Posted on 10/26/2012 3:20:35 PM PDT by Snuph
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Solid piece of work, Phil. How infuriating this is, I want our country back.
Nov. 6 can’t come soon enough.
That is interesting info. Thanks.
Hohttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950882/postsw doe this fit in?
Good grief..I sure messed that post up!!
What? You answer a simple statement that Romney knows what is going on and not speaking about what he has no control over with that?
Amazing.
Petraeus has his own bus? Who knew?
I heard it was built in Canada
The reason Petraeus is being discussed here is because it’s about Petraeus’ denial that CIA denied any request for help. Rubin says CIA chain of command DID deny requests to go help those at the consular base. Who is/are they that these operators are referring to?
OF COURSE, obama is at the top of the pile. He’s the CIC. Their is plenty of blame to pass around, most likely. They need to all be routed out and exposed, whoever they are.
Petraeus was pretty quick to deny the stand down orders. Who will be next?
Not an airliner in the world is safe
All because We Came We Saw He died and the Arab Spring
Things just get worse and worse
Yup. I can't disagree with you on that.
However, we (the US) have lots of options and capabilities outside of air strikes. Granted that I don't think we could have done anything (except for more security in the 1st place!) to save the Ambassador or Sean Smith. But that Annex is another matter, entirely.
I'd still like to hear someone who knows our capabilities better than I, comment. As has been pointed out, we had what local security forces there are, and most of the local population on our side, or at least not actively against us.
BTW, one Libyan official referred to the annex as being at a "farm". Does anyone know if it actually was in a rural or semi-rural area?
You mean the sources who were on the ground in Benghazi"? Do you doubt them?
You mean an unnamed source who was supposidly on the ground in Benghazi?
If one doubts information from an unnamed source then it stands to reason that one would doubt such an unnamed source was "on the ground" at such-and-such a location.
About the spcific contradiction between Petraeus and this unnamed source, it's worth noting that the unnamed source refers to the CIA chain of command which would include people outside the CIA, while Petraeus only refers to people inside the CIA.
I can attest that GEN (Ret) Petraeus is definitely not a coward, and he is no Colin Powell.
If the President classifies an operation, then anyone who is read into that operation is restricted from speaking about it - punishable by law, including prison.
The military must stay out of domestic politics to protect our constitutional system and their credibility. CIA too.
A sledgehammer is not the right tool for every job.
I thank God that he is taking on that job under this administration - it must be unrelenting stress and intrigue. Lots of 3D chess playing against a whole bunch of crafty lying bastards with hidden agendas - like in Iraq. If anybody can handle such a mess and still manage to steer the ship in the right direction, it’s him.
I understand your hatred but, when the President of the United States of America makes a decision, most of us feel duty bound to honer it. I’m sure everyone around Obama thought he was being a cold hearted m-fer but, the man is the President!!! The lid will eventually get blown off and Patreus knows it so, he got his ass covered with this memo. Still, this is all on the President. He made the decisions and he will live with the consequences
Utah, I get it now.
REALLY good movie. Recommended. Go see it.
The electorate needs to be reminded of Jimmy Carter and the likes of him before it heads off to the polls.
I’m sure Obama and his people thought what Steven’s was doing was sexy. Of coarse, a leftist can’t trust the CIA, right? That is, until your getting your ass shot off in a third world hell hole and your leftist party friends leave you for dead.
He was trying to limit the damage he knew was coming.
It looks to me like leaks from the Intel community are absolutely killing The Disaster.
This scandal is growing by the day.
Now if I try to get my head into AQ -- obviously something not normal for myself, but, it's Friday night; Let's give it a shot:
If I'm AQ and smart, what do I do with the missiles? Maybe, wait until after the U.S. election, and then start shooting down airliners, lots of them. This cripples the world economy and cripples Obama's credibility, worldwide, too, pretty much crippling the U.S. (As if Obama hasn't crippled it enough already!) Best is if he's been re-elected - now the terrorists have a long period of uncertainty in which to work more of their evil. Outright blackmail by AQ begins. Meanwhile, Iran probably aquires their first few nukes.
Ugh. I pray I'm wrong.
The last time I saw anything like this it was the Watergate Scandal. Except here the media is actively covering up for the president.
It isn’t too much to suggest that we at least listen to the General’s testimony of his role in all this. Is it?
That was one of the best calls ever heard on Rush’s show.
One from another soldier later was also incredible for showing the sense of betrayal that the guys on the ground everywhere are feeling. Will he leave them to die if a decision has to be made?
This is an earthquake.
He has been dead to me for four years.
Just another Brimley quote.
dragged out of bed in his pajamas and taken to trial.
Correction....should be Jennifer Griffin, not Jennifer Rubin....I keep making that mistake.
Where, once upon a time, a Democrat who was a real American sat.
I decided to name my pet turd after them.... POS....
Good thing the USA is not Argentina or some other South American country with a history of political instability. Otherwise, plotting for a coup d'etat would likely be in process.
That's good.
That might actually get some of the less informed of Zero's base to vote against him, having jumped to an incorrect conclusion about the late Mr. Woods. LOL!
It was Obama's call. What would you have Petraeus do? Mount a coup?
Blaming Petraeus, et al, is exactly how the Regime hopes to skate past this.
Absolutely stunning. I am very happy to see this coming from Petreaus. I hope he gets together with Congress immediately if not sooner to discuss with them everything he knows about this horrendous attack and the way it was handled by the executive branch.
Wow! That never crossed my mind. I would not be surprised if Romney was intentionally briefed on choice bits of information that was probably made up for cover about what happened in Benghazi, and then instructed that it was classified and that he couldn't discuss it. I know that the left is that devious.
