60 Minutes Segment on Benghazi

[D1B]

I'm not offering an opinion, I'm repeating what the chain of command said. You can look it up yourself, but you already know.

Jeezus, it's fvcking baby seals all night here.

In fact, Ambassador Stevens refused two offers of increased security in the month before the attack. Maybe the SEALS killed him for that....

You and I both know the COC is just in CYA mode right now. Unless THEY knew when the battle was going to be over...

But DAMN, you do a good job of toeing the party line, 'dawg. Obama would be proud.

How bout this classic case of sound planning. Where was the conkrage?

[SDHornet]

Yup, this is the point lost. Instead folks result to throwing up a bunch of emoticons and other irrelevant quips while ignoring the main issue at hand. I laugh at the idea that no aid or reinforcements could have been brought in or that the Administration had no idea of events unfolding both pre-attack and during the attack. Mind you this was the same Administration that stealthily flew in a seal team into Pakistan and took out OBL all while watching it on live feed via satellite and drone surveillance…yeah no clue what was going on in Benghazi my ass.

You laugh at this because of your military expertise, SD? Would you care to enlighten as to which troops were available and could have been there in time? And why you disagree with the gentleman who was Secretary of Defense at the time?

We have an air base in Italy right? How long would it take to fly something over the Med and to the coast of Libya? (Google says its 1100 miles from Rome to an arbitrary point in Libya) We have how many hundreds of military installations all over the fucking globe and not one asset (whether it be Seals parachuting in, a drone or an F-18 dropping some bombs on those mofos) could have been deployed to provide some sort of support.

And for the record I'm outraged whenever our military troops get hit at any location. They are putting their lives on the line (I've got a BIL on his second deployment in the ME as I type) and the least they can get is some backup when its needed. This Administration has fed us lie after lie so why would I believe them when they say there were no assets to assist during the assault?

[houndawg]

I'm not offering an opinion, I'm repeating what the chain of command said. You can look it up yourself, but you already know.

Jeezus, it's fvcking baby seals all night here.

In fact, Ambassador Stevens refused two offers of increased security in the month before the attack. Maybe the SEALS killed him for that....

You and I both know the COC is just in CYA mode right now. Unless THEY knew when the battle was going to be over...

But DAMN, you do a good job of toeing the party line, 'dawg. Obama would be proud.

So it's your opinion that Ambassador Stevens did not refuse two offers of extra security in the month before the attack?

[SDHornet]

How bout this classic case of sound planning. Where was the conkrage?

Came right about the time people finally looked into the "evidence of WMDs" and realized it was all a farce. So what "come to Jesus moment" will it take for Obamanots to realize Obama is full of just as much shit as W?

[houndawg]

You laugh at this because of your military expertise, SD? Would you care to enlighten as to which troops were available and could have been there in time? And why you disagree with the gentleman who was Secretary of Defense at the time?

We have an air base in Italy right? How long would it take to fly something over the Med and to the coast of Libya? (Google says its 1100 miles from Rome to an arbitrary point in Libya) We have how many hundreds of military installations all over the **** globe and not one asset (whether it be Seals parachuting in, a drone or an F-18 dropping some bombs on those mofos) could have been deployed to provide some sort of support.

And for the record I'm outraged whenever our military troops get hit at any location. They are putting their lives on the line (I've got a BIL on his second deployment in the ME as I type) and the least they can get is some backup when its needed. This Administration has fed us lie after lie so why would I believe them when they say there were no assets to assist during the assault?

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

[houndawg]

"...these people..." were trained and told the United States State Department would have their backs if the **** hit the fan.

The United States State Department, even after being warned repeatedly that an attack was inevitable, did not protect or come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans killed.

It is unconscionable that no one was held to account at State, and pathetic that ideologues would thoughtlessly defend this unjust failure.

Worse, Clinton's arrogance and refusal to cooperate with investigators is unprecedented for a SOS. Yet, there are still morons who'd back her for POTUS.

Yup, this is the point lost. Instead folks result to throwing up a bunch of emoticons and other irrelevant quips while ignoring the main issue at hand. I laugh at the idea that no aid or reinforcements could have been brought in or that the Administration had no idea of events unfolding both pre-attack and during the attack. Mind you this was the same Administration that stealthily flew in a seal team into Pakistan and took out OBL all while watching it on live feed via satellite and drone surveillance…yeah no clue what was going on in Benghazi my ass.

Yes with months of planning and preparation and a replica of of OBL's compound to practice on.

