Author Topic: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!  (Read 23458 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2012, 09:57:26 AM »
"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
Patraeus throwing Obama under the bus??

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2012, 10:01:55 AM »
The President gave no orders at all about this. he is not to blame for the lack of intelligence.
No one is getting impeached.This is not a serious issue.

Weekend Edition: IT WAS TREASON! Arrest Obama

By Craig Andresen on October 27, 2012

Last Thursday, I wrote an article titled, "Obama & Libya - A Case Study in Treason" and in that article I stated, "When a president fails to lift a finger to protect Americans, at home or abroad, in the face of overwhelming intelligence and evidence, by ignoring obvious warning signs and the advice of those entrusted to offer such protection.

"It is treason."

I meant every word and yes, I am well aware of the weight of the word, "treason."

I do not nor have I ever used it lightly. I see that word bandied about on social media and while I understand full well the passion of those who use it, I rarely, if ever, believe that the issues to which it is applied, truly rise to that level.

This situation, in Libya, I am convinced?Does.

To explain, let's first look at the legal definition and it's context within our Constitution.

Definition of Treason in the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Legal Definition of Treason:
The betrayal of one?s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution:

Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Day by day, nearly hour by hour, we learn more about what transpired in Benghazi on 9-11-12.
Yesterday, we learned a truly horrific truth.

As the first shots rang out at our Consulate, the calls for help, coming from the "safe" annex were sent to Washington.

Not once.
Not twice.

Three times, Tyrone Woods and a CIA operative, at the annex, called for help and asked permission to go TO the Consulate to offer assistance?To fight.

Washington denied them.

Not once.

Not twice.

Three times, Washington denied them help or permission to join the fight.

After the third denial, Ex Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, went against the direct order to stand down and, he stood up.

Tyrone Woods went to the Consulate defying a direct order and he got as many of our personnel out of there as he could, including the body of State Department officer Sean Smith.

Tyrone Woods could not find Ambassador Stevens.
Tyrone Woods took those he rescued and the body of Mr. Smith back to the annex where he was joined shortly after by Glen Doherty, another Ex Navy Seal who had just arrived from Tripoli.

A few hours later, that annex came under fire from terrorists now believed to be Ansar al-Sharia, a well known affiliate of al Qaeda.

We also learned yesterday that Woods and Doherty were on the roof of the annex and from their vantage point, could see the position of the mortars being fired at them. They "painted" that position with a laser used to guide weapons from military aircraft. Military aircraft that were not coming to help.

Those aircraft, from Italy, which could have included Blackhawk helicopters and a C-130 gun ship, had also been ordered, from Washington, to stand down.

For those unfamiliar with a C-130 gunship, it is one of the most feared weapons in our military. The C-130 is specifically designed for close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending bases and other facilities.

AC-130H Spectre Gunship engages probable SA-3 missiles

As far as the enemy is concerned?When a C-130 gunship comes into the picture?Hell comes with it.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke on Thursday and, as a reason for NOT sending help, stated: "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[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

The problem is this.
We DID have real-time information. Those in the State Department were literally watching the terrorist attack happen live via video link AND we had what we now know were 2 unmanned drones over the attack site in Benghazi. If that's not enough, at the annex, less than a mile away, we had a Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods AND a CIA operative.

By the time the second wave of the attack began, at the annex, we had the CIA operative and 2 Navy Seals, Woods and Doherty and THEY were "painting" the position of the mortar launches with a laser used to guide the very weapons that a Blackhawk or C-130 could have brought to bear.

If that's not enough, our military is the most highly trained military on earth. Those who fly those ships of war train each and every day for exactly the sort of eventually that was transpiring that night in Benghazi. Their very job is to go into harm's way.

Combined all of this lays waist to Panetta?s explanation and reduces it to nothing but a bald faced, unadulterated lie.

Back to treason.

For an act of treason to occur, a state of war must exist.

We are indeed at war. In Afghanistan, we are currently engaged in war against al Qaeda.  Ansar al-Sharia IS a well-known al Qaeda affiliate and Ansar al-Sharia was attacking our consulate and annex, both considered American soil.

