Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

[Orignal Earl]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/13...e_8_Possible_CIA_call_out_of_State_or_WH.html

Thanks..
This whole US supplying terrorists with weapons is certainly mind boggling.
I wonder how the rest of the West would react

 

[Nemesis 1]

I dont think that is clear at all.

Well clear it up for us will you . Do forum search for the 11th. pull up the mohammed movie cause riots and ambassador killed topic . AND MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO EVERYONE HERE> Than have an honest debate.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I'm only a couple pages in now, but I got to say there are some confused posters there.
They are calling the ambassador a hero at the same time they are claiming he was running guns to terrorists

edit- I guess that's kind of happening here too isn't it?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Well clear it up for us will you . Do forum search for the 11th. pull up the mohammed movie cause riots and ambassador killed topic . AND MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO EVERYONE HERE> Than have an honest debate.

There is about 30 different topics about this, I've figured out most R posters don't read past a headline let alone a couple hundred posts.

 

[spidey07]

I'm only a couple pages in now, but I got to say there are some confused posters there.
They are calling the ambassador a hero at the same time they are claiming he was running guns to terrorists

edit- I guess that's kind of happening here too isn't it?

Its the Internet dude. But you'll find tons of info.

 

[PJABBER]

Who was calling the shots to not respond to the Benghazi attack?

Looking for the Jake Tapper @ ABC News to develop this story...

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

 

[Arkaign]

William Kristol? That's a non-partisan writer if I've ever heard of one!

The line from Petraeus has nothing to do with the rest of the opinion. It clearly states that CIA didn't order anyone to stand down. This should be obvious by all standards of common sense.

"It would have been a presidential decision"? That's pure opinion unless we can find facts to support that.

 

[cybrsage]

The order to send in troops would have had to come from the President - which means if they were requested, Obama had to have said no. I do not know if they were requested.

 

[Arkaign]

The order to send in troops would have had to come from the President - which means if they were requested, Obama had to have said no. I do not know if they were requested.

As far as my understanding goes, there is a chain of command, and a certain amount of operational freedom is given to commanders in certain theatres of operations. This structure avoids micromanagement syndrome.

So the question is :

Call goes out : "need help asap"

Call received by radio operator somewhere

Message forwarded/alerted to commander (first command structure contact)

Message forwarded/alerted up the chain (second command structure contact)

----- etc

My question is, how far up the chain did it go, and how fast? Also, what was the opinion of the senior military commanders that were in on the communication as far as feasibility of immediate support (remember, information is not always 100% accurate in real-time as to what's happening, if contact was lost/broken, then by the time real decision-makers were involved, they might be dealing with significant unknowns) ..

It's a lot cloudier than I can support a blanket condemnation of Obama or anyone else, nor can I give anyone a clear pass.

 

[Orignal Earl]

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.

Well..I read it all
Clearly you are lying again

No active military posting in that thread.
No gunship in the air.

Someone posted a link to this

http://www.blackfive.net/

BIGGER THAN WATERGATE: PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT IS LYING ABOUT BENGHAZI?

Which has a update at the bottom-

Update 6: Another (very very trusted) source is saying that the AC130 resources were in the middle of a rotation and that the new resources weren't ready yet so no help would come from Sigonella. So that confirms Panetta's statement.

It's just amazing that some here will paint the US and the ambassador as terrorist supporters just to get a vote for Romney

 

[Nemesis 1]

Thanks..
This whole US supplying terrorists with weapons is certainly mind boggling.
I wonder how the rest of the West would react

Don't worry after you gone threw it all . You likely will dismiss it .

 

[RampantAndroid]

Well..I read it all
Clearly you are lying again

No active military posting in that thread.
No gunship in the air.

Someone posted a link to this

http://www.blackfive.net/

BIGGER THAN WATERGATE: PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT IS LYING ABOUT BENGHAZI?

Which has a update at the bottom-



It's just amazing that some here will paint the US and the ambassador as terrorist supporters just to get a vote for Romney

Your quote might be well and good, except you're telling me they were rotating AC130s for HOURS? I mean...for the first attack, sure...but how could you end up without 130s in the air when the CIA annex was under fire hours later? Why would you not be keeping a constant overwatch?

Moreover, why would someone make the effort to paint a target with a designator when there was no air support above to take advantage? I wouldn't bet money on saying there was a 130 up there, but I sure as hell don't believe what is being said by the administration.

Add to this the claims that Woods and those guys were being ordered to stand down, and in fact violated direct orders by going to the embassy...

 

[Orignal Earl]

Don't worry after you gone threw it all . You likely will dismiss it .

Didn't you say we weren't going to make to Nov 6th?
Sea's turning red and all that

 

[Orignal Earl]

Your quote might be well and good, except you're telling me they were rotating AC130s for HOURS?

I didn't tell you anything.
I'm not the author of any of those stories
I can think of a few reasons someone may of been painting targets, but my opinion would just be that..an opinion

 

[Nemesis 1]

Didn't you say we weren't going to make to Nov 6th?
Sea's turning red and all that

NO I didn't but thats your style .

 

[Orignal Earl]

NO I didn't but thats your style .

