Why Benghazi Matters

[catzmeow]

What exactly would an area kill weapon have done in this scenario other than drop a bunch of artillery danger close on top of the consulate?

It would have made a big dramatic explosion and the republicans like to blow random things up.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, no, no......

What happens is the president clicks his magical remote and the AC-130 unleashes death fairies that descend down to Earth and vaporize all the bad guys.

Obummer was just too chickenshit to click the button because.... Fairies, fast and furious, spiking the football, birth certificate, college transcripts, yaaaaarrrgghhgtrgvrfefsrdhhd...

 

[catzmeow]

Clearly, Obama wanted Chris Stevens to die because he was winning the fantasy football league and throwing everything off.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

A Benghazi inconsistency​

By:Tom Trinko
October 29, 2012



The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta has said that we didn't send in troops to help the American Ambassador because we didn't have enough intelligence on what was going on.

This contradicts President Obama's comments that at the time of the attack he thought the attack was the result of a mob going out of control. If the Ambassador was under attack by a mob the chances of an ambush or other major risks to US forces would have been very low. A mob does not plan but a terrorist group could have an ambush in place to attack any first responders.

Only if the military, and hence the President, knew during the attack that they were potentially dealing with a coordinated attack by terrorist or paramilitary forces would they have been concerned about the level of intelligence available to them.

Additionally it seems clear that it was not the military that made the call to abandon Americans to terrorists.

The US military has often had to go into places with less than complete intelligence. The risk of casualties is higher but that's what American soldiers train for; the fog of war is never completely lifted.

If the military had no intelligence about a US consulate being visited by an American Ambassador in a strife torn country with a strong terrorist presence then someone had really dropped the ball. Perhaps as a result of guidance from the top that with Obama as President US facilities would no longer be targeted by Muslim radicals.

But the troops weren't even sent, according to Panetta, to see if they could reach, and save, the Americans who were under attack.

When American lives were on the line the soldiers who liberated Iraq, stormed Fallujah, and go on dangerous patrols every day in Afghanistan would not say no way just because they didn't have a complete picture of the situation. They might have advanced slowly but they wouldn't recommend sitting it out while their compatriots were murdered.

But a man who considered trying to kill Osama a "hard" decision might.

What President would have to think for more than a few seconds about authorizing a strike against a non-military compound where the monster responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans was hiding?

If Osama had been in a fortified military base with hundreds of guards the President would have had to weigh the probable costs in American soldiers who would die, if Osama had been in a high rise apartment building the President would have had to weigh the potential for innocent civilians being killed; but a raid against a lightly defended compound in a civilian area with widely dispersed houses was unlikely to result in a huge risk to the highly trained team that executed the attack or to innocent civilians.

Obama was probably worried that if Osama wasn't at the compound there would be a political cost. Or perhaps he was worried about the political impact of a failed raid; even Obama has to have noticed the similarity of his Presidency to Jimmy Carters.

Perhaps Obama thought that if he could blame the Ambassadors death on the Arab street rather than terrorists he could keep the whole thing out of the news; not hard with the main stream media on his side.

But if a bunch of American soldiers were killed the whole situation would change. Any deaths of American troops would make it impossible to claim that the whole thing was a spontaneous event due to some obscure film on YouTube.


The question then becomes do we want a President who will let American civilians die rather than prudently risk military casualties; and political fallout?

In our troubled world we need a President who can make the hard calls based on what's best for America and not on what's best for his political career.


Read more:
Blog: A Benghazi inconsistency
[excerpt]

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Which, I'd think by virtue of being a Gatling Gun...is even less accurate then the Howitzer.

Don't mean to correct you, however the C-130 is equipt with a 20mm Gatling, 40mm Bofors, and the 105mm Howizter. They are also fitted with Guided Designated Laser (GDL) along with other computerized equipment to pin point their directed fire. (Please prove me wrong.)

The AC-130U uses a 25mm GAU-12 Equalizer, earlier models used the 20mm. Gatling guns are still less accurate then out-and-out artillery pieces- which the Howitzer is. I'm not saying it's like closing your eyes and throwing rocks at a pond or anything. Just saying when your throwing lead into a civilian populated area...you want the utmost accuracy and a Gatling gun isn't that when compared to the bigger Howitzer...or the Bofors even.

Thanks for the update. In my day they only used the 7.62 GAU on Puff. Things have certainly changed and so has accuracy improved since I served.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning​

[/SIZE]

We have two likely possibilities for what occurred, plus a subplot involving arms to al-Qaeda, which could be treason.​

[snip]
The moral cowardice of both decisions is unconscionable.

