• 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!

General: We Should Have Tried in Benghazi

pbrauer said:
Here is some of his testimony:

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.​

/Thread
Click to expand...

No need to quote it. I saw it. Connelly's goal was to change the subject, just as it is apparently yours. Lovell never said there was more that could have been done. His point was that it was dishonorable not to have tried.:peace
 
CalGun said:
I did not say there was.
I did not say the words were uttered.
I said that is WHAT HAPPENED and unless you can show some sort of military action to defend those on the ground I would say its exactly what happened. And its exactly the way this regime acts - itself first above even life of others.
Click to expand...

A CIA security team responded. General Ham felt CAS was not appropriate.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You will have to supply a credible link on the bold.

And not being in an embassy is why no help was sent?

Democrats sure have flexible ethics. Now the government is exonerated for letting its public servants die a horrible death at the hands of spontaneous demonstrators, er, terrorists if they are not in an embassy.

I will inform the American tourists who come to Canada they may be shot and killed at any time and the United States government through the genius of Barrack Obama is completely powerless to help them; they are at the mercy of the rabble of baby seal killers who are right pissed off about the XL pipeline and ready to throw a spontaneous demonstration complete with grenade launchers and AK 47's.

And isn't the president responsible for the CIA? If it was them, why is he not investigating?

And, by the way, where is that promise from Obama that those responsible would be arrested and dealt with? What happened to the FBI agents he sent in there?
Click to expand...

You are a funny guy...


Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, who was killed along with three other Americans after terrorists stormed the mission, twice turned down offers from senior military officials for additional security at the facility, McClatchy news services reported.

Read more: Late Benghazi U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens turned down offers of more security


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program – well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” – a charge Republicans rejected.
 
CalGun said:
You think if hilda had asked for military support it would have been denied? Really?
Click to expand...

I think she would, and therefore she didn't have the opportunity. Just my opinion.

Hilda would throw obama right under the bus if that were true.
Click to expand...

Nah. At least, not until she needs to for her own campaign.
 
All of this time wasted handwringing over the response or lack of response and who is to blame for it when we should be talking about the reasons for the attack, and countless other attacks, and why they occured in the first place, which is of course American meddling.

 
pbrauer said:
Where did you get that BS? Are you more concerned with greeting Jack than with the truth?
Click to expand...

Those that died were pleading for help, and signaling from the roof for planes that they were sure were on their way to rescue them - which never arrived in time. Do you deny that? Is it true that a plane that could have been sent was told to "stand down?" There was a room full of people watching the attack in real time - do you deny that? Have the thugs that raped and killed an American Ambassador, and three others, been brought to justice yet? If not, why not?

What I stated in my post was what I have been told by many people who have never been on DP or any other internet site, but feel something should have attempted to help those under siege. It didn't help when the explanations for that incident kept changing, either. As time passes, we are learning more about that unfortunate time, and eventually the truth will be known. Sad, but that's life.

Greetings, pbrauer. :2wave:
 
Fearandloathing said:
You will have to supply a credible link on the bold.

And not being in an embassy is why no help was sent?

Democrats sure have flexible ethics. Now the government is exonerated for letting its public servants die a horrible death at the hands of spontaneous demonstrators, er, terrorists if they are not in an embassy.

I will inform the American tourists who come to Canada they may be shot and killed at any time and the United States government through the genius of Barrack Obama is completely powerless to help them; they are at the mercy of the rabble of baby seal killers who are right pissed off about the XL pipeline and ready to throw a spontaneous demonstration complete with grenade launchers and AK 47's.

And isn't the president responsible for the CIA? If it was them, why is he not investigating?

And, by the way, where is that promise from Obama that those responsible would be arrested and dealt with? What happened to the FBI agents he sent in there?
Click to expand...

This is a accurate account of this incident IMO. A typical CIA SNAFU.

The report faults the military for being unable to help when needed. “No U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend” the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, it says.

Yet it points out that Stevens had rejected additional security. The Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel to provide security and other help. The report says the State Department decided not to extend the team’s mission in August 2012, one month before the attack.

In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, the head of Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said.

The report also says, “Intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion.”
Click to expand...
Benghazi report: AFRICOM general offered ambassador help before attack | Navy Times | navytimes.com
 
polgara said:
Those that died were pleading for help, and signaling from the roof for planes that they were sure were on their way to rescue them - which never arrived in time. Do you deny that? Is it true that a plane that could have been sent was told to "stand down?" There was a room full of people watching the attack in real time - do you deny that? Have the thugs that raped and killed an American Ambassador, and three others, been brought to justice yet? If not, why not?

