General: We Should Have Tried in Benghazi

iguanaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, it confirms this White and the Congress are filled with scum bag Democrats, who put their political careers above the lives of 4 Americans.

And YOUR post confirms that Obama supporters are very easy to lie to. THAT confirms what we already know.

Michael Morrell also said under oath that the fake video narrative didn't come from the CIA.

So it cams from the WH. I want to send Jay Carney a Thank You letter for making me laugh.

What a pathetic and desperate attempt to Bull S*** the American people.

Deuce said:

There was a response. They did try.

Click to expand...

Gates was right though. You don't send in assets effectively blind to rescue other assets. That gets everyone killed. I'd rather trust the wisdom of former secretary Gates then the arm chair fools here.

Ray410 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Unlike our last President and his "Medals of Failure", Right?

iguanaman said:

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?

Click to expand...

They were completely separate activities. CIA never has responsibility for Embassy or Consulate security. They reacted to assist on an ad hoc basis.eace

iguanaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is it a wet dream that we would do all within our power to kill or capture the assailants? Have we done that yet? As you said, it's old news. Nearly two years have passed since the event, and not one of the murderers has been brought to justice. None, in spite of the fact at least one was conducting interviews in Tripoli at a street side cafe. That's how important this event is to this administration. As time passes, this administration continues to dishonor the sacrifice these Americans made, and it seems your chief concern is to hold on course with them and the obvious lies they offer to hide their dishonor in a pursuit of political power.

Ray410 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty dim view of the special forces command, among others. Incompetent and cowardly at a minimum. Not one has spoken out or resigned in protest for the supposedly near treasonous lack of response that night. If it was their superiors who failed, apparently the underlings would rather keep their jobs and perks instead of speak out. Pretty shameful if you asked me on the part of the military chain of command.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much the CIA is to blame, but a few things are obvious. These were CIA outposts, with CIA employees, many under State dept cover, doing CIA spook activities, under the command of DCI Petraeus. It was secret enough that Petraeus failed to show at the memorial for two of his own dead employees. But ALL the venom from our right wing friends has been directed at Hillary, Obama, and Rice. You can read entire threads about Benghazi!!! and never hear Petraeus mentioned by right wingers. It's fairly obvious there is a huge amount of raw political partisanship behind that bit of disconnect.

apdst said:

Damn right we should have tried; even if we KNEW there wasn't enough time to react.

Click to expand...

If they got there a few hours late they still could have killed most of the perpetrators who were ransacking the consulate at the time.

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...

So, you don't trust Gates or the military, including special forces, to tell the truth about the timeline that night, the forces available in Tripoli, why a team was left there, and why they weren't sent to Benghazi? What's the point of having anyone testify if you just disregard what doesn't fit the narrative you prefer, and embrace only what does?

And if you think that there should have been some "military action" that Obama should have authorized but didn't, what would that have been? How long would it have taken to assemble, arm, brief, transport a team to Benghazi, make their way to the Annex, etc., where were these troops housed, could they have made it in time, etc. It's easy to say "military action!!" but there have been senior military testify that what you're suggesting just wasn't realistic - Gates called this view "cartoonish."

Obama let them be murdered. Period. But this nation is so ass backwards now, he could win a third term if he was allowed to run.

CRUE CAB said:

Obama let them be murdered. Period. But this nation is so ass backwards now, he could win a third term if he was allowed to run.

Click to expand...

Obama was directing the military response? I would have thought that's why he appoints members of the JCOS, and Sec. Def, and below them are all those military experts stationed all over the world, to direct responses to attacks. But I guess Obama doesn't delegate those things to the military like all other POTUS's and just sits around waiting for a skirmish to play general with.

jmotivator said:

If they got there a few hours late they still could have killed most of the perpetrators who were ransacking the consulate at the time.

Click to expand...

It's almost a certainty that the ransackers weren't the same as the attackers. And if there was overlap, which seems likely enough, impossible for a military force to distinguish between those who showed up well after and the attackers. Some of those who were there in the immediate aftermath were the ones who took Stevens to the hospital, in an attempt to save his life. And an indiscriminate obliteration of the civilians in and around the buildings creates a whole new and perhaps worse set of problems.

Besides, what kind of force would we need for that kind of operation - 50? 100? We didn't know how many were armed, it was at night, if they'd get reinforcements, etc. so this large force would be going in more or less blind, facing an known level of hostile fire, and the point would be to protect something, recover something, or just to kill a bunch of people? Are you suggesting we risk the lives of 50-100 more soldiers, maybe get a dozen or two killed, in this kind of operation, after the personnel were all evacuated, and when we'd have no idea really if who we killed were guilty of the attacks?

JasperL said:

It's almost a certainty that the ransackers weren't the same as the attackers. And if there was overlap, which seems likely enough, impossible for a military force to distinguish between those who showed up well after and the attackers. Some of those who were there in the immediate aftermath were the ones who took Stevens to the hospital, in an attempt to save his life. And an indiscriminate obliteration of the civilians in and around the buildings creates a whole new and perhaps worse set of problems.

