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!
> Is Hillary throwing Obama under the bus?
Bikerdad
post Oct 26 2012, 09:18 PM
Post #1


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,831
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Report: Hillary Asked For More Security in Benghazi, Obama Said No

QUOTE
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.


Questions for debate:

1} Does this look like Hillary is prepping to "under-bus" Obama?

2} Do you consider this report to be credible? Why or why not?

3} Will this get coverage in the mainstream media outlets?

4} Is this likely to have any effect on the election?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 26 2012, 10:01 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1} Does this look like Hillary is prepping to "under-bus" Obama?

Not really. Hillary makes many public statements and surely there are any number of reputable journalists willing to take a quote from her, or she could just take a webcam statement from the convenience of her home if she wanted to throw Obama under said bus, no need to employ three degrees of separation. Furthermore, the honorable way to do so would be to first resign.

2} Do you consider this report to be credible? Why or why not?

No. See above.

3} Will this get coverage in the mainstream media outlets?

If Hillary actually stated that she asked for more security and Obama refused I guarantee it would make mainstream headline news. International headline news even.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 26 2012, 10:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 27 2012, 03:05 AM
Post #3


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



This quote says everything you really need to know:

QUOTE
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.


There's the money quote in the article. Since when is legal counsel to someone going to tell anyone anything about his client? Being fired and disbarred would surely follow.

Not credible. Not even close to credible.

Hillary doesn't need to go to Obama for security questions. That's just borderline stupid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 27 2012, 03:13 PM
Post #4


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 26 2012, 10:05 PM) *
This quote says everything you really need to know:

QUOTE
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.


There's the money quote in the article. Since when is legal counsel to someone going to tell anyone anything about his client? Being fired and disbarred would surely follow.

Not credible. Not even close to credible.

Hillary doesn't need to go to Obama for security questions. That's just borderline stupid.



I don't think attorney/client priviledge applies in this case unless Obama evokes Executive priviledge. Not completely sure about that, but I do know the Sec of State has no authority whatsoever to order American military forces into a combat situation. NONE, zero, zip. That authority rests exclusively with the Commander in Chief.

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 27 2012, 05:42 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 27 2012, 11:13 AM) *
Not completely sure about that, but I do know the Sec of State has no authority whatsoever to order American military forces into a combat situation. NONE, zero, zip. That authority rests exclusively with the Commander in Chief.


Except that Combatant Commanders have the delegated authority to use forces in instances such as what occurred in Benghazi. There's chatter in military circles over what went through the AFRICOM Joint Operations Center, and what role they played in being unable or unwilling to spin up assets to assist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 27 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,327
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 26 2012, 05:01 PM) *
3} Will this get coverage in the mainstream media outlets?

If Hillary actually stated that she asked for more security and Obama refused I guarantee it would make mainstream headline news. International headline news even.


Agree...BUT they would need to verify it first. So, either it isn't true, or they can't get anyone to verify it. I could see the latter being a possibility, at least for a while. It will be interesting to see if this pops up later.

QUOTE(Aquilla)
Not completely sure about that, but I do know the Sec of State has no authority whatsoever to order American military forces into a combat situation. NONE, zero, zip. That authority rests exclusively with the Commander in Chief.


Pretty sure this is true, but I believe the statement was about requesting enhanced security forces prior to any combat taking place, and I am not sure who has ultimate jurisdiction there.

QUOTE(DTOM)
Except that Combatant Commanders have the delegated authority to use forces in instances such as what occurred in Benghazi.


That's interesting, because that is defnitely not the message that is being spun around this from the other side. But it certainly makes sense.

QUOTE
There's chatter in military circles over what went through the AFRICOM Joint Operations Center, and what role they played in being unable or unwilling to spin up assets to assist.


I think it will be very interesting to see what eventually comes out of this. The story seems to be that there simply weren't any forces ready and able to go that would get there in time. That's a shame, but perhaps understandable and correctable. If there WERE forces ready and able to go, and they weren't deployed, that strikes me as very large issue, and one in which 'we just didn't know enough about the situation' is an insufficient excuse--had the forces arrived and found a situation for which they weren't required, they could just go back, no real harm done. NOT sending them while waiting for information is not the proper course--by the time you got sufficient information, the ability to do anything about it would be gone. So, this would fall under the 'failure to act' category, IF that turns out to have been the case. Worse yet, could it have been a conscious decision to NOT act? There isn't any evidence to support that yet, but neither is there any evidence to rule it out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 27 2012, 07:11 PM
Post #7


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 27 2012, 12:42 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 27 2012, 11:13 AM) *
Not completely sure about that, but I do know the Sec of State has no authority whatsoever to order American military forces into a combat situation. NONE, zero, zip. That authority rests exclusively with the Commander in Chief.


