Petraeus testifies

[Clyde]

Hearsay, name the cowards.

[SportsGuy41017]

LOL! Typical! Typical of what people who have no idea what goes on in a certain field reacts.

[SportsGuy41017]

On the iPhone now so can't go into detail.

 

People keep blaming the administration, the go to move by many, and that call is off base. The intelligence community has a huge say in what information gets released.

 

As I mentioned on here over a month ago, there were several people on the ground that were giving us conflicting information, you can't just go in and go all cowboy like when you don't know what the hell is going on. The fog of war, and when former Sec Rice agreed, some said she was just being diplomatic or some other garbage like that. Sec Rice's comments were not even good enough, she clearly has to be covering for people since she didn't agree with you!

 

When intelligence comes in it is graded, as well as an ongoing grade for the person supplying the intel. Both are graded 1-5. As far as the people giving the intel in Bengazi, we had people with rating 1-5 giving conflicting info on the same event, some of the 5's were still saying it was because of the film, we had no clue what was going on. The intel is supposed to be graded before it goes up the chain of command as well, you don't want to be an agent who is asked how good is this intel and say "I think", you better be able to say "I'm sure" or "I'm confident".

 

Some people who didn't know, said The Gen was forced to go along with a story so he would have to resign and not testify, when anyone can be forced to go before Congress. People then WANTED to here that the administration was behind some type of cover up, and that did not happen.

Edited November 18, 2012 by SportsGuy41017

[CBDV]

Frankly, I'm appalled at a couple of you. 4 men, including a United States Ambassador, were MURDERED. Someone from YOUR GOVERNMENT gave a direct Order to "stand down" when the enemy could have been destroyed with an armed drone. The American public wants to know who gave that Order and why, and YOUR PRESIDENT and his administration will not answer the freaking question. And you have the gall to get on here and preach to us that we are blowing this out of proprotion? I call you out, you are cowards. This is not Monica Lewinsky or some sordid political gaffe, a United States Ambassador who carries your flag and makes treaties with other governments on your behalf WAS GUNNED DOWN IN COLD BLOOD IN WHAT LOOKS VERY CLEARLY LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, and your administration officials are busy trying the old Potomac Two-Step to get out of it. Your attitude offends me. If you were guests at my table I would ask you to leave.

 

Best. Response. Possible.

[jericho]

Frankly, I'm appalled at a couple of you. 4 men, including a United States Ambassador, were MURDERED. Someone from YOUR GOVERNMENT gave a direct Order to "stand down" when the enemy could have been destroyed with an armed drone. The American public wants to know who gave that Order and why, and YOUR PRESIDENT and his administration will not answer the freaking question. And you have the gall to get on here and preach to us that we are blowing this out of proprotion? I call you out, you are cowards. This is not Monica Lewinsky or some sordid political gaffe, a United States Ambassador who carries your flag and makes treaties with other governments on your behalf WAS GUNNED DOWN IN COLD BLOOD IN WHAT LOOKS VERY CLEARLY LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, and your administration officials are busy trying the old Potomac Two-Step to get out of it. Your attitude offends me. If you were guests at my table I would ask you to leave.

 

One of the best responses I have seen.

 

It has almost been 2 months and still no explanation or accountability being held.

[Run To State]

On the iPhone now so can't go into detail.

 

People keep blaming the administration, the go to move by many, and that call is off base. The intelligence community has a huge say in what information gets released.

 

As I mentioned on here over a month ago, there were several people on the ground that were giving us conflicting information, you can't just go in and go all cowboy like when you don't know what the hell is going on. The fog of war, and when former Sec Rice agreed, some said she was just being diplomatic or some other garbage like that. Sec Rice's comments were not even good enough, she clearly has to be covering for people since she didn't agree with you!

 

When intelligence comes in it is graded, as well as an ongoing grade for the person supplying the intel. Both are graded 1-5. As far as the people giving the intel in Bengazi, we had people with rating 1-5 giving conflicting info on the same event, some of the 5's were still saying it was because of the film, we had no clue what was going on. The intel is supposed to be graded before it goes up the chain of command as well, you don't want to be an agent who is asked how good is this intel and say "I think", you better be able to say "I'm sure" or "I'm confident".

 

Some people who didn't know, said The Gen was forced to go along with a story so he would have to resign and not testify, when anyone can be forced to go before Congress. People then WANTED to here that the administration was behind some type of cover up, and that did not happen.

So now intel matters....

[Lucky Charms]

So now intel matters....

 

NO, just perception and opinion.

[jericho]

Well Obama should know what an organized mob is, that is the only thing he has done is be an organizer. Needs to go back to doing that and leave the Presidency to someone who understands.

[cammando]

On the iPhone now so can't go into detail.

 

People keep blaming the administration, the go to move by many, and that call is off base. The intelligence community has a huge say in what information gets released.

 

As I mentioned on here over a month ago, there were several people on the ground that were giving us conflicting information, you can't just go in and go all cowboy like when you don't know what the hell is going on. The fog of war, and when former Sec Rice agreed, some said she was just being diplomatic or some other garbage like that. Sec Rice's comments were not even good enough, she clearly has to be covering for people since she didn't agree with you!

 

When intelligence comes in it is graded, as well as an ongoing grade for the person supplying the intel. Both are graded 1-5. As far as the people giving the intel in Bengazi, we had people with rating 1-5 giving conflicting info on the same event, some of the 5's were still saying it was because of the film, we had no clue what was going on. The intel is supposed to be graded before it goes up the chain of command as well, you don't want to be an agent who is asked how good is this intel and say "I think", you better be able to say "I'm sure" or "I'm confident".

 

Some people who didn't know, said The Gen was forced to go along with a story so he would have to resign and not testify, when anyone can be forced to go before Congress. People then WANTED to here that the administration was behind some type of cover up, and that did not happen.

Ridiculous theory.. No "fog of war" involved here. The ex-seals were in direct contact with folks who could, and were ready to help. The drone was in place and the targets were lased.. Plus the WH was watching the events in real time. Would love to know who gave the actual orders to stand down.. What cowards..

[jericho]

Ridiculous theory.. No "fog of war" involved here. The ex-seals were in direct contact with folks who could, and were ready to help. The drone was in place and the targets were lased.. Plus the WH was watching the events in real time. Would love to know who gave the actual orders to stand down.. What cowards..

 

I would say the one who gave the orders is the commander in chief.

[cammando]

Related: State Department Disowns Susan Rice's Libya Narrative - Global - The Atlantic Wire

[Habib]

Frankly, I'm appalled at a couple of you. 4 men, including a United States Ambassador, were MURDERED. Someone from YOUR GOVERNMENT gave a direct Order to "stand down" when the enemy could have been destroyed with an armed drone. The American public wants to know who gave that Order and why, and YOUR PRESIDENT and his administration will not answer the freaking question. And you have the gall to get on here and preach to us that we are blowing this out of proprotion? I call you out, you are cowards. This is not Monica Lewinsky or some sordid political gaffe, a United States Ambassador who carries your flag and makes treaties with other governments on your behalf WAS GUNNED DOWN IN COLD BLOOD IN WHAT LOOKS VERY CLEARLY LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, and your administration officials are busy trying the old Potomac Two-Step to get out of it. Your attitude offends me. If you were guests at my table I would ask you to leave.

 

Spare me the theatrics and insults. Not one post in this thread up until this point discussed anything you cite here. This “scandal” continues to be about semantics – Obama didn’t say “terrorism” quickly enough and Susan Rice said "based on the best information we have to date" on a Sunday talk show. Petraeus’s testimony was supposed to be the smoking gun on both of those points (it isn’t) and is the subject of this thread. I agreed with you in another thread that there are legitimate questions about this case. Perhaps if you want those to be front and center you should direct your ostentation toward your Republican brethren who continue to focus on trivialities.

[75center]

I am with Clyde and Habib on this. Some are so wanting Obama to be nailed in a "cover up" or something to bring him down, as the one article hit on, nice kindergarten tactics.

 

People talking about being against entitlements, but scream at the top of their lungs if they don't get the info they what, when they want it, they think they have the right to know, but they don't! Somethings news to be kept secret, some stuff you may never find out about, ever, it's just part of the intelligence field.

 

Rice was given the unclassified version, the intelligence agencies decided what was still classified. And it happened for a reason, there were still confusing and conflicting reports on what happened, as well as not wanting to let out yet who may or may not have been involved. Several people were still saying it was due to the film, and when I say several, I'm talking over a dozen separate operatives.

 

But the fact remains, in today's age of 24 hours cable channels, people think they are entitled to know stuff as it happens, it doesn't work that way. People watched live as we rolled into Iraq about 20 years ago, so we really need to see a war up close and in real time? Remember the scud attacks on Israel? At first they thought it was a good idea to show the scuds live on TV world wide as they were flying over Israel and the watched them hit. But then the reporters were told to stop, as Iraq was sitting back watching these live reports seeing where their scuds landed. Nothing like telling your enemy in real time where their missiles landed and how much they had to adjust.

 

When events like Bengazi happen, people need to sit back and wait, wait for intelligence to gather the information and sort everything out. Again, you still may not find out, it has nothing to do with transparency, it has to do with national security and classified information.

 

I'm fine with certain information being held back. Being lied to for weeks is a whole different matter, as is publicly throwing blame at a person who had nothing to do with the attack. Based on your post I assume you're ok with being lied to, at least from your guy. My question is, how long are you ok with being lied to? Obviously 2 weeks. Any longer?

[plantmanky]

Help me out here with these events as I think I am missing something.

 

At the moment of attack on the ambassador and others, and they are killed, what were we to do? Wouldn't anything we would have done at that point been retaliatory (ignore the fact of justified or not.) At that point their lives can not be brought back no matter what we do correct? In other words, should we have made some sort of strike first before the attack to prevent it? Wouldn't then had made us the provoker?

 

Then there was the classification of the event, it wasn't terrorist, no wait it was, or was it......Really just semantics in the grand scheme, whether it was one person who committed the act, or a group from an organization (terroristic or otherwise) its still an act of murder correct?

[Lucky Charms]

Spare me the theatrics and insults. Not one post in this thread up until this point discussed anything you cite here. This “scandal” continues to be about semantics – Obama didn’t say “terrorism” quickly enough and Susan Rice said "based on the best information we have to date" on a Sunday talk show. Petraeus’s testimony was supposed to be the smoking gun on both of those points (it isn’t) and is the subject of this thread. I agreed with you in another thread that there are legitimate questions about this case. Perhaps if you want those to be front and center you should direct your ostentation toward your Republican brethren who continue to focus on trivialities.

 

I question the why and not the what. I do not get WHY these guys were not given support when it was there to be had. I DON'T NOT care WHAT the administration/WH/CIA/FBI or anyone else wants to call this event.

 

The down and dirty on this one is we had guys on the ground and the help was a phone call away. That call was made.........delayed for 7 hours.........and then suddenly there was noone else on the other line to talk to. S-A-D!!!