Click to expand...

Thats just arm chair politicallly motivated mitigation .

When does the most technologically advanced military in the world decide to stay put and let things play put when their Countrymen are under attack ?

The only people qualified to assess the situation were told to stay put.

Only Obama cam give the order to attack and his exact location is still mystery.

JasperL said:

It's almost a certainty that the ransackers weren't the same as the attackers. And if there was overlap, which seems likely enough, impossible for a military force to distinguish between those who showed up well after and the attackers. Some of those who were there in the immediate aftermath were the ones who took Stevens to the hospital, in an attempt to save his life. And an indiscriminate obliteration of the civilians in and around the buildings creates a whole new and perhaps worse set of problems.

Besides, what kind of force would we need for that kind of operation - 50? 100? We didn't know how many were armed, it was at night, if they'd get reinforcements, etc. so this large force would be going in more or less blind, facing an known level of hostile fire, and the point would be to protect something, recover something, or just to kill a bunch of people? Are you suggesting we risk the lives of 50-100 more soldiers, maybe get a dozen or two killed, in this kind of operation, after the personnel were all evacuated, and when we'd have no idea really if who we killed were guilty of the attacks?

Click to expand...

It's like you have channeled Obama's brain waves from the night of 9/11/2012....

Fenton said:

Thats just arm chair politicallly motivated mitigation .

Click to expand...

No, you don't get to dismiss it that easy. What part was incorrect?

When does the most technologically advanced military in the world decide to stay put and let things play put when their Countrymen are under attack ?

Click to expand...

That's not what happened. And if you think they should have done more, aren't the commanders in the area better qualified than armchair warriors like you to determine what can be done with the assets they had, with the information available to them in real time, instead of with 20/20 hindsight? Or do you have that little respect and confidence in the military who have made careers out of making decisions you're second guessing here from thousands of miles away with no information?

The only people qualified to assess the situation were told to stay put.

Click to expand...

Who exactly were these people told to stay put? If it was the special ops team in Tripoli, you're wrong. First of all, there were commanders who obviously had more information than the team, and as you know, the senior officers direct the teams, not the other way around, and it's because the senior officers in command centers had full information not available to that team in Tripoli. If they team had left Tripoli when they asked to leave, they'd have taken off after the civilians were on their way to the airport and passed the plane carrying the most seriously wounded in the air on their way to Tripoli, and would have arrived with nothing more to do than assist in loading civilians onto planes to Tripoli, from whence they'd just come.

Only Obama cam give the order to attack and his exact location is still mystery.

Click to expand...

Who were we going to 'attack?' Send a fighter jet and have them, what, bomb the annex full of U.S. personnel? Where were troops going to come from in the middle of the night and how were they going to get to the Annex before the fighting was over? Again, Gates called this view of military capabilities 'cartoonish.' He has no particular reason to lie for Obama, out of office as he was when he made those comments.

jmotivator said:

It's like you have channeled Obama's brain waves from the night of 9/11/2012....

Click to expand...

If you disagree with anything, I'd be interested in what, exactly? For example, how big a force would be needed to mop up there? And would you send them in with no urgent mission, risk all their lives, to kill people we'd have no idea whether or not they were involved in the attacks.

And it wasn't Obama making those decisions - he DOES have a command structure that is set up just to handle this kind of thing without a single bit of input from him. If you're blaming Obama, you're also blaming that entire command chain.

JasperL said:

No, you don't get to dismiss it that easy. What part was incorrect?



That's not what happened. And if you think they should have done more, aren't the commanders in the area better qualified than armchair warriors like you to determine what can be done with the assets they had, with the information available to them in real time, instead of with 20/20 hindsight? Or do you have that little respect and confidence in the military who have made careers out of making decisions you're second guessing here from thousands of miles away with no information?



Who exactly were these people told to stay put? If it was the special ops team in Tripoli, you're wrong. First of all, there were commanders who obviously had more information than the team, and as you know, the senior officers direct the teams, not the other way around, and it's because the senior officers in command centers had full information not available to that team in Tripoli. If they team had left Tripoli when they asked to leave, they'd have taken off after the civilians were on their way to the airport and passed the plane carrying the most seriously wounded in the air on their way to Tripoli, and would have arrived with nothing more to do than assist in loading civilians onto planes to Tripoli, from whence they'd just come.



Who were we going to 'attack?' Send a fighter jet and have them, what, bomb the annex full of U.S. personnel? Where were troops going to come from in the middle of the night and how were they going to get to the Annex before the fighting was over? Again, Gates called this view of military capabilities 'cartoonish.' He has no particular reason to lie for Obama, out of office as he was when he made those comments.

Click to expand...

A much more qualified individual than YOU testified yesterday that we should have tried, so you'll understand if I take your military know how in reference to Benghazzi with a grain of salt

Plus his sole motivation wasn't to cover for Obama

Also one of the men Killed in the attack was killed painting a target while waiting for a strike that never came.