Thanks for the link. It reads as if most likely several thousand are still floating about. Not good.
Looking about a little on the Web, this evening, there is some suggestion that AC-130’s have at least some defense capability against MANPAD’s. Can anyone comment further?
“...I really don’t get why you seem to be furious with Patreaus. I wouldn’t waste my breath on that guy.
We’ve got a president that needs to be impeached. Why divert attention.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Hear Hear. Well said. Focus is needed here, and the group to be focused on is State&Defense headed by the CinC.
Frankly, I am as certain as can be without being in the room that CinC made this call after Jarrett advised.
Panetta’s statement made no sense.
Supposedly the attack was being watched in real time. So they knew what was going on.
In any event, since when has the military failed to act because they didn’t know all of the details? There was an attack on an ambassador. There were calls for help. What more information was needed?
DO:
It seems to me that you are the solid voice of reason on this thread. There may have been others (I’m not going to look again at it all) but you have been tremendous.
I agree that it is very important to keep Director/CIA as much above the fray as possible in a situation like this. I do not understand his failure to smash the “video narrative”, but he definitely should not be doing something like say, “The President is lying.” to the world, via a spokesman. I am glad that he has come around for whatever reason to know that his remaining silent is a wrong course of action now. I also believe he should not be resigning, for reasons you delineate quite well in this thread. Congress ought to subpoena him, and the strongest action I believe he ought to take is to defy an order by the President to say nothing to Congress. I believe that with this statement, he is telling Issa that he will cooperate, and immediately, with such a subpoena. I suspect a large part of that testimony would have to be in closed session. After that, Congress can decide the best course of action, releasing as much info to the voters as possible, immediately.
CIA is too important to squander. This whole situation is fraught with danger in many ways, not the least of which is the position of these executive agencies and departments.
In addition, I strongly object to people who are calling the administration out for “treason”, and calling for impeachment based on the CinC failing to order a “rescue mission”. That is properly HIS CALL, despite my strong disagreement with the call he made. If you want to call for impeachment, call for it on the basis of failure to enforce laws like DOMA or instituting new law such as DREAM act without Congressional approval. Call for it based on the kangaroo court arrest of the video maker. Call for it based on lying to American and the world about the motivation for this attack. All these things are clearly unConstitutional, just as it is clearly Constitutional that CinC makes the call for use of the military in this type of case.
That said, CinC DEFINITELY SHOULD relate FULLY to America, before the election, WHY he made the call he did, and who he consulted, and the assets that were immediately available. That ought to be related at least several days before the election so military members and diplomatic corps can give rebuttal or supporting opinion. Then, let America’s voters decide whether they agree with him: do we give support to Americans in need without counting the cost, or do we evaluate whether “rescue” is worth it. I can imagine many would disagree with my belief that we give support first and evaluate later. This is something that American voters should decide together.
Time has run short to do that, but it is still not impossible. Without such a course by CinC, it is my opinion that everyone ought to simply say, “I can not trust this guy to be CinC since I don’t know how he will treat our people going forward” and vote against him with prejudice.
If I were in the field and saw a drone or two circling overhead, I would hope and pray it had a bomb or two on it and illuminate a target. They may not have known one way or the other, but simply held out hope.
Man-portable air-defense systems have been around for a long time and are plentiful all over the world already.
This link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_systems, lists a number of attacks that have happened over the years.
Dealing with hostile fire is a core part of military actions and the U.S. military is the best there is.
I think the last decade provides ample evidence that, given the order to do so, the U.S. military would have gotten the job done if it was possible.
What stopped them was the the President refusing to give the order.
The retired Lt. Col. caller to Rush today clarified the chain of command for civilians like me who would not be aware of the details. According to that interview, within minutes of the alarm sounding that an Ambassador was in peril, the President would be asked to approve rescue operations.
It is EXTREMELY important strategically that Romney STAY OUT of the whole Libya mess now. If he says anything about it, there will be no end to increasing polarization. Any sound byte would be about Romney vs Obama, instead of Obama vs America’s military/diplomatic corps. The best way for him to gain relative stature, and for America to hear the truth about Libya, is for the process that is underway to proceed without Obama and the Dems being able to claim that he “is politicizing Benghazi”.
As hard as it is, Romney must say NOTHING about it as much as humanly possible, for him to get maximum traction from it.
David Petraeus threw in with the wrong crowd. Too bad he wasn’t a student of the Bible, “Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 1 Co 15:33
AMEN!!!!!! He MIGHT have been good guy, but not anymore.....he’s turned into a COWARD!
I believe Petraeus.
Has President George W Bush been blamed yet? If not, what’s taking so long?
Exactly. I never heard or said one byte about him not saying anything. In fact his not saying anything reveals that he will NOT LEAK info or use our military as political pawns. I simply acknowledged that he had intel. Period.
All that is true
I am repeating what Panetta said
They didn’t want to risk losing the rescue teams etc to the missiles on top of losing the ambassador which means he has admitted they weren’t going to send a rescue mission
That is a direct contradiction to what Obama is saying and Panetta is on record
FOX should be all over this contradiction
“The last time I saw anything like this it was the Watergate Scandal.”
PLEASE... don’t buy into the comparison-to-Watergate mantra. We are SICK of it! This is nothing like Watergate. Watergate was a few bumbling clowns, doing a B&E (badly), to get a few files from an office. The cover-up was bad, but not critical. Since then, there have been 100 situations much worse, all perpetrated by democrats. Watergate continues to be the standard libs use because Nixon was President at the time.
The crime in Watergate: Trying to steal FILES.
The crime in Benghazi: Purposely sacrificing four American LIVES in an attempt to manipultate the outcome of an election.
Everyone spews: “It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.” NO! It’s the crime.
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.