McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

"The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1: Warfighting the following passage on pages 86 and 87:

"We must have the moral courage to make tough decisions in the face of uncertainty--and to accept full responsibility for those decisions--when the natural inclination would be to postpone the decision pending more complete information. To delay action in an emergency because of incomplete information shows a lack of moral courage. We do not want to make rash decisions, but we must not squander opportunities while trying to gain more information. Finally, since all decisions must be made in the face of uncertainty and since every situation is unique, there is no perfect solution to any battlefield problem. Therefore, we should not agonize over one."

Surely this doctrine has been developed and maintained with the approval of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.....snip~

An Unlikely Benghazi Tale Unravels | The Weekly Standard

So much for excuses by Gen Ham and Panetta.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

SMTA said:
Wow, a thread of your own, eh?

Nah, it's not mine otherwise all the chit from Benghazi-Gate would be here and there would be no cherry picking of those facts. But I can definitely help out with all the material I have on it. I just wonder what people will say when they discover they cant blame Fox News. :lol:

Moot · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
Except for the fact that saying one takes responsibility and then not expecting to be any consequences .....that usually is worn on Democrats Sleeves. Just as Clinton has demonstrated as well as Obama.

I think Republicans first have to admit they've made mistakes before they can take responsibility for making them. Because if they don't, then the consequence is they're doomed to keep repeating them and we're doomed if they keep getting elected.

Moot · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
Seem Christol didn't mention anything about McCain did he. But he did bring up some quite noticeable issues for Panetta.....huh?

As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, "Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.".....snip~

I don't know where you get your information from, but in the links I posted it said that Panetta and Obama spent the first 20 minutes talking about Benghazi and what could be done and then Obama gave Panetta a green light to do whatever he needed to do to help the personel at the compound. So if what Kristol said is true about violating another countries airspace, then getting there in time to help the Ambassador would have been even more difficult, if not impossible, wouldn't it? But since the Ambassador was already dead by the time Obama was briefed, then why would Panetta need to keep in touch with him?

Grant · Feb 22, 2013

Napoleon said:
So you want the President to sit in a chair for hours and micromanage his staff? That about sum it up?

As Commander in Chief, that's his job. Do you think he should have just taken the rest of the day off in order to later make the claim that he was there so it wasn't his responsibility? Hiding under the bed when there are Americans being attacked is not Presidential leadership though it could be how Community Organizer might react.

That was the assessment.

From who? The Libyans knew it was a lie and everyone around the world who has access to these things knew it was a lie. There are many dozens of anti Islamic videos on the internet and still are. But even if it was a video at the bottom of it, that was no excuse to leave the Americans are their own without help. The video nonsense was just trying to shift the blame to someone else away from the White House, and it worked with his believers.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
I don't know where you get your information from, but in the links I posted it said that Panetta and Obama spent the first 20 minutes talking about Benghazi and what could be done and then Obama gave Panetta a green light to do whatever he needed to do to help the personel at the compound. So if what Kristol said is true about violating another countries airspace, then getting there in time to help the Ambassador would have been even more difficult, if not impossible, wouldn't it? But since the Ambassador was already dead by the time Obama was briefed, then why would Panetta need to keep in touch with him?

You want to know where I got the info.....from your source.

Why.....because the battle was still ongoing. What did you think after the first wave the attacks stopped? 7hrs of live feed tells us otherwise.

An Unlikely Benghazi Tale Unravels | The Weekly Standard

While some may think that armed drones could have made a difference in Benghazi, that's altogether unclear," a senior defense official tells Fox News. "You need good intelligence to drive the use of armed drones. It's not like you can just send hellfire missiles into a relatively crowded area when you don't know precisely where the enemy is."

Gee, if only there had been, say, a former Navy SEAL on the roof of the building under attack, using a laser range finder to communicate to higher headquarters precise map coordinates (which, if he had standard-issue gear, would be accurate to within one meter) of the enemy positions! And even if that had not been the case, there is always the option of using fixed wing jets to perform what is called a 'show of force:' a low-altitude high-speed pass meant to intimidate the enemy and indicate the presence of American airpower over the battlefield. Due to tight rules of engagement, this tactic is employed virtually every single day in Afghanistan (and likely much more frequently than that.)....snip

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
I think Republicans first have to admit they've made mistakes before they can take responsibility for making them. Because if they don't, then the consequence is they're doomed to keep repeating them and we're doomed if they keep getting elected.

Really.....well when the Democrats can get past leading 56k to death in NAM. Then you might actually have a leg to stand on. Course that's one of those history things that the Democrats just cant get rid of. Their History.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

McCain is Right.....and we can go to the VP debate as a start with Joe Biden.....wherein the White House Blamed the Stated Dept. As Jumpin Joe stated the WH didn't know anything about requests for security.....

Backing up Vice President Joe Biden’s claim the previous night about being unaware of a request for more security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House Friday asserted the responsibility lay with the State Department.

“What I am saying, when it comes to the number of personnel, who are in place at consulates and embassies and other diplomatic facilities around the world, those decisions are appropriately made at the State Department by security personnel,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
“When it comes to funding, this president makes sure that diplomatic security is adequately funded, make sure that that funding is restored when efforts on Capitol Hill are made, principally by House Republicans, including Congressman Ryan to slash it in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent in this country,” Carney added. <<<<< This is where Carney tried to blame Repubs with funding.....which was later proven to be false. Also do to Carneys own Statement as to the President making sure.

Biden responded, “We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security.”

Several reporters asked what Biden meant, considering that State Department officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that they requested more security. Carney explained, “He was speaking directly for himself and the president.”

Ed Henry of Fox News followed, asking if Obama or Biden were ever briefed about the need for more security.

“You are saying from this podium that the president and the vice president have never been briefed about the fact that security was needed in Benghazi. Never at a presidential daily briefing?.....snip~

White House Blames State Department, House Republicans for Lack of Security in Benghazi | CNS News

Here is the deflection by Biden and Carney. Ed Henry of CNN jacks them with the Question concerning Presidential Briefings. Not once but Twice. Carney responds but never answers the Question. So during the VP debate.....we have the very First Denial out across the nation being thrown by Jacked-up Joe.

Moot · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
You want to know where I got the info.....from your source.

Why.....because the battle was still ongoing. What did you think after the first wave the attacks stopped? 7hrs of live feed tells us otherwise.

An Unlikely Benghazi Tale Unravels | The Weekly Standard

Thats not the article I posted and its not written by Bill Kristol and there's no mention of "7 hrs of live feed" in your source. So I really don't know what you're talking about.

While some may think that armed drones could have made a difference in Benghazi, that's altogether unclear," a senior defense official tells Fox News. "You need good intelligence to drive the use of armed drones. It's not like you can just send hellfire missiles into a relatively crowded area when you don't know precisely where the enemy is."

Gee, if only there had been, say, a former Navy SEAL on the roof of the building under attack, using a laser range finder to communicate to higher headquarters precise map coordinates (which, if he had standard-issue gear, would be accurate to within one meter) of the enemy positions! And even if that had not been the case, there is always the option of using fixed wing jets to perform what is called a 'show of force:' a low-altitude high-speed pass meant to intimidate the enemy and indicate the presence of American airpower over the battlefield. Due to tight rules of engagement, this tactic is employed virtually every single day in Afghanistan (and likely much more frequently than that.)....snip

Thats ridiculous and just arm chair speculation from a blogger no less. The nearest fixed wing jets were stationed in Italy and it would have taken over two hours for them to get there and still no one really knew what was going on or where Ambassador Stevens was after the intial first half hour of the attack. So what would you have them do, bomb the consolate with Ambassador Stevens still inside?

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
Thats not the article I posted and its not written by Bill Kristol and there's no mention of "7 hrs of live feed" in your source. So I really don't know what you're talking about.

Thats ridiculous and just arm chair speculation from a blogger no less. The nearest fixed wing jets were stationed in Italy and it would have taken over two hours for them to get there and still no one really knew what was going on or where Ambassador Stevens was after the intial first half hour of the attack. So what would you have them do, bomb the consolate with Ambassador Stevens still inside?

I didn't say it was from your article.....I said it was from your SOURCE. Did I not?

That maybe the case about the blogger.....but that doesn't change up what is in the Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication. Which is why I brought this Bloggers piece up to bear from your Source the Weekly Standard.

Okay Fixed Wing.....What happened to the Aircraft carrier that was sitting off Libya?

