• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

Status
Not open for further replies.
apdst said:
Why did Rice tell the nation that it was all about a stupid internet video?
Click to expand...

They came from the CIA:

Another is blatant disregard of established facts. Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community. She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post
​
 
Oceandan said:
This, has got to be one of THE MOST patently asinine comments I ever hallucinated I'd hear a SecDef make. Of course it's a microcosm of the weakness of the current administration.

Yeah Leon, so instead of sending HELP, and you had resources READY WILLING and ABLE to go, in fact they were IN CARS about to head to the airport in Tripoli, you just sat back, the current occupier Commander in Chief went to bed, and you let four American's die.

Of course the low information crowd thinks this is a good strategy.
Click to expand...
Nice rhetoric, now prove it.
 
pbrauer said:
What a great link, thanks.

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, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

snip​
Click to expand...

Did you notice the date of the story ? Oct. 26, 2012. You are aware that Panetta just like Gates have always been known as "yes men" during most of their career.

We must assume that Panetta played a part in the White House cover up because today most in the military disagree with Panetta's and recently Gates comments on Benghazi. Most members with in the military are pissed off at the Obama administration for not allowing them to do their job. The U.S. military has a long tradition of going in to harms way.

>"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on,"< is about as stupid as Obama's politicaly correct Rules of Engagement (ROE) that Obama signed off on that favor the enemy in Afghanistan and are directly responsiable for hundreds of American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan.

Civilians in the White House and the Pentagon shouldn't be making decisions that the military should be making.
 
It's called a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Gates. You know, the very forces that are trained and deployed for THIS EXACT SCENARIO!! I've been on a MEU and done the training. The situation in Benghazi was a textbook case of what we trained for in 2000 when I deployed, much less now. If the training was as good as it was then, imagine how good it is now. Its called Embassy Reinforcement. I don't know where this guy gets his info. A MEU can put about 200-300 infantrymen on that site within 3-6 hours of being given the order complete with fixed/rotary wing coverage, amphibious assault vehicle support, and even artillery support if deemed necessary (in this case not). Despite popular belief, special forces/SEALs don't have to do everything. You don't need a filet knife for a blunt object job. Benghazi was a blunt object job and Marine infantryman are that blunt object.
 
I think the message from conservatives is clear: they hate the military, and want to tell it how to do its job.

Imagine having the likes of Issa deciding when and were to put US troops in harms way.
 
pbrauer said:
Nice rhetoric, now prove it.
Click to expand...

Well, when these Americans were getting slaughtered by terrorist, where was your President ?

You keep trying to define down, to justify these murders, because it exposes your President for the low life he is and it exposes your ideology as corrupt.

Now where was your President ?
 
head of joaquin said:
I think the message from conservatives is clear: they hate the military, and want to tell it how to do its job.

Imagine having the likes of Issa deciding when and were to put US troops in harms way.
Click to expand...

You hate the survivors, wondering why didn't the "Protesters" finish the job .
 
APACHERAT said:
Did you notice the date of the story ? Oct. 26, 2012. You are aware that Panetta just like Gates have always been known as "yes men" during most of their career.

We must assume that Panetta played a part in the White House cover up because today most in the military disagree with Panetta's and recently Gates comments on Benghazi. Most members with in the military are pissed off at the Obama administration for not allowing them to do their job. The U.S. military has a long tradition of going in to harms way.

>"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on,"< is about as stupid as Obama's politicaly correct Rules of Engagement (ROE) that Obama signed off on that favor the enemy in Afghanistan and are directly responsiable for hundreds of American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan.

Civilians in the White House and the Pentagon shouldn't be making decisions that the military should be making.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct, the military should be the ones make those decisions. Where does Gates say Panetta made those decisions?
 
Taylor said:
Technically, it wasn't anything. Didn't appear on the state department website. It's been called a consulate, a diplomatic mission, and even the administration has referred to it as "our embassy" in Benghazi at times. (Besides, "embassy personnel" is a generic term.)

But who the @&$# cares what you call it, it wasn't protected as it should have been.
Click to expand...

You should take a trip to the US consulate in Guadalajara Mexico. It's about as lightly protected as it can be from the outside. If all hell broke lose in Mexico tomorrow, good luck flying a plane overhead and getting US soldiers into that area of the city in time.
 
Fenton said:
The entire missle is not concrete, just the payload. It's actually a dense concrete like substance and is specifically used to NOT create a ecplosion that would take out innocent targets.

Accelerate anything to 2 a thousand an hour and whatever it hits , it destroys.

Look , most " people " here trying to justify away our Govt's lack of action are extremely ignorant when it comes to our Military's capabilities.

It's incredibly naive to think we couldn't have responded because it was " pandemonium".

Spec Ops are trained for " pandemonium"
Click to expand...

So it's not made purely of concrete as you first said. But actually a dense concrete like substance. Does the missile have a guidance system as well? Face it, jet fighters,bombs and missiles were not the answer to this no matter how hard people try to beleave they are.

Having served for 25 years in the EOD I have a little bit of knowledge on how the Military works in situations like this. The only way to have had any effect on this would have been to Helo a lot of Spec Ops in. That has it's own problems and needs onsite intell.

I don't think anyone is trying to justify the lack of action. Just trying to look at a different angle then the "just kill everyone" crowd. To call them ignorant just because they don't think the same as you is a bit dishonest.
 
APACHERAT said:
Did you notice the date of the story ? Oct. 26, 2012. You are aware that Panetta just like Gates have always been known as "yes men" during most of their career.