Except that Combatant Commanders have the delegated authority to use forces in instances such as what occurred in Benghazi. There's chatter in military circles over what went through the AFRICOM Joint Operations Center, and what role they played in being unable or unwilling to spin up assets to assist.


Yes, and that delegated authority comes from the CinC. The Sec of State is not in that chain of command. So, she would have had to have gone to the President to get those forces used. And, I'm sure there's chatter about what did or didn't go through in more than military circles. CIA and state are probably pretty interested in that as well, as is Congress.

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 27 2012, 09:10 PM
Post #8


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,365
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This part of the story tells me it's bogus:
QUOTE
Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

I don't see it as being credible that former President Clinton would want to hurt President Obama's reelection. Clinton has been a big supporter all along, and nothing has happened that could have changed his mind. On top of this, the linked site for the original snooze story (aka, lying propaganda) behaves as if designed by a highly disturbed developer. There's a strange video feed in the lower left side that doesn't scroll, and a disconnected audio that sounds sort of like a Fox News broadcast goes on and on. Well, if not disturbed, then really incompetent. I'm using Chrome, so maybe it works better in IE. Whatever, it isn't worth pursuing.

The moral of this story is don't believe everything you see on the Web, no matter how much you want it to be true.

However, the larger story is that Romney supporters are feeling the heartbreak of defeat as Election Day approaches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 27 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



FWIW, there's rumors abounding that the AFRICOM Commander, Gen. Carter Ham....has been 'relieved/reassigned. The implication being that he ordered assistance to the Benghazi Consulate, and was order to stand down.

This is all the arena of Rumor Intelligence, or RUMINT.....so take it with a grain of salt for now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 27 2012, 11:16 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,327
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 27 2012, 04:10 PM) *
I don't see it as being credible that former President Clinton would want to hurt President Obama's reelection. Clinton has been a big supporter all along, and nothing has happened that could have changed his mind.


Actually, he hasn't. He has been plugging for Obama lately, but that is a new turn of events. Not sure if he was anti Obama or pro Hillary, but I don't think anyone should bet against his ego, and how he would probably enjoy getting a jab in a someone to pave the way for Hillary. Or at least to give her a way to distance herself from this should it turn into an issue.

This was actually the part of the story that made the most sense to me.


QUOTE
The moral of this story is don't believe everything you see on the Web, no matter how much you want it to be true.


That part I definitely agree with. As MrsP pointed out, if there are really legs to this, some in the more mainstream media will be all over it, or someone from the Republican campaign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 27 2012, 11:28 PM
Post #11


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 27 2012, 05:31 PM) *
FWIW, there's rumors abounding that the AFRICOM Commander, Gen. Carter Ham....has been 'relieved/reassigned. The implication being that he ordered assistance to the Benghazi Consulate, and was order to stand down.

This is all the arena of Rumor Intelligence, or RUMINT.....so take it with a grain of salt for now.



Interesting rumor, but I'm not clear what you're saying. Typo maybe? Are you saying that the rumor is General Ham ordered military assistance sent to Benghazi and his order was countermanded?

Aquilla

PS. Nevermind my question. The article Hobbes linked below cleared up my confusion.

This post has been edited by Aquilla: Oct 27 2012, 11:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 27 2012, 11:29 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,327
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 27 2012, 05:31 PM) *
FWIW, there's rumors abounding that the AFRICOM Commander, Gen. Carter Ham....has been 'relieved/reassigned. The implication being that he ordered assistance to the Benghazi Consulate, and was order to stand down.

This is all the arena of Rumor Intelligence, or RUMINT.....so take it with a grain of salt for now.


If if any of this turns out to be true, it would be a HUGE issue. If that becomes the case before the election, Obama won't win (which is why I think they are dragging their feet on doing any investigation). I wonder, though, if the implication isn't more that he is being made the scapegoat for not doing anything, as opposing to doing something when he was told not to? If that is really the case, then this really becomes news--finding out not just that something could have been done, but that orders were given for it not to be, and are now being criticized for taking action when no one else would---that would be really really huge news.

Interesting article on the same topic, with a link to a previous article too.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 27 2012, 11:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 28 2012, 01:22 AM
Post #13


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: aide: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-d...--election.html
QUOTE
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.

[...]

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," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.

And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans.


This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 28 2012, 01:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 02:40 AM
Post #14


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,327
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE
As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.


That is where there seem to be two very different stories being told. Only one of them can be correct. If Panetta's story is the correct one, why is General Ham being reassigned?

