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 ...
more likely he said “it’s just another bump in the road” in reference to this horrible preventable loss of life.
THOUSANDS of missiles stolen from Colonel Gaddafi’s arms stash are being smuggled into Afghanistan to target Brit chopper pilots.
That is probably the reason
As I posted Panneta admitted the terrorists had the resources to take down any rescue attempts
Just the thoughts of all so missiles in their hands is scary as hell
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
After BSing that they didn’t respond because they trying get a picture of what was happening he said the terrorists had missiles that could bring down rescue flights.
I think that is the real reason.
They didn’t want a military loss added to the mixture
Wow, I didn't catch that part (in bold, above).
Still, maybe one of our other members who's more up on the military side of things can comment: Tactics in such a situation? I have a couple guesses, but would rather hear from someone knowledgeable.
Wonder how he knew they had the missiles when they were only protesting a movie
Pretty darn good question. This really shows how one lie begets another, and another. In this case, it looks like the whole thing may fall apart, even for the MSM friends of the liars. We can hope so, anyway.
Well NATO might as well get the hell out
It is just a crap sandwich now especially since AQ is all over the ME now
“I’m gonna have someone’s ass in my briefcase.”
Is that you Bawney Frwank?
Obama’s/Clinton’s foray into Libyan politics has really made us so much more unsafe. They made military/commercial air travel dangerous. Why? Because Woods was part of a CIA team whose mission “was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft.” Well done Obama! It’s the usual Obama FUBAR.
Thank you everyone for the great comments. This was indeed a very good discussion.
yeah, I think about it, too, since the tribal era was just last week in AFghanistan.
Denying support has been part of his policy in afghanistan. I guess it’s like a personal petraeus signature. Just gets me mad.
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.
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.