With all of the information coming out about the attack in Benghazi, I want to rework some things Ive 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 Administrations 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. Thats 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 Americas 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 Panettas 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 didnt 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 Administrations most shameful conduct to date:
Rescue attempts
Ive 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 Carters 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
Husseins 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 OReilly, 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 youll see him go at it with Hussein apologist Geraldo Rivera:
Finally, Hussein is never going to answer the question OReilly 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 Islams 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 Irans 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.
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 Administrations 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. Thats 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 Americas 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 Panettas 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 didnt 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 Administrations most shameful conduct to date:
Rescue attempts
Ive 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 Carters 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
Husseins 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 OReilly, 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 youll see him go at it with Hussein apologist Geraldo Rivera:
Finally, Hussein is never going to answer the question OReilly 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 Islams 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 Irans 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.
