WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

For Tom... Benghazi...

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
I'm re-posting this in the political forum. I had it posted up in the lounge for Memorial day, as I lost two friends and teammates in this shit storm. I think as a result of that, political discussion was not catalyzed, nor discussed. It should be.

A former SEAL Captain wrote what I believe to be the definitive explanation of the event, and not in a sense of what happened, but what HAD to have happened. There is a chain of events that takes place, and a series of required steps to take regardless of policy, party or otherwise. It is the best explanation I have ever read on the subject. Read the whole thing, and make your own decisions...

From a retired Navy Captain...

"The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.

Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.

General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came."
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
Those brave men and women were hung out to dry, all of them.

bob got re-elected in the middle of this mess, what else needs to be said?

We, as a population, have failed.

Our elected leaders have failed, we have failed.

Apathy and desire for handouts have won.

Voting "takers" now outnumber the voting "producers."

I believe plenty of people voted for bob, just hoping for their "free" healthcare and unemployment checks, no matter what they say out loud.

We still have 3.5 years to suffer these same policies, just to see if the next set of talking heads will work to do something better, otherwise we will continue on our Roman slide.

Brian
 
Last edited:

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
Those brave men and women were hung out to dry, all of them.

This hurts but... I have to agree with this.


I read the original thread in the lounge. I just read it again.

Please note, I've never said the Benghazi situation was handled well. This is proof incompetence costs lives.
 

Paul65k

Schiada Baby.......Yeah!!
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
13,512
Reaction score
6,916
This hurts but... I have to agree with this.


I read the original thread in the lounge. I just read it again.

Please note, I've never said the Benghazi situation was handled well. This is proof incompetence costs lives.

Actually the main point here Tom.....just in case you missed it was that there was no way that the President could have been kept out of the loop.......he made a decision to sacrifice those men plain and simple according to the thesis of this post by electing to not authorize operations across borders :grumble:
 

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
I'll just add...

I have no problem with confrontation like this thread. I enjoy other people's opinions. You are particularly well informed, Wes. Seriously, I appreciate you sharing your point of view.
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
Intentionally letting our good men die is not incompetence you blithering idiot.:finger
 
Last edited:

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
Actually the main point here Tom.....just in case you missed it was that there was no way that the President could have been kept out of the loop.......he made a decision to sacrifice those men plain and simple according to the thesis of this post by electing to not authorize operations across borders :grumble:

Not just across borders within Libya. Troops in country were ordered to stand down.

For Tomnadien that translates to "Tough shit let them die, you're under orders".
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
Froggy, 50% of the country knows the TIC let them die on purpose the other 50% are brain dead and can't be reached.
 

SBjet

El Presidente for Life
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
60
I. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton,

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. ."

Thank you. This leaving men our to die sucks, I don't care what your politics are.
And means Hilary flat out lied to congress. Again, not a matter of right and left, a matter of national security. The spin was that mean old Rs were picking on her.
And it raises other questions:
We were attacked in the 90s too, and Prez Clinton ordered a violent response. Why has O not ordered a response? O won't say.
Did O watch Americans die on tv? If so why, is it because he cares more about Africans than Americans? We don't know, O won't say.
Is this part of a larger war with Syria, and a proxy war with Russia? We don't know.
The left complained about Bush lying about a war for 10 yrs. Now O and Hillary get a free pass?
We would know quite a bit more if the WH released all the info, but they haven't, they have just continually lied more each time a new fact comes out.
 

BajaMike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
6,322
Reaction score
3,073
Best information I have seen on Benghazi. Sad to see what a weak ass, lying president we have.

Just like when they got Bin Laden, and he and others in the White House shot off their mouths with details about the "Seal Team Six" operation, the doctor who helped them (who is now in jail) and all the intel they got off "hard drives and memory sticks" (making it then mostly useless).

The entire press release for the Bin Laden operation should have been as follows: "I secret team of Americans killed Bin Laden in Pakistan. All other details of this operation are secret".

Aren't Seal missions always supposed to be secret???

Thanks, Wes, good information.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Best information I have seen on Benghazi. Sad to see what a weak ass, lying president we have.