For an act of treason to be committed, one must manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

There are some 20,000 shoulder fired rockets, RPG's and other heavy weapons MISSING that were provided to Libyan rebels in the attempt to oust Gaddafi from power. We didn?t know WHO those rebels were at the time we armed them and, in fact, within hours of Gaddafi?s death, the flags of al Qaeda were flying in Benghazi.

Furthermore, in cables from security personnel in the months leading up TO the fatal attack, it was clearly stated that those al Qaeda flags were still flying over several government buildings in Benghazi.

Also, regarding an act of treason, If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The order for Navy Seal Tyrone Wood to stand down, the orders to our military in Italy to stand down and the repeated?not once, Not twice but Three denials of help from Washington does, by any definition, equate to a "weakening of the power to resist its enemies".

During the 2nd debate, when a question regarding Libya was posed, Obama responded:

"Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job  but, she works for Me. I'm the president. I'm always responsible."

The State Department was watching the attack live, in real-time.

Emails were sent to some 400 people in Washington DURING the attack, in real-time.

Among the recipients of those emails was the White House Situation room.

At the time those emails arrived at the White House Situation Room, Obama was meeting with his Security Team.

Obama says that HE is the president and HE is responsible.

I am sensing a very, very, very short chain of command here.

The calls for help from the CIA operative and Tyrone Woods were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered. The requests to enter the fight from bases in Italy were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered.

All were DENIED. That shows a purposeful action.

All of those calls for help and requests for deployment were DENIED purposefully.

The result was that our enemy, those conducting the operation against our Consulate, our annex, our assets and our personnel in Benghazi, was aided?AIDED?by a purposeful lack of response?DIRECTED FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS IN WASHINGTON.

Our Consulate in Benghazi was destroyed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

4 Americans were killed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

Whatever confidential papers or records contained in that Consulate were either destroyed or went missing while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

"such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or CLASSIFIED INFORMATION"

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order to deny help when Navy Seal Tyrone Woods called?

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order for Tyrone Woods and the CIA Operative to Stand Down?

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order for our highly trained, apt and heavily armed military in Italy to stand down?

Who?

"Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job but, she works for ME. I?m the president. I?m always responsible."

For the very life of me, I cannot conjure a single conclusion other than treason, brought about by political cowardice, for denying help not once, not twice but, three times in the midst of a terrorist attack and not one reason but treason, brought about by political cowardice, for the willful and purposeful order to those in a position to offer needed help in the midst of a terrorist attack, to stand down.

2 quotes come to mind. The first, from Marcus Tullius Cicero, describes the sort of man who would issue orders not to send help and for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to stand down in the face of the attack.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

And the second, from John15:13, is the precise description of the last hours and minutes of the lives of Woods and Doherty.

?Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.?

Ultimately, only one person could have issued the orders not to help and for the military not to deploy.

Only one. Barack Obama.

Will ANY Member of Congress show the moral clarity and courage of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty? Will ANY Member of Congress stand AGAINST political cowardice and call this what it was?

An Act of Treason.

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2012/10/27/weekend-edition-it-was-treason-arrest-obama/
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 10:08:44 AM by Christians4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2012, 01:32:59 PM »
here...lemme pull out my XOSOP playbook in responding....*clears throat*.....The national patriot is just some right wing rag, that anyone with a brain would steer clear of.  You just want to arrest him because he's black.  In fact, you'd arrest him with a rope and hang him in the middle of DC, without even a trial.  Those 4 were all killed because of Bush anyways.  You're just a hateful racist that no one should pay any attention to

How was that?  Was it void of any and all substantive points and facts to refute the factual timeline layed out above?  Did I make sure not to engage in any meaningful debate?





And here's a point of purpose........this is a post not designed specifically to ridicule Xo's standard response to folks like Cu4 or myself, it's an effort to hopefully open his eyes & mind, to what this forum is about.....debate.  Yea, I could try to be nice and just "ask he be nicer, and try harder".  I'm thru trying that tactic, given the obsession he has in ridiculing and demeaning my commentary and points being made.  So, I find myself dropping down to his level, in a perverse way of trying to get him to "see the light", and perhaps make an effort.  He doesn't have to agree with anything I or Cu4 says....in fact, I'd find that very creepy, if that were to happen.  He simply needs to use that head of his to engage in debate/discussion, vs being so intellectually lazy when his positions & accusations are laid to waste. 