Jesus, man, where do you come up with this nonsense?

[SDHornet]

We have an air base in Italy right? How long would it take to fly something over the Med and to the coast of Libya? (Google says its 1100 miles from Rome to an arbitrary point in Libya) We have how many hundreds of military installations all over the **** globe and not one asset (whether it be Seals parachuting in, a drone or an F-18 dropping some bombs on those mofos) could have been deployed to provide some sort of support.

And for the record I'm outraged whenever our military troops get hit at any location. They are putting their lives on the line (I've got a BIL on his second deployment in the ME as I type) and the least they can get is some backup when its needed. This Administration has fed us lie after lie so why would I believe them when they say there were no assets to assist during the assault?

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

[SDHornet]

Yup, this is the point lost. Instead folks result to throwing up a bunch of emoticons and other irrelevant quips while ignoring the main issue at hand. I laugh at the idea that no aid or reinforcements could have been brought in or that the Administration had no idea of events unfolding both pre-attack and during the attack. Mind you this was the same Administration that stealthily flew in a seal team into Pakistan and took out OBL all while watching it on live feed via satellite and drone surveillance…yeah no clue what was going on in Benghazi my ass.

Yes with months of planning and preparation and a replica of of OBL's compound to practice on.

Jesus, man, where do you come up with this nonsense?

Lot's and lots of movies...or documentaries as I like to call them.

[DSUrocks07]

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

Obama bombs innocent civilians with drones overseas all the time. It wouldn't have been.

[houndawg]

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

It takes time to get the planes ready and the pilots briefed, SD. You think they were sitting in their planes on the runway, filled with troops? And these guys weren't a bunch of pussies who run away as soon as a couple of bombs drop. Wtf, man, you think somebody says "SEALS!" and the bad guys run away? You think SEALS are bulletproof? Some of these guys have been fighting their entire lives and they ain't scared. You read too much gee whiz stuff like Tom Clancy. No commander would have argued for sending troops into that situation given all the unknowns.

[houndawg]

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

You gotta be fvcking kidding me. Friendly fire takes out an Ambassador who has already refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack?

[SDHornet]

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

You gotta be fvcking kidding me. Friendly fire takes out an Ambassador who has already refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack?

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

[houndawg]

You gotta be fvcking kidding me. Friendly fire takes out an Ambassador who has already refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack?

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

20/20 hindsight. Guy sees a couple of movies and suddenly he's a military expert. Every swinging dick that ever served knows he's expendable, SD.

[houndawg]

You gotta be fvcking kidding me. Friendly fire takes out an Ambassador who has already refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack?

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

The ambassador, the man on the scene, refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack. Are you saying he got what he deserved? You sound like your avatar looks...

[SDHornet]

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

20/20 hindsight. Guy sees a couple of movies and suddenly he's a military expert. Every swinging dick that ever served knows he's expendable, SD.

Hindsight is one thing, not seeing the signs of a pending attack and doing nothing about it is another. Same stupid mistakes over and over throughout our history and our leaders have yet to learn anything from it.

And since when are Ambassadors expendable? These weren't some grunts on patrol who got stuck in an ambush, this was much more significant.

[SDHornet]

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

The ambassador, the man on the scene, refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack. Are you saying he got what he deserved? You sound like your avatar looks...

Yeah exactly what I am saying.

[DSUrocks07]

Same end result no? Sitting back and doing nothing = dead Ambassador. Sending in some jets with bombs and maybe dropping a bomb too close = dead Ambassador. I'm not sure how the "doing nothing" option is some how okay. They ignored the warning signs pre-attack, and then sat back and let the folks on the ground twist in the wind during the attack. Absolutely shameful.

The ambassador, the man on the scene, refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack. Are you saying he got what he deserved? You sound like your avatar looks...

Careful, you might pull something talking out of both sides of your mouth like that...

I have to remind myself that I'm talking to the same guy who just said this in this very thread.

And you don't think they were advised of the risks involved? I think maybe you got a different speech than they did.

[houndawg]

The ambassador, the man on the scene, refused two offers of increased security within a month of the attack. Are you saying he got what he deserved? You sound like your avatar looks...

Careful, you might pull something talking out of both sides of your mouth like that...

I have to remind myself that I'm talking to the same guy who just said this in this very thread.

And you don't think they were advised of the risks involved? I think maybe you got a different speech than they did.

Thank you for sharing..........