Writing yesterday at the Weekly Standard, William Kristol asked ten questions of the administration, attempting to discover how the White House in general and President Obama in particular responded to the unfolding attacks. It is not a terribly exciting list of questions for the most part, nor was it intended to be. The questions emulate those that might be asked in a criminal indictment:


1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives” — that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to”?

2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?

3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?

4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?

5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?

6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?

These are questions of leadership and basic competence that must be answered. Did Obama actually lead? If he did, who under his command failed?

Then Kristol asks the more provocative questions.


7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?

8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?

9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?

10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?

These ten questions alone could end a presidency, but they are far from the only questions swirling around Benghazi. As noted earlier, we face the question of what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi without security.

Some are speculating that Stevens was in Benghazi to facilitate the transfer of weapons to rebel forces in Syria fighting the regime of dictator Bashar Assad. This is the position of former CIA operative Clare Lopez.


Read more:
PJ Media » Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning

 

[g5000]

If the President was not watching the attack live, as the nutters are imagining he did without any evidence, then your conspiracy/worse-than-Watergate masturbatory fantasy implodes.


Here's an idea. Instead of splooging all over your computer monitor over a single story from a network which is clearly biased against Obama which was then layered over with completely fabricated scenarios, how about we wait for some facts from the people actually there?

And quit starting a new topic featuring your stoned out fantasy every five minutes.




.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi​

by Roger L Simon
October 29, 2012

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.​

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times,

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez article at RadicalIslam.org,


…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

[excerpt]

Read more:
Roger L. Simon » Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi

 

[daveman]

Only two men had the authority:

The President, and the AFRICOM commander, General Ham.

And Ham was relieved of duty during the attack. Why? No one's saying. But no support was sent. It's entirely believable Ham was ordering support to aid the State personnel under attack, then was relieved for doing so. It's impossible to claim he was relieved for withholding support, because no support was deployed after Ham was relieved.

wait.. he was relieved DURING the actual attack? Not after, but in the middle of?

That's the story.

I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
quote:
"(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," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "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."
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.​

 

[g5000]

AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire​

Written By: Bob
AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire « Bob Owens
Oct• 26•12


This is treason.

A much more detailed confirmation from a Delta operator:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

The designator will not work without the plane overhead.

[excerpt]

This may be the reason General Carter Ham was relieved of duty. He disobeyed presidential orders and sent assistance to those Americans in trouble.

All right. Enough of this fucking bullshit. This is the stupidest bullshit fabrication in a long while.

There is NO evidence Obama was watching the attack live.

And a designator does work without a plane overhead. It's just a laser set to a specific frequency with specific pulses and codes imbedded in it. It does not require any linkup with an aircraft to light up a target.

What kind of fucking retard is coming up with this shit? Seriously.

Stop spamming the board with these bullshit Benghazi masturbation fantasies, asshole! All your shit needs to be dumped into the conspiracy section, or the Rubber Room.

.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

If the President was not watching the attack live, as the nutters are imagining he did without any evidence, then your conspiracy/worse-than-Watergate masturbatory fantasy implodes.


Here's an idea. Instead of splooging all over your computer monitor over a single story from a network which is clearly biased against Obama which was then layered over with completely fabricated scenarios, how about we wait for some facts from the people actually there?

And quit starting a new topic featuring your stoned out fantasy every five minutes.




.

I notice that you'd prefer to attack me than read the different articles I've posted. Rather than reliy on just the Lame Stream Media, who in all honesty has blacked out this incident in favor to Oblamer. I has searched out various other informative sources. If you prefer to deflect the responsibilty or obfuscate the information you can personally do so, but don't tell me what I should be doing. We do know that the attack was broadcasted in real time to several locations including the White House Situation Room.

Obama Watched Benghazi Attack From 'Situation Room'

"Lt. Col. Tony Schafer told Fox News that sources were telling him that the President was watching the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time. Schafer told Fox that "only the President" could have ordered backup for the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. "I hate to say this," Schafer said, "according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, 'What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?' He -- only he -- could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something." "

To coin an old adage, KMAM.

 

[g5000]

Stop spamming the board, shitbird. There are already more than enough threads on this subject, most of them started by you.

.

 

[LilOlLady]

What exactly would you call Bush's incompetence when he igorned multiple warning about 911and lied about WMDs in Iraq that got 10,000 americans kill and a millon innocent muslims, 30,00 wounded american troops, Not to mention the monetary cost of his incompetence and corruption aided by Cheney and Rumsfeld. They should have been court martialed when International Tribuanal convicted them of war crimes. And you want to tar and feather Obama and tie him on a rail because 4 americans died? What is is about white is right and black wrong? More than four children die daily because of right wing village idiot's gun right laws.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's all about politcal opportunity and the rabid righst efforts to oust the n,,,,,,,,um (lazy person), from the White House. The louder they yell the more rabid they are.......I think Hammity is going to have a stroke when the President get re-elected.

 

[TNHarley]

What exactly would you call Bush's incompetence when he igorned multiple warning about 911and lied about WMDs in Iraq that got 10,000 americans kill and a millon innocent muslims, 30,00 wounded american troops, Not to mention the monetary cost of his incompetence and corruption aided by Cheney and Rumsfeld. They should have been court martialed when International Tribuanal convicted them of war crimes. And you want to tar and feather Obama and tie him on a rail because 4 americans died? What is is about white is right and black wrong? More than four children die daily because of right wing village idiot's gun right laws.

Ooops. Thought this was about obamas incompetence. Not Bush. WRONG THREAD

 

[asaratis]

What exactly would you call Bush's incompetence when he igorned multiple warning about 911and lied about WMDs in Iraq that got 10,000 americans kill and a millon innocent muslims, 30,00 wounded american troops, Not to mention the monetary cost of his incompetence and corruption aided by Cheney and Rumsfeld. They should have been court martialed when International Tribuanal convicted them of war crimes. And you want to tar and feather Obama and tie him on a rail because 4 americans died? What is is about white is right and black wrong? More than four children die daily because of right wing village idiot's gun right laws.

Ooops. Thought this was about obamas incompetence. Not Bush. WRONG THREAD

She is incapable of defending Obama on this one. Therefore, the only out for her and other Obama worshiping idiots....is to come up with some ridiculous shit that she thinks is worse...something Bush is alleged to have done. For some unknown reason, that in itself is enough to exonerate Obama.

Of course, her logic is totally invalid. Obama has committed treason and should be thrown from the top of the Washington Monument...and all she can do is talk about Bush.

She is braindead and happy being that way.

She thinks that since only four Americans died...it's okay!

Barack Hussein Obama is a cowardly liar and does not deserve to serve one more day as our Commander in Chief! What a crock of shit he is!

 

[Claudette]

claudette, your a bumbling fool. you need to just shut your mouth, cause you sound retarted

Fuck off asshole.

If it were your brother, father or good friend in that consulate you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[Clementine]

Now Obama is trying to say that he gave orders to Marines to protect themselves. BULLSHIT!!! This makes no sense considering General Ham was removed from his duties for ignoring orders to stand down.

The Marine who painted the target, clearly in anticipation of the drone striking the target, was killed and it's likely because he gave his position away when he pointed out the target with the laser.

So, we had people there on the ground and in the air and they were ready to go, but they were ordered to stand down.

It does no good for people to try and bring up Bush or Clinton ignoring intel for 9/11. This is about Obama knowing what was happening and not acting.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire​

Written By: Bob
AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire « Bob Owens
Oct• 26•12


This is treason.

A much more detailed confirmation from a Delta operator:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

The designator will not work without the plane overhead.

[excerpt]

This may be the reason General Carter Ham was relieved of duty. He disobeyed presidential orders and sent assistance to those Americans in trouble.

All right. Enough of this fucking bullshit. This is the stupidest bullshit fabrication in a long while.

There is NO evidence Obama was watching the attack live.

And a designator does work without a plane overhead. It's just a laser set to a specific frequency with specific pulses and codes imbedded in it. It does not require any linkup with an aircraft to light up a target.

What kind of fucking retard is coming up with this shit? Seriously.

Stop spamming the board with these bullshit Benghazi masturbation fantasies, asshole! All your shit needs to be dumped into the conspiracy section, or the Rubber Room.

.

Apparently you are a Obama supporter and prefer to deflect the issue to a personal one by attacking me. Go right ahead. It will not deter me from posting what you and your ilk prefer not to see about your 'Dear One'. I guess people like Lt. Col Tony Schafer would be considered by you a "fucking retard". The only fantasy rooms around here is the one you live in. As I said to you previously 'KMAM'.

 

[daveman]