listened to either in my life. Just as I'm sure you don't use Michael Moore or Bill Maher as your gurus. Am I right?

In any case, so much for the guru's comment. An insipid throwaway line.

The rest of your post strikes me as just deflecting. Iraq? Wasn't that the war that was also authorized by (among others) Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden? If you want them held accountable for Iraq, I am all for it. Bush is out of power. Perhaps these folks should be also.

Back on point. This is Obama's time in office. His administration's screw ups/coverups are relevant now. Especially to those folks who had family members die and still don't know why help wasn't sent.

Dingo, I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you have some depth of compassion for those families who lost someone in Benghazi. I bet you also hope to prevent a future attack from happening.

Why don't you want them to get the answers they deserve about how their loved ones died? Why not try to do everything possible to prevent this by holding our politicians feet to the fire and get some straight answers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Feb 13 2013, 04:50 AM
Post #11


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Feb 12 2013, 08:25 PM) *
The rest of your post strikes me as just deflecting. Iraq? Wasn't that the war that was also authorized by (among others) Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden? If you want them held accountable for Iraq, I am all for it. Bush is out of power. Perhaps these folks should be also.

In my view Clinton lost the nomination over that vote and perhaps she should have. An additional thought, my impression is those folks above have acknowledged their mistake and there is also the matter of Bush-Cheney and the neocons "fixing" the evidence they handed over to pursue a foregone conclusion.

There's a funny thing about republicans. You get two responses almost invariably to the endless republican screw ups. 1. "Democrats too." 2. "Well the democrats had a majority"(Against generally almost unanimous republican opposition). There is a kind of admission that the republicans will always screw up so the democrats should apply the corrective. It raises a question, why vote for these turkeys if you can't defend them?

QUOTE
Back on point. This is Obama's time in office. His administration's screw ups/coverups are relevant now. Especially to those folks who had family members die and still don't know why help wasn't sent.

Dingo, I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you have some depth of compassion for those families who lost someone in Benghazi. I bet you also hope to prevent a future attack from happening.

Why don't you want them to get the answers they deserve about how their loved ones died? Why not try to do everything possible to prevent this by holding our politicians feet to the fire and get some straight answers?

I think there should be a full investigation of the Benghazi screw up so we can avoid a recurrence and I have no evidence that the Obama administration isn't conducting one. It is the concocting of a supposed federal government coverup by the republicans allied to the fact that their almost unanimous screw up was much worse and they don't even acknowledge their bad judgment, even to this day, that makes me cynical about their apparently insincere partisan motives.

This post has been edited by Dingo: Feb 13 2013, 06:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 22 2013, 08:00 PM
Post #12


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



the who affair stinks. and we are unlikely to hear anything since the Congress is not been allowed access to the people who were there that night.
Gen. Han is "retiring" early and there are conflicts between what he has said and what Panetta says he said. its a cover-up that the press is unlikely to pursue.

QUOTE
Panetta is on record claiming that the refusal to use force was the result of a three-party consultation between Gen. Dempsey, Ham and himself. At a Pentagon press briefing, Panetta told reporters, "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
Ham simply said that he had forces ready and that no order was given, making no mention of a “consensus.” ....
According to Congressman Jason Chaffetz – who traveled with Ham and asked a number of pertinent questions related to Benghazi – forces were available and "had proximity," but no order was given to use them. Chaffetz sits on several Homeland Security subcommittees.
Reports say Special Forces members in Italy were told to wait, or got no orders at all.
A source at the Pentagon told this writer that the tri-party consultation described by Panetta is unlikely at best and disingenuous at worst, because such decisions in the military are not by "consensus."

"In reality, and considering the White House' personal involvement (through real-time reconnaissance overhead), the final decision was either delegated to the S.O.S or made by the president himself and then passed through S.O.S or SECDEF. To believe that a four-star would make the final decision, or to believe that a decision was arrived at through the consensus of the military arm of the government alone, is a fairy tale." [Emphasis Added]
http://texasgopvote.com/comment/33285
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/b...onsulate-video/


Certainly the 2 seals who risked their lives expected help - some of their last words were "where the F&%$ is the Specter Gunship. They died on that roof an hour later still using their laser designator to paint targets for help they was not coming.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Feb 24 2013, 01:35 AM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 22 2013, 03:00 PM) *
Certainly the 2 seals who risked their lives expected help - some of their last words were "where the F&%$ is the Specter Gunship. They died on that roof an hour later still using their laser designator to paint targets for help they was not coming.


