• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Was reading on a site full of active military who actually do this. You don't laz a target without a gunner ready to hit it, a gunship was already airborne ready to strike. The support was there, Obama failed those brave Americans. No other president would be so callous and incompetent. Except Carter.

First of all your outright lying!
Second of all it is easy to say --"I was reading"...okay link please.....a reputable news source not something like Spideysay.com......

You are way out of bounds with no proof to back up your diatribe!
 
Why I'd this fucker not up for treason

Assuming that was supposed to be "Why is this fucker not up for treason?", then the answer would be "Because we live in a great country that doesn't allow the president to be charged with treason simply because a semi-literate asshole doesn't like what he read on a right-wing blog."

You're welcome.
 
Assuming that was supposed to be "Why is this fucker not up for treason?", then the answer would be "Because we live in a great country that doesn't allow the president to be charged with treason simply because a semi-literate asshole doesn't like what he read on a right-wing blog."

You're welcome.

Phone fucker. See you November. Fuck you all. You're done.
 
Another twist;

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html

Has General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, been fired for defying Leon Panetta on Benghazi?

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, ran a piece Saturday afternoon titled "Interesting Rumor Concerning General Carter Ham and Stand Down Order." This piece is presented as a rumor. It suggests that General Ham was told to stand down from sending aid to Benghazi, that General Ham on his own decided to proceed, and that he was then relieved of his command. Remember, all rumor at this point.

Now we learn;

http://www.stripes.com/news/obama-to-nominate-army-gen-rodriguez-to-lead-africom-1.193564

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

According to this:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/...-General-Carter-Ham-and-Stand-Down-Order.aspx

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
 
There is no excuse;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/27/obama-knew-about-attack-ignored-three-requests-hel/

Benghazi debacle may yet make Mitt Romney president.
Barely 10 days before the election, the persistent whiff of scandal surrounding Barack Obama exploded into the banner headlines of a cover-up – at least among certain press outlets. Everything changed Friday afternoon with the stunning revelations by Fox News that CIA operatives defending the embattled consulate in Benghazi, Libya, called three times for emergency assistance while the attack was in progress. Each time, they were shamefully turned down. One of those defenders, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, was apparently able to use a laser designator to pin-point the location of the mortar that eventually killed him. It would have been an easy shot for American pilots had any been ordered to respond. Another new and critical detail: An American drone was overhead transmitting live video of the battle scene below.
 
The laser tag story strikes me as convenient malarky. And Panetta, the NSC & CIA say Fox News is FoS.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...s-help-benghazi-aide-182415488--election.html
"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.

Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.

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.

But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."

"He's wrong," said Vietor.
 
It's pretty apparent the only thing they are really upset about is that there weren't more US bodies on the ground to make hay out of.

No, American's are upset at this administrations incompetency, inaction and the cover up. Not to mention their lies about it being a protest over some video when it was a planned and well executed attack for 7 hours as they did nothing watching it unfold. And then the president going off to vegas to fundraise. It's clear what's more important to obama. He's a disgrace.
 
And I don't believe anything that right-wingers have to say about the issue. Especially with an election a week away.

He does have a point. Obama is a well known liar and everyone would expect him to lie about this so close to the election.

Seriously, if this info is true (not saying it is, but just for sake of argument), do you REALLY think Obama would admit to this kind of a mistake mere days before the election? No, neither do I. Like you, I would expect Obama to lie about it and worry about being busted for the lie after the elections. If he loses, the lie no longer matters. If he wins, he is still president.
 
IMHO if the command came from obama not to send support I can see that as a legit reason to kick him out of the oval office. That said, I've seen primarily rumor and innuendo towards that point, not fact.

The real questions are, who was it who gave the stand down order and why? But I doubt we will ever really know.

Edit: just read the story in monovillage's link. Damn that is impressive.
 
Last edited:
Obama, with his well known history of tossing people under the bus for political gain, has yet to throw anyone under the bus for this. With that in mind, if Obama was not involved, he would have certainly destroyed someone for his own gain by now.

This, coupled with the need for the President to be the one who authorizes the invasion of another nation's airspace (though I readily admit it could be different with embassy personnel and all that entails) paints a pretty strong picture that Obama made the call to stand down.
 
Perhaps. Or perhaps he told a general to do what they thought was best given the situation on the ground and the no-go came from there. Unless someone who actually knows comes forward, it will be difficult to say for sure.
 
If he did that he would have already thrown that General under the bus. The speculation alone that Obama ordered the stand down is hurting him.
 
Ramirez.jpeg
 
How's the non story going? Still buzzing around the right wing echo chamber getting no tracking due to no substance?
 
If he did that he would have already thrown that General under the bus. The speculation alone that Obama ordered the stand down is hurting him.

According to some theorists he may have ordered more than that;

Obama in the situation watching the whole thing?

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C1NbtQGTDCM

So it appears he watched it unfold but instead of doing something to help;

Benghazi endgame: CIA told to stand down instead of helping Americans under fire

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/...down-instead-of-helping-americans-under-fire/

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Who is at the top of the chain of command of the CIA? That would be Obama.

It now appears General Ham was going to ignore the stand down orders and assist, he has now been replaced.



Obama & Co are believed to be running arms from Libya to Syria;

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...son-behind-benghazigate/#.UIdhzDA7ZuQ.twitter

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

Some evidence supports it;

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20121024/176877741.html

Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime are now armed with man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) including US-made Stingers, Russia's top military commander said on Wednesday.
Russia has "reliable evidence" that the rebels have the weapons, "including US-made Stingers," but "who delivered them, we need to look into," Army Headquarters General Nikolai Makarov said.

There is also an unsubstantiated rumor floating around that Fox News has obtained documents proving Amb Stevens was in Benghazi to run guns to Syria. If true I expect we will see it as early as tomorrow.



The filmmaker has been put on ICE, some speculate so that he can't be questioned.

Now we learn producer of anti-Islam film was fed snitch;

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/nakoula-cooperation-756920

And had terrorist ties;

http://www.shoebat.com/2012/10/23/the-case-of-nakoula-basseley-nakoula-when-the-left-is-right-3/

One of the problems with the position espoused by the likes of Picket is that it necessitates a ‘two wrongs make a right’ defense of Nakoula, who is someone with an extremely checkered past that involves partnering for years with a man named Eiad Salameh, a Muslim fundamentalist and terrorist financier.

Now some speculate he is really a CIA asset, and the film was made as a cover.



AP report says that the terrorists got there an hour before the attack, and rounded up locals to have them chant about the video... So it seems they staged it to at least try to make it seem like a spontaneous protest.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack

Also begs the question how did the militants know to use the video as fuel for the diversion mob let alone bother with one?



Now the speculation is; the Ambassador was about to turn whistle blower, that he did not like the type of weapons and quantity of weapons being dispersed nor whom they were being dispersed too and had complied evidence of it.

And

This was not a protest over a video, nor a AQ terrorist attack it was a a hit ordered by Obama & Co to destroy that evidence and silence the Ambassador which subsequently spun out of control.

Thus the deliberate refusal to render aid and the incessant blame it on a video cover up.

If true Obama should not be worried about impeachment he should be worrying about a murder trial.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. Or perhaps he told a general to do what they thought was best given the situation on the ground and the no-go came from there. Unless someone who actually knows comes forward, it will be difficult to say for sure.

This is Obama's style. When the naval commander asked for the rules of engagement in the Maersk Alabama pirate incident the response from the White house was it was OK to shoot if the captain was in imminent danger. Apparently, the naval commander sent back that there were four ak-47's pointed at him. What would be imminent danger?

Even in that situation Obama wanted to maintain deniability. This is a far more sticky political situation.
 
Back
Top