We must assume that Panetta played a part in the White House cover up because today most in the military disagree with Panetta's and recently Gates comments on Benghazi. Most members with in the military are pissed off at the Obama administration for not allowing them to do their job. The U.S. military has a long tradition of going in to harms way.

>"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on,"< is about as stupid as Obama's politicaly correct Rules of Engagement (ROE) that Obama signed off on that favor the enemy in Afghanistan and are directly responsiable for hundreds of American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan.

Civilians in the White House and the Pentagon shouldn't be making decisions that the military should be making.
Click to expand...

Read this:

Defense.gov News Article: DOD Cooperates With Congress on Benghazi Probes
 
It sounds like the GOP wants to politicize military and intelligence decisions, just like the good old days of Bush and yellow cake.
 
head of joaquin said:
It sounds like the GOP wants to politicize military and intelligence decisions, just like the good old days of Bush and yellow cake.
Click to expand...

This is the latest talking point from dems, the GOP is trying politicize the situation, not the dems by lying about the decisions they did make.
 
OpportunityCost said:
This is the latest talking point from dems, the GOP is trying politicize the situation, not the dems by lying about the decisions they did make.
Click to expand...

Is it your claim that the military wanted to blunder in Benghazi on short notice, but Hillary didn't let them?

You conservatives and your wild accusations. Stick with yellow cake.
 
BMCM said:
Close air support is generally done by helos or by what we called puff the magic dragon in VN and not fighter jets
Click to expand...


So you are basing your judgement of 2012 military technology capabilities on 1967 military technology capabilities?
 
head of joaquin said:
Is it your claim that the military wanted to blunder in Benghazi on short notice, but Hillary didn't let them?

You conservatives and your wild accusations. Stick with yellow cake.
Click to expand...

Hillary lying about something...a completely wild accusation. Sure. Gonna try to sell me a car next?
 
BMCM said:
So it's not made purely of concrete as you first said. But actually a dense concrete like substance. Does the missile have a guidance system as well? Face it, jet fighters,bombs and missiles were not the answer to this no matter how hard people try to beleave they are.

Having served for 25 years in the EOD I have a little bit of knowledge on how the Military works in situations like this. The only way to have had any effect on this would have been to Helo a lot of Spec Ops in. That has it's own problems and needs onsite intell.

I don't think anyone is trying to justify the lack of action. Just trying to look at a different angle then the "just kill everyone" crowd. To call them ignorant just because they don't think the same as you is a bit dishonest.
Click to expand...

They were painting the mortar positions for a reason, for a strike that never came. If two Navy Seals with their extensive training thought that lazing the targets would have effectively neutralized the attack, then I'm convinced it would have been successful.

But of-course, there was no military back up. Those people were left to die. Now if three highly trained Seals, who knew more about the situation then any one here, took off towards Benghazi, do you think there was NO communication before, during and after....for the one who survived ?

That they would have taken off without a way to guarantee, as far as they knew military support ?

My sons in the Navy, and he's thinks the Benghazi disaster is a blatant cover up and the democrats are using the general ignorance of the American population as it pertains to our Military's capabilities to perpetuate the false narrative.

That there was nothing " the most technologically advance military in the world" could do for those people.

I try to put him under the light so to speak when he comes home, as he has a very high security clearance and get him to fill me in on the latest tech BUT, he's a good lad and won't budge. Next is waterboardding.

He did mention that there were several different options available, and those who say there wasn't enough time are full of sh**, due to the fact no one knew at the time how long the attack would have gone on for.

Notice those who were responsible are still free men. So it's more BS from Obama supporters who would rather see men die before they admit they subjected our Country to the most inept and corrupt administration in our Nations History.
 
BMCM said:
Close air support is generally done by helos or by what we called puff the magic dragon in VN and not fighter jets
Click to expand...

AC-130's are pretty good at it.
 
jmotivator said:
So you are basing your judgement of 2012 military technology capabilities on 1967 military technology capabilities?
Click to expand...
AC130 specter gunship (Black Betty) is still in service for the military one was in the air in the area during the attack reports say it was told to stand down



Steal Rain is what our enemies called it
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
It sounds like the GOP wants to politicize military and intelligence decisions, just like the good old days of Bush and yellow cake.
Click to expand...

We would have nothing to talk about, if your dirt bag of a President didn't politicize Benghazi by lying about a video. He's doubled down on his talking points today.....he's such a idiot.

You think he and J, Carney are going to get an apartment together after all of this is over ?
 
pbrauer said:
Robert Gates appeared on CBS's Face The Nation on Sunday and pushed back on the critics of Obama's military. See the video on his appearance at the link .

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "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."



Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News
​
Click to expand...

well, if Gates was in the position to make these decisions, and decided exactly as others have done... he's be in the hot seat right now having answers demanded from him from folks who want to know why their decision led to 4 dead Americans.

the military is known for planning before they execute..sure thing.... I'd like ot know why there was no plan for such a contingency as the consulate coming under attack in a politically and socially unstable country
I'd like to know if the folks who worked there knew there was no security contingency plan.
I'd like to know how they felt about being left in the cold to die by the government that is supposed to be so goddamned good at planning.

we can't really ask them though... they are dead.

one day, I'd like to see a government of leaders who look to protect their people, rather than bending over backwards to protect their peers.
I guess it's easy to to do when you know that yourself and your peers won't ever be in the position to be harmed like the minions they send are
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom