Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama lied to the world about the Bengazi attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Where should the buck stop?
    With Potus...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
      It was obvious to me, just days after the attack, that Washington was initially being less than forthright.

      In the interim, numerous intergovernmental shortcomings have been revealed which need to be thoroughly examined and addressed.
      It was obviously to anyone not blind that a cover up was going on. Obama knew nothing about it the next day in his 'Rose Garden' Conference: It's one thing to label 'terror attacks' or whatever bad as a generalism but he didn't say that Benghazi was a specifically a 'terror attack'. I smelt a dead chain in the command then. By 'examined and addressed' do you mean kicked out?

      Obamas greatest failure in my opion has been foreign policy. He simply misunderstands the real world; you cannot reset the clock with a bear and in foreign policy threatening often saves you have to DO. Iran should have been from the 'get - go' that FULL inspections must take place within 6 month or war ensues. The Russian stationing of missiles in Kaliningrad was not a reason to withdraw the missile shield from Poland but to arm Poland. He has 'pussyfooted' thinking these people are "nice and rational". He is not fit to be Commander in Chief.

      Comment


      • #63
        pari,

        However, we now know that the CIA had real-time intel. It's not a case of a local staffer making a judgement call because we also know that AFRICOM had the same real-time intel because the CIA operatives were calling for back-up support from a Spectre gunship.
        i doubt it was AFRICOM assets; most likely JSOC.

        regardless, though, DoD -cannot- act without State signing off, and before that, CIA needed to make that call to State.

        At this point the decision-making process not to intervene and to tell the CIA operatives to stand down had to have entered the political domain i.e. the White House. Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that there's no coordination during an event like this and decisions on such are taken at a junior/mid level.
        not for something like this. tactical and operational decisions are not made at the White House level. the article states as much; even if you take the anonymous sources at their word, the issue stopped at the CIA chain of command-- it didn't get to State, let alone DoD.

        I'll remind you other Consulate staff had been rescued by the CIA operatives and were being protected at the CIA annex, under attack for over four hours. The incident didn't end with the death of Ambassador Stevens.
        according to the article, supposedly in contravention to orders from their own higher-ups. which the CIA denies. it becomes a 'he-said, she-said' issue.

        If their information is correct, it has to have been a political decision not to intervene. Revealing who made that decision is not an opsec issue, merely a political one.
        there's a lot of ifs in this statement that are simply impossible to verify without classified access. making sweeping assertions of a political cover-up with current data is unjustified.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #64
          dale,

          astralis-

          Give us credit for SOME brains and not 100% reactionary "gotcha". For instance, I think it's foolish to start criticizing the "military response" that didn't happen for the simple reason that we don't know what any possible assets may have been doing or capable of.
          i'm not sure where you're getting that i'm criticizing the military response. i'm not. there's a certain chain of command and a certain process that needs to be followed for military assets to be used. at this point in time we simply do not know where, and when, or who, decided that military assets would not be used. i fully agree with SECDEF, CJCS, and AFRICOM that it would have been foolish to rush in without knowing what's going on.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #65
            Disagree, DoD was moving, but was never cleared by State. We had a drone watching the attack and as we all remember from the Bin Laden radi those feeds can be tied into the White House Situation Room. Likewise, the military moved a response team to within an hours flight of the consulate but had to hold up there. I'm not exactly sure, but I tend to believe that the non-routine movement of US military personnel inside Italy requires Italy's permission (since we forced down the air liner carrying a terrorist) and that would require State Department action.

            US had drones flying over Benghazi as the consulate was being attacked - NYPOST.com




            Again I disagree, the military was giving on it, the CIA/USAF had a drone over head, implied State Department action to get the response team to Siganola, denials of increased security in the weeks leading up to the attack, the fact it was on 9-11 and the fact that the White House and State Department were told of an AQ linked militant group claiming responsibility for the attack 2 hours into the 7 hour battle all point to a cover up.

            White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

            Plus the latest revelation that Clinton asked for more security but Obama denied it.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/clin...-obama-said-no

            Obama lied and Stevens died.
            Last edited by zraver; 27 Oct 12,, 03:21.