Just like when they got Bin Laden, and he and others in the White House shot off their mouths with details about the "Seal Team Six" operation, the doctor who helped them (who is now in jail) and all the intel they got off "hard drives and memory sticks" (making it then mostly useless).

The entire press release for the Bin Laden operation should have been as follows: "I secret team of Americans killed Bin Laden in Pakistan. All other details of this operation are secret".

Aren't Seal missions always supposed to be secret???

Thanks, Wes, good information.

What should have been done as far as the bin Laden mission, would have been to kill him, leave the mission as a secret and than hang the bastard's rotting carcass on display in the middle of a public square in Afghan. Call the world's media in for the unvailing and tell the Arab world, "This is what happens to assholes who fuck with the USA!!!!!!!":finger:mad2:
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
Mucked up serious thread with BS.
My apologies.
 
Last edited:

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
Intentionally letting our good men die is not incompetence you blithering idiot.:finger

Actually, that is specifically what it is. Incompetence as a commander in chief, incompetence with regard to act upon intelligence, incompetence with regard to how to accept responsibility for it, and how to relay the information to the nation.

The whole thing boiled down to a team of half-wits making decisions based on their own needs, rather than that of the needs of those they "command".

The worst command is always inaction. Do something, do it poorly... but do something.
 

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
Agreed sir.

should come attached to criminal actions...is more I think what he was getting at.

Godspeed to the brave souls who fought for their very lives and for others' lives around them.

The worst command is always inaction. Do something, do it poorly... but do something.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
HEY TOM!!! OVER HERE!!!


Come on, let's play a game we know how much you like games.

One of your heroes on FOX news, Jerry Rivers, claimed on his radio program that the stand down order doesn't count because it only applied to 4 operators in country. Ignoring the idiocy of that statement let's play.


I'll take 6 SEAL team members, in helos, quick roped into the embassy an hour into the battle.

You take 100 savages wearing tennis shoes, wife beater tank stops and blue jeans armed with what ever they can get their primitive paws on.


Who wants to debate the outcome?:skull

This is a bit absurd... but I know what you mean in essence.

Put it this way... two former SEALs without support killed hundreds. With a helo we wouldn't have lost anyone.

They weren't shooting primitive weapons though... they had AK-47's, RPG's, grenades and other more advanced weapons... namely a cell phone. It was a coordinated attack.

Little known fact.. Glen and Ty actually saved the ambassador. He died at the hospital of smoke inhalation. Tough to comprehend how bad ass those two must have been to run INTO the gunfight (they were over half a mile away when it started) to assist. They were not the security detail, nor were they charged at any level with the security of the ambassador or the compounds. I won't get into what they were tasked with... but they did it very well prior to the event.
 
Last edited:

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
This is a bit absurd... but I know what you mean in essence.

Put it this way... two former SEALs without support killed hundreds. With a helo we wouldn't have lost anyone.

My point, made succinct.
How about a couple of F16's in full afterburner 50' off the deck not even deploying any munitions?

My other point is, it's not incompetence when it's intentional.
This was no accident, no mistake, no inaction. They took the action to intentionally let them die.

As far as Glen and Ty go your raid on Japan story could just as well have been about them.
No support, support requests DENIED, lightly armed..... savages to the left of them , savages to the right, into the valley of death, onward rode the "two".

IMHO
 
Last edited:

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
It infuriates me so much that parents who sent their sons off to defend the nation aren't even afforded a reasonable explanation of what went wrong. These parents knew there was the chance they'd lose their loved ones defending the nation, yet the highest representatives of that nation can't even give a simple answer to why. To hell with the excuses, just man up or in HC's case bitch up!!!!!! This whole situation is just wrong....:(
 

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
Actually, that is specifically what it is. Incompetence as a commander in chief, incompetence with regard to act upon intelligence, incompetence with regard to how to accept responsibility for it, and how to relay the information to the nation.

The whole thing boiled down to a team of half-wits making decisions based on their own needs, rather than that of the needs of those they "command".

The worst command is always inaction. Do something, do it poorly... but do something.

Been kind of busy this afternoon but this thread is addressed to me so I feel compelled to respond as I don't wish to be rude.

Topics:

Well thought out indictment of the response to Benghazi - Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Heroism of Seals Glen and Ty - Humbling. Inspiring. Puts a lump in my throat.



