Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ruh-Roh! CIA Director Patraeus Tosses Prevaricator-in-Chief RIGHT Under the Bus on Benghazi Lies:
Reaganite Republican ^ | October 27, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 10/27/2012 6:06:00 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican

'We weren't the ones who denied military support 
to Americans under attack in Benghazi'


Ah, what a tangled web we weave-  and guess you should have realized you'll never own this patriot, Barry:
________________________________________________________________________________

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?

________________________________________________________________________________



Yet Obama still claims -entirely to the contrary-
that he 'gave an order' to secure our personnel-
another stinking lie:

________________________________________________________________________________
Gateway Pundit:

Obama told Denver’s WUSA TV this in regard to the Benghazi 9-11 terror attack, 'I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.'


Tonight however, Bing West, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, told Greta Van Susteren, 'If that actually happened the way President Obama said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, 'Can we see the order?' because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.

Obama just got caught. He lied about his securing our personnel in Benghazi. And now the world will know about it...


________________________________________________________________________________

Hillary of course has already lawyered-up, and her guy is saying in no uncertain terms that Obama's the one that ignored repeated pleas for added security in Benghazi over the previous months.


In Denver Dear Leader also purported that 'This election has
nothing to do with Benghazi
'- so
I guess if we all can just agree on that, this whole unpleasant thing can go away until after the election.


HAH HAH HAH ha ha ha ha ha hyuk-hyuk guffaw snort-chuckle.

________________________________________________________________________________


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazigate; bidentreason; coverup; dnctreason; obamatreason; petraeus; treason

1 posted on 10/27/2012 6:06:13 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Typical top brass military politician; he threw his lot in with this contemptible POS POTUS, and now runs for the hills to save his own skin. If he had real brass balls, he should’ve figured out a way to go around that pu$$y and have military intervention take place to save those real Americans in Bengazi, even if it cost him his job. Oh well, too much to lose, I guess, however in the the end hopefully truth wins out.


2 posted on 10/27/2012 6:10:08 AM PDT by john drake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdvisorB; ken5050; sten

*** PING ***


3 posted on 10/27/2012 6:12:34 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Obviously the current occupant of the oval office is the one who made the decision. No one in this administration can do anything on their own. The Anointed One is in charge and gives all the orders.

He has not yet been impeached, which proves that half the American public has its head up its a$$, the mainstream media have deliberately chosen to protect him, and the Republican party is a bunch of wimps.


4 posted on 10/27/2012 6:14:56 AM PDT by I want the USA back (The media is completely irresponsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john drake

Uh, I respect Petreaus- Obama coaxed him into the CIA to politically neutralize him, but I for one am happy to see him there, one element of sanity in this foul administration.

As far as Libya goes, looks like Hillary, Petraeus, and others all came out for providing the aid the consulate was asking for... and the guy that stopped them’s about to lose his job over it, among other things


5 posted on 10/27/2012 6:16:18 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: john drake
If he had real brass balls

Regrettably sometimes the brass has to wait to show brass. This perhaps was/is one of those times. Am grateful some, with brass, are speaking up. By speaking up, it makes it more difficult for zer0 and his crowd to coverup.

6 posted on 10/27/2012 6:17:47 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
"He has not yet been impeached, which proves that half the American public traitors in the US Congress have their heads up its a$$,"

The US Congress should be replaced and indicted
for allowing a coup d'etat by al Qaeda after 9/11.

7 posted on 10/27/2012 6:18:11 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Eisenhower Never Took Credit . . .

Follow the graphics to the part about Eisenhower never taking credit for D-Day. The truth of that was that Eisenhower prepared to take responsibility if it had been the disaster it could have been.

Eisenhower prepared a headline to release if the good guys lost on Normandy. It said: Our Forces have been withdrawn from Normandy.

Eisenhower scratched that and replaced it wirh: I have withdrawn our forces from Normandy.

An interesting difference with our Child-in-Chief...Obama doesn't know what it's like to take responsibility when there is need for heavy lifting. He never actually experienced it, responsibility, that is...or heavy lifting.

8 posted on 10/27/2012 6:23:52 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
Am grateful some, with brass, are speaking up.