What I stated in my post was what I have been told by many people who have never been on DP or any other internet site, but feel something should have attempted to help those under siege. It didn't help when the explanations for that incident kept changing, either. As time passes, we are learning more about that unfortunate time, and eventually the truth will be known. Sad, but that's life.
Click to expand...

It's more persuasive if you don't repeat the 'stand down' order nonsense. There have been multiple people testify to that directly. A plane with some special forces personnel were sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, and they joined in the evacuation efforts. When the order to 'hold in place' was issued to a team that was asked to remain in Tripoli to secure and protect facilities and personnel there, the survivors of the Benghazi attack were already on their way to the airport, the immediate danger passed, and if they'd left Tripoli on that flight, they'd have passed in the air the first plane departed from Benghazi with the seriously wounded aboard.
 
JasperL said:
It's more persuasive if you don't repeat the 'stand down' order nonsense. There have been multiple people testify to that directly. A plane with some special forces personnel were sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, and they joined in the evacuation efforts. When the order to 'hold in place' was issued to a team that was asked to remain in Tripoli to secure and protect facilities and personnel there, the survivors of the Benghazi attack were already on their way to the airport, the immediate danger passed, and if they'd left Tripoli on that flight, they'd have passed in the air the first plane departed from Benghazi with the seriously wounded aboard.
Click to expand...

I'm really very glad to hear that the " stand down" order was incorrectly reported! - I couldn't believe my ears, although it was reported by the MSM, and did make the news for a while. Just proves you can't always believe what you hear! :thumbdown:

Greetings, JasperL. :2wave:
 
JasperL said:
It's more persuasive if you don't repeat the 'stand down' order nonsense. There have been multiple people testify to that directly. A plane with some special forces personnel were sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, and they joined in the evacuation efforts. When the order to 'hold in place' was issued to a team that was asked to remain in Tripoli to secure and protect facilities and personnel there, the survivors of the Benghazi attack were already on their way to the airport, the immediate danger passed, and if they'd left Tripoli on that flight, they'd have passed in the air the first plane departed from Benghazi with the seriously wounded aboard.
Click to expand...

We're anxiously awaiting the eventual release of more E-mails.

Considering the latest release and Jay Carney's ridiculous bald face lie that it wasn't related to Benghazzi, I think its smart to assume anything thats been said in defense of the White Houses unprecedented Politicizing of Four dead Americans is dubious at best.

When it came down to it, the order for Military action could have only come from Obama and no one seems to know where he was on the night of 9/11.
 
Fenton said:
We're anxiously awaiting the eventual release of more E-mails.

Considering the latest release and Jay Carney's ridiculous bald face lie that it wasn't related to Benghazzi, I think its smart to assume anything thats been said in defense of the White Houses unprecedented Politicizing of Four dead Americans is dubious at best.

When it came down to it, the order for Military action could have only come from Obama and no one seems to know where he was on the night of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Carney was indeed both ridiculous and pathetic today.:peace
 
ecofarm said:
I'm no Obama hater. I do wish he'd at least tried. It bothers me. I coulda been the guy painting that target and hoping my sacrifice makes a difference for the others.
Click to expand...

Come on Ecofarm, Obama is a ****ing community organizer not a Commander in Chief.
 
There's a lot of former combat types on this forum.

There isn't a one of us that doesn't recognize this for what it is. Obama is a disgusting, un-American coward that let four of our guys die a terrible death without raising a finger. He should be relieved of command for cowardice in the face of the enemy.

I don't know how he can even look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Carney was indeed both ridiculous and pathetic today.:peace
Click to expand...

He was like so many little Jay Carneys out there and some that post here.

Trading integrity for their ideology.

I cant decide if they know that theyre lying or if they've conditioned themselves to not knowing the difference between fact or fiction.

But, I am starting to notice some of their old indefensible Benghazzi talking points fall away after this latest document release.

I'm waiting for the day when there is so much corroborating evidence to show Obama's dishonesty on this issue ( and others ) that they will be left with only 2 choices.

Admit their gullibility, or stand behind him compeltley by saying the lies and the four dead Americans were completely justified by Obama's re-election.
 
Ray410 said:
There's a lot of former combat types on this forum.

There isn't a one of us that doesn't recognize this for what it is. Obama is a disgusting, un-American coward that let four of our guys die without raising a finger. He should be relieved of command for cowardice in the face of the enemy.

I don't know how he can even look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

But if that's true, there are a lot of fellow soldiers willing to keep a nice career and the perks of power, in several different commands involved that night, rather than testify to what you're alleging. Shouldn't these cowards also be relieved of their commands? Has even one testified that they had the ability to do more that night but were prohibited from acting?
 