Now, we just sit back and observe which Xo he chooses to enter the saloon as

And by all means, if someone(s) have some constructive criticism regarding myself, minus the 3rd grade insults, I'll be more than happy to consider any suggestions/recommendations
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 05:13:17 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2012, 02:32:18 PM »
I thnk that President Obama is innefective and makes bad choices , but I think that Treason also requires intent to cause harm, and I don't see that.

Militaryly ignorant and shy when challenged, bad decisions, yes ,traitor no.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2012, 04:10:48 PM »
I'll concur with Plane, which also leads me to my 1st and formost criticism of Obama, even before he took the oath of office.....a history of piss poor judgement, complimenting a Chicago style mode of character assassination with a hard core liberal ideology.  To be honest, IMHO, if he weren't black, Clinton would have cleaned his clock in the primaries.  Kind of an Affirmative Action for the presidency was in play
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2012, 05:39:00 PM »
Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal

When Mitt Romney chose not to directly engage President Obama on Libya in last Monday’s third presidential debate, the mainstream media wrote it off as over-caution on the Republican challenger’s part.

That might be true. Certainly a lot of Republicans think so.

But what is the mainstream media’s excuse for cautiously engaging the president on Libya?  Aren’t we supposed to be watchdogs?  The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11. The attack left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. Subsequent conflicting accounts coming from the administration on how the White House responded, or didn’t respond, are tailor-made for a full-blown media feeding frenzy.

Yet, the so-called media watchdogs so far have been mostly toothless.

Case in point:  On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it “learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command... -- who also told the CIA operators twice 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.”
That’s a very chilling story. And if correct, it could be very damaging to the President Obama’s re-election chances.  But looking at the websites Friday of other major news outlets, the story is mostly ignored.

It was not picked up or reported by The New York Times. The Washington Post didn’t cover it either. Same for USA Today. Neither did NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC.

CNN had a link on its Website front page to a story that says “doubts surface” on whether claims of responsibility for the Benghazi attacks was the work of terrorists.  The story mostly supports administration accounts and refutes Republican critics such as Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.)

NBC’s only Friday story on Libya said in its headline. “Libya Disappears from Romney Stump Speeches.”
 
CBS’s latest story on Libya had House Speaker John Boehner asking Obama for “answers” about the attacks.

On Thursday, the major media were loaded with stories and videos in which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the administration saying that the US military did not respond to the attack because in did not have adequate “real-time information” to put American forces at risk. Not much follow-up on that.

Also on Thursday, NBC’s Brian Williams interviewed Obama on “Rock Center” asking him what can only be described as a “softball” question on Libya: "Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world?  The assessment of your intelligence community, as we stand here, is that it still was a spontaneous terrorist attack and were you happy with what you were able to learn as this unfolded?"

A tougher question might have been, “Why have the administration's explanations of what really happened, and how you responded, been all over the map?”

So what’s going on here? Are the media just protecting Obama at a critical time in this election campaign, or are they just not following the latest CIA story because they would have to give credit to Fox News? 

Whatever the reason, it is not good watchdog journalism.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2012, 07:22:39 PM »
Nice try....but being that FACTUALLY, the State Dept was sitting on billions for just this kind of scenario, and instead either allocated resources to buy a bunch of Chevy Volts for its European dignataries or......for the life of me, can't grasp why they wouldn't have approved the added security, outside of the apparent desire to not increase the U.S. military presence in such a hostile region, has at least some plausibility, albeit politically unfeasable.  But at least we'd likely not have a butchered Ambassador

That has FAR more to do with the security situation, than to try to blame Republicans & Congress.  But nice try, and glad to see you returning to a discussion you seemed to have washed your hands of.  Your contributions are indeed appreciated
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2012, 07:24:50 PM »
The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11.

