What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Panetta admitted they let the men die in Libya

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,813
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
For all the questions on Libya, we have the answer to one very big one. That question being "why weren't the victims rescued".

The answer comes from the Defense Secretary in a press conference. Now liberals this is not Fox News or Faux News as you like to call that media outlet reporting on rumor.

This is Panetta in his own words and my link is to the Washington Post.

He openly admits it was a choice to let them die in Libya because it was "too risky" to rescue them.

Now my question to Panetta is "when is it not risky to rescue Americans under attack"?

When they are under attack by gerbils? When they are under attack by first graders?

The best trained, the best equipped fighting force on the planet and the Secretary of Defense was too worried that they'd get a boo boo rescuing fellow Americans?

How ridiculous. How appalling. How disgusting. Panetta let those men die. Period. Full stop.


Panetta: Too little information, too much risk to send military into Benghazi during attack

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.




Panetta: Too little information, too much risk to send military into Benghazi during attack - The Washington Post
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,588
Points
280
The obvious reason for this despicable fiasco is that the political operatives who now run the Executive Branch of our government were frozen by indecision as to what action would be most politically expedient for the President. Makes you proud of our government, doesn't it?
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,777
Points
48
Personally, I think they weighed the World Wide Political repercussions, and decided to stand down and do nothing. They placed their concerns for how we are viewed outside of the US, over American Lives, sacrificing Americans to the angry horde. Of course, the Right thing to do, was to Intervene and Rescue those in harm's way. A trust was broken and covered up. We do get the Government we deserve.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,481
Points
1,830
Now the terrorists know exactly how to conduct future operations. obama is certainly a professor and he's schooling the terrorists in how to conduct a proper attack.
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,091
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,426
Points
270
Who makes the ultimate decision on Cross Border Military Operations? The President.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
The federal Government, on its pursuit to imperial utopia, will kick anyone under the bus, including their own, to get what they want geopolitically. From power, to resources, to control.

It's the same as it ever was. This isn't the first, and it wont be the last time that Americans were sacrificed by "national interests" in any given situation.

it's what very strict constitutionalists try more than anything else to convey about compartmentalizing power in this government.

Don't think for one second any single person would be saved at the expense of federal government interests.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,641
Points
198
Location
My house
Personally, I think they weighed the World Wide Political repercussions, and decided to stand down and do nothing. They placed their concerns for how we are viewed outside of the US, over American Lives, sacrificing Americans to the angry horde. Of course, the Right thing to do, was to Intervene and Rescue those in harm's way. A trust was broken and covered up. We do get the Government we deserve.
We can change that by minding that only living American citizens vote, and not hundreds of thousands of interlopers.

I'm sorry they placed image over life.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,641
Points
198
Location
My house
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,641
Points
198
Location
My house
Who makes the ultimate decision on Cross Border Military Operations? The President.
Yep with his cabinet advisers. They are so not doing their job of defending us. It makes me want to vote a straight Republican ticket for 40 years until all of them are gone.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,641
Points
198
Location
My house
The federal Government, on its pursuit to imperial utopia, will kick anyone under the bus, including their own, to get what they want geopolitically. From power, to resources, to control.

It's the same as it ever was. This isn't the first, and it wont be the last time that Americans were sacrificed by "national interests" in any given situation.

it's what very strict constitutionalists try more than anything else to convey about compartmentalizing power in this government.

Don't think for one second any single person would be saved at the expense of federal government interests.
Only the American people can change that, but we can.

We have to demand they don't screw us over. that would mean backing off that monster fed to a skeletal system that only does business, and not a bunch of monkey business, either.
 

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
24,364
Reaction score
3,060
Points
280
Location
California
We didn't just not save them. We took no efforts to even deter them.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,244
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..

The embassy isn't "American Soil". That's an "artificial" construct set up between nations to provide an area of diplomatic immunity to conduct international business and discussions.

That construct can go away just as easily as it is granted. And there is no constitutional mandate to defend that land.

Which is why our diplomats take some pretty big risks when dealing in fragile or hostile countries.

And they know that risk is part of the job.
 

Misty

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
7,137
Reaction score
1,940
Points
245
We didn't just not save them. We took no efforts to even deter them.

Not only took no effort to save them but we covered up what really happened.
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,777
Points
48
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..

The embassy isn't "American Soil". That's an "artificial" construct set up between nations to provide an area of diplomatic immunity to conduct international business and discussions.

That construct can go away just as easily as it is granted. And there is no constitutional mandate to defend that land.

Which is why our diplomats take some pretty big risks when dealing in fragile or hostile countries.

And they know that risk is part of the job.

Back stabbing is still back stabbing. Sovereign Soil remains Sovereign soil, that goes for Embassies. International Law is more than about feelings, just saying.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
49,868
Reaction score
11,798
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..

The embassy isn't "American Soil". That's an "artificial" construct set up between nations to provide an area of diplomatic immunity to conduct international business and discussions.

That construct can go away just as easily as it is granted. And there is no constitutional mandate to defend that land.

Which is why our diplomats take some pretty big risks when dealing in fragile or hostile countries.

And they know that risk is part of the job.

And part of the reason they take that risk is because in the past we would intervene if possible.We made no effort to do so even though we had the resources and the ability to do so. The President makes THAT decision. he chose to do nothing. And because of it 4 Americans, one an Ambassador died. Now he is busy covering his decision up.

We have 2 choices on deciding what happened. One is that the President chose to do nothing and is covering that decision up, the second is this President is incompetent and truly had nothing to do with the decision to abandon our diplomats.

You decide which is worse.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,641
Points
198
Location
My house
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..

The embassy isn't "American Soil". That's an "artificial" construct set up between nations to provide an area of diplomatic immunity to conduct international business and discussions.

That construct can go away just as easily as it is granted. And there is no constitutional mandate to defend that land.

Which is why our diplomats take some pretty big risks when dealing in fragile or hostile countries.

And they know that risk is part of the job.
This event taught terrorists our weakest link.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
50,810
Reaction score
14,266
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
Is there any doubt? There was a Marine base close enough to offer Helicopter gun ship support and the embassy was within the striking distance for US fighter planes. The president watched the 7 hour battle in real time and did nothing even when Veteran Seals called for help. With the cooperation of the US media the president managed to blame a You Tube movie promo that nobody ever saw.
 

asterism

Congress != Progress
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
970
Points
190
Location
Central Florida
Personally, I think they weighed the World Wide Political repercussions, and decided to stand down and do nothing. They placed their concerns for how we are viewed outside of the US, over American Lives, sacrificing Americans to the angry horde. Of course, the Right thing to do, was to Intervene and Rescue those in harm's way. A trust was broken and covered up. We do get the Government we deserve.

Any intervention would mean at least month of military engagement of some sort. Can't have that right before an election when they're running on the anti-war plank.
 

asterism

Congress != Progress
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
8,592
Reaction score
970
Points
190
Location
Central Florida
We could have tried something,anything.
Or we could have done everything to save those people.
We had choices and it seems like our leader just decided
to ignore it.Did he have an appearance on Jay Leno he was
prepping for.
If we had a competent Executive Branch, it would have taken more seriously its duties of providing for the common defense of the American soil our embassy is supposed to be..

The embassy isn't "American Soil". That's an "artificial" construct set up between nations to provide an area of diplomatic immunity to conduct international business and discussions.

That construct can go away just as easily as it is granted. And there is no constitutional mandate to defend that land.

Which is why our diplomats take some pretty big risks when dealing in fragile or hostile countries.

And they know that risk is part of the job.

Wrong.

"Because an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents."

What is a U.S. embassy?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top