I think strong questioning should be given as to why no consideration was given over the forces already at risk...all of whom died. As I said earlier, the 'we didn't know enough to act' excuse is just that, an excuse, and one we, the American people, should reject. This is telling ALL of our overseas personnel, everywhere, that essentially no rescue of them will ever be conducted, because we will never have 'that kind of information' in those situations. You could always send in a force with the instructions that the first thing they need to do is assess the situation and determine what is going on. Personally, I don't see it (not going in) being a decision the military would have made--which is why you keep hearing about all the requests being denied, and those who were going to act being told to stand down (one of those seeming to have been General Ham).

Note that given his level, and Panetta's statement here, that order to stand down could ONLY have come from Panetta, if indeed it occurred. If you read Panetta's statement, he is essentially saying that that is what in fact he said--that everyone needed to stand down until further information was gathered. Panetta should also be strongly questioned on just exactly what 'that kind of information' is, and how exactly, in an emergency situation such as this, they would expect to get it without sending in forces to gather it. He should also be asked how this could be the case given that there were two different unarmed drones surveying the attack, and how, from them, 'that kind of information' couldn't have been gathered while the other forces were en route.

Which raises another troubling question---why isn't our press asking these very questions, and asking very loudly? Is it ok that one of our embassies was attacked, and nothing was done about it?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 28 2012, 02:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 28 2012, 09:04 AM
Post #15


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,365
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 27 2012, 10:40 PM) *
QUOTE
As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.


That is where there seem to be two very different stories being told. Only one of them can be correct. If Panetta's story is the correct one, why is General Ham being reassigned?

I think strong questioning should be given as to why no consideration was given over the forces already at risk...all of whom died. As I said earlier, the 'we didn't know enough to act' excuse is just that, an excuse, and one we, the American people, should reject. This is telling ALL of our overseas personnel, everywhere, that essentially no rescue of them will ever be conducted, because we will never have 'that kind of information' in those situations. You could always send in a force with the instructions that the first thing they need to do is assess the situation and determine what is going on. Personally, I don't see it (not going in) being a decision the military would have made--which is why you keep hearing about all the requests being denied, and those who were going to act being told to stand down (one of those seeming to have been General Ham).

Note that given his level, and Panetta's statement here, that order to stand down could ONLY have come from Panetta, if indeed it occurred. If you read Panetta's statement, he is essentially saying that that is what in fact he said--that everyone needed to stand down until further information was gathered. Panetta should also be strongly questioned on just exactly what 'that kind of information' is, and how exactly, in an emergency situation such as this, they would expect to get it without sending in forces to gather it. He should also be asked how this could be the case given that there were two different unarmed drones surveying the attack, and how, from them, 'that kind of information' couldn't have been gathered while the other forces were en route.

Which raises another troubling question---why isn't our press asking these very questions, and asking very loudly? Is it ok that one of our embassies was attacked, and nothing was done about it?


But in the end, President Obama will get another term. This whole thing then becomes moot, which is what it is anyway.

From trying to distinguish between an act of terror and a terrorist attack to Bill Clinton being for Hillary in 2016, even though she has already expressed that she's tired of the whole political game, this line of thought must be exhausting. There's also a huge assumption that even if true, this story would cost President Obama the election.

I doubt very much that it would have any effect on the election even if true. People would most likely shrug and think, eh, just another military SNAFU or maybe a small detail in a larger briefing, kinda like that warning that OBL was planning an attack on the US.

And with that in mind, isn't this an attempt to play whistle blower as happened to GWB? And didn't GWB get two terms despite all that?

Or is this the great hope that enough undecided voters would be swayed into the Romney column? Ah, these people are undecided for a reason. What makes anyone think that this rather convoluted thing would make a bit of difference?

I can come up with only one explanation: It's all they've got, and it's a little bit better than throwing in the towel. It's a hail Mary pass with nobody in the end zone.

The other great weakness, beside the timing, is that the Republicans have been trying with all their might to get a scandal going over all of President Obama's first term. Each time they've failed.

Basically, there's very little benefit of the doubt left. This comes off as yet one more dirty trick, but hey, keep pushing it. Who knows, maybe the undecided will get sick of it and vote for President Obama just because the other side smells so bad.

Somebody over there should really think this stuff through. As it stands, the Republican Party seems to be under the control of a sack of hammers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 28 2012, 09:39 AM
Post #16


*********
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



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 03:40 AM) *
Which raises another troubling question---why isn't our press asking these very questions, and asking very loudly? Is it ok that one of our embassies was attacked, and nothing was done about it?
Raising this issue would violate two 'racial taboo's'; criticism of Barack Obama, and criticism of Muslims, so apparently; yes, it is ok.

