The unavoidable conclusion is that Obama is a pussy and a coward, and unfit to hold office as Command in Chief.
The unavoidable conclusion is that Obama is a pussy and a coward, and unfit to hold office as Commander in Chief.
It was Valerie Jarrett, she would only pull the trigger on a repub.
The best military leaders know when to take risks. War is constant risk, there is no absolute guarantees. The best military leaders have faith in their soldiers and their abilities.
A poor politician seeks to avoid risk and never trusts those not under their direct control.
In summary, I think it was a politician making a political decision based on their desire to win an election.
Benghazi is where Obama the man met Obama the myth and came up short.
When you cut through all the Bull**** it’s simple. If Obama’s daughters were in that Annex help would have been sent. Regretfully, it was other people’s sons.
They knew Al Queda was behind the attack. Obama has been saying “I killed Bin Laden and Al Queda is crippled”. Fighting Al Queda in Benghazi on 9/11 didn’t fit his re-election scenario.
When the enemy is foreign and armed, Barry is risk averse. And he thought he was avoiding a Desert One right before an election. The wild-card was the diary, the internet and a very few MSM presstitutes who couldn’t any longer stomach covering up for the Diversity Prez.
BULLSHIT!!
The authors are giving him a pass or at least the "benefit" of the doubt, which based upon the info available, I am not willing to do so.
Also, based upon what has been leaked re: the raid to get Bin Laden it is said he was not willing to take a chance to (as reported his Consiglieri, the Commie Bitch, Jarrett advised against) "offend" the Moose-Limbs and it that action was taken without his approval.
Likewise, I'm willing to bet the same thing happened here; that the Islamic-Appeasing-Defender-Supporting "Hussein" was afraid that we might anger or offend his "buds" the Jihadists who are apparently now in power/control of Libya and consciously decided to let those people twist in the wind.
If that is true then how long did it take him to get to the situation room after the call? What hole was he on and did he finish his round before returning to the WH?
This is the problem with instantaneous communications. If the local security was the responsibility of the local commander instead of some faceless bureaucrat in Washington then the situation might have been much better handled. Instead, the buck got passed until it got to somebody more concerned about getting elected than saving American lives.
It would be much better to give rules of engagement to the local commander (in Italy, it looks like) and let him make the call. BTW, you almost always commit troops with an incomplete picture of what’s happening on the ground. You rely on them to make things go your way once they arrive and if they need help they’ll tell you how much and where.
I think I’ll go watch ‘Black Hawk Down’.
“Commander-in-Chief”?This man doesn’t even know when to go to The Toilet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He wasn't given requested security and basically was hung out to dry. He was sent to the enemy walls and then his support order to retreat and leave him standing.
Our CIA/SEALS with "CUE BALLS" had to go against White house orders not to go save the Ambassador.
It is clear to me that the Ambassador was meant to be captured. It is an incredible statement, but it really is the only plausible conclusion.
Terrorists attack Embassy,kidnap Ambassador,obama gets him freed before election day.
Didn’t you get the Zot awhile back?
Decisions made in wartime, in business, or even in a football game are almost always made with imperfect information. One rarely knows with certainty when and where and with what force an enemy will attack. One can estimate and extrapolate to determine if selling a product at a given price will increase or decrease revenues, but there are no guarantees. A defensive coordinator might know that his opponent throws a pass 85% of the time on third and eight, but that still leaves a 15% probabability of a running play.
The hallmark of a successful leader is the ability to make optimum decisions based on (to copy an Obama phrase) “less than optimal” information. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is a well-worn phrase, but it still rings true. Absent having perfect information, decision makers need to choose the best available option based on whatever information they do have.
Panetta’s excuse that they didn’t have enough information doesn’t pass the smell test. Most major battlefield decisions are undoubtedly made with far less perfect intelligence. There were drones overhead, a live audio feed, and a videotape now deemed Top Secret, no doubt because of how damning its contents are to Obama and his pals. This was hardly the “fog of war” that has thwarted military leaders in the past. The information that was available was so good, in fact, that it speaks to a political reason for the inaction, rather than a military one. And most intelligent Americans (i.e., conservatives) understand this.
Ping to find this later.