If Patraeus feels that his CIA is being smeared, then he should resign in protest. That would get everyone's attention. A protest resignation is something that the MSM would have to report.

Anything less will have no impact at all.

9 posted on 10/27/2012 6:24:45 AM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
There were reports that one of those under attack was able to laser point to the attackers and call for air strikes. One of two drones in the area was armed.

When the HQ received the laser data, someone had to say Yea or Nay.

Whose drones were these? If they were CIA's, then someone in the CIA chain of command made the decision not to fire.

Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

That sounds more like wigglewords and CYA (Cover Your A$$), rather than CIA decision to take action.

Patraeus is effectively saying that there were ZERO calls for help from Wood or Doherty or any one else. [That doesn't ring true.]
10 posted on 10/27/2012 6:26:17 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/26/Petraeus-on-Benghazi-It-Wasnt-Me


11 posted on 10/27/2012 6:27:43 AM PDT by BwanaNdege (Man has often lost his way, but modern man has lost his address - Gilbert K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Long ago I was a SEAL officer and I attended many joint and combined operational planning meetings in the USA, abroad, and on ships at sea. This type of rescue mission is called a "NEO" operation, for Non-combatant Evacuation Operation. Every embassy and consulate has and practices all kinds of emergency evac plans, in concert with the US military.

For example, Marines and SEALs practice NEO ops prior to deploying on every float, as a VERY high priority mission. They involve full dress-rehearsals, with civilian role players, helos, landing craft, rounding up stranded stragglers, opfor ambushes, role-playing "angry mobs," fighting your way to LZs or even beaches while protecting a gaggle of civilians down to babies etc. Conducting successful NEO ops is a TOP TOP TOP military and state department mission priority. I cannot emphasize this enough. NEO ops are planned and practiced over and over and over.

When the alarm goes off worldwide that an embassy or consulate is being attacked, the entire U.S. military swings into rescue mode, without waiting for any orders from the White House. The military does all of the operational planning and begins to execute the rescue op.

The one thing they CAN'T do is cross an international border without permission from POTUS. So the US Military will be inbound full-steam-ahead to make the rescue, and all they need from POTUS is a "proceed" order. In this case, they got a "stand down" instead.

This is at the POTUS level, it is not a decision taken at State. State and the military (JCS) should be in the Situation Room with POTUS soon after a critical incident like this begins, so all decisions can be made in real time. (I have heard nowhere that POTUS went into the Situation Room at all. Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the "war planning" screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)

But if POTUS punts after a brief Oval Office meeting with Dempsey and Hillary and goes upstairs to the family quarters....the stranded Americans will die.

Only POTUS can give the order to cross international borders. Only POTUS can allow US warplanes to give air support to Americans battling on the ground in a foreign country. If POTUS makes himself unavailable, the Americans will die.

Even the VEEP or Secretary of State cannot make that call. The VEEP can only do it if the POTUS is determined to be medically unable to perform his functions. If the POTUS goes upstairs and turns off his phone, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Nothing. And the besieged Americans will die.

On Friday an anonymous Pentagon insider ("Doug") called into Rush with a lot of new details about this disgraceful fiasco. But what we really need now is for a high-ranking officer with insider knowledge to go public, risk his pension and career, and tell the truth.

The blame for this humiliating and shameful national disgrace is pointing directly at the POTUS, and America needs to know why the inbound rescue operation was aborted.

12 posted on 10/27/2012 6:36:04 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Don’t we have several folks who were there that evacuated?
Can they not be asked about what went down?

What about this 5 pm meeting at the WH. Who was in attendance? what was discussed?

Another question I have:
If the two heroes had not disobeyed orders and gone to the Consulate to help, how many others were there and how many others may have been killed?

There are some serious questions here that need serious answers


13 posted on 10/27/2012 6:40:00 AM PDT by DOGHEAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

On d day, the germans could not launch a counter attack on the allies because hitler decided to sleep, and was not to be disturbed.....

familiar sounding, isn’t it?