[mrklean]

This aint call of duty on X-Box. Untill you have served in the Military, you really dont know how shit works.

[LeadBolt]

From an old article on Benghazi casting light on the situation. General Ham was responsible for the US military in Africa (less Egypt) until his sudden early retirement after contradicting the administration :

Questions remain, especially because Ham's account of the terror attack contradicts the accounts of both Panetta and Barack Obama.

Panetta is on record as claiming that the refusal to use force was the result of a three-party consultation between Gen. Dempsey, Ham, and himself. At a Pentagon press briefing, Panetta told reporters:
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." [Emphasis added.]
Ham simply said that he had forces ready and that no order was given, making no mention of a "consensus."

Also revealed is that the U.S. had drones and real-time visual/audio communication during the attacks. Commanders could watch the entire tragedy unfold. The drone footage of the events in Benghazi has been classified by the Obama administration, which summarily declared the content "Top Secret."

But these facts reveal an inconsistency in Panetta's narrative, which has led some critics to question Panetta's entire account of the events in Benghazi. According to Congressman Jason Chaffetz -- who traveled with Ham and asked a number of pertinent questions related to Benghazi -- forces were available and "had proximity," but no order was given to use them. Chaffetz sits on several Homeland Security subcommittees.

Other reports say Special Forces members in Italy were told to wait, or got no orders at all.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/ ... Q.facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;#ixzz2j7D04zXf

[houndawg]

Here's an article not so old.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 06587.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Jesus.

SEALS parachuting into what?

F-18 dropping bombs where? You think these things are surgical and only kill bad guys?

It really isn't that simple, SD. You don't just grab some troops and stuff them on a plane and send them into an unknown situation. That's how you get lots of troops killed for nothing.

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

Your view of our military capabilities is cartoonish, SD, probably acquired from xbox. Here's something we did know: A whole bunch of SAMs went missing when Gaddahfi fell. Does Desert One ring a bell, or was that before your time? Desert One is what happens when you send out forces on the spur of the moment without proper planning and preparation. Things like Desert One have to be considered when these decisions are made.

[AZGrizFan]

You and I both know the COC is just in CYA mode right now. Unless THEY knew when the battle was going to be over...

But DAMN, you do a good job of toeing the party line, 'dawg. Obama would be proud.

So it's your opinion that Ambassador Stevens did not refuse two offers of extra security in the month before the attack?

What does that have to do with the night in question? And why, pray tell, is it the AMBASSADOR'S call on how muc security he gets?

[AZGrizFan]

It's not like they didn't know which building not to drop bombs on. Your telling me that the attackers would have stuck around had a bomb or two dropped in the area? And say a bomb would have taken out our guys, how would the end result been any different?

Your view of our military capabilities is cartoonish, SD, probably acquired from xbox. Here's something we did know: A whole bunch of SAMs went missing when Gaddahfi fell. Does Desert One ring a bell, or was that before your time? Desert One is what happens when you send out forces on the spur of the moment without proper planning and preparation. Things like Desert One have to be considered when these decisions are made.

Dude, you're gettin' beaten like a rented mule on this thread....best to just back out slowly, in hopes that no one will notice.

[houndawg]

From an old article on Benghazi casting light on the situation. General Ham was responsible for the US military in Africa (less Egypt) until his sudden early retirement after contradicting the administration :

Questions remain, especially because Ham's account of the terror attack contradicts the accounts of both Panetta and Barack Obama.

Panetta is on record as claiming that the refusal to use force was the result of a three-party consultation between Gen. Dempsey, Ham, and himself. At a Pentagon press briefing, Panetta told reporters:
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." [Emphasis added.]
Ham simply said that he had forces ready and that no order was given, making no mention of a "consensus."

Also revealed is that the U.S. had drones and real-time visual/audio communication during the attacks. Commanders could watch the entire tragedy unfold. The drone footage of the events in Benghazi has been classified by the Obama administration, which summarily declared the content "Top Secret."

But these facts reveal an inconsistency in Panetta's narrative, which has led some critics to question Panetta's entire account of the events in Benghazi. According to Congressman Jason Chaffetz -- who traveled with Ham and asked a number of pertinent questions related to Benghazi -- forces were available and "had proximity," but no order was given to use them. Chaffetz sits on several Homeland Security subcommittees.

Other reports say Special Forces members in Italy were told to wait, or got no orders at all.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/ ... Q.facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;#ixzz2j7D04zXf

So now that Ham is retired he is free to speak his mind and we should be hearing some bombshell info, yes?