Posted on 10/26/2012 11:53:54 PM PDT by John Semmens
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and himself all decided against any intervention to rescue those besieged because we lacked a clear picture of what was happening.
Panetta admitted that while the drone surveillance did give us a real-time view of events on the ground, there were still some unanswered questions. First, we couldn't be sure how many attackers were involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn't be sure how many reinforcements to send.
Second, the pictures from the drone couldn't clearly establish the intent of the attackers, Panetta continued. We had no way of knowing they would actually kill the Ambassador. Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn't risk negating this potential option.
There was always the chance that an attempt to rescue the Ambassador might make things worse, Panetta added. As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would've been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.
The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. It's to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation, he said. It's hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you're in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/121509-2012-10-26-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-october-28-2012.htm
With a side order of: Collusion, delusion, deception and evil...
Zer0 and his administration are a menace to our nation and damn near everyone living here.
An Obama supporting friend of mine said: “He had his reasons. No biggie.” They really are spinning...
It wasn’t optimal.
They were afraid of what Putin my do if we sent our military in to protect the CIA complex and it’s occupants. Does the term Candy A$$ mean anything to ya.
John, I actually heard one of the Dem talking heads on FNC yesterday say, "If we sent in planes to help they could have crashed and then we'd be talking about the casualties from that!"
Dumbest thing I've ever heard!
Satire looses it’s effect when it’s less absurd than the official administration story.
‘The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. It’s to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation, he said. It’s hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you’re in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.’
Reminds me of the line Gene Hackman’s Luthor says to his henchman Otis in “Superman: The Movie”: “Your life which I would gladly sacrifice by the way.” How magnaminous of Luthor/Panetta!
He didn’t say “no Libyan blood on our hands” - -
But I bet that was the real reason.
Probably closer to truth than satire this time. At least we have 3 names to fire.
John Semmens ~:” Panetta added. As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would’ve been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
If I , or my country, is being attacked , I really don’t care about the attackers nationality .
An “attack” is still an attack ,even if they are being attacked by stones.
There were no innocent Libyians fireing RPG’s , or automatic weapons at the compound ; chances are they were Muslim Buddiehood looking to use the incident as an excuse for successful strategy , additional munitions , and “a Sh*tload of American money “.
Laser painted targets are not innocent observers !
You have demonstrated that adherance to “Der Leader” agenda supercedes logic !
“Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive.”
Yeahm right. That’ll work.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. And angering.
Thanks again, John, for the ping.
You are absolutely right...and it’s not even that clever.
Unfortunately this sounds more like the truth than satire. This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach.
Hard to recognize satire with the Obama team on the job.
Here’s a real article from a real source on this same subject:
“Panetta Says We Lacked Real-Time Benghazi Intel”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2951009/posts
Not much different from the satire piece.
Thank you for keeping me in your list for all these years, through all my deployments... But I don’t recall you ever calling your articles out as satire... Were you made to do this? Part of the fun was seeing all the bites you would get.
Seems to be part of a trend. The magazine SALVO has some hilarious satirical ads (no real ones) in each issue. A couple of issues ago they started labeling them "Fake Ads." Incredible. Have we reached the point where no one can any longer recognize satire?
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.