As I understand. there were basically two attacks lasting 20 minutes each, 6 hours apart. The whole "laser pointing" thing was in a shootout that occurred over the span of 11 minutes. You don't "paint" a target without a gunship in the area. The closest place that could have had C-130 gunships was in Italy. No C-130's were in Siganella that night. But more to the point, what exactly were jets, bombs, and gunships supposed to accomplish? Kill everyone on site? Including the people trying to help people from the consulate?

The place was a consulate - not an embassy. They basically hand out visas. Every year, intelligence agencies issue their annual warning of heightened security risks around the anniversary of the 2001 attacks. Everywhere. Not just Libya. Just before the attacks, embassy personnel conducted a security review at the consulate and determined there was no reason to think an attack was planned. According to the Wall Street Journal, security at the Libyan consulate included "a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors." The Journal also noted: "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate.

I didn't hear this partisan outrage when Bush was in office:
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen

And I don't have to list the ones under St. Reagan - who bailed in Bierut after the bombing.

The fact is, people have always been attacking us and will continue to do so. This is not the scandal everyone is trying to make it be. It is political opportunism - as exemplified by the "laser pointing" nonsense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 27 2013, 07:26 PM
Post #14


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Feb 23 2013, 08:35 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 22 2013, 03:00 PM) *
Certainly the 2 seals who risked their lives expected help - some of their last words were "where the F&%$ is the Specter Gunship. They died on that roof an hour later still using their laser designator to paint targets for help they was not coming.


As I understand. there were basically two attacks lasting 20 minutes each, 6 hours apart. The whole "laser pointing" thing was in a shootout that occurred over the span of 11 minutes. You don't "paint" a target without a gunship in the area. The closest place that could have had C-130 gunships was in Italy. No C-130's were in Siganella that night. But more to the point, what exactly were jets, bombs, and gunships supposed to accomplish? Kill everyone on site? Including the people trying to help people from the consulate?

The place was a consulate - not an embassy. They basically hand out visas. Every year, intelligence agencies issue their annual warning of heightened security risks around the anniversary of the 2001 attacks. Everywhere. Not just Libya. Just before the attacks, embassy personnel conducted a security review at the consulate and determined there was no reason to think an attack was planned. According to the Wall Street Journal, security at the Libyan consulate included "a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors." The Journal also noted: "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate.

I didn't hear this partisan outrage when Bush was in office:
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen

And I don't have to list the ones under St. Reagan - who bailed in Bierut after the bombing.

The fact is, people have always been attacking us and will continue to do so. This is not the scandal everyone is trying to make it be. It is political opportunism - as exemplified by the "laser pointing" nonsense.

the seals had set up the laser designator on the roof and we operating it. the reason a guship did not aiireve from Italy was because no one asked for it. None of the events you list above lated 7 hours did they? If a gunship had arrieved and shreaded even one group of militants what do you think the rest of them would have done - run like hell. Instead we

the simple fact is they Admisistration did not call on the military for aid and got none - and people died including the Ambassadore. How many Ambassadors were killed under Bush? or Clinton? Or Bush I - ZERO.

QUOTE
Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this
Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.
Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.
“He, only he, could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done,” Shaffer said.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/28...attack-happen/#


even worse stupidity:

QUOTE
Fox News has learned that U.S. Marines who were part of a FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) responding to Libya were told by the State Department to deplane, change out of their U.S. military uniforms and put on civilian clothes before flying to Tripoli -- a decision that delayed them from launching by approximately 90 minutes, according to senior military officials who briefed Congress. The FAST team, which was made up of about 50 Marines, was ordered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to launch from Rota, Spain, the night of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission.
Members of the Special Operations teams sent from Fort Bragg, N.C. and the Commander’s In Extremis Force in nearby Croatia say they were never given permission to enter Libya, even though some were just a short flight away in Europe.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/22.../#ixzz2MEhehwxh


This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 27 2013, 07:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Mar 3 2013, 05:53 PM
Post #15


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2013, 02:26 PM) *
the seals had set up the laser designator on the roof and we operating it. the reason a guship did not aiireve from Italy was because no one asked for it. None of the events you list above lated 7 hours did they? If a gunship had arrieved and shreaded even one group of militants what do you think the rest of them would have done - run like hell. Instead we

The closest gunships were in Afghanistan. Nobody asked anybody to stand down. The only facts here are you still do not have a functioning bullcrap detector. The CIA and Pentagon have denied all of this hysteria.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 4 2013, 11:08 PM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Feb 23 2013, 07:35 PM) *
I didn't hear this partisan outrage when Bush was in office:
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen


The administration didn't lie about those attacks, concocting a completely false story about the events...and it didn't appear that there was an opportunity to render aid where a specific decision was made to refuse to do so.


