Posted on 10/26/2012 6:30:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BOMBSHELL: US troops in Benghazi would not have been painting targets on the ground unless there was air support overhead. But someone called it off – And the decision most likely came from the White House.
FOX News reported earlier today that security officers on the ground in Benghazi had a laser planted on a target that was firing on the annex.
The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
So there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC. Yet, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this,
“The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over.”
How much more information did they need?
* * * * *
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE. It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth. As Blackfive says,
“This is bigger than Watergate!… The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.“
A caller today discussed this with Rush Limbaugh.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Here is part of that conversation.
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
Read the rest here. Hat Tip Truth and Common Sense
Not a “plan” A resposibility: reply at cooper
Who does the Constitution assign to replace the Senators and Representatives when those people are temporarily not able to carry out their duties - say, if they have surgery and are put under anesthesia, survive a shot to the head by a schizophrenic, are arrested for a crime, etc? Who carries out their duty and votes for them in Congress in the interim?
Who replaces the Supreme Court justices when they are temporarily unable to carry out their duties?
Who replaces the members of the Cabinet when they are temporarily unable to carry out their duties?
Of all the people the Constitution mentions, the one who is most dispensable, in terms of the Constitution preparing for their temporary inability to carry out their duties, is the President. There’s already a long line of substitutes waiting to fill in if he/she is temporarily unavailable. Not so the other people who could be impeached.
I don’t think you’re listening to what I’m saying. You say I just don’t like the political answers that have been given. I don’t believe those are the answers that the Constitution actually gives, and I’ve pointed out the actual language from the Constitution (in both Article III, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment) that refutes what is being claimed about what the First Article means regarding criminal prosecution of the President.
I just got off work so I haven’t read the rest of what you sent me but maybe you can tell me whether those 3 parts of the Constitution are addressed. They are biggies, regarding the role and requirements of the Judiciary (with no exceptions for the POTUS), the requirement that the states give equal protection to all under their jurisdiction (with no exception for the POTUS), and the limitations on the federal government and the rights reserved to either the states or the people (with no exception for criminal prosecution of the POTUS). Critical issues, all.
When we started this conversation you were convinced that I was a b!tch who wanted to deny Obama due process. Now it turns out that I am the one saying the Constitution says Obama should be subject to the same due process we all get - and you’re providing links arguing against that. All I have ever wanted in all this is for every person in this country to have equal protection and due process - the rule of law rather than rule by men. It is bitter irony that the argument against me is that the President is the unspoken exception to the consistent language and principles presented in the Constitution, including the 3 references I gave to support my belief.
A question for you: according to the arguments in the links you provided, could Bill Clinton be tried for crimes right now - by federal law enforcement, by state law enforcement, or by Congress (to determine whether he could receive the Presidential pension and continuing title of President)? Either the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice from the Paula Jones case (the subjects of his impeachment) or other crimes if he committed some either before or after his Presidential term). Why or why not?
Imagine that on Jan. 20th at 11:59am - one minute before Constitutionally taking office - a President-elect committed rape in a state where the statute of limitations allowed 7 years for the crime to be prosecuted. A rape kit was done showing his DNA and there was video of the rape. The guy was re-elected and so had 8 uninterrupted years as POTUS. When and how would that raped woman receive equal protection from her state, as required by the 14th Amendment, under the interpretation set forth in the links you gave?
then I guess that’s the only ‘responsibility’ that matters to you. But it is only for you, so it is hardly a virtuous thing.
When we started this conversation you were convinced that I was a b!tch who wanted to deny Obama due process.
Nope, I said you didn't like the political options in the Constitution and implied we needed to do something else.
could Bill Clinton be tried for crimes right now
Yes by any LE agency. He could also be pardoned by the President for Federal or by the Governor of the state that had jurisdiction. Prosecution is possible provided the statute of limitations for those crimes have not passed. I don't think he is eligible to be tried by Congress. All nice thoughts, most if not all not possible politically.
As for your rape scenario? Articles of impeachment in the House followed by conviction in the Senate barring pardon by the Governor of that state.
One vote in Congress could be the difference between Obamacare or not Obamacare, declared war on Libya or not declared war on Libya, etc and yet even on the way to (or during) the session in which that would be decided, a Senator or Representative could be arrested for a felony, treason, of breach of the peace. Nobody can replace that vote. If Obama is arrested at any point, Joe Biden takes over and the function of the President is never interrupted. Furthermore, most functions of the President can be done at his leisure. He doesn’t have one day when he has to either veto a bill or not; he has 10 days. That would give him plenty of time to be arrested, be out of jail on bail, and decide whether to veto a law (for instance). I just don’t see that the argument being used here makes sense.