14 posted on 10/27/2012 6:44:19 AM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Patraeus may or may not resign. I truly do not know. At this time though, there has to be someone who will say what is true, and keep eyes on the zer0 crowd for the good that will come from having done such. The media will do what they always do, unfortunately, and will spout the liberal lies, regrettably, no matter how this plays out. The media thinks they have made a deal with the devil, and when the devil turns on the media only then will the media, supporting zer0 and zer0’s crowd, realize their mistake. God and Generals sometimes take the road not taken by the masses. This may be one of those times. I truly do not know. I do know this. I would always like to have someone on the inside. Especially now. If Mr. Patraeus is the person in this role, along with others, am grateful, for the lies will be more difficult to cover-up.


15 posted on 10/27/2012 6:48:11 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stevem

Thx Steve

Those rotate, so here’s the link. You are SO right, he had the blame-taking speech all ready to go in the event it was needed... Thank God it was not

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2012/06/eisenhower-never-took-credit-for-d-day.html


16 posted on 10/27/2012 6:49:46 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DOGHEAD
There are some serious questions here that need serious answers

It's my understanding these brave souls evacuated about 30 people, then went back to find the Ambassador and one (or two) other people they were unable to locate before.

I've also read the supposed mastermind to this operation was (conveniently) killed at another location about a week ago.

Like you, I've been very curious to find out about what happened to these 30 witnesses, despite the fact they probably don't have a clue to the military aspect of the operation.

THIRTY people don't just disappear, but I have been unable to find much of anything..... like their names or their purpose for being there.

17 posted on 10/27/2012 6:54:48 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as Created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Admirals and generals have excellent retirements. Any admiral or general could retire and live very comfortably. I think that’s one reason they do have a good retirement. They can retire as a means of protest. How many have? It always comes down to the same argument with them, “Yes, I could resign in protest, but then the Democrats would cut the budget to get revenge.” The Democrats will cut the military budget anyway.


18 posted on 10/27/2012 7:04:11 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
So Patraeus spoke, big deal...he is obfuscating the obvious and trying to save his own hide. He could have said clearly that the CIA didn't have the authority to go in and that the authority is the purview of the POTUS, but he didn't. He is trying to walk a rope that I hope breaks. Don't we have any people capable of speaking the truth in this whole disgusting Administration?
19 posted on 10/27/2012 7:18:57 AM PDT by pepperdog ( I still get a thrill up my leg when spell check doesn't recognize the name/word Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

20 posted on 10/27/2012 7:23:03 AM PDT by New Perspective (Proud father of a 8 yr old son with Down Syndrome and fighting to keep him off Obama's death panels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Patraeus is effectively saying that there were ZERO calls for help from Wood or Doherty or any one else. [That doesn't ring true.]

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Patraeus is saying that no one at the CIA told people not to give aid. Calls for help could have gone to others than the CIA. The CIA could have said "we need higher authorization" and were denied it from the POTUS". So there are at least these two other possibilities.

Calls for aid would normally be to the U.S. military, not the CIA. See Travis McGee's excellent posts on this subject. Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration.

21 posted on 10/27/2012 7:34:21 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I bet it was aborted because Obama had been arming Libyan rebels and didn't want his illegal operation revealed
22 posted on 10/27/2012 7:35:58 AM PDT by Fai Mao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand. He ONLY spoke up when the story fell flat and it was revaealed that CIA was told to stand dowm.

He knows the truth, but only gives little hints now. He could tell the whole rotten story, but he still protects Obama. He’s corrupt or a coward.

Our government lies to us as often and enthusiastically as any totalitarian enemy we scream about. Guys like Petraeus are right in the thick of it. And leaving grunts behind a machine gun with no fire support is nothing new to Petraeus, he used the same rules in Afghanistan. Men have died there many times, screaming for arty or air only to have it denied because the enemy was in a building.

This is the most evil thing you can do, is refuse fire support to someone in a firefight.

Where’s that old Norman Rockwell poster. The man manning a machine gun. “Lets give him enough,,,and on time”.


23 posted on 10/27/2012 7:47:39 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

“Regrettably sometimes the brass has to wait to show brass.”

Those men hammering away behing the gun, fighting for their lives didn’t have that luxury. They lost thier very lives, but we cannot expect “brass” to risk their job? Their time to show brass was chosen for them. So was Petraeus’s, and he shrunk away from his duty.