There isn't much to say here but here's something. I hold your well reasoned and compelling indictment in high regard but it should be acknowledged the argument is pretty one sided. Give me 18 paragraphs and I could present an iron cad case that the earth is flat. I'm certainly not saying your wrong and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying an unrebutted argument is not a complete exploration of a situation.

It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.

We have some history Wes, so let's just cut through some bullshit here for the sake of clarity. Here is my position on this.

- It distresses me to hear about Americans being killed, even though I did not know them
- Politics and government are required to keep the planet from imploding
- Large organizations, like governments, are frequently incompetent and ineffectual
- Incompetence kills people
- Your thread brings a lot of information to the table that helps in understanding this situation
- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,528
Reaction score
95,364
Been kind of busy this afternoon but this thread is addressed to me so I feel compelled to respond as I don't wish to be rude.

Topics:

Well thought out indictment of the response to Benghazi - Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Heroism of Seals Glen and Ty - Humbling. Inspiring. Puts a lump in my throat.



There isn't much to say here but here's something. I hold your well reasoned and compelling indictment in high regard but it should be acknowledged the argument is pretty one sided. Give me 18 paragraphs and I could present an iron cad case that the earth is flat. I'm certainly not saying your wrong and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying an unrebutted argument is not a complete exploration of a situation.

It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.

We have some history Wes, so let's just cut through some bullshit here for the sake of clarity. Here is my position on this.

- It distresses me to hear about Americans being killed, even though I did not know them
- Politics and government are required to keep the planet from imploding
- Large organizations, like governments, are frequently incompetent and ineffectual
- Incompetence kills people
- Your thread brings a lot of information to the table that helps in understanding this situation
- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong

This is one of those times, Tom, when you should probably say nothing.

Mr. wess, Thank you for the insights. I have shared them with my co-workers and to a Man we have had to explore what we really think about this event, and what we think we know about it.

The one thing we all agree on is the fallout is possibly the worst handling of a bad event in the history of spins and coverups.....whether the truth needs to be known or not.
 

thetub

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
3,673
Reaction score
2,928
Been kind of busy this afternoon but this thread is addressed to me so I feel compelled to respond as I don't wish to be rude.

Topics:

Well thought out indictment of the response to Benghazi - Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Heroism of Seals Glen and Ty - Humbling. Inspiring. Puts a lump in my throat.



There isn't much to say here but here's something. I hold your well reasoned and compelling indictment in high regard but it should be acknowledged the argument is pretty one sided. Give me 18 paragraphs and I could present an iron cad case that the earth is flat. I'm certainly not saying your wrong and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying an unrebutted argument is not a complete exploration of a situation.

It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.

We have some history Wes, so let's just cut through some bullshit here for the sake of clarity. Here is my position on this.

- It distresses me to hear about Americans being killed, even though I did not know them
- Politics and government are required to keep the planet from imploding
- Large organizations, like governments, are frequently incompetent and ineffectual
- Incompetence kills people
- Your thread brings a lot of information to the table that helps in understanding this situation
- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong

Tom they are self serving POS politicians that were playing politics with the situation. He (O) or his administration did not manipulate the situation to kill Americans. They did nothing ,then manipulated the coverup.

I am not a soldier , but I think what they did (administration) or DID NOT do goes against everything the military teaches them as to never leave anyone behind. I just hope that soldiers in this country do not follow the actions of this cowardly administration, which I know they wont.

Very bad message they are sending to our soldiers in service.......


whether we should be in that shithole is another story, but if our soldiers or diplomats are there protect them to the fullest.
 
Last edited:

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
Been kind of busy this afternoon but this thread is addressed to me so I feel compelled to respond as I don't wish to be rude.

Topics:

Well thought out indictment of the response to Benghazi - Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Heroism of Seals Glen and Ty - Humbling. Inspiring. Puts a lump in my throat.



There isn't much to say here but here's something. I hold your well reasoned and compelling indictment in high regard but it should be acknowledged the argument is pretty one sided. Give me 18 paragraphs and I could present an iron cad case that the earth is flat. I'm certainly not saying your wrong and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying an unrebutted argument is not a complete exploration of a situation.

It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.