QUOTE
The fact is, people have always been attacking us and will continue to do so. This is not the scandal everyone is trying to make it be. It is political opportunism - as exemplified by the "laser pointing" nonsense.


That depends completely on what the sequence of events really was, what was discussed, what options were on the table and why they were ruled out, etc. Now, it could turn out that there are perfectly reasonable explanations. However, the ones offered so far are not. Panetta's 'we don't send troops into harm's way without knowing what is going on' is a prime example---that happens in combat situations ALL THE TIME! Therefore, it is basically a coverup. Which then begs the question: what is being covered up?

How the entire story was misrepresented to begin with also begs the questions: Why? and How did that happen (which goes back to the why question)?

So, again, whether this is a scandal or not depends on the answers to some of the questions being asked. So far, the administration's answers have either made the situation worse (like Panetta's) or simply been non existent. Could this all turn out to have not much too it in the end? Certainly. Can anyone conclusively say that now? Absolutely not. Should all of this be investigated so that steps can be taken to prevent something similar in the future? Definitely (yes, Hillary, you need to know what happened before you can take steps to fix it). Is much of this a witch hunt? Probably...that's how Washington works. But that doesn't mean there aren't valid questions there that deserve to be answered.

FWIW, I, for one, would have the same questions regardless of who the administration was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Mar 6 2013, 11:08 PM
Post #17


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Smoking gun?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06...s-reporting-it/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 7 2013, 09:40 PM
Post #18


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Mar 6 2013, 06:08 PM) *

Interesting story but the real issue for me is not the faked up "talking points" but the failure of the Administration to respond militarily and quickly to the attack that literally unfolded for 7 hours right in front of them on camera.

Obama tells us he told all branches of the government to "do all they could to intervene to save lives". we know from at least one general that he was NOT asked to intervene militarily and imo as a result we lost 2 good seals and the ambassador.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Mar 7 2013, 11:49 PM
Post #19


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 7 2013, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Mar 6 2013, 06:08 PM) *

Interesting story but the real issue for me is not the faked up "talking points" but the failure of the Administration to respond militarily and quickly to the attack that literally unfolded for 7 hours right in front of them on camera.

Obama tells us he told all branches of the government to "do all they could to intervene to save lives". we know from at least one general that he was NOT asked to intervene militarily and imo as a result we lost 2 good seals and the ambassador.


To me the more damning part of these "tweets" about the content of the report is the idea that the White House knew days ahead of time from those on the ground in Libya that an attack was imminent and that Al Qaeda was the likely instigator.

In other words, they had warning....the folks on the ground in Libya was conversing about the instigators being Al Qaeda. Yet, no move to secure the Libyan consulate was taken and no mention of Al Qaeda was made about the incident until weeks later. Rather a story about rioters and a video was sold to the american public by senior members of the Obama Administration.

In other words, they did nothing to save our consulate they had prior warning about, and then tried to cover up their negligence with a false story (aka as a lie).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Mar 8 2013, 03:41 PM
Post #20


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Mar 3 2013, 09:53 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2013, 02:26 PM) *
the seals had set up the laser designator on the roof and we operating it. the reason a guship did not aiireve from Italy was because no one asked for it. None of the events you list above lated 7 hours did they? If a gunship had arrieved and shreaded even one group of militants what do you think the rest of them would have done - run like hell. Instead we

The closest gunships were in Afghanistan. Nobody asked anybody to stand down. The only facts here are you still do not have a functioning bullcrap detector. The CIA and Pentagon have denied all of this hysteria.


I do believe that there was too much reliance on the still in it's infacy Libyan government to help with the security of the compound. After much reading on this subject, I do believe that is the #1 thing to be learned of this incident. The rest is just continued Faux news bovine fecal material.

DR- you and I have messaged way in the past about some American failures in the past- Beirut, the attempt to free the Iranian hostages. In these instances, the one thing that I come away with is this- civilians think tactics and strategy, soldiers think logistics. There were simply not enough assets in play for the Libyan compound. Note that Ambassador didn't die of a gunshot wound- he died of smoke inhalation. He didn't die from a weapon, he died from the building being on fire. More assets would have been able to get him away from that compound.

But it is a sticky wicket to put a bunch of assets on the ground in a fledgling muslim country- is it not? It just shows that the world can be a pretty dangerous place for guys that do this kind of work- and we can improve, but there is no cover up or conspiracy here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 25th, 2018 - 07:44 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.