            Comment


            • #66
              z,

              We had a drone watching the attack and as we all remember from the Bin Laden radi those feeds can be tied into the White House Situation Room. Likewise, the military moved a response team to within an hours flight of the consulate but had to hold up there. I'm not exactly sure, but I tend to believe that the non-routine movement of US military personnel inside Italy requires Italy's permission (since we forced down the air liner carrying a terrorist) and that would require State Department action.
              the DoD can track separately, but DoD cannot move into another sovereign country without State clearance, as you mentioned.

              moreover, it doesn't look like CIA asked State or DoD to move. but we do not know this for certain.

              Plus the latest revelation that Clinton asked for more security but Obama denied it.
              er, a source coming from "The Blaze" featuring an author who said that "Clinton's legal counsel" told him this, who then went on to assert "“We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”... so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line…she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”"

              yeah okay. great trustworthy source you got there.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by astralis View Post

                moreover, it doesn't look like CIA asked State or DoD to move. but we do not know this for certain.
                State didn't need CIA to ask for permission, they knew what was going on and who was doing it via drones and the militant groups own claims via social media. You're trying to put this off on the CIA when we have evidence that the military was ready to go and State knew what was going on.... strange

                Comment


                • #68
                  Obama is too inexperienced to be Commander in Chief.

                  Originally posted by snapper View Post
                  It was obviously to anyone not blind that a cover up was going on. Obama knew nothing about it the next day in his 'Rose Garden' Conference: It's one thing to label 'terror attacks' or whatever bad as a generalism but he didn't say that Benghazi was a specifically a 'terror attack'. I smelt a dead chain in the command then. By 'examined and addressed' do you mean kicked out?

                  Obamas greatest failure in my opion has been foreign policy. He simply misunderstands the real world; you cannot reset the clock with a bear and in foreign policy threatening often saves you have to DO. Iran should have been from the 'get - go' that FULL inspections must take place within 6 month or war ensues. The Russian stationing of missiles in Kaliningrad was not a reason to withdraw the missile shield from Poland but to arm Poland. He has 'pussyfooted' thinking these people are "nice and rational". He is not fit to be Commander in Chief.
                  The Russians and other adversaries are nice and rational indeed, but keep in mind that they do not always have our best interest at heart. It's a "give to get" kinda thing.

                  Obama is an educated person, but relatively inexperienced. A law degree from Harvard is no guarantee of a firm command of foreign policy. Since Obama probably has never even held a gun, why would we expect him to apply the threat of war as a geopolitical lever? George H.W. Bush was the last of the US Presidents with direct military experience. Most of the current crop of D.C. pols have not fought in any wars, so they most likely have no more than a textbook understanding of war as it applies to foreign policy. Maybe this will change once the Iraq & Afghanistan generation becomes old enough to participate in national politics.

                  How difficult would it have been to just have a token military presence in the US embassy in Benghazi? At least as a classified mission? About 100 military personnel would've sufficed, unless the force that attacked the compound consisted of thousands of recruits. Did Obama agree to keep all US military personnel off Libyan soil once the new government took power?

                  Well, what's done is done. In Obama's place I would've SECRETLY told a few CIA spooks to find the families of those responsible and send some packages containing their bones to the perps. They should leave us alone after that. If not, repeat until desired result is achieved.

                  Sometimes cruelty is warranted, as much as it pains me to say it. Genghis Khan had the right idea

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Well, although I've only seen it reported from a White House reporter tweet, the CIA is stating "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

                    So... Fox News has it wrong which is entirely possible though unlikely given the mileage they're giving it.*
                    Or... The people on the ground had it wrong which again is entirely possible though unlikely given they were actually there.
                    Or... There was an order to the CIA operatives to stand down, but it originated outside the CIA.

                    *(Disclaimer: yes I watched Fox news, for the second time.
                    After being entertained by Newt Gingrich's missus (she seemed to have stolen Donald Trumps hair) telling me about a grey baby elephant that crossed the Atlantic with the pilgrim fathers, Bill O'Reilly seemed to entirely miss the point and I couldn't hang around in case they replayed the original report because Newt and the missus might reappear and kill me with a hapless melancholy)
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      October 5, 2012

                      (CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya.

                      The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack. Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

                      Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack. A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it. Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security.