Im going to bet he knew who he was targeting and thought it totally concievable that we could effectively and surgically taget the people responsible.

Plus, its been 20 months and still no one's been held accountable.

No terrroist droned or captured.

Obama's ineptitude continues apparently.

Fenton said:

A much more qualified individual than YOU testified yesterday that we should have tried, so you'll understand if I take your military know how in reference to Benghazzi with a grain of salt

Click to expand...

Here's part of the exchange:

CONNOLLY: 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?

CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNOLLY: OK.

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

CONNOLLY: All right, 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.

Click to expand...

And here's the thing - reviewing performance after the fact is routine, and I expect none of them with the kind of loss of life we see here find that things were handled perfectly or even competently. But you all aren't suggesting that - you're suggesting things like "Obama let them die!" Or CIA/State/Military let them all die without trying. The allegations isn't that they didn't just make mistakes, it's that these people in charge, across three or four agencies, including CIA/State and the military, (Obama of course) were bordering on treasonous. It's a standard that we haven't applied to any military operation like this, EVER, really. Not unless we have any specific allegations that there was anything like intentional wrongdoing, a DECISION to let them die. That just didn't happen, and no one involved at any level has suggested that.

Plus his sole motivation wasn't to cover for Obama

Click to expand...

Who was Gates covering for? His friends in the military? Petraeus? You'll need to be specific.

Also one of the men Killed in the attack was killed painting a target while waiting for a strike that never came.

Im going to bet he knew who he was targeting and thought it totally concievable that we could effectively and surgically taget the people responsible.

Click to expand...

I can't comment on that, but we still had to get a fighter jet to that area in time to do some good, and, again, you're using 20/20 hindsight to allege wrongdoing that NO ONE involved in those decisions has also alleged. Do you think the military personnel who testified to these suggestions are liars? If so I'd like to see them called out for treason or whatever as well.

Plus, its been 20 months and still no one's been held accountable.

No terrroist droned or captured.

Obama's ineptitude continues apparently.

Click to expand...

If you want to discuss Obama's record of droning and killing terrorists, that's fine. He's killed a bunch of them, and a lot of them by drones. Do you think he wants to let them off the hook? But wants to continue killing terrorists elsewhere, which he's doing, and getting no love from the civil libertarians on the right or left with his kill lists and all that.

Where was Obama when this went on? What were his orders? What action, did the President and the Secretary of State choose to take when they were informed that the enclave was under attack and American lives were at risk, including their ambassador?

As far as we know now, they knew about it, chose to do nothing, and tried to cover it up by concocting a story that it was just angry protesters, this after a good nights sleep and a morning of fund raising.

And where is the press? A low level hotel room break in, they are all over it. Dead Americans and a burning embassy, they are like "Huh? I don't see a story here." We are doomed if this is allowed to continue.

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 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.

Click to expand...

And every single actual military person who was in a position to actually make decisions that night says there wasn't anything that could have been done. But **** what they think, right? They're just the experts.

A lot of people wish they could have done something. I knew Sean Smith, I damn sure wish there was something that could have been done. But there wasn't. The fantasy that right wing media has given you about "stand down" orders, an armed predator drone on station, etc, is just that. Fantasy. Fantasy born out of the frustration of feeling helpless.

There was no "painted target."

Deuce said:

And every single actual military person who was
in a position to actually make decisions that night says there wasn't anything that could have been done. But **** what they think, right? They're just the experts.

A lot of people wish they could have done something. I knew Sean Smith, I damn sure wish there was something that could have been done. But there wasn't. The fantasy that right wing media has given you about "stand down" orders, an armed predator drone on station, etc, is just that. Fantasy. Fantasy born out of the frustration of feeling helpless.

There was no "painted target."

Click to expand...

Is there really a distinction in the words "stand down" and the words " stay put " ?

GOP Chair Buck McKeon said it wouldn't have made any difference, chastizing the idiot General .

NIMBY said:

GOP Chair Buck McKeon said it wouldn't have made any difference, chastizing the idiot General .

Click to expand...

The General never claimed it would have made a difference. He said it was dishonorable not to have tried. And McKeon wasn't there yesterday.eace

Jack Hays said:

The General never claimed it would have made a difference. He said it was dishonorable not to have tried. And McKeon wasn't there yesterday.eace

Click to expand...

Monday morning quarterbacking is for cowards. Especially driven by partisan political bull****.

Deuce said:

Monday morning quarterbacking is for cowards. Especially driven by partisan political bull****.

Click to expand...

Obama and the Democrats started with the Partisan BS when they started crafting a false narrative about a video before the attack was even over.

While Americans were dying, they're literally sitting around thinking of ways to lie to the American people.

Figuring out ways to save THEIR asses, and not the people under attack.

Do you think that thats appropriate behaviour from our Commander and Chief ?