Decision Making Mindset

Discussion in 'Military' started by Flanders, Oct 27, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,560
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    With all of the information coming out about the attack in Benghazi, I want to rework some things I’ve said in other threads and forums.

    To even begin to understand the military decision making process you must start with Panetta and Dempsey testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee in March. Their testimony clearly describes the Administration’s mindset regarding the use of the US military:


    The other day Panetta called the event a terrorist attack carried out by TERRORISTS:

    Panetta stated the reason for not sending military help:

    Parenthetically, Panetta tries to dismiss further investigation with a snide comment about Monday morning quarterbacking. Panetta reminded me of RINO Senator Richard Lugar referring to critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty as armchair admirals. Nothing covers up a destructive position so well as a universal dismissal. Communists pioneered the technique early in the Cold War.

    Panetta admitted it was a terrorist attack. That’s where it starts to get murky. The Administration has long called terrorists “criminals” not soldiers. In fact, the Administration prohibited using the word “terrorist.” So was a military rescue in Benghazi denied because terrorists are criminals?

    On the other hand, if terrorists were soldiers carrying out a military operation as Panetta implied the different factions in the Administration are apparently at odds over the definition of America’s enemies. That led me to speculate that Panetta and Dempsey might have thought the attack in Benghazi was a trap planned by General Rommel who had heavy armor in reserve:


    One thing is abundantly clear from Panetta’s comments. Neither he nor anyone in the Administration believed the military could defeat terrorists or criminals. Should Panetta ever admit the military could have won easily the question becomes “Then why the hell didn’t you send in the marines as soon as you got the first call for help?”

    Now listen to Jennifer Griffin in this video to learn about the Administration’s most shameful conduct to date:


    Rescue attempts

    I’ve noticed that references are being made about the fallout that would have followed a failed rescue attempt. Worrying about fallout is political whitewash. Obviously, Jimmy Carter’s fiasco trying to rescue American hostages in Iran comes to mind. That situation was entirely different. Although the attempt failed it is no excuse for standing by and letting Americans die rather than trying.

    NOTE: Clinton and Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) in 1993 is the more apt comparison to Benghazi decision making. The United Nations had its filthy hands all over the decisions in Mogadishu.

    I do not care what justification the Administration offers for abandoning Americans to terrorists in Benghazi. The so-called International law Panetta and Dempsey testified to in the first video link was the deciding factor for holding the military in check while Americans were being killed on TV.

    Media

    Right from the start the MSM went out of its way to avoid reporting this story accurately. In the first few days after the attack the media convinced most Americans that Muslims were offended by a homemade video. Reuters was one of the first to report the fabrication as fact:


    Now Reuters contradicts itself on Benghazi attacks
    News agency already in hot water for seemingly misleading report
    Published: 13 hours ago
    by AARON KLEIN

    Now Reuters contradicts itself on Benghazi attacks

    Hussein’s networks were worse than print media because they barely covered the story. FOX is the only network doing the job.

    It really pains me to throw bouquets at Bill O’Reilly, but I have to say his coverage has been outstanding. Listen to him last night. Let the video run after he finishes his talking points and you’ll see him go at it with Hussein apologist Geraldo Rivera:


    Finally, Hussein is never going to answer the question O’Reilly poses at the close of his talking points even if someone dared to ask. To answer truthfully Hussein would have to admit that this country will never do anything the United Nations disapproves of. Fighting back against Islam’s military is admitting there is a shooting war in progress —— that is the one thing the UN frowns on more than any other. The UN makes a lot of noise over inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, but I have to wonder if the current priorities will prevail after Iran joins the nuclear club.

    More to the point, the US military fighting for the United Nations is, always was, and always will be, the primary goal. Trying to achieve the goal behind the backs of the American people is where the lies originate. No UN-loving Democrat, and damn few Republicans, will ever come right out and say Screw the United Nations.
     
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,560
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    I doubt if the MSM will verify this:

    Possibly FOX will confirm that “. . . Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force.”

    I do not expect confirmation from the Administration. Just think how it makes Hussein look for hogging the credit for killing bin Laden —— from a distance of ten thousand miles away.

    In any event this is why Democrats so hate men like Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty:


    This is what they hate more than anything else:

    1) Democrats despise sovereign nations; so it follows they despise men and women who live loyalty to the country and all that it entails.

    6) Democrats fight PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY wars. Totally defeating an enemy is the last thing they want.

    Remove the two excerpts from the Navy SEAL Code and apply the rest when fighting touchy-feely United Nations wars and Democrats would love our military men and women.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,560
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    The MSM was determined to bury the Benghazi attack from day one. Were it not for FOX most Americans would be unaware of everything except that an American ambassador was killed. Were it not for the Internet, and FOX, Hussein & Company would have walked off into the sunset with a smile on their faces; certain they got away with another fast one.

    A lot of factual information is out there now —— time lines, etc., as well as the coverup lies. I want to address something new:


    Abandoning America’s honor
    Doug Hagmann
    Thursday, November 1, 2012

    Abandoning America’s honor

    At least two of the people at that meeting should never be trusted with anything involving the US military or America’s intelligence community. I am not letting Hussein off the hook by any means, but the advice he received from Biden & Panetta is one of the most important missing pieces in the story.

    Advisors are not held responsible for the advice they give. The advice Hussein received from those two will at least confirm the decision making mindset that permeates every Democrat administration. Will the public ever learn what that advice was? Answer: Not unless Hussein throws them under the bus.


    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page