                      The State Department official says there was a "constant conversation" between security details in Libya and officials in Washington D.C. Sources critical of what they view as a security drawdown say three Mobile Security Deployment teams left Libya between February and August in addition to the 16-member Site Security Team on loan from the military. That's 34 highly-trained security personnel moved out over a six month period. One State Department source told CBS News the security teams weren't "pulled," that their mission was simply over.
                      CBS News

                      Lt. Col. Wood (US/SOF Libya) has stated quite explicitly that constant requests to DoS for more security assets in Libya were routinely denied. In addition, 22 US security personal were actually removed from Libya just one month prior to the 9/11 anniversary despite an increased volume of attacks on diplomatic missions in Benghazi and repeated pleas for increased security measures and personnel.

                      A disturbing declaration from Lt. Col. Wood before the House Oversight Committee on October 10:

                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        State didn't need CIA to ask for permission, they knew what was going on and who was doing it via drones and the militant groups own claims via social media. You're trying to put this off on the CIA when we have evidence that the military was ready to go and State knew what was going on.... strange
                        repeating a claim without backing it up isn't an argument.

                        neither of us know where the drones were linked to; it's a big assumption of yours that it could have been linked to the Situation Room, or to State, or to higher-level command at DoD. this usually is not the case with drone operations.

                        and by the time the militant groups were bragging about it on social media, the attack was over.

                        i'm more than willing to state that the success of the militants in killing the Ambassador resulted due to a failure at multiple levels, and yes, State and ultimately POTUS must take absolute responsibility for the existing state of security.

                        but the response? without access to classified data, which neither of us has and which i would not for a second tolerate being shared here, everything i've seen thus far has been built on assumptions and hearsay.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          dale,



                          i'm not sure where you're getting that i'm criticizing the military response. i'm not. there's a certain chain of command and a certain process that needs to be followed for military assets to be used. at this point in time we simply do not know where, and when, or who, decided that military assets would not be used. i fully agree with SECDEF, CJCS, and AFRICOM that it would have been foolish to rush in without knowing what's going on.
                          My point was that not everyone doing the criticizing is going off half-cocked.

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Due to my military background, something nags at me here. We all know now that drones were providing live feeds from Benghazi.

                            So...

                            1) Were these US military or CIA drones?
                            2) Were these drones armed?
                            3) If so, were they authorized to go hot? Yes/No and by whom?
                            4) If yes, did they expend any munitions during the course of the attack?
                            5) If not, why not?
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                              Due to my military background, something nags at me here. We all know now that drones were providing live feeds from Benghazi.

                              So...

                              1) Were these US military or CIA drones?
                              All USAF, though some are under CIA operational tasking.

                              2) Were these drones armed?
                              Probably not, the armed drones are primarily tasked with Sudan and A-stan. They may be weapons capable but flying armed war craft in to Libya's air space is way different from an unarmed drone.

                              [quote]3) If so, were they authorized to go hot? Yes/No and by whom?[quote]

                              If they were armed it depends on whose tasking they are serving. A CIA drone will likely have a different chain of command than a pure military chain of command.

                              4) If yes, did they expend any munitions during the course of the attack?
                              NO

                              5) If not, why not?
                              Multiple reasons already discussed here. However the most likely answer given the movement of troops to Siganola is that the drones were unarmed

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                repeating a claim without backing it up isn't an argument.
                                I backed it up, you'll find the exact same link above

                                White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters

                                That is information from government emails, not 5th junior counsel to the state chair of former candidate X's staff.

                                neither of us know where the drones were linked to; it's a big assumption of yours that it could have been linked to the Situation Room, or to State, or to higher-level command at DoD. this usually is not the case with drone operations.
                                It is not much of an assumption to assume that the worlds most technologically advanced military in the world that has a proven ability to watch drones in action from the White House would be watching the attack unfold since they new the attack was underway via emails.

                                and by the time the militant groups were bragging about it on social media, the attack was over.
                                Wrong, 2 hours into a 7 hour battles the militant group claiming responsibility was already trumpeting its involvement.

                                i'm more than willing to state that the success of the militants in killing the Ambassador resulted due to a failure at multiple levels, and yes, State and ultimately POTUS must take absolute responsibility for the existing state of security.

                                but the response? without access to classified data, which neither of us has and which i would not for a second tolerate being shared here, everything i've seen thus far has been built on assumptions and hearsay.[/QUOTE]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X