We have some history Wes, so let's just cut through some bullshit here for the sake of clarity. Here is my position on this.

- It distresses me to hear about Americans being killed, even though I did not know them
- Politics and government are required to keep the planet from imploding
- Large organizations, like governments, are frequently incompetent and ineffectual
- Incompetence kills people
- Your thread brings a lot of information to the table that helps in understanding this situation
- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong

Here's one for you ol high and mighty. This admin is arming Al Qaida in Syria, arms were coming from Libya.

You can't parse the truth.
 

soupersonic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
45
Been kind of busy this afternoon but this thread is addressed to me so I feel compelled to respond as I don't wish to be rude.

Topics:

Well thought out indictment of the response to Benghazi - Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Heroism of Seals Glen and Ty - Humbling. Inspiring. Puts a lump in my throat.



There isn't much to say here but here's something. I hold your well reasoned and compelling indictment in high regard but it should be acknowledged the argument is pretty one sided. Give me 18 paragraphs and I could present an iron cad case that the earth is flat. I'm certainly not saying your wrong and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. I'm just saying an unrebutted argument is not a complete exploration of a situation.

It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.



He didnt manipulate a situation in order to kill people, he let good men die to cover his tracks. You are like the Piers Morgan of RDP.You should peddle your wares on the Huffington post.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people.

Agreed 100%. I by no means feel that Obama pulled the trigger on them. I just think that he was too inept to realize what was really occurring, and I don't think his respect for the folks overseas is particularly of note.

We have some history Wes, so let's just cut through some bullshit here for the sake of clarity. Here is my position on this.

- It distresses me to hear about Americans being killed, even though I did not know them
- Politics and government are required to keep the planet from imploding
- Large organizations, like governments, are frequently incompetent and ineffectual
- Incompetence kills people
- Your thread brings a lot of information to the table that helps in understanding this situation
- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong

Tom... to me it boils down to a great question I once poised to one of my leaders while we were up to our hips in rescue mission, specifically downed-pilot rescues. No offense to pilots... my father being a carrier pilot in Vietnam, and a path I almost chose... but they don't cost any more to train than a SEAL... and they are a hell of a lot easier to come by. Far lower attrition, with far larger numbers of applicants. Everyone wants to be a fighter pilot. It costs millions to train both is the point...

So a pilot goes down. Plane is lost... so write that expense up from jump street. Now you have a single pilot, with no particular intelligence knowledge (military intelligence about movements, crypto etc...) and you are going to put between 5 and 10 more pilots, plus 14 SEALs into harms way... and not just normal "harm's way" but "we just shot down a plane and can't find the pilot... call for reinforcements" kind of harm's way. A ready, pissed off enemy waiting for you and beating the bushes looking for you.

Not to be a dick, but I had to ask... "It seems like you are putting an awful lot of resources and energy... including risking 14 higher skilled and tougher to replace individuals to get one guy out. Why?"

The response was simple. You don't go to extreme effort to rescue pilots to get back the pilot... You do it so they will fly into danger in the first place.

This administration has hung warriors out to dry. It is clear to a casual observer. I wouldn't expect many people to be volunteering for high risk, high exposure duty with him on watch.

If I was still in the HUMINT business... I would be getting out of it.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
I am not a soldier , but I think what they did (administration) or DID NOT do goes against everything the military teaches them as to never leave anyone behind. I just hope that soldiers in this country do not follow the actions of this cowardly administration, which I know they wont.

Very bad message they are sending to our soldiers in service.......


whether we should be in that shithole is another story, but if our soldiers or diplomats are there protect them to the fullest.

These weren't soldiers. They were former soldiers. If they were soldiers, in country, you wouldn't have needed Cross Border Authority to get them out.

These were contractors, and they weren't even his security detail. They were working another mission. They were however Americans and in trouble. Something more should have been done, but by no means did anyone leave the military hung out to dry.

The ambassador should have had a Marine security detail. They didn't. That was the big oversight. That was the big mistake. Everything else is reactive to it. Marines would have made light work of the mob, and likely would have saved all lives. And if they had fired on an ambassador and a pile of Marines... I pity the fool left standing outside.

We are in a lot of shitholes. That is what an embassy is for. In fact, we are in most shitholes. It is sovereign US soil for any American to be treated fairly, and under the protection of the US Government. It is also a well understood fact that they are mostly cover stories for CIA stations.

I fail to see how anything that Tom wrote is objectionable BTW... so how about you guys pump your brakes a little here...
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,528
Reaction score
95,364
Agreed 100%. I by no means feel that Obama pulled the trigger on them. I just think that he was too inept to realize what was really occurring, and I don't think his respect for the folks overseas is particularly of note.



Tom... to me it boils down to a great question I once poised to one of my leaders while we were up to our hips in rescue mission, specifically downed-pilot rescues. No offense to pilots... my father being a carrier pilot in Vietnam, and a path I almost chose... but they don't cost any more to train than a SEAL... and they are a hell of a lot easier to come by. Far lower attrition, with far larger numbers of applicants. Everyone wants to be a fighter pilot. It costs millions to train both is the point...

So a pilot goes down. Plane is lost... so write that expense up from jump street. Now you have a single pilot, with no particular intelligence knowledge (military intelligence about movements, crypto etc...) and you are going to put between 5 and 10 more pilots, plus 14 SEALs into harms way... and not just normal "harm's way" but "we just shot down a plane and can't find the pilot... call for reinforcements" kind of harm's way. A ready, pissed off enemy waiting for you and beating the bushes looking for you.

Not to be a dick, but I had to ask... "It seems like you are putting an awful lot of resources and energy... including risking 14 higher skilled and tougher to replace individuals to get one guy out. Why?"

The response was simple. You don't go to extreme effort to rescue pilots to get back the pilot... You do it so they will fly into danger in the first place.

This administration has hung warriors out to dry. It is clear to a casual observer. I wouldn't expect many people to be volunteering for high risk, high exposure duty with him on watch.

If I was still in the HUMINT business... I would be getting out of it.

SNAP!!

Froggy, your insights are like revelations. Please keep them coming.:thumbsup:thumbsup
 

thetub

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
3,673
Reaction score
2,928
These weren't soldiers. They were former soldiers. If they were soldiers, in country, you wouldn't have needed Cross Border Authority to get them out.

These were contractors, and they weren't even his security detail. They were working another mission. They were however Americans and in trouble. Something more should have been done, but by no means did anyone leave the military hung out to dry.

The ambassador should have had a Marine security detail. They didn't. That was the big oversight. That was the big mistake. Everything else is reactive to it. Marines would have made light work of the mob, and likely would have saved all lives. And if they had fired on an ambassador and a pile of Marines... I pity the fool left standing outside.

We are in a lot of shitholes. That is what an embassy is for. In fact, we are in most shitholes. It is sovereign US soil for any American to be treated fairly, and under the protection of the US Government. It is also a well understood fact that they are mostly cover stories for CIA stations.

I fail to see how anything that Tom wrote is objectionable BTW... so how about you guys pump your brakes a little here...

Tommy boy knows I lovem.
 

thetub

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
3,673
Reaction score
2,928
[
HTML:
PHP][/PHP]It's difficult to believe that Barack Obama would deliberately manipulate a situation in order to kill American people. It's a lot easier to believe the situation was either mishandled or somehow handled ineffectively. Perhaps the administration was engaged with Libyan people who were asking for time to deal with the situation, or whatever. It would be a lot easier for me to believe Libyan officials were stalling to aid the terrorist cell than it would be for me to believe that Obama personally set out to kill those people. [QUOTE
HTML:
][/QUOTE]
PHP:






I just think they tried to keep everything quiet and cool or downplay the situation during the elections.
 
Last edited:

wsuwrhr

The Masheenest
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
23,838
The response was simple. You don't go to extreme effort to rescue pilots to get back the pilot... You do it so they will fly into danger in the first place.


Very profound.

Simple answer and no retort.

Brian
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
:lmao That is some sig line material there Tommy.


- It seems near certain to me there is more to this story but the wrong thing happened and I am not saying you are wrong or even that I suspect you are wrong

I fail to see how anything that Tom wrote is objectionable BTW... so how about you guys pump your brakes a little here...

Of course he hasn't, he's too busy blowing you. Skidmark, you sure do tone it down when your daddy is around. Grow some fucking balls Plato.
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,152
Agreed 100%. I by no means feel that Obama pulled the trigger on them. I just think that he was too inept to realize what was really occurring, and I don't think his respect for the folks overseas is particularly of note.

