They all need to be relieved of duty

[Unkotare]

Obama didn't blame the video.

Can you provide a link where the WH actually DID blame the video?

Do you want the White House video or the UN video? Or perhaps one of the others?

 

[Warrior102]

Every last one of these sons of bitches need to hit the bricks. I don't care who they are or what the represent, they need to be relieved of duty. Anyone, anywhere has to go because of the 4 Americans murdered in Benghazi. Obama is covered, he will get no blame since I'm sure there are people out there who will fall on their sword to save him.

We need to find out everything about this and action needs to be taken. If criminal prosecution is needed? Lock then up and throw away the key.

Whoever told people not to help those men, to "Stand Down", they better get jail time and a lot of it.

Quick question chumpsteak................can you provide any proof that anyone said to "stand down"?

I'd also like to know if there were any combat helo teams in range that could have been deployed, but, that's classified information (troop movements).

Do YOU know if there were any assets in the area that could have gotten there in time?

Just what we need.
The fucking "Village People's" response.

Put your mouth back on a dick and STFU asshole, First Class for life failure.

 

[Unkotare]

Do YOU know if there were any assets in the area that could have gotten there in time?

According to Leon Panetta there were.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do YOU know if there were any assets in the area that could have gotten there in time?

According to Leon Panetta there were.

Got a link to back that up?

 

[Unkotare]

Then, Obama made his statement, calling it an act of terror.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=d5pCsFw3OsU&feature=endscreen]Sad Bill Cosby - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Warrior102]

Got a link to back that up?

If the link has cock or sperm in it, it's probably saved in your favorites, assfucker.

 

[Unkotare]

Do YOU know if there were any assets in the area that could have gotten there in time?

According to Leon Panetta there were.

Got a link to back that up?

Panetta: US 'certainly had forces in place' that could have reached Americans under attack in Benghazi | Atlantic Council

 

[emptystep]

The most recent and outrageous example of the immunity trend was the quiet departure of the entire Bush Administration without so much as an investigation of a single one of their many crimes, from the conspiracy to invade a passive nation, to the torture of innocents and the theft of billions of dollars in U.S. Treasure.

Because none of those things happened. Check your oxygen tank, it may be running low.

Wasn't that whole thing chalked up to an intelligence failure? Think we will get to the bottom of things this time?

What I don't like is the way some in the media are pushing the Republican/Democrat divide too hard. We need to just listen to the facts. Let's just hope the politicians put America first when the time comes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

According to Leon Panetta there were.

Got a link to back that up?

Panetta: US 'certainly had forces in place' that could have reached Americans under attack in Benghazi | Atlantic Council

Yeah............but did you see what Panetta said at the bottom of the link?

Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we've heard that there wasn't a more robust response right away is that there wasn't a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.

But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or -- or dropping more special forces in.

SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me -- let me speak to that, because I'm sure there's going to be -- there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But -- but the basic principle here -- 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, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.

SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

Panetta himself said that they didn't have enough intel about what was going on, and if he would have sent those forces in without the intel, it could have put lives at unnecessary risk.

Or.................do you think we should have just gone in guns blazing without knowing how many, or what kind of weapons, etc.?

 

[Too Tall]

If Obama was certain the attack was a terrorist attack, what is the theory for why he blamed a video instead?

This should be fun!

.

I would think that Obama and Biden constantly spiking the football about how he killed bin Laden would piss off Al Quaeda a lot more than some two bit video that 3 people watched.

 

[Too Tall]

Got a link to back that up?

Panetta: US 'certainly had forces in place' that could have reached Americans under attack in Benghazi | Atlantic Council

Yeah............but did you see what Panetta said at the bottom of the link?

Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we've heard that there wasn't a more robust response right away is that there wasn't a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.

But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or -- or dropping more special forces in.

SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me -- let me speak to that, because I'm sure there's going to be -- there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But -- but the basic principle here -- 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, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.

SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

Panetta himself said that they didn't have enough intel about what was going on, and if he would have sent those forces in without the intel, it could have put lives at unnecessary risk.

Or.................do you think we should have just gone in guns blazing without knowing how many, or what kind of weapons, etc.?

We should have gone in and returned fire on the guns that were blazing. Two supersonic aircraft with a few laser guided bombs would have broken up this fire fight.

 

[Unkotare]

Got a link to back that up?

Panetta: US 'certainly had forces in place' that could have reached Americans under attack in Benghazi | Atlantic Council

Yeah............but

yeahbut, yeahbut, yeahbut...

It must be hard work moving those goalposts all the time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Every last one of these sons of bitches need to hit the bricks. I don't care who they are or what the represent, they need to be relieved of duty. Anyone, anywhere has to go because of the 4 Americans murdered in Benghazi. Obama is covered, he will get no blame since I'm sure there are people out there who will fall on their sword to save him.

We need to find out everything about this and action needs to be taken. If criminal prosecution is needed? Lock then up and throw away the key.

Whoever told people not to help those men, to "Stand Down", they better get jail time and a lot of it.

The snag here, of course, is the fact that no one told anyone to ‘stand down.’

The CIA;

In an e-mailed statement, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood says "no one at any level in the CIA" told operatives at a local CIA annex in Benghazi not to help Amb. Stevens:

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

CIA Denies Calling Off Backup in Benghazi - Global - The Atlantic Wire

The White House:

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.

Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: Aide | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

And all the right has is lies from Fox.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Panetta: US 'certainly had forces in place' that could have reached Americans under attack in Benghazi | Atlantic Council

Yeah............but did you see what Panetta said at the bottom of the link?

Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we've heard that there wasn't a more robust response right away is that there wasn't a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.

But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or -- or dropping more special forces in.

SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me -- let me speak to that, because I'm sure there's going to be -- there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

We -- we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But -- but the basic principle here -- 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, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.

SEC. PANETTA: This -- this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

Panetta himself said that they didn't have enough intel about what was going on, and if he would have sent those forces in without the intel, it could have put lives at unnecessary risk.

Or.................do you think we should have just gone in guns blazing without knowing how many, or what kind of weapons, etc.?

We should have gone in and returned fire on the guns that were blazing. Two supersonic aircraft with a few laser guided bombs would have broken up this fire fight.

Yeah............sure............and not only kill a whole bunch of civilians, but also expose the people you're supposed to rescue to the possibility of friendly fire.

You DO realize the ambassador lived in the city, right? Ever seen what kind of damage a couple of 500 or 1000 lb bombs do? And.............in order to get a laser designation on the target, it's got to be painted by people ALREADY ON THE GROUND.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Every last one of these sons of bitches need to hit the bricks. I don't care who they are or what the represent, they need to be relieved of duty. Anyone, anywhere has to go because of the 4 Americans murdered in Benghazi. Obama is covered, he will get no blame since I'm sure there are people out there who will fall on their sword to save him.

We need to find out everything about this and action needs to be taken. If criminal prosecution is needed? Lock then up and throw away the key.

Whoever told people not to help those men, to "Stand Down", they better get jail time and a lot of it.

You're right. But the trend for the past few decades has been government officials at all levels enjoying tacit immunity from punishment of any kind. I believe this trend manifested most prominently in the outcome of the so-called "hearings" re: the massacre at Waco, TX. That debacle concluded with the freakishly incompetent figurehead, Janet Reno, pronouncing the new evasive mea culpa, "I take full responsibility!" After which she walked out and that was that.

Not a goddam thing was done about the monstrous federal crime that was Waco and ever since then the most that has come of the investigative theater re: any official misconduct is the protective "I take full responsibility" mantra followed by a smirking departure.

The most recent and outrageous example of the immunity trend was the quiet departure of the entire Bush Administration without so much as an investigation of a single one of their many crimes, from the conspiracy to invade a passive nation, to the torture of innocents and the theft of billions of dollars in U.S. Treasure.

They walked away smiling.

The ‘totally insulated president’ started well before Waco – Iran/Contra was a major criminal conspiracy that never reached into the Reagan WH.

The same was true with for the criminal outing of Valerie Plame by the Bush Administration.

 

[Bigfoot]

The same was true with for the criminal outing of Valerie Plame by the Bush Administration.

LOL, yeah right. You mean the girl that was introduced at parties by her husband as "My little spy". Oh yeah, no one knew she worked for the CIA.

 

[Too Tall]

If Obama was certain the attack was a terrorist attack, what is the theory for why he blamed a video instead?

This should be fun!

.

Why? Simple...............it was because Mittens shot his mouth off first and said things about the video. Shortly afterwards (the following morning after the attack), Obama made his speech from the Rose Garden where he called it an act of terror.

It seems strange to me that Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terror and then sent the UN Ambassador out to blame it on a video and a spontaneous demonstration five days later.

This is what he said, and it was a lawyerly way of describing the attack.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Initially, I only read the first sentence and said he was not referring to Benghazi, but random acts of terror. I was wrong. He became specific with the words 'for this terrible act."

So he knew it was an act of terror and then had everyone in his administration go around making up stories about videos and spontaneous demonstrations.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah............sure............and not only kill a whole bunch of civilians, but also expose the people you're supposed to rescue to the possibility of friendly fire.

Oh no, they might be killed! Wait a minute..........

 

[Too Tall]

The same was true with for the criminal outing of Valerie Plame by the Bush Administration.

LOL, yeah right. You mean the girl that was introduced at parties by her husand as "My little spy". Oh yeah, no one knew she worked for the CIA.

The only criminal in the Plame affair was Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

In January 2004, the Justice Department chose prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. From the outset, he was made fully aware that the leaker was Armitage, who resigned from the State Department in November 2004 but remained a subject of the inquiry until February 2006 when Fitzgerald told him in a letter that he would not be charged. The New York Times reported on Sept. 2, 2006:

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

Why would the prosecutor keep this vital information from the President who had expressed concern over the outing of a CIA operative? Meanwhile, the liberal press hysterically speculated that it was Karl Rove and/or Vice President Cheney who most likely leaked Plame's identity to Novak. Dick Cheney writes in his memoir, In My Time:

Among the many things that should give a thinking person pause about this whole sad story is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the outset who had leaked the information about Wilson’s wife to Bob Novak. It had been Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage, who told the Justice Department that he had leaked the information to Novak, but kept what he had done from the White House. Armitage would later admit that he had even earlier told journalist Bob Woodward about Wilson’s wife’s employment. Indeed, on Bob Woodward’s tape of the June 13, 2003, conversation, Armitage can be heard leaking the fact that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA four separate times.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah............sure............and not only kill a whole bunch of civilians, but also expose the people you're supposed to rescue to the possibility of friendly fire.

Oh no, they might be killed! Wait a minute..........

How badly do you think that right wingers would be roasting Obama if he had sent in jets and they did end up with collateral damage that killed a couple of them?

Face it..................Panetta himself said there wasn't enough intel to send people in.

Because............like I said................you have to know what you're going up against before sending in troops.

And, I'd be willing to bet Panetta knows more about when and how to send in troops than you do.