JasperL said:
But if that's true, there are a lot of fellow soldiers willing to keep a nice career and the perks of power, in several different commands involved that night, rather than testify to what you're alleging. Shouldn't these cowards also be relieved of their commands?
Click to expand...

With a different American president they already would have been. Somehow with Obama, the buck never seems to reach the top. Never even seems to start on its way to the top.
 
Jack Hays said:
What would you identify as a SNAFU?:peace
Click to expand...

This is old news. In fact the entire thing is OLD. The CIA got blindsided by the attack and instead of admitting they screwed up they decided to blame the video, which had already caused violent uprisings in Cairo and Yemen. They are the ones that told Stevens that he would not need extra protection because they were taking care of it. They did try too, but they failed to stop the attack. We still don't know exactly what the CIA was doing there at that "annex" but what ever it was kept them busy enough to miss the chatter about an attack on the Ambassador. He should have had those special forces men that he turned down more than once. You have to ask yourself why did he do that? We will never know....and how convenient for the CIA too.;)

Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.) agreed, saying: "There are questions that must be asked of the CIA and this must be done in a public way."

The Agency, for its part, doesn't want anyone knowing what it was doing in the Libyan port city.

On Thursday Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN reported that the CIA "is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret."

Sources told CNN that 35 Americans were in Benghazi that night — 21 of whom were working out of the annex — and that several were wounded, some seriously.

One source said: "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

Among the questions are whether CIA missteps contributed to the security failure in Benghazi and, more importantly, whether the Agency's Benghazi operation had anything to do with reported heavy weapons shipments from the local port to Syrian rebels.
Click to expand...
Read more: The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
This is old news. In fact the entire thing is OLD. The CIA got blindsided by the attack and instead of admitting they screwed up they decided to blame the video, which had already caused violent uprisings in Cairo and Yemen. They are the ones that told Stevens that he would not need extra protection because they were taking care of it. They did try too, but they failed to stop the attack. We still don't know exactly what the CIA was doing there at that "annex" but what ever it was kept them busy enough to miss the chatter about an attack on the Ambassador.


Read more: The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Not only old, but wildly inaccurate.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Not only old, but wildly inaccurate.:peace
Click to expand...

What is your explanation for Stevens refusing extra security weeks before the attack? What do you think the CIA was doing in that annex?
What makes you trust the CIA so much? I fault Obama for allowing the CIA to dictate his response but I don't think it was as bad as this.........
I3380-2004Dec15L


Presidential Medals of Failure
This is the question I asked myself as, one by one, the pictures of the latest Presidential Medal of Freedom awardees flashed by on my computer screen. First came George Tenet, the former CIA director and the man who had assured President Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then came L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy of Iraq, who disbanded the Iraqi army and ousted Baathists from government jobs, therefore contributing mightily to the current chaos in that country. Finally came retired Gen. Tommy Franks, the architect of the plan whereby the United States sent too few troops to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3406-2004Dec15.html
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
What is your explanation for Stevens refusing extra security weeks before the attack? What do you think the CIA was doing in that annex?
Click to expand...

Stevens had originally entered Libya via Benghazi, knew the city very well and had many friends there. Like many Ambassadors, he had complete confidence in his ability to handle himself. He also wanted to avoid a "heavy footprint.":peace
 
Fenton said:
He was like so many little Jay Carneys out there and some that post here.

Trading integrity for their ideology.

I cant decide if they know that theyre lying or if they've conditioned themselves to not knowing the difference between fact or fiction.

But, I am starting to notice some of their old indefensible Benghazzi talking points fall away after this latest document release.

I'm waiting for the day when there is so much corroborating evidence to show Obama's dishonesty on this issue ( and others ) that they will be left with only 2 choices.

Admit their gullibility, or stand behind him compeltley by saying the lies and the four dead Americans were completely justified by Obama's re-election.
Click to expand...

These e-mails simply confirm what we already know. That the Administration took the CIA's story word for word without verifying it to be true. I fault them for that. I can't believe anyone trusts the CIA anymore. Everything else is just a right wing wet dream.
 
Jack Hays said:
Stevens had originally entered Libya via Benghazi, knew the city very well and had many friends there. Like many Ambassadors, he had complete confidence in his ability to handle himself. He also wanted to avoid a "heavy footprint.":peace
Click to expand...

And you don't think having that CIA annex a few blocks away had anything to do with his misplaced bravado? Didn't the CIA send in help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom