Clyde, you are manning a sinking ship, bud. I have tried to take the hard, objective look at this, and this is going to be very, very bad. Election or no election, heads are going to roll on this one. Advance notice of the nature and likelihood of attack, a guard unit sent away anyway, recorded pleas for help, plenty of time to do it, a unit one hour away, drones patrolling with the laser pointers on the targets, a recording to "stand down" that came from neither CIA nor military commanders, 2 CIA agents who were forced to disobey orders to keep people alive for 6 hours, killing over 60 terrorists, and a post-murder attempt at explanation that can only be described as catastrophic.

 

You are an objective, intelligent person, and it is time for you to stand down and stop playing defense on this one.

Clyde, you are manning a sinking ship, bud. I have tried to take the hard, objective look at this, and this is going to be very, very bad. Election or no election, heads are going to roll on this one. Advance notice of the nature and likelihood of attack, a guard unit sent away anyway, recorded pleas for help, plenty of time to do it, a unit one hour away, drones patrolling with the laser pointers on the targets, a recording to "stand down" that came from neither CIA nor military commanders, 2 CIA agents who were forced to disobey orders to keep people alive for 6 hours, killing over 60 terrorists, and a post-murder attempt at explanation that can only be described as catastrophic.

 

You are an objective, intelligent person, and it is time for you to stand down and stop playing defense on this one.

 

Nope, we are all stupid. Just ask him.

What would you like to address specifically?

 

What do we know as facts vs speculation?

 

I don't know you Clyde, but you are being daft on this one. Any intelligent person can read the cables that were sent from Benghazi during the attack an see what was happening. Exactly how many more "facts" do you need? Are four dead Americans not worthy of your respect?

 

I don't care if it is Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon or Big Bird. The POTUS has had enough time to gather answers and address the American people. This isn't a partisan issue. It's about the POTUS manning up and doing the tough things. He was very quick to tout the killing of bin Laden. As I have said before, if you are going to take credit for bin Laden, you have to take responsibility for Benghazi.

 

Which is more important to him, integrity or re-election? Seems he is showing us. His silence is deafening.

Clyde, I do not know if you actually see it the way I and a few others do or playing devils advocate, but it's a loss cause with most of these people.

 

I have seen enough of this. Some should sit back and look at what we are attempting to say. As Clyde stated at least a couple of times, YES, questions should to be answered and people need to know at least some of those answers such as the families of those killed. But to the FAMILIES, not everyone else, some things if exposed would hurt national security.

 

People talked about "leaked" info on Wednesday and they run with it, saying it was the "smoking gun". But wait! That info turned out to be wrong, just as most of the other "leaked" info! This of course happens when there is a rush to judgement, and or people just want to get a story out there either to see what sticks, or just to keep busy.

 

The intelligence world is not all black and white, and is much more complicated than one could ever imagine, but everyone wants to play arm chair QB when they know nothing about the subject. As I stated a few days ago, the intel from the ground was not clear! People were not sending back info that was requested. There is also a system on verifying all information, the other people (agents) on the ground were not high enough on the rating system and there was a lot of conflicting information. An "agent" if on the ground at the time has only one person who will listen to him, his collection officer or handler, and it goes up from there. Regardless of what technology tells us, we still need quality feet on the ground gathering and sending correct information.

 

As was stated by Sec Clinton and former Sec Rice, the 'fog of war". I am actually surprised, ok maybe I missed it, that no one questioned if former Sec Rice was still a republican as McCain said about Colin Powell when he endorsed President Obama, it just shows partisan politics and the other side now days, no matter who it is, is not going to compromise or wait for facts, it's a shoot first ask questions later game now.

 

If people just sit back and wait for all of the facts to come out, they will, there is so much information that needs to be looked at first. Whatever comes out, this will not be the last time the intelligence community is in a situation, as when you enter the human element, there will always be a chance of something happening that one will not like the outcome.

 

I think I know what I am talking about in this area, as this is my area of work, and I was at a US Embassy in Eastern Europe during the time of the attacks, a few people on here knew that at the time. I am leaving again in a few weeks but if anyone in NKY wants to talk this type of stuff before then, let me know.

I would like some agency other than Fox or Rush Limbaugh to report this. Doesn't it seem odd that no one else is? When the CBS poll showed that Romney one the first debate, Fox had it up immediately. When Obama, in the same poll by CBS was shown to have won the second debate, it still wasn't posted 2 hours later.

Clyde, I do not know if you actually see it the way I and a few others do or playing devils advocate, but it's a loss cause with most of these people.

 

I have seen enough of this. Some should sit back and look at what we are attempting to say. As Clyde stated at least a couple of times, YES, questions should to be answered and people need to know at least some of those answers such as the families of those killed. But to the FAMILIES, not everyone else, some things if exposed would hurt national security.

 

People talked about "leaked" info on Wednesday and they run with it, saying it was the "smoking gun". But wait! That info turned out to be wrong, just as most of the other "leaked" info! This of course happens when there is a rush to judgement, and or people just want to get a story out there either to see what sticks, or just to keep busy.

 

The intelligence world is not all black and white, and is much more complicated than one could ever imagine, but everyone wants to play arm chair QB when they know nothing about the subject. As I stated a few days ago, the intel from the ground was not clear! People were not sending back info that was requested. There is also a system on verifying all information, the other people (agents) on the ground were not high enough on the rating system and there was a lot of conflicting information. An "agent" if on the ground at the time has only one person who will listen to him, his collection officer or handler, and it goes up from there. Regardless of what technology tells us, we still need quality feet on the ground gathering and sending correct information.

 

As was stated by Sec Clinton and former Sec Rice, the 'fog of war". I am actually surprised, ok maybe I missed it, that no one questioned if former Sec Rice was still a republican as McCain said about Colin Powell when he endorsed President Obama, it just shows partisan politics and the other side now days, no matter who it is, is not going to compromise or wait for facts, it's a shoot first ask questions later game now.

 

If people just sit back and wait for all of the facts to come out, they will, there is so much information that needs to be looked at first. Whatever comes out, this will not be the last time the intelligence community is in a situation, as when you enter the human element, there will always be a chance of something happening that one will not like the outcome.

 

I think I know what I am talking about in this area, as this is my area of work, and I was at a US Embassy in Eastern Europe during the time of the attacks, a few people on here knew that at the time. I am leaving again in a few weeks but if anyone in NKY wants to talk this type of stuff before then, let me know.

 

Great stuff, so why did Obama mention the internet video 6 times during his visit to the UN? Should he not wait until the "fog of war" clears before speaking or does he also "shoot first aim later". This whole thing stinks, you and Clyde can go on and on about waiting, etc but the guy in charge didn't wait, he blamed a video and basically apologized. So who's jumping to conclusions again?

Clyde, I do not know if you actually see it the way I and a few others do or playing devils advocate, but it's a loss cause with most of these people.

 

I have seen enough of this. Some should sit back and look at what we are attempting to say. As Clyde stated at least a couple of times, YES, questions should to be answered and people need to know at least some of those answers such as the families of those killed. But to the FAMILIES, not everyone else, some things if exposed would hurt national security.

 

People talked about "leaked" info on Wednesday and they run with it, saying it was the "smoking gun". But wait! That info turned out to be wrong, just as most of the other "leaked" info! This of course happens when there is a rush to judgement, and or people just want to get a story out there either to see what sticks, or just to keep busy.

 

The intelligence world is not all black and white, and is much more complicated than one could ever imagine, but everyone wants to play arm chair QB when they know nothing about the subject. As I stated a few days ago, the intel from the ground was not clear! People were not sending back info that was requested. There is also a system on verifying all information, the other people (agents) on the ground were not high enough on the rating system and there was a lot of conflicting information. An "agent" if on the ground at the time has only one person who will listen to him, his collection officer or handler, and it goes up from there. Regardless of what technology tells us, we still need quality feet on the ground gathering and sending correct information.

 

As was stated by Sec Clinton and former Sec Rice, the 'fog of war". I am actually surprised, ok maybe I missed it, that no one questioned if former Sec Rice was still a republican as McCain said about Colin Powell when he endorsed President Obama, it just shows partisan politics and the other side now days, no matter who it is, is not going to compromise or wait for facts, it's a shoot first ask questions later game now.

 

If people just sit back and wait for all of the facts to come out, they will, there is so much information that needs to be looked at first. Whatever comes out, this will not be the last time the intelligence community is in a situation, as when you enter the human element, there will always be a chance of something happening that one will not like the outcome.

 

I think I know what I am talking about in this area, as this is my area of work, and I was at a US Embassy in Eastern Europe during the time of the attacks, a few people on here knew that at the time. I am leaving again in a few weeks but if anyone in NKY wants to talk this type of stuff before then, let me know.

 

You can read the armchair QB talking points memo all that you want to, but when a Navy Seal paints a laser on the enemy and thereby gives away his position, he expects a drone strike in support to kill the terrorists. There is no gray area there. You will never convince me that a Seal makes that kind of mistake, and to dismiss it as armchair quarterbacking is insulting to anyone whom has ever worn a uniform. It cannot simply be explained away. These people cried for help and were ignored and murdered. If you were at an Embassy and knew what was happening, then you know all of this already.

You can read the armchair QB talking points memo all that you want to, but when a Navy Seal paints a laser on the enemy and thereby gives away his position, he expects a drone strike in support to kill the terrorists. There is no gray area there. You will never convince me that a Seal makes that kind of mistake, and to dismiss it as armchair quarterbacking is insulting to anyone whom has ever worn a uniform. It cannot simply be explained away. These people cried for help and were ignored and murdered. If you were at an Embassy and knew what was happening, then you know all of this already.