It seems fairly obvious that the embassy attack has been assigned to the Ynsha Allah tray.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 28 2012, 10:05 AM
Post #17


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 28 2012, 05:39 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 03:40 AM) *
Which raises another troubling question---why isn't our press asking these very questions, and asking very loudly? Is it ok that one of our embassies was attacked, and nothing was done about it?
Raising this issue would violate two 'racial taboo's'; criticism of Barack Obama, and criticism of Muslims, so apparently; yes, it is ok.

It seems fairly obvious that the embassy attack has been assigned to the Ynsha Allah tray.


Yes, I remember reading a lot more about the embassy attack in Jeddah in 2005. Maybe I'm thinking of the embassy attack in Damascus in 2006 with the automatic weapons and grenades...no, wasn't that one. Maybe the one in Yemen a couple of years later? Actually, this is the most press coverage I can remember about embassy attacks in general since the Iranians took over an embassy in 1980. There were 12 during the last administration, could anyone list five without the help of Google? I'll bet the majority of people couldn't have even listed one. Don't remember a single thread addressing an embassy attack specifically in the last decade I've been here.



This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 28 2012, 10:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 28 2012, 11:20 AM
Post #18


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
I don't think attorney/client priviledge applies in this case unless Obama evokes Executive priviledge


You would be wrong. All the departments have lawyers working for them as legal counsel (as opposed to employees who happen to be lawyers who might work for them but are not identified as "counsel"). You don't EVER see them up in front of Congress being asked about the advice they give their clients, because attorney-client privilege exists for that relationship. The article specifically identified the person as SecState's "counsel". That means the privilege is there and the only way it can be legally ignored is if the client waives it. Exec privilege has nothing to do with this and isn't even being mentioned.

The article is junk food for partisans who won't take reality for an answer.

QUOTE
If Panetta's story is the correct one, why is General Ham being reassigned?


Lots of "if" questions, lots of rumors but absolutely no facts other than 10 days after Benghazi, the DoD announced a change in AfriCom. DoD describes the change as "normal rotation". If you look around the DoD site, you'll find that most commanders aren't in their job for more than a couple of years. For all you know, Ham -- who is 60 -- is looking for a desk job that requires less travel.

QUOTE
I think strong questioning should be given as to why no consideration was given over the forces already at risk...all of whom died


I'm sure consideration was given, but the reality is that they pretty much have orders not to create another "Black Hawk Down" situation. And that's what this easily could have turned into. You had a drone in the air two hours after the start of the attack to give them eyes, but what could it see? It's nighttime, so it sees either a lot of explosions and people running around in shadows OR -- if it had night scopes -- a bunch of grainy white dots moving around and explosions and fire that would mess with the images. There are houses all around to use as hiding points. So how many forces were there? Were there people hiding and waiting to ambush any forces that might get called in? Would the locals assist or become part of the forces attacking the troops who land? Let's say the forces on the ground totalled 150 fighters with light arms and some RPGs and SAMs. Where do you land? What do you do to secure a perimeter? How long do you take to move in? By daylight, all the fighters had melted away, so how long does it take to get a fighting force necessary to take down 150 armed fighters, get them armed for battle, to a secure site for staging, then into battle... and at that point, who was left to engage?

I think the big consideration you make is to not put our forces into a situation that could get out of control in a hurry. No prep time, not enough time to plan. Monday morning armchair quarterbacks be-damned; they're not putting their butts on the line, either to make a decision or to stand there when the caskets come back. The smart bet is to sacrifice 4 people and then do this: Arrest and/or Kill The Benghazi Perps

This post has been edited by amf: Oct 28 2012, 11:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 28 2012, 11:28 AM
Post #19


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,365
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Mainstream Media looks into the story

What the story ends with:

QUOTE
"There remain many unanswered questions regarding the Obama administration's response to the terrorist attack in Libya," said Romney Colorado campaign spokeswoman Alison Hawkins. "This is a serious issue, and the American people deserve serious answers to the questions that have been raised."


This is indeed a serious issue that deserves serious answers to serious questions. Not insincere ones based on rumors and speculation meant to gain a few more votes for a campaign that was doomed to failure from the start.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 28 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #20


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 06:05 AM) *
...
... this is the most press coverage I can remember about embassy attacks in general since the Iranians took over an embassy in 1980. There were 12 during the last administration, could anyone list five without the help of Google? I'll bet the majority of people couldn't have even listed one. Don't remember a single thread addressing an embassy attack specifically in the last decade I've been here.

Which of these incidents that you "[d]on't remember a single thread addressing" involved the death of a U.S. ambassador/consul?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this 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: October 15th, 2018 - 05:04 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.