Benghazi Report

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
"Blocked" implies someone with full knowledge of the situation prevented them from going, and in this context, for some sort of bad reason. So no, I don't agree.

Now, if there were bureaucratic problems or some sort of communication problem within the military that slowed it down, or "blocked" it, I'd agree that should be looked at and fixed to avoid any such slow response.
Click to expand...

Supposedly Panetta ordered assets to the area but after at least 8 hours (maybe more) no assets had even moved. Someone would have been fired IF that order actually was made and not blocked. Who got fired for gross incompetence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#54
#54
IPleadInsanity said:
I will tell you what makes no sense, sending no one, that makes no sense. I would expect the SOS to send everyone to protect her employees, I would. If I made a mistake then we wasted some fuel. She and Obama were in the sit room and in full control, don't blame this on the military they leave no one behind as proven on the ground that night.
Click to expand...

This...so much this.

ive never been in the military. My assumption was that military bases routinely went through emergency drills. Is it possible that our nearest bases to hostile regions didnt have a contingency plan for emergency situations? If not, it seems to be needed. If so, why the hell weren't they scrambled/deployed??
 
#55
#55
IPleadInsanity said:
I will tell you what makes no sense, sending no one, that makes no sense. I would expect the SOS to send everyone to protect her employees, I would. If I made a mistake then we wasted some fuel. She and Obama were in the sit room and in full control, don't blame this on the military they leave no one behind as proven on the ground that night.
Click to expand...

Panetta said neither Hillary or Obama called to ask for an update on the attack...can you blame Obama though? He was packing to go to Las Vegas to party with Jay Z and Beyoncé.

Panetta: President Obama was absent night of Benghazi attack and did not check in once during the night of the deadly terror assault | Daily Mail Online
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#56
#56
McDad said:
This...so much this.

ive never been in the military. My assumption was that military bases routinely went through emergency drills. Is it possible that our nearest bases to hostile regions didnt have a contingency plan for emergency situations? If not, it seems to be needed. If so, why the hell weren't they scrambled/deployed??
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

They do have such plans. Or could enact something on the fly rather quickly.

The problem comes from orders from above. You're talking loading live munitions in nations where they would need diplomatic clearance to launch from. Take Italy for example. There were (still are) F-16s less than three hours away at Aviano AB. And Sigonella NAS is even closer, maybe an hour away from Banghazi. So all that would be needed for them to launch would be the State Department calling up their counterparts in Italy and letting them know what was going on. And we need to launch from here or else those Americans are going to die.

But even easier is the aircraft carriers in the Med at the time. And the Marine units that normally accompany said groups. Those don't require diplomatic clearance to launch and help support the troops in contact save the Libyan government. And honestly, **** 'em if they've got a problem with it since it's their people attacking Americans.

So the question is...why weren't they given an alert as a minimum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
Grand Vol said:
Yes and no.

They do have such plans. Or could enact something on the fly rather quickly.

The problem comes from orders from above. You're talking loading live munitions in nations where they would need diplomatic clearance to launch from. Take Italy for example. There were (still are) F-16s less than three hours away at Aviano AB. And Sigonella NAS is even closer, maybe an hour away from Banghazi. So all that would be needed for them to launch would be the State Department calling up their counterparts in Italy and letting them know what was going on. And we need to launch from here or else those Americans are going to die.

But even easier is the aircraft carriers in the Med at the time. And the Marine units that normally accompany said groups. Those don't require diplomatic clearance to launch and help support the troops in contact save the Libyan government. And honestly, **** 'em if they've got a problem with it since it's their people attacking Americans.

So the question is...why weren't they given an alert as a minimum?
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to Obama's "Al Qaeda is on the run" remark and it was too close to the election. These guys were expendable in their minds. No other reason to not even try in 13 hours of attacks..hell they could have probably launched from my back yard and got there in time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
I don't know what to take from this report yet.

BUT:

HiLIARly & the Administration originally, from day one, blamed the attack on a "spontaneous reaction" by Muslims to the video. And as such "didn't think there was a credible threat to the embassy".

By any, and I mean ANY, definition of professional incompetance; this self admission -which in fact may be another bald faced lie- of not knowing what was really happening ON THAT DATE outside a United States embassy in a Muslim nation within moments of the initiation of hostilities becomes the archtype of incompetance!

When, at the very least; knowing Islamists often choose the dates and even times, of previous militant jihadist activities to strike, The Secretary of State who responsible for embassy personnel and can generate intelligence reports from every agency, is totally and completely indefensable in not being prepared to react to hostilities at each and every one of those several embassies.

No consideration need be given to any other factors,... none at all.
The Hildabeast has no defense, and basically admits it. She more dropped the ball. She's not competant to be president.

Neither is the Trumpster. We're in for a rough ride for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#59
#59
Orangedogsrule said:
I don't know what to take from this report yet.

BUT:

HiLIARly & the Administration originally, from day one, blamed the attack on a "spontaneous reaction" by Muslims to the video. And as such "didn't think there was a credible threat to the embassy".

By any, and I mean ANY, definition of professional incompetance; this self admission -which in fact may be another bald faced lie- of not knowing what was really happening ON THAT DATE outside a United States embassy in a Muslim nation within moments of the initiation of hostilities becomes the archtype of incompetance!

