Replies

Are we to believe that an American embassy under attack has to REQUEST help?

A couple weeks ago a former special operator called into a talk show to explain to the host how it works when an embassy or consulate is under attack. Immediately after the first shots were fired, a communications specialist (likely Sean Smith) fired off numerous secure communications to a post in DC that reports directly to the President. Those secure communications would've outlined that the embassy was under attack and needed immediate assistance. That communication would've been handed to the President directly. That communications specialist cannot hand the communication to anyone except the president, so Obama knew. He knew, he had to make a call, and he did not.

4 men died as a result.

That communications specialist cannot hand the communication to anyone except the president, so Obama knew. He knew, he had to make a call, and he did not.

I expect Petraeus to continue to tow the line, though I hope that he will do the right thing and blow the lid sky high off Benghazi by simply and truthfully noting that POTUS declined to give the order. Of course, he'll probably try to say both things at the same time and please the WH and those seeking the truth.

Petraeus, like most generals, has been extremely politically adept. His thinking on military strategy fits in superbly with globalist NGO interests which are the de factor policy-making groups for both the Bush and Obama administrations. This is why he shot to the top of every list of top world leaders over the last decade, and the trajectory of his career is completely based on his theories. So he is entirely invested personally in the globalist, elitist, NGO agenda, though he may actually not even be aware just how much he is. The nation-building outlook, shared by others - but certainly not all - in military leadership is diametrically opposed to traditional warmaking and is undermining U.S. ability to face potential large adversaries without experiencing the enormous losses incurred when going up against those who are all too willing to sacrifice millions of their own in a horrific war of attrition. Of course, without overwhelming superiority, risks increase exponentially; not risks of policing third world countries, but risks of the difficulties associated with brutal, old-school war.

Once someone opens the pandora's box of saying the President would not give a cross-border authorization, the next logical question is why.

The answer to "why" can only point to a) afraid, b) stupid or c) globalist plot in which POTUS was tasked with not giving the cross-border authorization, either specifically for this operation or a standing order for the duration of his terms in office.

The dainty Republicans in the Senate are publicly leaving the option for b) on the table for POTUS to accept. The dainties are also, of course, doggie-paddling like crazy to try to shore up their support amongst conservatives by seeming to pounce on POTUS regarding this he-man issue.

God forbid anyone in Congress actually admits publicly that POTUS is a stooge working for the New Left under the watchful eye of his handler, Valerie Jarrett.