 

Exactly. That's what wasn't answered that I asked Clyde before. If they were asking for support from an unmanned drone who could have possibly been at risk on the ground other than the people already fighting?

CURL: You don't mess with the CIA - Washington Times

 

Interesting article.

Clyde, you are manning a sinking ship, bud. I have tried to take the hard, objective look at this, and this is going to be very, very bad. Election or no election, heads are going to roll on this one. Advance notice of the nature and likelihood of attack, a guard unit sent away anyway, recorded pleas for help, plenty of time to do it, a unit one hour away, drones patrolling with the laser pointers on the targets, a recording to "stand down" that came from neither CIA nor military commanders, 2 CIA agents who were forced to disobey orders to keep people alive for 6 hours, killing over 60 terrorists, and a post-murder attempt at explanation that can only be described as catastrophic.

 

You are an objective, intelligent person, and it is time for you to stand down and stop playing defense on this one.

 

Thank you for the compliment. Appreciated. I'm all about accountability once we know the facts.

 

You say there were pleas for help. I don't believe that's being debated. AP quoted Panetta as saying they knew there were pleas but the military made the decision that it may not be prudent based on the info they had.

 

That's what I'm struggling with when it comes to placing blame. Sounds like it was decided to not go in immediately.

 

Are we saying that if US citizens are in trouble that we spare no expense and go in without knowing what's going on?

 

Or are you thinking that Panetta is not being honest?

I don't know you Clyde, but you are being daft on this one. Any intelligent person can read the cables that were sent from Benghazi during the attack an see what was happening. Exactly how many more "facts" do you need? Are four dead Americans not worthy of your respect?

 

I don't care if it is Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon or Big Bird. The POTUS has had enough time to gather answers and address the American people. This isn't a partisan issue. It's about the POTUS manning up and doing the tough things. He was very quick to tout the killing of bin Laden. As I have said before, if you are going to take credit for bin Laden, you have to take responsibility for Benghazi.

 

Which is more important to him, integrity or re-election? Seems he is showing us. His silence is deafening.

 

Don't be a jackball. I never once said anything about "four dead Americans not worthy" of my respect. I've asked some simple questions. I've asked more than once why we think we have to send troops in. Panetta says they decided against it based on a lack of good intelligence.

 

You want to hang this on the POTUS. I'm asking a simple question. Why? What hasn't the POTUS told you that you want to hear other than "it's my fault?"

You can read the armchair QB talking points memo all that you want to, but when a Navy Seal paints a laser on the enemy and thereby gives away his position, he expects a drone strike in support to kill the terrorists. There is no gray area there. You will never convince me that a Seal makes that kind of mistake, and to dismiss it as armchair quarterbacking is insulting to anyone whom has ever worn a uniform. It cannot simply be explained away. These people cried for help and were ignored and murdered. If you were at an Embassy and knew what was happening, then you know all of this already.

 

Let's talk about that specific issue. Are you saying that the SEAL was told that support was coming thus causing him to take the risk of giving away his location but then someone changed their mind and left the SEAL out to hang? What would you base that on? Hunch? Intelligence?

 

For the record, IF someone called it off after they instructed the SEAL to indicate where the target was then either the POTUS or the military has to explain that.

 

My guess is that this isn't the first time some military member became "expendable" to someone in authority. It's sickening to think about. We may never get an answer.

Edited October 30, 201213 yr by Clyde

Exactly. That's what wasn't answered that I asked Clyde before. If they were asking for support from an unmanned drone who could have possibly been at risk on the ground other than the people already fighting?

 

Fair question. Is this the type of question that the military/State/WH typically answers ? Do they tell the press where they made mistakes?

Here's what I found on the SEAL/laser issue. Seems to be THE most serious charge.

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/bombshell-us-troops-would-not-have-been-painting-assets-on-ground-unless-their-was-air-support-overhead-but-white-house-called-off-attack/

 

 

 

My question: Did the SEAL go over there and use the laser despite being told to "stand down?"

Thank you for the compliment. Appreciated. I'm all about accountability once we know the facts.

 

You say there were pleas for help. I don't believe that's being debated. AP quoted Panetta as saying they knew there were pleas but the military made the decision that it may not be prudent based on the info they had.

 

That's what I'm struggling with when it comes to placing blame. Sounds like it was decided to not go in immediately.

 

Are we saying that if US citizens are in trouble that we spare no expense and go in without knowing what's going on?

 

Or are you thinking that Panetta is not being honest?

 

I am saying both. When your U.S. Ambassador and the men defending him are in trouble, and you have an unmanned drone right there and a unit one hour away you spare no expense to defend them. WE DO NOT LEAVE MEN BEHIND IN THIS ARMY, or at least we used to not do that.

 

And yes, Pannetta is lying or covering. Obama will do the Potomac two-step. CIA has denied it is them giving the stand-down order. Either Pannetta or Valerie Jarrett are left holding the bag. I am betting on Jarrett. But that stand-down order did not come from some low-level captain.