• 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!

Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures

Kobie said:
Quite obviously, security at the Benghazi compound was insufficient. The fact that the attack was successful is indicative of that. And yes, that's on State and, to an extent, the White House.

However, while this shouldn't be political, it is. One repeated cudgel used by the GOP has been that the White House issued a "stand down" order to forces that might have been able to assist, which leads to the conclusion that Obama "let them die." As we now see, this is not correct.

While clearly the priority should be to prevent future attacks, knowing how they screwed up and knowing how they didn't are both vital.
Click to expand...

As a prior military SOF, getting an order to not deploy from Tripoli to Benghazi has the same meaning and effect as stand down.

I wish that these types of events were less political. Both sides have gone overboard with the politics; the Democrats in refusing to identify the failures and where they originated, and the Republicans by emphasizing the President and Secretary of State rather than letting the evidence lead where it will.

This has the same smell, to me, as when Johnson tried to run the Vietnam war instead of letting the Generals do it, as well as an event I was personally involved in - Somalia, where Clinton recalled a crew served weapons and armored personnel carriers because he didn't want the illusion of an occupying force, even after we literally begged to have them returned resulting in many US deaths in Mogadishu.

These problems arise when the civilians either think they know better than the Generals, or when the civilians let political gain override US military lives.

Before anyone says anything, there's no slant in me naming Johnson and Clinton because every President was guilty if this to one extent or another; even Reagan in another event I was part of - Grenada.

We do need know if Hillary had a hand in the decisions, IF she decides to run for President. Simply, because we need to know if she would be willing to make the same choices of politics over lives. There may not be a way to know if others from either party may make the same choices (although I tend to think they may since it isn't just a Democrat failing), but as to Hillary, we may actually the evidence to show a pattern - and that - we need to know.
 
Kobie said:
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.
Click to expand...

You don't know how the military works Kobi.

For a commissioned officer to be able to say or tell the truth in front of Congress he would have to resign his commission like Major General Merritt A. Edson, USMC did. That's right the same Edson as "Red Mike" of the Marine Raiders during WW ll. Most west coast Marines who went through MCRDSD probably qualified on Edson Range.

>"Following the war Edson headed the effort to preserve the Marine Corps in the face of President Truman's (D) drive to "unify" the services. He waged a fierce campaign in the halls of Congress, in the media, and in public appearances across the nation. Finally, he resigned his commission in order to testify publicly before committees of both houses of Congress. His efforts played a key role in preserving the Marine Corps."<
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec1.htm

Like a few months ago when Obama tried to feminize the Marines by ordering all Marines to start wearing girly covers (hats) Every swinging dick in the Corps who was in the loop knows it came from the White House but Marine Corps HQ's was told to tell the public that Obama wasn't involved. :lamo

Any officer who spoke off the record regarding Benghazi was purged. So you will not be hearing any officers who are still wearing the uniform talking off the record knowing they will be walking the plank if they do. That's become SOP in the the Obama PC military, just shut up and don't say #### while looking at each other who's next on Obama's hit list ?

There was no order to "stand down." What was said "Belay that order."
 
X Factor said:
I guess it's as equally unsurprising some liberals are more incensed by conservatives than by what actually occurred. Screw the Ambassador, defend Obama at all costs.
Click to expand...

Stop lying about him and maybe people will stop defending him.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The only thing that makes this political is the fact those in charge of giving orders did NOTHING but pretty much say "stand down."
Click to expand...
That in and of itself doesn't make it political, except that we need to know what happened and who ordered it so we as the electorate can make an informed choice in 2016.

Mr.Nick said:
If they were given permission to fight for their lives this wouldn't even be a story ...
Click to expand...
That's true...

Mr.Nick said:
Obama was too inept to consider such a concept because hes one of those OWS guys where uprisings just lead to graffiti written in human ****....
Click to expand...
Had to laugh... That's one view. I don't totally agree, nor disagree.
 
Kobie said:
House GOP Blasts State Dept. over Benghazi Review - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:



It is unsurprising how badly conservatives want to milk Benghazi for all it's worth.
Click to expand...

Milk Benghazi?

Benghazi was a gaff by a bunch of politicians who didn't know what the **** they were doing.

These morons viewed the mob outside of the Embassy as something similar to OWS - so they enjoyed it in their anti-American ways.

Those ****s over there don't "peacefully assemble and piss on your sidewalk" when they mob they mean business.

That's the fault in the elitists broken brains such as Obama and Hillary...

There is a big ****ing difference between mob and mob action.

That's why I would have set the mob on fire...
 
X Factor said:
It's disappointing that some would rather just sweep this whole thing under the rug rather than acknowledge anything that might cast the current administration in a less than perfect light.
Click to expand...

Truly sad and disappointing.

My concern is that may be something more that we don't know... arms deals or the like... Iran-Contra comes to mind... but we may never know given the push back from the Democrats and the lack of investigative reporting by the media.

I bet if there would have been a bridge and cones involved, the media would have gotten to the bottom of it by now.
 
Benghazi Attack: U.S. Special Forces Team Stopped From Going To Libya, Former Diplomat Gregory Hicks Claims

Benghazi Attack: U.S. Special Forces Team Stopped From Going To Libya, Former Diplomat Gregory Hicks Claims

Four members of Army special forces ready to head to Benghazi, Libya, after the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission had ended were told not to go, according to a former top diplomat.
Gregory Hicks also argued in an interview with Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that if the U.S. military had flown aircraft over the Benghazi facility after it came under siege it might have prevented the second attack on the CIA annex that killed two CIA security officers.

Hicks also contended that if the U.S. military has scrambled jet fighters after the first attack that it would have prevented the mortar attack on the CIA annex around 5:15 a.m.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That in and of itself doesn't make it political, except that we need to know what happened and who ordered it so we as the electorate can make an informed choice in 2016.

That's true...


Had to laugh... That's one view. I don't totally agree, nor disagree.
Click to expand...

Who else can order it beyond the POTUS?

I'm sure there were several generals that has similar ideas but the POTUS is the commander in chief.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Who else can order it beyond the POTUS?

I'm sure there were several generals that has similar ideas but the POTUS is the commander in chief.
Click to expand...

SecDef for one. There are others, to include State, by limiting the request for assistance to DOD preventing DOD from moving beyond the mission parameters (for example, State says that they want DOD to stay in Tripoli and not move outward). In an international event such as this one, State has lead, with DOD in support only.
 
Beaudreaux said:
SecDef for one. There are others, to include State, by limiting the request for assistance to DOD preventing DOD from moving beyond the mission parameters (for example, State says that they want DOD to stay in Tripoli and not move outward). In an international event such as this one, State has lead, with DOD in support only.
Click to expand...

Orders go out the window when someone is trying to kill you...

If I was there you think I would give **** about orders?

If I was there everyone would have lived because I would have set everyone on fire, and fire disperses crowds rather quickly.

Then I would have burnt the damn embassy down.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Orders go out the window when someone is trying to kill you...

If I was there you think I would give **** about orders?

If I was there everyone would have lived because I would have set everyone on fire, and fire disperses crowds rather quickly.

Then I would have burnt the damn embassy down.
Click to expand...

The guys that were there sis exactly that. The problem was with the guys in Tripoli and Mombasa that were ordered to not deploy to Benghazi. If they had been allowed to deploy, things may have been different. Maybe not... other than actually taking the fight to al Qaeda instead of letting them have free rein.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The guys that were there sis exactly that. The problem was with the guys in Tripoli and Mombasa that were ordered to not deploy to Benghazi. If they had been allowed to deploy, things may have been different. Maybe not... other than actually taking the fight to al Qaeda instead of letting them have free rein.
Click to expand...

Sometimes survival takes priority over "orders", but perhaps my techniques for survival might be a bit to creative or intelligent, potentially harsh or barbaric to some.

I'd seriously set them all on fire.

But I wouldn't expect delegates or appointed officials to think of such an act of defense. They would probably call it defiance and I would end up in military prison for saving lives.... Small price to pay if everyone made it out ok and no intelligence was lost.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
The guys that were there sis exactly that. The problem was with the guys in Tripoli and Mombasa that were ordered to not deploy to Benghazi. If they had been allowed to deploy, things may have been different. Maybe not... other than actually taking the fight to al Qaeda instead of letting them have free rein.
Click to expand...

They may have been different -- or terrorists could have attacked assets in Tripoli while our guys were rushing off to Benghazi. Nobody knew at the time. According to the report, the Pentagon was concerned that there would be other attacks against U.S. interests in Libya. That's why the Tripoli team was held.
 
Kobie said:
They may have been different -- or terrorists could have attacked assets in Tripoli while our guys were rushing off to Benghazi. Nobody knew at the time. According to the report, the Pentagon was concerned that there would be other attacks against U.S. interests in Libya. That's why the Tripoli team was held.
Click to expand...

This nation you adore seems to be extremely unorganized, not only that but you're willing to believe any excuse they give you.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Who else can order it beyond the POTUS?

.
Click to expand...

Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett.

She thinks she part of the "Military Chain of Command" but she just doesn't get it.

Scuttlebutt with in the Navy SEAL community that it was Valeri Jarrett who convinced Obama to order a stand down two or three times when Navy Seals (SEAL Team Six) were about to go on the mission to take out Osama bin Laden. Already three Navy SEAL's who were on the team have come out that they were getting tired being told to "stand down." Eventually Obama dropped it Leon Panetta's lap and he dumped it on Admiral McRaven who finally issued the order to go.