I think this is absolutely excellent analysis. Benghazi, IRS and conservative 501c4's, questionable intimidation of the press; these are not Nixonian conspiracies, they are Carter like ineptitudes. Obama is not as some of the conservatives believe, a horrible evil doer, he is simply incompetent, on the level of Bush II incompetence. I would love to have Clinton or Reagan back. I do not agree with Clinton's Somalia debacle or Reagan's Libya debacle, we have no business in nation building. I spent a lot of the 80's in central america working for the government and never understood those non-military military operations as well. But Froggy and Tom are right.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
:

Of course he hasn't, he's too busy blowing you. Skidmark, you sure do tone it down when your daddy is around. Grow some fucking balls Plato.

You guys are real dicks in here... So defensive...
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,152
Actually, Tom B thrives on that shit and nurtures it.

He would be insulted if he weren't being insulted!:thumbsup

I don't know Tom but I bet if you stripped away the fishing pole and bait, he is actually a thoughtful guy. He would probably be a good guy to have a beer with but he does love to fish and poke the bear. If we had a internet camera, I bet he gets a big smile every time someone bites. :)
 

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
Of course he hasn't, he's too busy blowing you. Skidmark, you sure do tone it down when your daddy is around. Grow some fucking balls Plato.

I think you're wrong, in an existential sort of way. How's that?
 

Outdrive1

Outdrive1 Marine Sales https://www.outdrive1.com/
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
32,730
Reaction score
28,067
I don't know Tom but I bet if you stripped away the fishing pole and bait, he is actually a thoughtful guy. He would probably be a good guy to have a beer with but he does love to fish and poke the bear. If we had a internet camera, I bet he gets a big smile every time someone bites. :)

I've met him and to say he's abrasive in person would be an understatement. He smokes like chimney and drinks like its the first of the month and his ebt card just got replenished.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
I think this is absolutely excellent analysis. Benghazi, IRS and conservative 501c4's, questionable intimidation of the press; these are not Nixonian conspiracies, they are Carter like ineptitudes. Obama is not as some of the conservatives believe, a horrible evil doer, he is simply incompetent, on the level of Bush II incompetence. I would love to have Clinton or Reagan back. I do not agree with Clinton's Somalia debacle or Reagan's Libya debacle, we have no business in nation building. I spent a lot of the 80's in central america working for the government and never understood those non-military military operations as well. But Froggy and Tom are right.

Seriously, you think the targeting of conservatives by the IRS and the labeling of a Fox reporter as a conspirator, is due to his ineptitude? You do know they had to go to 3 federal judges, before they were granted the warrant to seize Rosen's records right? Inept, really? I'm going with thuggery Rodney.
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,152
Seriously, you think the targeting of conservatives by the IRS and the labeling of a Fox reporter as a conspirator, is due to his ineptitude? You do know they had to go to 3 federal judges, before they were granted the warrant to seize Rosen's records right? Inept, really? I'm going with thuggery Rodney.

Fair point, but that is the political people he appointed not Obama himself. I'm still not willing to give him that much credit.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,528
Reaction score
95,364
Fair point, but that is the political people he appointed not Obama himself. I'm still not willing to give him that much credit.

I usually put quite a bit of merit in the posts you make.
But this one is very non "Rodney King" like.

An appointee is only an extension, and the separation only carries deniability so far.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
Fair point, but that is the political people he appointed not Obama himself. I'm still not willing to give him that much credit.

I usually put quite a bit of merit in the posts you make.
But this one is very non "Rodney King" like.

An appointee is only an extension, and the separation only carries deniability so far.

Likewise, I respect super cool's opinion but, I think he took one to many drags off the dipped ciggy last night. :)
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
A point some are missing is pretty clear if one studies the characters involved, namely O and Hillary. Both feel a sense of entitlement and both look down at anyone in their service. Neither respect the military or the folks on their own protection details.

Both put their personal political goals and positions in front of everything and in the case of Benghazi, the lives of brave Americans serving their country at several levels.