Wonders if this might have anything to do with the security situation:



http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/dems-accuse-gop-of-cutting-security-funding-in-libya-despite-majority-dem-support-for-vote/



Quote
House Democrats opened Wednesday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding— cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/dems-accuse-gop-of-cutting-security-funding-in-libya-despite-majority-dem-support-for-vote/#ixzz2AXaPAbi1


Yes , cuts in everything that is not a social program have had some effect, but there are still prioritys to be set with the recorces that still are availible. Are there no places less dangerous than Libia where these cuts might have been made?
There is a war on , and the enemy is widespread, cuts like these might be a part of wise allocation ofresorces , but this time it looks more like a failure of wisdom.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 07:31:43 PM by Plane »

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2012, 07:54:28 PM »
...glad to see you returning to a discussion you seemed to have washed your hands of...

Oh dear me, no, this is a quite different discussion. Same thread perhaps, but a different discussion entirely.

I was just curious, looking back with the Search function, why this cut in the State Department security budget had not been mentioned earlier, especially by those who are squawking so loudly about the security situation, or about fairness and a level playing field. I guess it only counts if it's fair or level in your favor.

Oh, almost forgot to ask, does anyone else think this might be the reason the topic of security at Benghazi never came up in the last debate? I mean, after Ryan brought it up in the VP debate, and Joltin' Joe Biden threw that little tidbit at him about the GOP cutting the security budget?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 07:59:32 PM by hnumpah »
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2012, 08:47:45 PM »
Why do you say that te GOP cut the state department secutity budget?

Didn't you post the article that pointed out how bipartizen that was?

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2012, 09:41:32 PM »
Actually, Plane, I'm laughing my ass off.

I mean, ths adminstration possibly - not saying they did, just saying possibly - makes an error in judgement that ends up costing 4 American lives, while the previous administration's errors in judgement ended up tying us up in a costly unnecessary war, to the tune of upwards of $750 billion and over 4,400 troops killed, but Bushco is defended at every turn while Obama is villified. This has got to be about the most biased little clique of people I have ever seen, especially when some whine about fairness and level playing fields. Their research is abyssmal, their posts strictly partisan and in many cases over the top. Any niggling little detail is overblown and no muck left unthrown, as long as the majority can keep spouting their mantra, the far right extremist fringe party line. There is no attempt at meaningful debate, just the majority descending in sheer numbers to beat down XO or anyone else who dares dispute them. It is no longer Debategate, it's the Grand Old Right Wingers Beat Down The Voice Of Dissent Gate.

Do you still wonder why so many have left, and so few are left?
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2012, 12:24:41 AM »
Indeed , "Debategate" implies that some debating should occur.

Not a game of "king of the mountain".

Nothing should prevent liberal viewpoints from being aired here, we need them even if they seem irritating at times .

The realisation both sides need is that however irritating an opposing viewpoint is , ones own viewpoint must necessarily be exactly just as irritating going in the other direction.

And humility of course makes one realise that not only is oneself capable of being wrong, it is always possible that no one being heard on either side is right, that is to say that even when it is impossible for both sides to be right , it is still possible for both sides to be wrong.

It is good to see you here in fine fettle , if you decide to stay a while , we conservative sorts can get a workout not depending exclusively on XO as a sparring partner.

If things go really well we might even be civil part of the time , I do hope so . Civility is hard to maintain without reciprocity and no one ever feels as if himself is the first to fail it.


On the other hand , do you really feel that President Bush is insufficiently vilified?
Really?

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2012, 01:38:10 AM »
On the other hand , do you really feel that President Bush is insufficiently vilified?
Really?

If there were a crime of conspiracy to commit stupidity, I'd love to see his entire group of thugs in the dock. With all the dead American and innocent civilian Iraqi bodies they left scattered all over Iraq, we could also probably come up with several thousand charges incidental to murder.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2012, 02:15:06 AM »
I can't see that.

I don't even see how getting Saddam out of the picture is a bad idea.

You have to imagine the alternative decision, if Saddam Husein were left in office he would be busy tweaking our noses and stabbing our backs .

Trying to overthrow the Taliban without closing Iraq would have been an open flank, it is hard to imagine Saddam not taking advantage of our predicament there .