No, you did.
I would believe you don't remember though.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Here you go

Here it comes . The false flag that ends it for 2/3 of you all. NO election in 2012 I taking wagers now. Obummer knows he will lose so now comes the false flag and Marshall law. When I prove to be right You all have to kiss my ass for the next 3 1/2 years or until the end of your time which is a little over 3 1/2 years from now .

 

[Nemesis 1]

Here you go

Originally Posted by Nemesis 1
Here it comes . The false flag that ends it for 2/3 of you all. NO election in 2012 I taking wagers now. Obummer knows he will lose so now comes the false flag and Marshall law. When I prove to be right You all have to kiss my ass for the next 3 1/2 years or until the end of your time which is a little over 3 1/2 years from now .
So were do I say nov 7 ends it all as you lyingly say . said I expected no election . Were not at the polls yet, With developing stories , Things may get interesting A treasonist president. Anyway how you got that the 7 is the end out of what I wrote there . Just shows that your comprehension is equal only to my spelling /grammer.

 

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by Nemesis 1
Here it comes . The false flag that ends it for 2/3 of you all. NO election in 2012 I taking wagers now. Obummer knows he will lose so now comes the false flag and Marshall law. When I prove to be right You all have to kiss my ass for the next 3 1/2 years or until the end of your time which is a little over 3 1/2 years from now .
So were do I say nov 7 ends it all as you lyingly say . said I expected no election . Were not at the polls yet, With developing stories , Things may get interesting A treasonist president. Anyway how you got that the 7 is the end out of what I wrote there . Just shows that your comprehension is equal only to my spelling /grammer.

I would say your coherency is equal to your spelling and grammar. If he didn't comprehend something it was because your inability to put together a coherent point.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by Nemesis 1
Here it comes . The false flag that ends it for 2/3 of you all. NO election in 2012 I taking wagers now. Obummer knows he will lose so now comes the false flag and Marshall law. When I prove to be right You all have to kiss my ass for the next 3 1/2 years or until the end of your time which is a little over 3 1/2 years from now .
So were do I say nov 7 ends it all as you lyingly say . said I expected no election . Were not at the polls yet, With developing stories , Things may get interesting A treasonist president. Anyway how you got that the 7 is the end out of what I wrote there . Just shows that your comprehension is equal only to my spelling /grammer.

😀

Martial law is pretty unlikely. Nutters predicted the same under GW Bush.

 

[cybrsage]

As far as my understanding goes, there is a chain of command, and a certain amount of operational freedom is given to commanders in certain theatres of operations. This structure avoids micromanagement syndrome.

So the question is :

Call goes out : "need help asap"

Call received by radio operator somewhere

Message forwarded/alerted to commander (first command structure contact)

Message forwarded/alerted up the chain (second command structure contact)

----- etc

My question is, how far up the chain did it go, and how fast? Also, what was the opinion of the senior military commanders that were in on the communication as far as feasibility of immediate support (remember, information is not always 100% accurate in real-time as to what's happening, if contact was lost/broken, then by the time real decision-makers were involved, they might be dealing with significant unknowns) ..

It's a lot cloudier than I can support a blanket condemnation of Obama or anyone else, nor can I give anyone a clear pass.

I would say that invading a nation needs Presidential approval...but due to this being an embassy situation it might not be considered an invasion.

 

[Pens1566]

Finished what you wanted to say for you.

And you would know more about the bolded than almost anyone around here.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I would say that invading a nation needs Presidential approval...but due to this being an embassy situation it might not be considered an invasion.

We clearly did not want to go against their wishes, but I think that was wrong. The second people within that nation attacked our people (realizing this is an unstable region to begin with), the agreement was forfeit. I'd have loaded delta operators onto a chopper and landed them as close as I could, airspace be damned.

 

[monovillage]

Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.

Not sure if it's true or accurate, found it at this link. Judge it however you like.
http://scottoncapecod.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/navy-seals-always/

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Well clear it up for us will you . Do forum search for the 11th. pull up the mohammed movie cause riots and ambassador killed topic . AND MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO EVERYONE HERE> Than have an honest debate.

Just because its clear in your mind , doesn't mean it is in fact, clear for those of us who wait for, ya know, actual facts.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/ope...-consulate-attack-support-crowd-protests.html

Republican critics of the Obama administration’s evolving accounts of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 imply that there was early certainty in the US intelligence community that it was an attack staged by an al-Qaeda affiliate. In fact, the theories of who was behind the attack were multiple and conflicting for days afterward.

The Open Source Center serves US intelligence in conveying press reports, and translating some of them, to analysts. They are then released to the public via e.g. university libraries. Here are the reports included by OSC for September 11-12 in the aftermath of that attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The press reports, including interviews with Libyan officials on the ground, would have shaped analysts’ perceptions, along with internal emails such as those recently acquired by CNN:
...
So if you listened to the elected president of Libya, the attack on the consulate was done neither by a protest crowd nor by an al-Qaeda affiliate, but by left-overs (tahalleb) of the deposed Gaddafi regime.

Given this wide range of accounts, and given what wire services reporting from Libya were saying, confusion in Washington was all but guaranteed.

If you want to critique the administration over its spinning of the incident, fine, but to allege some kind of scandalous coverup when no hard evidence exists is a bit premature at this point.