I find it sickening these 2 most likely take for granted without more than a passing "ho-hum" that brave folks surrounding them that would do their duty and take a bullet to save the life of either of these ingrates.

Bush, Clinton, Carter, and others were perhaps inept and had their flaws, but they had hearts. To me O and Hillary are self centered heartless assholes who will never get a lick of respect from me. And I'm far from alone in this opinion.
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,050
It wasn't incompetence:

Charles Krauthammer "I think there is a bigger story here that will in time come out. The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at five o?clock. He never after during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director, Who does he call? But five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance. It looks as if the only phone call is to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There?s the scandal and that has to be uncovered.?

He was covering something up (arms to Al Qaida) or just flat out does not give a rat's ass.
 
Last edited:

Paul65k

Schiada Baby.......Yeah!!
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
13,512
Reaction score
6,916
Fair point, but that is the political people he appointed not Obama himself. I'm still not willing to give him that much credit.
Nixon tried to make that argument too...........how'd that work out for him????;)
 

Tom Brown

Epsilon contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,888
Reaction score
2,198
Here's the thing.

If you were a jury foreman and only one side of a trial showed up to present their case, you would probably think there is no point waiting for the other side to show up because you've just heard an iron clad case with no possibility the other side could poke holes in it. ... but trials feature presentations from both plaintiffs and defendants for a reason.

Yeah, the whole deal sounds pretty bad I can't help but wonder if you guys ready to sentence Obama to the electric chair have any more information than I do. After two hearings in the house, it's clear this is a partisan issue.

What motive does Obama or Clinton have to kill Americans overseas?

What motive do Republican political hacks have to smear Obama and Clinton?
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
It wasn't incompetence:

Charles Krauthammer "I think there is a bigger story here that will in time come out. The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at five o?clock. He never after during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director, Who does he call? But five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance. It looks as if the only phone call is to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There?s the scandal and that has to be uncovered.?

He was covering something up (arms to Al Qaida) or just flat out does not give a rat's ass.

I don't think there is any question, this is miles away from incompetence. Benefit of the doubt..........****** please!
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
Here's the thing.

If you were a jury foreman and only one side of a trial showed up to present their case, you would probably think there is no point waiting for the other side to show up because you've just heard an iron clad case with no possibility the other side could poke holes in it. ... but trials feature presentations from both plaintiffs and defendants for a reason.

Yeah, the whole deal sounds pretty bad I can't help but wonder if you guys ready to sentence Obama to the electric chair have any more information than I do. After two hearings in the house, it's clear this is a partisan issue.

What motive does Obama or Clinton have to kill Americans overseas?

What motive do Republican political hacks have to smear Obama and Clinton?

If the cocksuckers would turn over ALL the documents Tom, THEN we could get that evidence, you so yearn for. Come on Shithead, use your fucking brain!
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Here's the thing.

If you were a jury foreman and only one side of a trial showed up to present their case, you would probably think there is no point waiting for the other side to show up because you've just heard an iron clad case with no possibility the other side could poke holes in it. ... but trials feature presentations from both plaintiffs and defendants for a reason.

Yeah, the whole deal sounds pretty bad I can't help but wonder if you guys ready to sentence Obama to the electric chair have any more information than I do. After two hearings in the house, it's clear this is a partisan issue.

What motive does Obama or Clinton have to kill Americans overseas?

What motive do Republican political hacks have to smear Obama and Clinton?

Why doesn't the WH answer direct questions? Is getting indignant about being asked simple questions an accepted defense?
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,148
Reaction score
124,221
Why doesn't the WH answer direct questions? Is getting indignant about being asked simple questions an accepted defense?

I'll tell you why Tex. :) They're scumbag, lying, fucking traitors that are only interested in themselves and deceiving the gullible morons, such as our resident dipshit.
 

Froggystyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
2,141
You fucks are so narrow minded you have me considering a move to Democrat so I don't have to admit I share your party affiliation...

What if they released all the docs (which I don't support) and he was working his ass off all night? You wouldn't change your mind about him or the event.

People in the far right are more deplorable to me than hyper-libs because they smack of this righteous, indignant "'cause god said" attitude.

I don't know who Regor is... But I'm not proud to share our community with him based on what I've seen here.

You guys come off like dumb, asshole jocks.
 
Top