But they did know where Stevens was before the battle began.....as he was on the front street out in front of Consulate with The Turks Envoy one hour before the battle began. Then he returned inside the Consulate. Which btw where there were no protestors whatsoever. Yet......Obama sent Susan Rice to make the Rounds on a Sunday to say there were protestors and that was the Intel they had at the time. Which now has been proven to be totally false.

Who Sent out Susan Rice to make the talk Shows? Clinton or Obama? Oh. and that Obama meaning would include Word from the White House or any Senior Staff that would be in touch with Obama to let him know. But was the individual to relay the Presidents acknowledgement to do so.

After this point there is the issue that the American People were lied to Publicly. Also Thru the Election on questions brought up about Benghazi.

Moot · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
Really.....well when the Democrats can get past leading 56k to death in NAM. Then you might actually have a leg to stand on. Course that's one of those history things that the Democrats just cant get rid of. Their History.

Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now. They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused. If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now. They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused. If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.

Yeah and.....still doesn't change up that History and Another thing All Republicans aren't Neo-Cons. But lets not digress with that history that Democrats can't get past. Lets deal with Benghazi. This is where the Democrats have made major blunders both tactically and strategically. Not to mention politically.

Where 2 Committees have found GROSS negligence. Incompetency, which has affected National Security, Compromised CIA Operations, placed US Personnel and Assets at Risk, and was the cause of 4 deaths. Which included a US Ambassador.

Currently we have no justice as Obama has said. We also now know that with the event in Egypt earlier that Day. Which dealt with another issue of Obamas Foreign Policy. That Obama thru the explanations of his own people. Who was away Partying(campaigning) dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911. Wherein 23 Muslims Countries rose up and Protested the US and we know that Social media was used by a Sunni Cleric in Egypt. Who began that Riot and Protest in Egypt was also in fact the one to Use Social media to call on all Sunni Muslims to Demonstrate, and protest the US.

Which we now know from Panetta that he only talked to Obama one time at 5pm. Which Panetta admits to.

We also now have Panetta and General Dempsey Putting the Blame squarely on the State Dept and Hillary. Who has ran off thinking she should have to suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Moot · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
I didn't say it was from your article.....I said it was from your SOURCE. Did I not?

It's not the same source because your article was quoting an unknown reader and made little sense.

That maybe the case about the blogger.....but that doesn't change up what is in the Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication. Which is why I brought this Bloggers piece up to bear from your Source the Weekly Standard.

"Fools rush in where others fear to tread." Did you read the first page of the Marine Doctrinal Publication on Warfare that your source quoted from, where it says that it's not a manual, it's a philosophy and the publication should be read from cover to cover in it's entirety so as not to take it out of context? No? Well, that explains why your source didn't make any sense. But hey, here's a quote from the Marine Doctrinal Publications on Intelligence.....

“And therefore I say: Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Gen. Dempsy and Panetta both stressed they didn't have enough intelligence on the ground to know what was going on at the consolate in order to respond. Why don't you believe them? Do you really believe they wanted Amb. Stevens and others to die?

Okay Fixed Wing.....What happened to the Aircraft carrier that was sitting off Libya?

As far as I can tell there weren't any aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or anywhere near Libya. Which is probably why Panetta kept saying they couldn't respond in time because of the distance.

"......This is a standard complement of Navy forces in the sea, and as of now, the Navy is not moving ships to Libya in response to the crisis. There are no aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at present...."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/marines-libya/

Snapshot of U.S. warships sent to Libya | UTSanDiego.com

But they did know where Stevens was before the battle began.....as he was on the front street out in front of Consulate with The Turks Envoy one hour before the battle began. Then he returned inside the Consulate. Which btw where there were no protestors whatsoever. Yet......Obama sent Susan Rice to make the Rounds on a Sunday to say there were protestors and that was the Intel they had at the time. Which now has been proven to be totally false.

But that was the intel they had at the time. What purpose would Rice have for lying about the attack? What difference does it make if the terrorists attacked because of a video or 9/11 or revenge for some cleric? It doesn't change the fact that it was a well co-ordinated, planned attack or that people were killed or that without intelligence from the ground the response would still have been the same regardless of the terrorists motive.

Who Sent out Susan Rice to make the talk Shows? Clinton or Obama? Oh. and that Obama meaning would include Word from the White House or any Senior Staff that would be in touch with Obama to let him know. But was the individual to relay the Presidents acknowledgement to do so.

After this point there is the issue that the American People were lied to Publicly. Also Thru the Election on questions brought up about Benghazi.

I don't know, did Rice ever say who sent her out on the talk shows? I think she was just relaying information that was available at the time about a fluid and ongoing situtation. I've read several articles from the first day or two after the attack and they were all pretty much saying the same the thing that Susan Rice did. I really don't think what she did was that big of deal, at least not when compared to the months of misinformation and outright lies we were told during the buildup to the Iraq invasion.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
It's not the same source because your article was quoting an unknown reader and made little sense.

"Fools rush in where others fear to tread." Did you read the first page of the Marine Doctrinal Publication on Warfare that your source quoted from, where it says that it's not a manual, it's a philosophy and the publication should be read from cover to cover in it's entirety so as not to take it out of context? No? Well, that explains why your source didn't make any sense. But hey, here's a quote from the Marine Doctrinal Publications on Intelligence.....

“And therefore I say: Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Gen. Dempsy and Panetta both stressed they didn't have enough intelligence on the ground to know what was going on at the consolate in order to respond. Why don't you believe them? Do you really believe they wanted Amb. Stevens and others to die?

As far as I can tell there weren't any aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or anywhere near Libya. Which is probably why Panetta kept saying they couldn't respond in time because of the distance.

"......This is a standard complement of Navy forces in the sea, and as of now, the Navy is not moving ships to Libya in response to the crisis. There are no aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at present...."
Marines Head to Libya After Mob Kills Ambassador | Danger Room | Wired.com

Snapshot of U.S. warships sent to Libya | UTSanDiego.com

But that was the intel they had at the time. What purpose would Rice have for lying about the attack? What difference does it make if the terrorists attacked because of a video or 9/11 or revenge for some cleric? It doesn't change the fact that it was a well co-ordinated, planned attack or that people were killed or that without intelligence from the ground the response would still have been the same regardless of the terrorists motive.

I don't know, did Rice ever say who sent her out on the talk shows? I think she was just relaying information that was available at the time about a fluid and ongoing situtation. I've read several articles from the first day or two after the attack and they were all pretty much saying the same the thing that Susan Rice did. I really don't think what she did was that big of deal, at least not when compared to the months of misinformation and outright lies we were told during the buildup to the Iraq invasion.

I already admitted it wasn't from your article but it was from your Source the Weekly Standard as that's where the links goes to. Which you cannot deny that.

That's great that you can cite Some Sun Tzu. Course I prefer Musahsi.

Yes we know what Panetta and Dempsey said. What did Petraeus say?

That's Right there was no Aircraft in the Region.....but there was Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer there. Which I am glad you aptly found and put up. No Aircraft: that's what Panetta and Dempsey says. Yet all new Arleigh Burkes come with not one but 2 Helicopters.

Technical specifications of Arleigh Burke-class warship:
•Length: 509 feet (early versions were 505 feet)
•Beam: 66 feet
•Draft: 30.5 feet
•Speed: Up to 35 mph
•Range: 4,400 miles
•Crew: 270-280
•Aircraft: Up to two MH-60R Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters (on new versions of ship)
•Sources: US Navy, Defense Department, UPI, Defense Insiders Daily, Wikipedia,

Moreover.....does the US have Allies in the Region? So you don't think we could have got airpower? Borrowed, used, manipulated our way into some planes?

Because Rice knew there was no Protest outside the Consulate. Despite what the White House talking point was. What difference it makes is due to all that I put in the post above yours. Plus the difference is to make sure those who failed in their jobs take not only responsibility but whatever Repercussions that comes with them. In this case if it means the destruction of Clinton's Career and future ambition.....So be it!

Also it matters as Team Obama's eyes were elsewhere. Plus lets not forget the Obama couldn't have us get Caught sending weapons to Syria after he publicly said he wouldn't give arms to the Syrian Rebels, now.....could he? So it also matters as it was on the Anniversary of 911 when Team Obama should have been making sure they were on top of all Intel for that day. Not worry about getting re-elected. Do you think that one day or weekend could have been like a timeout for Campaign Time?

But no.....see at the time Obama was getting desperate as many polls had Romney winning which all was round here later pointing that very fact out while saying what happened. Whats was up with your polls.....Remember. Well, do you think there really is some excuse for that weekend? Ask yourself this.....what would have been Obamas schedule if there wouldn't have been NO Election. Think he would have been more concentrated on issues with the Country rather than his own Personal Campaign?

American · Feb 22, 2013

Wiseone said:
Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

Scribd

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Grant · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
Moot said:

Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now.

Click to expand...

The Vietnam War was over in 1975, five years before Ronald Reagan took office.

They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused.

Click to expand...

Which "they" are you referring to?

If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.

Click to expand...

The Vietnam War was started by the Democrats and ended by the Republicans.

Now that you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge of side issues such as Abu Ghraib and Vietnam, why not continue your streak with your views on Benghazi, the topic of the thread?

Grant · Feb 22, 2013

American said:
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

That might well be the slogan for the next presidential election.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Grant said:
That might well be the slogan for the next presidential election.

See the part I was looking at comes from a CNN Security Clearance Report for some of our Ships that got placed in the Med but that was in Nov of 2011. Which was after the attack which then said we were worried about arms being ran to Gaza, but then ships with Harrier Jets too. Done after the issue of Benghazi, although should have been implemented with those that were flying over Libya when ousting Gadhafi, when did they move that Aircraft Carrier was my question.....evidenced.

"This is post-Benghazi," one military official told CNN. "We're looking at instability in Libya, Egypt, Syria and now Israel and Gaza."

The Navy just extended by at least 10 days the tour of three amphibious ships carrying more than 2,000 Marines, Harrier jets, V-22 tilt rotor aircraft and a variety of helicopters, as CNN first reported last week.

Those tours were extended as a result of the conflict in Gaza as a precautionary measure should there have been a need to evacuate Americans from Israel. A cease-fire was reached on Wednesday after a week of violence.

The Pentagon is focusing on the eastern Mediterranean, where the ships will stay, the military official told CNN.

The Navy also previously announced that four warships capable of providing ballistic missile defense will now be based at Rota, Spain, putting them closer to potential threats from Syria and Iran. They are the USS Ross, the USS Donald Cook, the USS Carney and the USS Porter. Four other ships are stationed off the coast of Israel as a hedge against any ballistic missile launch from Iran.

U.S. considers increasing military presence in Mediterranean – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Yet they didn't list the names of those 4 ships off the Israeli Coast.

Grant · Feb 22, 2013

MMC said:
See the part I was looking at comes from a CNN Security Clearance Report for some of our Ships that got placed in the Med but that was in Nov of 2011. Which was after the attack which then said we were worried about arms being ran to Gaza, but then ships with Harrier Jets too. Done after the issue of Benghazi, although should have been implemented with those that were flying over Libya when ousting Gadhafi, when did they move that Aircraft Carrier was my question.....evidenced.

"This is post-Benghazi," one military official told CNN. "We're looking at instability in Libya, Egypt, Syria and now Israel and Gaza."

The Navy just extended by at least 10 days the tour of three amphibious ships carrying more than 2,000 Marines, Harrier jets, V-22 tilt rotor aircraft and a variety of helicopters, as CNN first reported last week.

Those tours were extended as a result of the conflict in Gaza as a precautionary measure should there have been a need to evacuate Americans from Israel. A cease-fire was reached on Wednesday after a week of violence.

The Pentagon is focusing on the eastern Mediterranean, where the ships will stay, the military official told CNN.

The Navy also previously announced that four warships capable of providing ballistic missile defense will now be based at Rota, Spain, putting them closer to potential threats from Syria and Iran. They are the USS Ross, the USS Donald Cook, the USS Carney and the USS Porter. Four other ships are stationed off the coast of Israel as a hedge against any ballistic missile launch from Iran.

U.S. considers increasing military presence in Mediterranean – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Yet they didn't list the names of those 4 ships off the Israeli Coast.

The very last paragraph is also telling.

A U.S. official told CNN that the current assessment by the intelligence community is that surface to air missiles from Libya have made their way into Gaza after being smuggled through Egypt.

We simply cannot beieve what the Libyan Government says, or the Egyptian, or indeed any Islamic country has to say. We can only judge them according to their actions, and we can easily see what those actions have been.

Grant · Feb 22, 2013

The American Spectator : Further Reflections on Benghazi

Misterveritis · Feb 22, 2013

iguanaman said:
They are well on their way to permanent status as a minority party and their obstruction is a big reason. Since when is the people's will tyranny?

Actually the peoples' will has always been tyranny.

The Republican party may be on it s way out. They do not represent me, as a conservative. Establishment Republicans are little better than Democrat-lite. Still, the Marxist must be obstructed and the minority party carries that burden.

APACHERAT · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
She did that during the hearing and if I recall she said that congress had underfunded the State Department and refused to fund for more security at the embassies.

Short of giving a direct order to do everything possible to help the personell under attack at Benghazi, what else would you have the president do?

I remember that argument when they tried to blame the Republicans in Congress. But as usual the left and the White House got caught again.

KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts
Examining the State Department’s misplaced green priorities

>" In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it. "<

Read more: KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times

Awhile back I listened to a group of Marine FA-18 pilots complaining that under the Obama administration they are only able to fly 2 or 3 of the 5 schedual flight training missions because the lack of funding for fuel for there aircradft. While Obama has ordered the Navy to pay $26 per gallon for green fuel to power their ships and aircraft instead of the normal fuel that cost less than $4. per gallon. When you talking about fueling a ship, you not dealing with gallons or even barrels of fuel but tens of hundreds of tons of fuel.

>" The U.S. Navy has started going green under the direction of Obama’s Secretary of the Navy Roy Mabus. They started using a special “green fuel” for their “Great Green Fleet,” which will be tested this month while completing its Rim of the Pacific exercise. Unfortunately, this green project already reflects the worst aspects of the Obama Administration’s green agenda. The fuel being used by the “Great Green Fleet” is colossal waste of taxpayer money.

The standard aviation fuel used by the Navy $3.60 a gallon. The “green fuel,” made from things like algae, chicken fat, and seeds, costs $26 a gallon. Rob Port of Say Anything Blog further highlights the absurdity of the Navy’s “green fuel” project: "< -> U.S. Navy Going Green, Spending Extra 622% to Use Chicken Fat Fuel - Townhall.com Staff

Misterveritis · Feb 22, 2013

Moot said:
Gen. Dempsy and Panetta both stressed they didn't have enough intelligence on the ground to know what was going on at the consolate in order to respond. Why don't you believe them? Do you really believe they wanted Amb. Stevens and others to die?

If that is their excuse for inaction then neither is a suitable selection for the job.

They had many options open to them and they chose none of them.

As far as I can tell there weren't any aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or anywhere near Libya. Which is probably why Panetta kept saying they couldn't respond in time because of the distance.

In addition to aircraft carriers we have the ability to launch aircraft from land based airports (commonly called airbases). When it is important Italy is about two flying hours away.

"......This is a standard complement of Navy forces in the sea, and as of now, the Navy is not moving ships to Libya in response to the crisis. There are no aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at present...."
Marines Head to Libya After Mob Kills Ambassador | Danger Room | Wired.com

Snapshot of U.S. warships sent to Libya | UTSanDiego.com

A destroyer was nearby. Italy was nearby. Aircraft an do amazing things when we call upon them.

Earlier you referenced Sun Tzu. Was that a throw-away reference or do you understand the art of war in theory and in operation? If it was a throw-away reference you are to be forgiven. If you understand the art of war then you will recognize that conducting operations iss a means of developing situational awareness.

But that was the intel they had at the time.

Intelligence is the starting point. One does not wait to do anything while waiting for better intelligence. One develops the situation through operations. One sets many options in motion, develops the situation and violently executes operations based on the information one has.

One does not abandon four Americans to be murdered because of a "lack of intelligence". One might because of a lack of will or a lack of courage or for political purposes.

What purpose would Rice have for lying about the attack?

Politics, of course. Obama, the One, had told us that Bin Laden was dead (is there any proof of that) and Al Qaeda was on the run. It would not do for us to know the truth. So Obama went and hid for eight hours, creating his Benghazi Massacre.

What difference does it make if the terrorists attacked because of a video or 9/11 or revenge for some cleric?

I suppose if the truth matters very little then I suppose it makes no difference.

It doesn't change the fact that it was a well co-ordinated, planned attack or that people were killed or that without intelligence from the ground the response would still have been the same regardless of the terrorists motive.

The lie was that this attack on the consulate in Benghazi was nothing more than a protest. The lie was that there was nothing to be done. It was a very big lie and it worked. You bought it. And despite overwhelming evidence you still do.

I don't know, did Rice ever say who sent her out on the talk shows? I think she was just relaying information that was available at the time about a fluid and ongoing situtation. I've read several articles from the first day or two after the attack and they were all pretty much saying the same the thing that Susan Rice did. I really don't think what she did was that big of deal, at least not when compared to the months of misinformation and outright lies we were told during the buildup to the Iraq invasion.