Petraeus is a coward. When he saw those men abandoned to die, he should have immediately told the story, no matter WHAT the consequences to him and his career. Instead, HE also pushed the story that it was a spontaneous riot due to the video. If that story would have flown, he’d still be silent.

This is why our senior officer corps is becoming universally hated. They expect balls out loyalty and effort from the ranks, but they must be allowed to carefully shepherd their precious career.


24 posted on 10/27/2012 7:57:03 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
When and why—...—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

The more the lies and denials continue, the more I lean in favor of the "conspiracy theory" that BHO setup the ambassador to be taken hostage so BHO could "justify" the release of that terrorist back to Egypt without all the blow-back.

25 posted on 10/27/2012 8:00:45 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

“Petraeus: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need”

Translation, “we were watching and did not see anyone we judged to be in immediate need”.


26 posted on 10/27/2012 8:01:57 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!

TREASON - aid, comfort and weapons to enemies and pre-meditated lies in the form of direct attacks on amendment 1.

TREASON like this republic has never seen before.

TREASON...in real time...right now...continuous...ongoing.


27 posted on 10/27/2012 8:05:09 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Patraeus seems to be pointing a finger upstairs at the POTUS with this declaration. “

Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?
Why is this level of dishonesty towards the American people tolerated? A half truth is a full lie.

Almost every single word they say to us is rife with lies. Every press conference, every statement, every speech. All of it.
This incidently is the hallmark of a dictatorship, not a constitutional republic.

Does anybody believe that people like Petraeus, Obama, Hillary, Beohner, Mitchell, Justice Roberts simultaneously believe we cannot be told the truth, yet hold the people in reverence politically? NO, they see themselves as our Platonic guardians, and that we do not need information because we do not make decisions.


28 posted on 10/27/2012 8:16:16 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino; All
“He parroted Obamas line about the video protests getting out of hand.”

The only report of Patraeus saying that comes form a Democrat party hack, who says that he said it in a closed House of Representatives briefing. We have Senators saying he never said it in their Senate briefing.

Patraeus cannot defend himself on this because he is not allowed to reveal what was said in the briefing's.

I strongly suspect that the Democrat representative is the one doing the lying to assist in the coverup.

If I am wrong, please correct me, but that is the only way that I have heard this.

29 posted on 10/27/2012 8:16:31 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

The last group Obama needs to take on is the CIA. Whoever might know the reality of his past the CIA is at the top of the list with, probably, Mossad and Putin...maybe the Chinese.


30 posted on 10/27/2012 8:19:17 AM PDT by Crimson Elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Calls for aid would normally be to the U.S. military, not the CIA.

Woods and Doherty were contract employees for some intelligence agency to track down missing surface-to- missiles. That agency was probably the CIA. If it was the CIA, they apparently requested to engage 2-3 times and were told to 'stand down.' They eventually disobeyed and ran into the fight.

If they called for help, they would be calling 'their' boss. They would expect 'their' boss to act accordingly.

So, who gave the 2-3 'stand down' orders? Someone with a pay grade above Woods and Doherty had to.

Patraeus's comment basically says no one gave a 'stand down' order.

==

There are so many versions, so much misinformation and conjecture (partly by design), that it will take a full fledged investigation to ever know the truth. And even then, we might get a muddled PR/PC piece like the 9-11-01 Commission Report.

Every day we seem to get more revelations and more questions.
31 posted on 10/27/2012 8:19:40 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
So who in the government did tell ;anybody' not to help those in need?

Well, until the inventory of what got taken by these homicidal robbers is released we cannot be sure who had the most to gain/lose by intervening or not.

32 posted on 10/27/2012 8:25:07 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

NO excuses. He knows that the American public is being lied to and is hiding behind the skirts of “classified briefings” to advance the lie.

If he knows the truth, and refuses to let the disinfecting sunshine in, he is as bad as the liar in chief, maybe worse. Those SEALs risked and lost their lives. And this coward won’t risk his career or a criminal charge to expose the treason that killed them? He isn’t fit to even discuss them.


