PassedOut Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 it was the cia ops on the ground who rcv'd the order to stand down... i simply said i'm not sure from where the order came, just that they rcv'd the order... probably state or defense, but maybe ciaHere is the relevant quote from the article that you cited: Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.In your world view, Fox news might be blaming General David Petraeus to cover for Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta -- but not in the real world. I'm sure also that those who work for General Petraeus have a good understanding of the words "chain of command." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Here is the relevant quote from the article that you cited: In your world view, Fox news might be blaming General David Petraeus to cover for Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta -- but not in the real world. I'm sure also that those who work for General Petraeus have a good understanding of the words "chain of command."i don't know what you're talking about... i've said twice already that i personally was not convinced from where the order came, not that i completely believed the article's perspective... the important thing, to me, is that such an order came from somebody in authority... who that was can be determine later, if it in fact was not cia (which it may well have been) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 a good understanding of the words "chain of command."The words "chain of command" mean "President Obama" for Republicans at this stage of an election campaign. These kinds of opportunity during election campaigns are not about the truth, they are about trying to smear someone regardless of what the truth might be. If even a few voters are put off by the possibilities being suggested, regardless of how unlikely they are in reality, this is a victory for the campaign managers in a comparatively close race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm getting confused again. Pres watching from the situation room; CIA, Pentagon and WH all deny giving any order refusing help. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 The (new) official line is this: Obama told Panetta to do "whatever it takes" to secure the consulate. Panetta and the chiefs of staff decide collectively that the intel is insufficient to send in troops and wait. Situation on the ground deteriorates and now they decide that it is too late to send in troops as they cannot arrive in time. This is a pretty bungled response from the administration imho and seems to be designed to set up either Panetta or, more likely, one of the Generals to take the can. There are rumours Ham already has but he has gone on record with an apparently contradictory statement about the events. In any case, this new line from the Democrats seems to have given the story a new lease of life. It now seems certain that at least some mud will stick before polling day which was the object of the exercise; better yet for the Republicans, a fair bit of Democrat air time is going to be wasted on this in the next days which is going to inhibit their ability to usefully keep up in the spending battle with the Republican sources. Reps have reached Panetta - can they make the final push to genuinely taint Obama...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm getting confused again. Pres watching from the situation room; CIA, Pentagon and WH all deny giving any order refusing help. What am I missing?the cia ops on the ground requested help... someone said "no" to the request... patreas said it wasn't him or anyone else at cia who denied help, in effect moving the refusal up the chain... panetta said it was he who did it... others have said it was obama... clinton is supposed to have requested more security (unconfirmed but floated this weekend, some say by her lawyers) but the request was denied by obama we don't yet know the full truth of this and probably won't till after the election Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 the cia ops on the ground requested help... someone said "no" to the request... My understanding is that the cia ops on the ground asked for permission to go and help, and were told to stand down. I'd like to know who they asked. Someone at Langley? Someone else in the CIA hierarchy? Someone outside CIA? The problem is that if it was someone in CIA but not at Langley, there are likely to be security issues in identifying that person or position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 That having been said, protesting around the world about a video made by one guy somewhere is not the behaviour of rational people. Yet masses of some sort of people went out to demonstrations. I suspect terrorists/extremists of lighting a fire under these people. So I had a friend who lived in the Philippines, and he told me that at the the (fairly regular) protests, it was like a carnival. People get dressed up, companies put out stalls and give away stuff. There is free food etc. And, basically, its just a nice day out. I know nothing about protesting in Islamic countries, but in the UK, where the weather is miserable and virtually everyone has a full time job, a large protest usually represents serious anger. Not all other countries are the same. In places with depressed economies, or where much of the economy is casual day labour, going to a vaguely anti-american protest and chanting a few slogans may well be what passes for fun. From time to time people get agitated about something and the protest turns angry, and suddenly its all over the news. Does anyone have any idea how regular protests are in Libya? Or how seriously one should even take them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Does anyone have any idea how regular protests are in Libya? Or how seriously one should even take them?i think your embassy personnel took them seriously, since they left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 One-on-one interview with the Pres, and no softball questions: http://www.9news.com/news/politics/296294/139/9NEWS-questions-Obama-on-Libya-attack He's astoundingly vague. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 He's astoundingly vague.i for one don't equate "vague" with "unresponsive" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 This story is basically dead until after the election - Sandy has come at a good time for Obama. I suspect this is the final nail in Romney's coffin unless the administration seriously bodges the relief effort (sorry Luke). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 This story is basically dead until after the election - Sandy has come at a good time for Obama. I suspect this is the final nail in Romney's coffin unless the administration seriously bodges the relief effort (sorry Luke).yeah, i'm afraid you're right... they've already started politicizing it (clinton talking about the "storm worse than sandy" that would hit if romney elected, msdnc even making light of romney's spending money on relief items, and everyone blaming global warming)... there are more than enough useful idiots around who buy that type thing to make this problematic... but, to cover their bases, they've also started a narrative about the storm causing lower dem voter turnout, just in case obama loses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 msdnc even making light of romney's spending money on relief items To be clear: Before Sandy hit, Romney was holding a campaign rally in Ohio. Post Sandy, Romney rebranded this same event as a relief effort and asked people to bring canned food for the poor starving people in New Jersey. Here's the rub, relief organizations have been very clear that they don't need canned food collections in Ohio.What they need is cash. Cold, hard, fungible cash. (And Romney's relief rally has made zero effort to provide this) Personally, I think that they big lesson from Sandy is the difference in FEMA's performance under a democratic administration. This is a perfect example why Republicans can't be trusted to run government agencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Personally, I think that they big lesson from Sandy is the difference in FEMA's performance under an incumbent democratic administration the last week before an election.fify... the fact remains, the dems and their useful idiots are trying to make political hay out of a tragedy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 fify... the fact remains, the dems and their useful idiots are trying to make political hay out of a tragedy Comment 1: The sheer hypocrisy of writing this in a thread titled "BENGHAZI: COVERUP OR INCOMPETANCE?" is mind bogglingComment 2: So, pointing out that Romney is trying to make political hay out of a tragedy is now defined as making political hay out of a tragedy? You are so far through the looking glass that it boggles the mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Personally, I think that they big lesson from Sandy is the difference in FEMA's performance under a democratic administration. This is a perfect example why Republicans can't be trusted to run government agencies.Republican administrations like to appoint agency heads who oppose the missions of the agencies they run. That way they buttress their claims that "the government is the problem." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hurricane Sandy seems to have reminded folks of something Romney hopes they'd forget: Obama leads relief efforts On Wednesday, Obama will travel to New Jersey to tour damaged areas with Republican Gov. Chris Christie, a regular critic of the president who heaped praise on him in the aftermath of the storm, saying that “the president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.” The collaboration between Christie and Obama provided a stark contrast from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when President George W. Bush’s administration and that of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) engaged in a bitter round of finger-pointing over the botched handling of the disaster. The storm thrust Romney in the almost impossible position of trying to write a role for himself in the story that has gripped the nation’s attention. The GOP nominee held a relief event in Ohio to collect donations for storm victims, but the event had the trappings of a regular campaign rally, with the candidate’s standard theme music and biographical video. As Romney packed emergency supplies, he did not respond to reporters who asked whether he is reconsidering his earlier assertion that disaster management is a job that should be turned over to the states.Along with the FDA, CDC, EPA, and so on? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 You are so far through the looking glass that it boggles the mind...There is a difference between making political hay out of a tragedy and making political hay out of the way a President handled a tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Republican administrations like to appoint agency heads who oppose the missions of the agencies they run. That way they buttress their claims that "the government is the problem."Under Republican administrations, the government is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Mitt Romney is on record stating that he would privatize FEMA. This statement in itself should be enough to negate any claim he may make to leadership, and this idea of turning over emergency management to private enterprise as a profit opportunity should be enough to disqualify Mitt as a human being, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 The OTHER DAY THE President told Fema to deregulate. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 The OTHER DAY THE President told Fema to deregulate. :) The President only said that extraordinary events need extraordinary measures of relief - he certainly did not call for blanket deregulation and turning over to private profiteers the ability to earn from misery and misfortune - that is Mitt's special area of expertise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Mitt Romney is on record stating that he would privatize FEMA. This statement in itself should be enough to negate any claim he may make to leadership, and this idea of turning over emergency management to private enterprise as a profit opportunity should be enough to disqualify Mitt as a human being, as well.Things change. After ignoring questions earlier this week about his plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitt Romney said in a statement Wednesday night that he would not eliminate or underfund the agency.Hmmm. Now why would that be? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Things change. Hmmm. Now why would that be? :DPerhaps he pulled his head out from his magic underpants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.