When the truth doesn't really matter than lies are just as good as the truth.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Olsen was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly describe the Libya assault explicitly as a "terrorist attack," at a hearing more than a week after the attack, though Obama had spoken earlier more generally about the U.S. response to "acts of terror."

Republicans, who control the House, have accused Obama officials of downplaying the attack's terrorist nature to maintain an administration narrative that Al Qaeda is on the run. Officials initially suggested an anti-Islam video produced in the United States had motivated the attack, which U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said five days later appeared to be "spontaneous" violence after a protest escalated.

But further investigation revealed no protest outside the consulate on the night of the attack, and the attackers are thought to be members of Ansar al-Sharia, a group that isn't directly affiliated with Al Qaeda but sympathizes with its anti-Western goals. It remains unclear how long the attackers had been planning their strike and whether they were motivated by outrage over the video.

The Obama administration also has faced questions about why it didn't do more to protect the consulate and the ambassador, especially in light of evidence that requests earlier this year for security improvements either were denied or never followed up on.

Other evidence suggests U.S. officials were aware in the days before the attack that extremists were a growing threat in Libya and that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack.....snip~

House panel invites Clinton to testify at Libya hearing | Fox News

From when the House Panel asked Clinton to Testify. One minute they know and then the next they don't know.

MMC · Feb 22, 2013

Grant said:
The American Spectator : Further Reflections on Benghazi

Anti-Al Qaeda Libyans reveal Obama administration helped Al-Qaeda in Benghazi.....

Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim Brotherhood member now peace activist broke news Saturday night that anti-Al Qaeda Libyans living in exile are in possession of highly classified documents that reveal Obama and his administration’s involvement with Al-Qaeda in Libya, more than what has been previously known.

The anti-Al Qaeda Libyans told Shoebat in reference to Obama’s statements that Al-Qaeda had been destroyed that Obama had gift-wrapped Libya, handed it over to Al-Qaeda, and that they can prove it.

The group plans to turn over the countless documents an intelligence to the National Center For Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism

“We have come into the possession of an array of records obtained from top-level sources inside the Libyan government,” the anti-Al Qaeda Libyans said. “They include passports of Al-Qaeda operatives and identifications of terrorists from many nations—Chad, Egypt and Pakistan to name a few—which are now all camped in Libya as they enter by crossing borders guarded and managed officially by what they called “government appointed Al-Qaeda leaders.”

If these statements are true, then the news report that was conveyed on October 25, 2012, stating that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked and Obama denied the request, the anti-Al Qaeda Libyans seemed to have confirmed such allegations against Obama and his administration along with the Libyan government.

Shoebat’s information also collaborates the statements from former CIA officer, Clare Lopez when she said, “This has to be made known to the public. That this is going on and that our administration was not only working with the bad guys – was working with Al-Qaeda linked militias and Jihadi’s to overthrow Assad in Syria but that they let our mission go down.”

Shoebat also brought up known terrorist, Abdul Hakim Belhaj who became the leader of the Libyan rebel forces to oust Gadhafi, and is the founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and had close ties Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Belhaj at one time was captured and spent time in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay and according to Shoebat, the Obama administration allowed him into Libya during the war to oust Gaddafi and supported his [Belhaj] leadership.

To make matters worse, news broke today on Fox News by Bret Baier that CBS’ news program 60 Minutes withheld information on Obama’s statements about Benghazi until now, thereby adding to the suspicion that certain media outlets are protecting Obama instead of reporting the connections between Al-Qaeda and the Obama administration as well as the failures in Benghazi.

Fox News and independent news organizations are the only media outlets in the U.S. taking the issue of the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya seriously.

“The Obama administration is knowingly supporting Al-Qaeda control in Libya and North Africa. Today, Libya is in a state of complete anarchy. There is no law and order, militias and gangs of terrorists control the cities. The Government of Libya installed by Obama is Al-Qaeda. The perpetrators of the 9/11/01 attacks are now in control of the largest oil-producing nation in Africa and Obama handed it to them,” said Shoebat.

Anti-Al Qaeda Libyans reveal Obama administration helped Al-Qaeda in Benghazi - Atlanta Paulding County Republican | Examiner.com

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Trump Grump Whisperer