When, at the very least; knowing Islamists often choose the dates and even times, of previous militant jihadist activities to strike, The Secretary of State who responsible for embassy personnel and can generate intelligence reports from every agency, is totally and completely indefensable in not being prepared to react to hostilities at each and every one of those several embassies.

No consideration need be given to any other factors,... none at all.
The Hildabeast has no defense, and basically admits it. She more dropped the ball. She's not competant to be president.

Neither is the Trumpster. We're in for a rough ride for a long time.
Click to expand...

She just didn't care that much. And neither did Obama for that matter.

While these people will yell into a microphone about Bush, Romney, Trump et al not caring about US citizens to score cheap political points, they actually don't show any empathy or bias for action to help the very people under their leadership. Pathetic.
 
#60
#60
Well, nearly every day for four years we've heard from Conservative pundits and politicians about how Hillary gave the military a "stand down" order. That has now been debunked and proven false. I see now that the narrative is changing to "well she didn't give the go order". Give it a rest guys. Go lick your wounds and get over it. I know many of you hung your hats on the idea that Benghazi would be Hillary's undoing.

Be cheerful though. She may yet go to jail for emailgate. That's OK. She can beat Donald Trump from a jail cell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
Orangedogsrule said:
I don't know what to take from this report yet.

BUT:

HiLIARly & the Administration originally, from day one, blamed the attack on a "spontaneous reaction" by Muslims to the video. And as such "didn't think there was a credible threat to the embassy".

By any, and I mean ANY, definition of professional incompetance; this self admission -which in fact may be another bald faced lie- of not knowing what was really happening ON THAT DATE outside a United States embassy in a Muslim nation within moments of the initiation of hostilities becomes the archtype of incompetance!

When, at the very least; knowing Islamists often choose the dates and even times, of previous militant jihadist activities to strike, The Secretary of State who responsible for embassy personnel and can generate intelligence reports from every agency, is totally and completely indefensable in not being prepared to react to hostilities at each and every one of those several embassies.

No consideration need be given to any other factors,... none at all.
The Hildabeast has no defense, and basically admits it. She more dropped the ball. She's not competant to be president.

Neither is the Trumpster. We're in for a rough ride for a long time.
Click to expand...

How do you size up Reagan and the State Department during the Beirut Embassy bombings and Bush/Cheney during the 9/11 attacks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#64
#64
MT LeConte said:
Well, nearly every day for four years we've heard from Conservative pundits and politicians about how Hillary gave the military a "stand down" order. That has now been debunked and proven false. I see now that the narrative is changing to "well she didn't give the go order". Give it a rest guys. Go lick your wounds and get over it. I know many of you hung your hats on the idea that Benghazi would be Hillary's undoing.

Be cheerful though. She may yet go to jail for emailgate. That's OK. She can beat Donald Trump from a jail cell.
Click to expand...

Had to quote this, well, because it's worth quoting. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
That's different because a terrorist attack is only preventable when a Dem is in office.
Click to expand...

Do you think Hillary blatantly lying to the families of the Benghazi victims and the American people is enough to disqualify her to run for POTUS?

That's an honest question.
 
#70
#70
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
Hayezb said:
So it's a matter of who to believe? Why would they lie? She has reason to do so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-QblDLi_o[/youtube]
Click to expand...

People lie for all kinds of reasons, some for no reason at all. Maybe no one is lying. Memories during stressful times are not perfect. You will never get to the truth by just assuming someone has more of a reason to lie than someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
hog88 said:
Supposedly Panetta ordered assets to the area but after at least 8 hours (maybe more) no assets had even moved. Someone would have been fired IF that order actually was made and not blocked. Who got fired for gross incompetence?
Click to expand...

I think Panetta was the only one in the room that had the guts to do anything..... He had to twist BHO's arm to get Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden raid not Obama’s call!
 
#73
#73
MT LeConte said:
People lie for all kinds of reasons, some for no reason at all. Maybe no one is lying. Memories during stressful times are not perfect. You will never get to the truth by just assuming someone has more of a reason to lie than someone else.
Click to expand...

Does Hillary have hairy ape-like breasts? Pull her boob out of your mouth and look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#74
#74
MT LeConte said:
No, that is not an honest question. What Clinton told the families is not clear.


What did Hillary Clinton tell the families of people who lost their lives in Benghazi? | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself with the article in the link you posted.....
Charles Woods, father of CIA operative Tyrone Woods, told talk show host Glenn Beck on Oct. 25, 2012, that Clinton said to him, "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

In 2015, three years later, Woods shared with Fox News diary notes he took after meeting Clinton, Obama and other officials. "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry said in full.
Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in October 2015, Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, said Clinton mentioned protests but not a video.

"She spoke to my family about how sad we should feel for the Libyan people because they are uneducated, and that breeds fear, which breeds violence, and leads to a protest," Quigley said, adding that Clinton chose to "perpetuate what she knew was untrue."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
The summary of the Benghazi House Committee Report doesn't necessarily point blame at any individual, but it sure points to a heck of a lot of ignorance and incompetence throughout the admin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top