And even more seriously, I see at least 3 different places in the Constitution where imperatives are used without including an exception for the President (all cases, all crimes, no state shall, the powers... are reserved). So not only does the rationale for the exception not make sense, it is not stated in the Constitution and IS contradicted in at least 3 places in the Constitution.
In the end, what it comes down to is that the Constitution has been interpreted as if those imperatives didn’t exist - resulting in a case where the President is NOT subject to the same due process as everybody else, and where persons who are victimized by the felony of a President are NOT given equal protection of the laws. I have a problem with that.
I also have a problem with law enforcement being subject to politics. We have all seen the fruit that bears. I actually do believe that the Founders could see a crook like Obama being in office, although I think they would have thought he would only BECOME a crook after his powers went to his head. Given the belief that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, I very much doubt that they intended to make the President answerable only to the people who need his goodwill in order to get laws signed. That’s the recipe for the Chicago Mob, and the Founding Fathers had just been through a bloody war undoing the damage of lawlessness on the part of an unchecked political player (King George).
The states don’t have power to get Congress to impeach. And what kind of mixing of state and federal would it be, if to prosecute a state crime the feds have to be involved? When I report the crimes of Obama and Bob Bauer in the states in which they occurred, how is Congress going to even know there are impeachable offenses at the state level? Do I send my affidavits to every member of Congress too? If so, it’s an asinine arrangement. And I don’t believe it is intended by the Constitution. The Constitution certainly never says that, and I’ve pointed out at least 3 mandates in the Constitution that refute that interpretation.
How would the state provide equal protection to the woman in the rape scenario I gave, if Congress didn’t know about the rape charges, didn’t care, or voted “not guilty” out of sheer political expedience with the excuse that it was just about - tee hee - sex?
And you and I both know that’s exactly what would happen because we’ve seen clear proof of obstruction of justice and perjury that was totally blown off for political reasons. Is that really what our Founding Fathers wanted? Law enforcement handled by politicians? You’ve acknowledged what we all know: that politics will trump justice every time. If the Constitution planned for law enforcement to be politicized to such a point that the President is above the law, then they totally screwed up everything they said the system was supposed to be built on: checks and balances, separation of powers, and the rule of law rather than the rule of men - all critical to the nation’s survival because absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don’t believe they were that stupid, and that is why 3 mandates were included which rule out the President being above the law because of mere politics.
If the justifying Constitutional concern was about the POTUS being unable to perform his Constitutional duties during a potentially long criminal trial, then what difference does it make if it is Congress that is doing the trial rather the courts?
The courts could subpoena the records from Hawaii, the passport office, selective service administration, social security administration, Occidental, and Harvard just as efficiently as Congress could. It wouldn’t even take any testimony from Obama to come up with a conviction; his affidavits speak for themselves. The trial could be over very quickly without taking any of Obama’s time, unless he wanted to be there to see the testimony by others, or if he thought something he said could prove his innocence.
And f the courts tried the case, Congress would then be able to conduct the business of the country rather than doing what our judiciary was set up AND CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED to do. If it’s important for the POTUS to be available to do his job, particularly in a crisis, then how important is it that CONGRESS not be pulled away from their duties - including the duty to declare war?
I won’t go into the part about you calling me a b!tch and suggesting that I was as bad as the enemies of the Constitution because I’ve decided Obama is guilty and don’t want him to get due process. I DESPERATELY want him to have due process, just like anybody else would get - which is a Constitutional guarantee in the 14th Amendment.
It’s not for me. It’s for You and Becky.
Why doesn’t that surprise me?
In the end, what it comes down to is that the Constitution has been interpreted as if those imperatives didn’t exist - resulting in a case where the President is NOT subject to the same due process as everybody else, and where persons who are victimized by the felony of a President are NOT given equal protection of the laws. I have a problem with that.
Your argument is with the courts then. Your remedy is through the Legislative branch which makes it a political solution. Unless you want to roll out the guillotine.
I also have a problem with law enforcement being subject to politics.
No doubt, what is your remedy if it isn’t political?
I won’t go into the part about you calling me a b!tch
That’s good, because I never called you one, just pointed out you liked to engage in it without offering any solutions. You have offered none here either, just analysis of the issues. OK, I get it, now what is YOUR solution. Absent that, there is little point in continuing.
As you may know Obama has relieved an Admiral who commanded a Carrier Strike Group. That CSG ADM was supposedly far away, but; word travels from active duty to retired to vets.
Now, the CG of Africa Command was also relieved from what I heard. He would have been the CG with the reaction force IMHO.
Two flag officer’s are gone, Susan rice lies, Hilliary tries to spin, Betrayus is ambitious, and; we have an IDIOT IN CHIEF.
If TSHTF, you except Becky to be able to travel 2600 miles? And for me to travel 900?
You’re delusional. As soon as the economy collapses and martial law is put in place, nobody will be traveling. At least no further than whatever amount of gas they already have stored will take them.
I think you are rationalizing doing something that is fun for you to make it appear magnanimus.
If you really care about Becky, you would be near her right now. I said that a long time ago. Same as when she was growing up.
BTW, why would I want to be friends with someone that is intentionally mean so often? Someone who says cruel and spiteful things on purpose when they are disagreed with. Someone who cannot control their temper and does all they can to hurt and be mean at the drop of a hat, with no concern for the long-term consequences?
That person is not trustworthy. They can’t be trusted to be a true friend or anything else with childish behavior like that. Saying they are sorry flippantly doesn’t erase what was said. Although a flippant apology is better than none. Better than the years of NOT explaining all the lies and protection and coverups over another. Benghazigate has nothing on you.
I’ve been saying my solution all along: all politicians should be subject to law enforcement just like anybody else - with the due process of probable cause having to be satisfied (regarding both amount and quality of evidence according to legal standards), commensurate bail, a grand jury, trial by jury in the state where the crime was committed, etc.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. There is nothing in the Constitution that says any of those things don’t apply to politicians who hold elected office, and the Constitutional mandates use the word “all”.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s not rocket science.
Hallelujah!!. Now, by what method do you see this 'solution' being achieved? What is the process, what must be enabled?
That’s all I’m saying. It’s not rocket science.
You are right, it is POLITICAL science.
Ok, makes sense ot do that in lieu of renting. I figured it was in addition to. How would you live there w/o a house in the winter though?
What is your new career? Sounds like you are doing well in it. I’m proud of you for that.
Law enforcement needs to grow a pair, and everybody else needs to stop pretending the Constitution says something it doesn’t. In the long term.
In the short term, we just need law enforcement to arrest everybody but the President who was involved in these crimes until Obama is out of office, and then arrest him once he’s out - making clear to Romney that he’s toast if he pardons any of them. And then get Congress to impeach him to strip him of his honorary title and pension.
What needs to be enabled? We need to convince law enforcement that if ANYTHING other than evidence - including the desire to not APPEAR “political” - determines who they arrest, they are perverting justice, breaking their oath, and violating the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. We the people have to stop accepting that this is “just the way it is”. If we don’t stand against this, we deserve what we get.
Maybe it’s too late. Maybe we’ve already gotten what we deserve.
And if we the people can't, what then?
We need to convince law enforcement
And if we the people fail at that, then what?
You have the problem that many in the targeting business have, you set objectives that are not achievable using the weapons at your disposal. The weapon that will achieve your goal and that you actually possess is one that you hate, because it requires it to be applied for a long period of time (political pressure/reform). It acts too slowly for you. You want 'something' 'some way' to achieve the goal for you, but you don't possess one that will work fast enough for you and are unwilling to build one that does.
Because you will always Love me. I will always pray for you.
Good Luck amd God Bless
Ok, makes sense ot do that in lieu of renting. I figured it was in addition to. How would you live there w/o a house in the winter though?
What is your new career? Sounds like you are doing well in it. I’m proud of you for that.
Ok, makes sense ot do that in lieu of renting. I figured it was in addition to. How would you live there w/o a house in the winter though? I also thought you were paying cash. A debt in economic collapse could be bad so i figured you thought of that. You’d still have property taxes though.
What is your new career? Sounds like you are doing well in it. I’m proud of you for that.
The remorse, guilt and shame I feel at times makes me physically ill. All I can do is Live the best I can follwing Gospel Princeples and praying to HF for guideance.
I am sorry I said mean things we both deserve better.
Alabama utility work crew turned away from helping New Jersey victims of sandy because they were non-union workers.
It is official, America is imploding. I wish we could be together for the collapse, it is going to be a rough ride.
I Love you and miss you.
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.