I wouldn't be surprised that on the night of 9-11-12 Obama was cutting Zzzz's while Valeri Jarret was calling the shots. Her only concern was seeing that Obama being given a second chance and being reelected.
 
Kobie said:
They may have been different -- or terrorists could have attacked assets in Tripoli while our guys were rushing off to Benghazi. Nobody knew at the time. According to the report, the Pentagon was concerned that there would be other attacks against U.S. interests in Libya. That's why the Tripoli team was held.
Click to expand...

These Islamic terrorist are not American, Comanche Indians. These Islamist aren't that smart.
 
APACHERAT said:
Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett.

She thinks she part of the "Military Chain of Command" but she just doesn't get it.

Scuttlebutt with in the Navy SEAL community that it was Valeri Jarrett who convinced Obama to order a stand down two or three times when Navy Seals (SEAL Team Six) were about to go on the mission to take out Osama bin Laden. Already three Navy SEAL's who were on the team have come out that they were getting tired being told to "stand down." Eventually Obama dropped it Leon Panetta's lap and he dumped it on Admiral McRaven who finally issued the order to go.

I wouldn't be surprised that on the night of 9-11-12 Obama was cutting Zzzz's while Valeri Jarret was calling the shots. Her only concern was seeing that Obama being given a second chance and being reelected.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Great Valerie Jarrett Conspiracy.
 
Kobie said:
Ah, the Great Valerie Jarrett Conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I didn't know there was a Valerie Jarrett conspiracy ?

You know that thread on the DP Military Forum about the battle between the Generals and Obama ?

I think it's on post #1 where a general mentions that he gets a phone call from the Obama White House ordering that a satellite be maneuvered over some hot spot in the world. The generals said we cant do it. The person on the phone in the White House is saying this is what the CnC (Obama) wants. Then she says something about civilians controlling the military. (leftist like to bring that up a lot) The general concurred, yes the civilians control the military but you're not one of those civilians. :lamo

That female in the White House is believed to have been Valerie Jarrett. She is not part of the military chain of command or part of the civilian military chain of command.

Even a private (E-1) in the Army can recite the Military Chain of Command from his Plt. Sergant all the way up to the CnC (POTUS)
I think Obama and those he has surrounded himself with are completely clueless about the Chain of Command.

And it's not POTUS who decides how the Chain of Command is organized, it's Congress.
 
APACHERAT said:
I didn't know there was a Valerie Jarrett conspiracy ?

You know that thread on the DP Military Forum about the battle between the Generals and Obama ?

I think it's on post #1 where a general mentions that he gets a phone call from the Obama White House ordering that a satellite be maneuvered over some hot spot in the world. The generals said we cant do it. The person on the phone in the White House is saying this is what the CnC (Obama) wants. Then she says something about civilians controlling the military. (leftist like to bring that up a lot) The general concurred, yes the civilians control the military but you're not one of those civilians. :lamo

That female in the White House is believed to have been Valerie Jarrett. She is not part of the military chain of command or part of the civilian military chain of command.

Even a private (E-1) in the Army can recite the Military Chain of Command from his Plt. Sergant all the way up to the CnC (POTUS)
I think Obama and those he has surrounded himself with are completely clueless about the Chain of Command.

And it's not POTUS who decides how the Chain of Command is organized, it's Congress.
Click to expand...

This is only relevant if you can prove that said orders cannot be delivered by proxy.
 
The entire point of the thread was to point this out:

While the GOP lawmakers said that commanders could have pushed harder to position forces to respond to threats in North Africa in general and Libya in particular, they concluded that no U.S. military assets could have arrived in Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attack, according to committee staff members who briefed reporters on the report.
Click to expand...

No forces could have been moved into Benghazi in time to save Ambassador Stevens or the other three people who died that day. Which proves that Darrell Issa (who claimed he could have flown commercial into Benghazi in enough time to stop the attacks) was full of it. Again.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

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 said he could not speak to allegations that the State Department refused requests for additional security in the months prior to the attack. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been increasingly targeted for criticism by Republicans for her handling of the crisis and the government's response, with some even raising the possibility that the State Department engineered a coverup to protect her political future.

But when Gates was asked whether he thought that might be a possibility, he replied flatly, "No."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.
Click to expand...

If it was a ludicrous talking point, it should've been easily dismissed with ample evidence over a year ago. We weren't ready for much of anything at all on 9/11/12 except an election. I'd say we don't leave our people behind, but apparently we do now, and it's equally apparent that no one in this administration or those that support it think that sea change in attitude is a big deal.
 
Kobie said:
This is only relevant if you can prove that said orders cannot be delivered by proxy.
Click to expand...

Congress established a chain of command and Valerie Jarrett isn't in it.

But we all know the current administration ignores what parts of the Constitution they don't like. Luckily there are still some wearing the uniform who are not Obama's yes men and still acknowledge the Constitution and the chain of command. Obama hasn't gotten around to purging them all. Yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom