Posted on 05/12/2013 12:54:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Obama administration got some backing Sunday for the way in which it responded as terrorists attacked the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September – a night of violence and confusion during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said if he had been at the Pentagon at that time, "Frankly … I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were.”
Republican critics have said a Special Forces team or overflights by fighter aircraft based in Italy might have prevented the US losses or at least frightened off the attackers. Mr. Gates disagrees.
Such actions, he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, “without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on the ground, would have been very dangerous."
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," Gates said, referring to morning-after analysis. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Who’s decisions is Gates talking about? I thought Obama didn’t make any decisions.
................As for the option of sending even a single fighter jet to try to “scare” the attackers, Gates said that was impossible because of the danger of surface-to-air missiles...................
So I guess that we should retire our Air Force, as all kind of scumbags in two war theaters have dangerous surface-to-air missiles, along with ragheads around the world. We sure wouldn’t want to have any risks to save American lives!
(Even Jimmuh, the wuss, tried, yet failed, to get Americans held in Iran.)
Gates is Satan’s gift to idiots.
Barry said himself, that he told them as soon as he found out, to do what they needed to do to protect Americans. LIAR-in-Chief!
...” “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, 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 so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”...
Sure Barry, the youtube guy.
Gates has let every terrorist and wannabe jihadist that NO ONE is coming!
Thank you. It seems you have this one pegged. Talking in circles and attempting to be cryptic, I find it annoying as heck.
Article III, Section. 3. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Have at it. I assume you mean the "adhering to their enemies" part.
Obama's affection for and involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates is no secret. Since the Bush administration was also in deep with the Wahabists, and since the Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations have welcomed Wahabi and MB infiltration of US mosques with open arms, and since the avatar of this policy has been elected President twice, and since Federal, State, and local governments have provided land, funds, and logistical support for the construction of their mosques all over the US and the world - since all of these things are true and beyond dispute - proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these forces are "enemies of the United States" would be very difficult, even for your hypothetical first year law student.
For example, if you were testifying that the Muslim Brotherhood was an enemy of the United States at Obama's trial, I would read you the following and ask you, assuming these facts to be true, how you could testify truthfully to your claim:
"CAIR [the US Muslim Brotherhood] officials have met or regularly meet with current and former U.S. Presidents, members of their respective administrations, members of the United States Congress, governors, mayors, members of state legislatures, and county commissioners. Several CAIR affiliates have received proclamations and citations from mayors and county commissioners.[81] The organization itself has received praise from congressmen and women to top military officials such as General Wesley Clark, who "applaud[ed] its efforts to ensure that all Americans…are treated equally and given the same constitutional rights."[82] CAIR also regularly meets with national, state, and local law enforcement officials including the Department of Homeland Security.[14][83] CAIR has conducted diversity/sensitivity training on Islam and Muslims for the FBI, US Armed Forces, several local and state law enforcement agencies, and many U.S. corporations."
"... at sea level, it can fly a little over 900 mph. At a higher altitude, without bombs and tanks under the wings, it can reach 1,500 mph."
A little over a one hour flight from northern Italy. And we're supposed to believe that the closest fighter jet that a NATO nation could scramble to a country that NATO just finished bombing into rubble is over 1,000 miles?
France? Britain? Bueller? Is there anyone out there?
^From Wiki? That info is from CAIR’s own press releases.
If you're trying now to give him further cover by ignoring the ramifications of him sending Rice out to lie and in the process throw the Libyan ambassador under his little short bus, well, that won't work either. This is not a law enforcement issue, though you appear to be trying to divert it into such a discussion, proving yet again that you're trying to cover for little barry abstard boy. You are disgusting ... and frankly, transparent now. Your little demigod should be impeached and removed for the Benghazi episode, fast and furious, the IRS misuse, etc. Holder should be tried on accessory to murder charges, and ... well, I think you get the ghist of it now, even as you try to play misdirection.
furg apologist jackass
Yeah. He has to shake more often now when using a urinal.
I have posted here, many times, that our positions in Benghazi were reduced by a company-sized military assault, well-planned, with excellent command-and-control.
I have also posted many times that military force was available and should have been used.
I think you are misreading my posts. Once you start to think about how Obama could be removed from office, you have to design a REALISTIC pathway to 67. Bad judgement and defective character, of which there is evidence in spades, will not suffice.
Misuse of the IRS is a CRIME. Interference in a military investigation/prosecution is a CRIME. Getting the Philly Black Panthers off by misprision of a felony is a CRIME.
Benghazi is not (or at least has not been proven to be) a crime. People here seem to think that the public is going to rally to the cause of removal because Obama is a dope, lazy, and a Muslim sympathizer. They elected him twice knowing all that.
I’m advocating for a proper investigating committee, with proper staff (Mark Levin for Chief Counsel) and a proper budget to investigate all of Obama’s real crimes. Benghazi is, IMO, a waste of energy a) because most people don’t care about it and b) because I don’t see a provable crime at its heart (yet).
Of course it is.
If you cannot prove that Obama has committed, or caused to be committed, a crime, he is not going to be impeached. You know it, and I know it.
THEREFORE - the goal of getting him impeached and removed IS IN FACT a "law enforcement" matter, in the sense that a House Committee is going to have to do a legal investigation, with real prosecutors and real funding, and is going to have to draw up articles that include charges and specifications which outline things other than that which everybody already knows (that he is lazy, that he's a coward, and that he's soft on Muslims).
A sitting president cannot be tried and convicted then impeached. It doesn't work that way. You know it and I know it. So, if there had to be a law enforcement issue proven to impeach, the whole notion of not being able to try and convict a sitting president would be moot. If a pResident is impeached and removed, THEN he can be tried for criminal acts. A sitting president can however be sued in civil court while still occupying the White House, as bent-willie clinton proved.
Your effort to divert the issue to a criminal act which calls for trial is contrary to your other direction which tries to assert that a sitting pResident will not be removed if political party numbers do not add up to 67 in the Senate. You and I both know that democrips will throw little barry bastard boy out with the other DC trash if he becomes too much of a liability for the 2014 elections. THAT is political reality, regardless of prosecutable offenses.
RE: To what extent is the sequester involved in insufficient resources vs. other reasons for poorly positioned resources.
The Sequester came in 2013. There was no such thing as sequestration then.
RE: It smells hauntingly like David ordering the forces to drawback from the fight, leaving Uriah the Hittite to be slaughtered so David could have pregnant Bathsheba at the palace without a scandal erupting.
If Obama is David in the above analogy, who is Bathsheba?
It was an effort at metaphorical comparison. But with a malignant narcissist like little bastard barry the suggestion that he was hoping to get Libyan weaponry in moose slime brotherhood hands and al qaeda intervened would be analogous to David wanting Uriah to go home and be with his wife, Bathsheba when he came in from battle earlier might work. David intended to cover her pregnancy by him, with Uriah coming home. When Uriah refused to abandon the King’s defense, David sent him back into battle and gave orders to the troops, to ‘end the problem’. Little barry wanted the failed slight of hand over Libyan weaponry to go away before the election (the pregnancy could be discovered), so he refused pleas to send the cavalry to save the haplessly loyal fodder.
“Stand down! I’m in the middle of a tough re-election campaign!” was the right decision?
gates is a quisling moron.
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.