DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on October 30, 2012, 07:06:50 PM
-
Who set him up?
-
This is not a major issue. It appears to be a bunch of Republicans grasping at straws.
The only real problem was that the US did not have adequate intelligence about what one group in Libya planned.
I do not think that the public believes that everyone can get it all right all of the time. Compared to the incredible number of snafus made by the Juniorbushies, this is nothing.
-
Personally i don't think Obama was calling the shots in the situation room. He might have been there but he wasn't calling the shots. And who ever was made the wrong call. But you know, contrary to what Hillary says, the buck stops in the Oval Office.
-
Personally i don't think Obama was calling the shots in the situation room. He might have been there but he wasn't calling the shots. And who ever was made the wrong call. But you know, contrary to what Hillary says, the buck stops in the Oval Office.
Are you saying ObamaCo is to blame?....but the buck stops at ObamaCo or somewhere else?
-
That's hilarious.
No.
If I was wanting to say that, i would have said that.
Any idea what all the CIA guys were doing in Benghazi? I have read upwards to 30 were there.
-
Any idea what all the CIA guys were doing in Benghazi?
I have read upwards to 30 were there.
Probably selling arms or fostering arms sales to al-Qaeda or others in Syria.
This was a "hit" on the ambassador by some entity.
-
This is no one's Waterloo. No one thinks it is a serious issues except the usual Obamahaters, and he never had their votes. It is clear that it was just a lack of Intel, so neither Clinton nor Obama was to blame, unless you can prove that he told the CIA not to be on the alert, which of course is very unlikely.
-
The murder of a US Ambassador is always serious.
Why was there no attempt to rescue US personnel?
-
Why was there no attempt to rescue US personnel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why was the NYC Fire Department not waiting around the twin towers with nets to catch the jumpers? Why didn't the FBI arrest the hijackers?
(1) They did not know that an attack was planned. No everyone can know everything, everywhere, all the time.
(2) The US did not have an army waiting in Benghazi. There was not enough time to prevent the attack.
This is only a case of Blameobama for the clowns that would never vote for him anyway.
Look ate the grotesque mess that Rummy, Cheney and Juniorbush made after the fall of Baghdad. They KNEW that there were a lot of hostiles around and that they had lots of arms. Thousands of people died in Iraq because of those three fools.
And each and every ratbag Republican in this forum was all for reelecting their sorry asses.
-
The siege on Benghazi lasted almost 7 hours. The WH was watching it real time. Why wasn't help sent.
-
Because there was no help available to send. The US does not have garrisons in Benghazi, and they probably did not know what was happening for the first part of the attack.
Again, not a major issue except for the Obamahaters.
-
You might find this interesting.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/)
-
It is more confusing than it is interesting.
-
I understand.
It's either a stonewalling news black out or trickles of speculation later followed by evidence.
-
It is simply a speculative "news" story backed by no facts. It is more informative and exciting to read the label on a ketchup bottle.
-
Since when is a US Ambassador being murdered not a big deal?
I think this tragedy is about to explode!
Watch This Greta Interview from yesterday:
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/bing-west-on-the-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2FGretawire+%28Internal+-+Gretawire+-+Blog%29 (http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/bing-west-on-the-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2FGretawire+%28Internal+-+Gretawire+-+Blog%29)
-
GEN. DEMPSEY: So on the events in Libya, clearly the American people deserve to understand what happened in Benghazi. As you know, there are reviews under way both here and in the Department of State so we'll better understand what happened.
It's not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers. I can tell you, however, sitting here today, that I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation.
Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we've heard that there wasn't a more robust response right away is that there wasn't a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.
But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or -- or dropping more special forces in.
SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me -- let me speak to that, because I'm sure there's going to be -- there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.
We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
But -- but the basic principle here -- 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, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.
Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.
SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5143 (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5143)
And then General Ham resigns. Something is up.
-
Hmmmm, lots of speculation and unverified claims there. Here is the update to that report.
TRR: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring
General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) and a key figure in the Benghazi-gate controversy, is leaving the Army. On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had announced that General Ham would be succeeded at AFRICOM by General David Rodriguez. Later speculation tied this decision to the fallout from the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. However on Monday October 29 a defense official told The Washington Times that "the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career." Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command.
The questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz's account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta's statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. "General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways," Mr. Bolton concluded. "Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh."
No word yet on when General Ham's rotation or retirement take effect.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/)
-
There may be a minor story here, but again, the main problem was simply a lack of intelligence about what plot the attackers were planning, and again, everyone cannot be expected to know everything all the time. Not every contingency can be planned for.
-
Except that Stevens repeatedly called for additional security, so the feet on the ground knew something was up. The Brits and even the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi months before based on their assessments of risk factors.
I guess the truth will out sooner or later.
-
I guess the truth will out sooner or later.
Yes and it will be after the election!
-
This is my take on all the information that has come forth. The CIA was there, we know that to be true. We know that they could have had military there within one hour of being asked. We know that a Drone was hovering overhead, sending the video feed back to the State Department. We know that those there to protect the embassy were asked to "stand down." We know that the White House blamed a video for two weeks, which we now know had nothing to do with this. We know that on 9/11 we need to be prepared for anything.
Evidence is pretty damning. I tend to agree with both BT and Christian. I do believe someone else is calling all the shots and Obama is a puppet. I believe that the CIA were there making deals. Remember "Fast and Furious"?
What really amazes me, is how some here and our media, are justifying the horrible death of our Patriots that sacrificed their life that night. Anything to protect their, Commander in Chief. Sickens me that he holds that title.
If this would have been Bush, would the left leaning in here act the same? NOT HARDLY!
-
Actually I would be doing the same thing I am doing now, waiting for all the facts to come out. I know investigations, and bureaucracies, take time.
-
You can't fire a General for making a small number of bad calls.
This would leave the Pentagon General free.
You might fire a general for a single bad call if he had all the facts and resorces for a good decision and made a bad one that he defends on realy bad principals, then it is not the cost of the bad call that you fire him for , it is the certainty that the bad principals will cause him to make more bad calls.
After the election it should be cooly considered and decided whether this general is a keeper, why hurry.
Before the election I want to know who and why was there a coverup started and perpetuated on the back of an anti-islamic gus poorly executed free speech?
-
Actually I would be doing the same thing I am doing now, waiting for all the facts to come out. I know investigations, and bureaucracies, take time.
That's all well and good, but it should be rather simple in this respect:
- WHO SAID NO TO INCREASED SECURITY REQUESTS?
- IF OBAMA GAVE AN ORDER TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF OUR FOLKS, WHERE IS THAT ORDER?
- AND IF THAT ORDER WAS RECEIVED, WHO DISOBEYED IT, AND INSTEAD ORDERED OUR CIA & MILITARY ASSETS TO STAND DOWN, WHILE OUR CONSULATE WAS UNDER ATTACK?
The current commander & chief was ultimately responsible for these decisions, regardless of what Hillary is saying. That C&C wants to be re-elected. The American people deserve to know the above answered, to determine if he should keep his job as Commander & Chief. I apologize if this election is putting a crimp in things, but if this Administration had spent even half as much energy that they did 1st 2 weeks after 911, in trying to blame a video, and in spending the last 7 weeks perseverating on "we will bring those to justice", and instead simply answered the above questions, this issue would largely have been put to rest
Thanks to the MSM's efforts, it mostly has been put to rest, as best they could, but that damn Fox News, talk radio, and internet, just refuse to let that happen.
I'm starting to lean towards the notion that Obama was left out on the loop, on this one, which could have led to no direct order, or one that was too ambiguous for the military to truely discern Obama's intentions. Gross incompetence due to trying to get ready for a big Vegas fund raiser, sure doesn't look good on a resume'. Perhaps that's why there's an 'ongoing investigation" that will coincidentally not conclude until sometime after the election
-
Fox "News" isn't news at all. Intelligent people don't bother with Fox.
It does not matter, since Fox exists only to make money for its advertisers and the rabag right wing noise machine,and there are ample supplies of ignorami to support it.
-
Fox "News" isn't news at all. Intelligent people don't bother with Fox.
LOL...yea, nothing to see....move along, Obama has an election to steal ;)