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.

 

 

If its sickening to think about, why do you jump in to defend? You ask us to not jump to conclusions, but know that your adminisitration has already done that. Why the double-standard?

 

A SEAL does not laser away his position unless he expected a drone strike. Again, I am going to have to see proof of the reverse being true and that burden is on the administration.

If its sickening to think about, why do you jump in to defend? You ask us to not jump to conclusions, but know that your adminisitration has already done that. Why the double-standard?

 

A SEAL does not laser away his position unless he expected a drone strike. Again, I am going to have to see proof of the reverse being true and that burden is on the administration.

 

 

Who am I defending? I'm saying there is a lot of jumping to conclusions. That's dangerous and serves no good purpose.

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?"

 

Yes, this.

Yes, this.

 

To be clear, is the "yes" to my question asking if the SEAL went over despite being told to stand down? In other words, did he defy orders? Or was he told to go and THEN he was told to stand down?

To be clear, is the "yes" to my question asking if the SEAL went over despite being told to stand down? In other words, did he defy orders? Or was he told to go and THEN he was told to stand down?

 

There is no question that the two SEALS defied orders getting into the compound to defend the others where they held off terrorists for 6 hours and killed at least 60 terrorists.

 

The laser was turned on and painted a target shortly before Tyrone was killed. I state that at that point he expected a strike and that an armed drone was overhead. Somebody higher up changed their mind. As the article states, it was either AFRICOM or it was the POTUS.

There is no question that the two SEALS defied orders getting into the compound to defend the others where they held off terrorists for 6 hours and killed at least 60 terrorists.

 

The laser was turned on and painted a target shortly before Tyrone was killed. I state that at that point he expected a strike and that an armed drone was overhead. Somebody higher up changed their mind. As the article states, it was either AFRICOM or it was the POTUS.

 

I assume we all believe in chain-of-command in the military, correct? We can't have individuals defying orders, right?

 

When you say he "expected" a strike should I assume you mean that he was told a strike was on its way?

 

Is it possible ever or in this case that something changes and an individual has to die in order to keep others from harm? Possible?

I assume we all believe in chain-of-command in the military, correct? We can't have individuals defying orders, right?

 

When you say he "expected" a strike should I assume you mean that he was told a strike was on its way?

 

Is it possible ever or in this case that something changes and an individual has to die in order to keep others from harm? Possible?

 

Yes, in our military that is not just possible, its commonplace, and it happened here. But no, I do not believe it is possible that this SEAL turned on his laser painter to paint a target unless he has first been told that an armed Predator was prepared to strike the target.

Yes, in our military that is not just possible, its commonplace, and it happened here. But no, I do not believe it is possible that this SEAL turned on his laser painter to paint a target unless he has first been told that an armed Predator was prepared to strike the target.

 

Logic says you're correct about him not just turning it on without being told he has help on its way.

 

We agree that things change and it's "commonplace." So if someone in the military thought that the greater good was achieved (whatever that might be) and called off the support should we be mad? And should we feel we have a right to know exactly why it was called off if it was, indeed, done in the "greater good" manner?

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?"

 

Not a jackball at all. I have worn the uniform and stood the post. Your simple questions have been answered.

 

Why send in troops? How about the fact that a battle raged for 6-7 hours and help was at most 2 hours away and it was either denied or screwed up. Panetta's explanation is laughable at best. Don't send troops into harms way? That's what they are trained for!!!!

 

I want Obama to give a press conference and explain what happened. He couldn't wait to get on TV after bin Laden was killed.

 

If you believe all the administration is telling you, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Not a jackball at all. I have worn the uniform and stood the post. Your simple questions have been answered.

 

Why send in troops? How about the fact that a battle raged for 6-7 hours and help was at most 2 hours away and it was either denied or screwed up. Panetta's explanation is laughable at best. Don't send troops into harms way? That's what they are trained for!!!!

 

I want Obama to give a press conference and explain what happened. He couldn't wait to get on TV after bin Laden was killed.

 

If you believe all the administration is telling you, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

 

You certainly have my respect for your service.

 

You are a jackball if you believe for one second that I do not have respect for those involved. I have so much that I'm not going to make accusations without full information.

 

That doesn't mean any of my questions lack validity.

 

So you're saying that troops are always sent in to battle without having intelligence before they are sent? Seems hard to believe.

Panetta made is sound like there was some business like meeting that ultimately decided not to engage. No. There is a Chain of Command and he was in it. And it works with the lower level staff providing opinion and options to the top. And the top gets to make the decison. There is no democratic vote or group decision. General Ham is on record as saying he did not give a do not engage order. He works for Panetta. So in the military CoC the buck stops with Panetta. But as Col Hunt's interview indicated the military - include Panetta - would not act without permission from the 'political' elements. So a specific 'go' was needed from the political side. That would likely be Jarrett.

 

General Ham was publicly relieved of command suddenly on October 19th.

 

Some background and speculation:

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/

 

"Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18."

 

Also in the article above:

 

"The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment."

 

Emphasis added.

 

Even ABC says this is unusual:

 

Navy Replaces Admiral Leading Mideast Strike Group Because of Ongoing Investigation - ABC News

 

"In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

 

...

 

The allegations are recent and were made within the last couple of weeks."

 

 

So the General of the Middle East forces has been replaced and a Carrier Group Admiral has been relieved. Both unusual and both since September 11.

I assume we all believe in chain-of-command in the military, correct? We can't have individuals defying orders, right?

 

When you say he "expected" a strike should I assume you mean that he was told a strike was on its way?

 

Is it possible ever or in this case that something changes and an individual has to die in order to keep others from harm? Possible?

 

Are you suggesting the air strike by an unmanned drone that wouldn't have had the potential to harm any more Americans than ones already engaged in a fight for their lives may have been called off because two Americans didn't obey orders to let fellow Americans be massacred?

Are you suggesting the air strike by an unmanned drone that wouldn't have had the potential to harm any more Americans than ones already engaged in a fight for their lives may have been called off because two Americans didn't obey orders to let fellow Americans be massacred?

 

No. I'm asking if it's possible that there was a valid reason for the "no go?" '

 

To your last part the military is not a place where orders can be defied.

No. I'm asking if it's possible that there was a valid reason for the "no go?" '

 

To your last part the military is not a place where orders can be defied.

 

I'm going to need an extremely good reason to not use a drone to save the lives of our brave heroes.

 

I would hope if my son was serving his country and trained Navy Seals asked for permission to go save his life but were turned down that they would try to save him anyway. I understand what you're saying but I'd like to believe I'd be brave enough to do what they did in the same situation.

I'm going to need an extremely good reason to not use a drone to save the lives of our brave heroes.

 

I would hope if my son was serving his country and trained Navy Seals asked for permission to go save his life but were turned down that they would try to save him anyway. I understand what you're saying but I'd like to believe I'd be brave enough to do what they did in the same situation.

 

The drone question is a fair one.

 

I get what you're saying about defying orders. However, if we let any solider/SEAL/Marine defy orders when he/she thought it was "a good cause" we wouldn't have a functioning military. It's simply not set up to handle anyone defying orders.

 

Doesn't make the SEAL any less brave or heroic. It is just a very slippery slope.