33 posted on 10/27/2012 8:26:55 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

But you did lie congress and tell them it was all about a video that had only 1,000 views at the time of the attack.


34 posted on 10/27/2012 8:28:39 AM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy; All
If they called for help, they would be calling 'their' boss. They would expect 'their' boss to act accordingly.

If they called their boss, and their boss was a contractor, maybe it was their boss, the contractor, that told them to stand down. A contractor is not in the CIA chain of command.

I have worked with military contractors. They tend to be pretty risk adverse. Maybe that is what happened.

35 posted on 10/27/2012 8:36:40 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. Is there ONE person in our national government, military or intelligence agencies who is not an abject liar?

So far the State Department and the CIA have told you exactly who made the decision in the most diplomatic way they can. If this had been Republican administration this would have been blasted from the rooftops of every news organization in a constant stream of condemnation.

It is rather amazing in terms of history what both of these organizations have said. This is no longer Hillary covering her behind and pointing fingers. The CIA statement even gave cover for the DOD....nobody is falling on their sword for this President and they have just told the world.

36 posted on 10/27/2012 8:40:57 AM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
FRiend, it is difficult to display brass when dealing with a cic saying no. I'll leave my comment at the aforestated, and wait for more. Not ready to give up or surrender. Coward run. Am not running. To know what happened, and what the truth is ... sometimes brass is overruled. At this point I would not doubt the brass was told no by zer0. It would fit into the pattern displayed by zer0. Generals do not hate their Men, otherwise the Men would hate their Generals. Now the cic (named zer0) could be an entirely different matter when it comes to hate. Will wait FRiend. This story is not going away.
37 posted on 10/27/2012 8:41:30 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: john drake

“Typical top brass military politician”

Thank you for expressing my sentiments exactly. It’s not enough to “not deny them aid”. The right answer is to do the right thing and help them, then after you’ve saved them show up first thing in the morning at the White House with your resignation in hand.

If he was unable to help them, he should still resign because he was forced to uphold and support an abhorrent policy.

It is the duty of any honorable man or soldier in situations like this to do the right thing first, follow orders later. This government, and a large portion of our military command do not seem to be populated by honorable men.

The only two men to ‘do the right thing’ first and follow orders later in this story are the two SEALs that died, if I’m to understand the reports correctly.

How any of these guys can work for and execute the orders of this President that sacrifices Americans in favor of just about anyone else is beyond me.

Profiles of Cowardice.


38 posted on 10/27/2012 8:57:11 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; All
The only two men to ‘do the right thing’ first and follow orders later in this story are the two SEALs that died, if I’m to understand the reports correctly.

The reports are the four men from the annex went to help the Ambassador or "mission" or "consulate" or whatever the final designation comes to be. Two were killed. That means that two are still alive.

39 posted on 10/27/2012 9:06:58 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Sometimes one must be on the inside to get the truth to those in the field. This is maybe a time where having someone on the inside is more beneficial. I do not know, but when going up against someone who hates the Military as this zer0 crowd does, I would prefer there be someone inside feeding information to those on the outside. I do not know this is what is taking place though it could be, as well as it could not be. I'll take someone on the inside anytime over someone on the outside. That is just me.
40 posted on 10/27/2012 9:11:19 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“That means that two are still alive. “

You’re right, there were 4. The two that lived did the right thing, and should be groomed for command somewhere, but will, no doubt, be ostracized for their implementing the greatest strength of the individual U.S. soldier - initiative.


41 posted on 10/27/2012 9:30:31 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Woods' and Doherty's boss:

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators

Link to thread & post
42 posted on 10/27/2012 10:13:51 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Then why not just say it in plain english? He could tell us PRECISELY who decided what, why, and their exact words. <<

IMHO...Not the way it works!....(and if you think about it you wouldn't want it to).....He shouldn't be telling “us” anything that may be a security violation........It is, however, the job of congress to put him under oath in a classified setting so that the truth can be told without compromising classified intel/info....Having said that....I'm not sure Id trust congress to do the investigation right!......The CIA statement alone begs for an investigation....I believe that's why Petraeus authorized it

43 posted on 10/27/2012 5:28:03 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson