MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response.

reply to post by antonia


While true it should have been listed the US Gov't is usually slow to get anything done. I'm definitely on the side that says the US/CIA are always conducting shady operations and what we are told is never the full story. Which this whole event is proof positive of that!

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
So what could they have done ?

They could have sent what .. a full company of Marines, two Predator drones and maybe an A10 or two.

Then what ?

Sure, let's insert 100 Marines into a completely hostile environment without means of re-supplying them ( 3-4 hours filght time for a fully loaded UH-60 ) and you got that angry mob, mostly unarmed civilians of which some have already infiltrated the compound and set it ablaze, mixed in between you have a couple of freaks armed with fuel bombs, RPG's and AK's shooting it out with the security personnel of the embassy.

I tell you as soon as you start inserting these Marines into that environment you will have Mogadishu again all over the place. The whole damn city would turn hostile. And even if you did that, there was no guarantee that anyone would make it alive out of that embassy.

It is called get in and then out, secure the site and then all leave. It is also called a true and certant threat for their request BEFORE the attack.

The fact that they just sat back and watched these men die and did nothing about it while taking 10 days to finally secure the site is ridiculous...

BUT more importantly it is Obama's foreign policies in the first place that have embolden these group to do it and knowing they will get away with it. Whether you liked Bush or not, we saw none of this on his watch because these groups KNEW things would go very bad for them if they tried.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Whether you liked Bush or not, we saw none of this on his watch because these groups KNEW things would go very bad for them if they tried.

Really? You are going to claim on Bushes watch nothing happened. I understand Benghazi happened on 911 but have you already forgotten about the other 911? It is a bit early to be trying to rewrite history.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Whether you liked Bush or not, we saw none of this on his watch because these groups KNEW things would go very bad for them if they tried.

Really? You are going to claim on Bushes watch nothing happened. I understand Benghazi happened on 911 but have you already forgotten about the other 911? It is a bit early to be trying to rewrite history.

Yeah I agree with you. Who in the hell in this day and age is defending the Bush Regime. Unjust war in Iraq is all anyone needs to know and it should NEVER be forgotten.

reply to post by antonia

How do you kow it was a gun running operation. And does that make it better?

reply to post by Swills


Well, the main difference between you and me is I'm not here harping about Obama. I think he is immaterial to this. The CIA runs it's own ops and history does show that sometimes the sitting president doesn't even know what they are doing. CIA operatives travel under State department cover all the time. I think it's very likely Stevens was wearing two hats in the country, one as ambassador and the other as a CIA operative. Either way, the CIA would never acknowledge it if he was an operative. This may be why the admin is being so shady in regards to this. They are covering a gun running op and trying to save what is left of the CIA op there.

It should also be noted the media has given more than one location for where that "consulate" actually was. I think it's likely they listed the locations for the CIA station house and their safe house as consulates instead of what they actually were. As for the media's role in this-It's simply to cover the CIA's ass. Some things go beyond presidents and this is one of them.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Swills

 

Well, the main difference between you and me is I'm not here harping about Obama. I think he is immaterial to this. The CIA runs it's own ops and history does show that sometimes the sitting president doesn't even know what they are doing. CIA operatives travel under State department cover all the time. I think it's very likely Stevens was wearing two hats in the country, one as ambassador and the other as a CIA operative. Either way, the CIA would never acknowledge it if he was an operative. This may be why the admin is being so shady in regards to this. They are covering a gun running op and trying to save what is left of the CIA op there.

It should also be noted the media has given more than one location for where that "consulate" actually was. I think it's likely they listed the locations for the CIA station house and their safe house as consulates instead of what they actually were. As for the media's role in this-It's simply to cover the CIA's ass. Some things go beyond presidents and this is one of them.

I'm not really harping on Obama either, I'm blaming everyone, elephants and donkeys included. But the truth is the POTUS, who ever he is, would have had real time notification of the battle that night. Yes the CIA runs their own OPs, but believe it or not the POTUS is privy to some of their OPs, but more importantly the consulate in question was no secret to anyone in Washington and that's because it was already under attack prior to 9/11, ambassador Stevens was already being targeted (terrorist taking pix of him during his morning jog and all), and they could easily read the terrorists Facebook page claiming more attacks were coming for the 9/11's ten year anniversary. Requests for security were denied. The media has reported more than 1 location because the battle took place at more than 1 location. First location was the consulate and the second location was the CIA annex building a block or so away. I've read the CIA annex building had a .50 caliber gun mounted on the roof.

So CIA Operation or not, the consulate was well known to Washington DC.

Originally posted by Swills

So CIA Operation or not, the consulate was well known to Washington DC.

It wasn't a consulate. It's already been shown in this thread yet you keep saying it was. You don't get it at all. You want to play a blame game because that is what is happening in the media. What I am telling you is the blame game is simply a cover for what was really happening on the ground-A gun running operation to aid AQ in Syria. Yet you keep harping on about blaming someone. There is no one to blame. Everyone who lives in that world knew what would happen if they got caught with their pants down. As for Stevens, I don't think he was truly the target of the attack.


If they wanted Stevens then it wouldn't have been done in this manner. He would have just been murdered. The fact is they attacked it with the intention of getting at the CIA operation in the area. He was just unlucky. No, the CIA wasn't going to pull out all the stops to save them as it would have blown their entire operation and make no mistake, there was a major CIA operation going on in that area. Most of the people who were evacuated were CIA not State department. They were attacking a CIA operation not a consulate.

In using this situation as a political ax most of you are missing the complete picture. These stories in the media only serve as cover for what is actually happening and you guys have bought it all.

reply to post by antonia


Whatever you want to call it the fact will always remain Washington DC knew it existed, knew it had already been attacked, knew it continued to be threatened to be attacked, knew it requested security, and denied it security.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've already told you I am not playing the blame game. Someone is to blame and it's the people in Washington DC, not just party over another, or just the intel community, or just the military. On all levels these people failed to provided the much needed security. That's a fact.

Why you keep arguing mute points, such as if it really was a consulate or not, is beyond me and now that you're just making assumptions as to what a terrorist would have actually done or not is really funny. I think you and I are pretty much done here. I'm definitely tired of arguing with you about this. I said my peace and you yours. Agree to disagree.

reply to post by Swills

Why you keep arguing mute points, such as if it really was a consulate or not,

Of course it's important. What the place was indicates who ran it, who was responsible for securing and most importantly-Why it wasn't secured. If was simply a CIA post then it does explain the lack of security. They wouldn't want it to be conspicuous. My whole point is this media blame game is simply a cover for a CIA operation, that is all. As for my comments on what a terrorist would do, think about it-What was attacked next? The CIA annex. The group accused of doing it has CIA connections. These aren't benign connections.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
So what could they have done ?

They could have sent what .. a full company of Marines, two Predator drones and maybe an A10 or two.

Then what ?

Sure, let's insert 100 Marines into a completely hostile environment without means of re-supplying them ( 3-4 hours filght time for a fully loaded UH-60 ) and you got that angry mob, mostly unarmed civilians of which some have already infiltrated the compound and set it ablaze, mixed in between you have a couple of freaks armed with fuel bombs, RPG's and AK's shooting it out with the security personnel of the embassy.

I tell you as soon as you start inserting these Marines into that environment you will have Mogadishu again all over the place. The whole damn city would turn hostile. And even if you did that, there was no guarantee that anyone would make it alive out of that embassy.

I think 30-40 heavy hitting operators, backed up with Arial support, c-130 with jamming capabilities and the ability to reach out and touch the attacking terrorists, it would of been over relativity fast, and with much bravado, backslapping and high praise to the Obama admin.

You would of been entering a relativity friendly liberated country where the perpetrators were a handful of radical Muslims. You would not of even needed flight clearance.

Just shows you how the ball was dropped on this one by the Obama administration, and now the whole team there is working to smooth it over and keep it hush hush.

Can you even be so completely incompetent and can this even be an "error" or a "miscommunication".?

How can it be?

This is the difference you need to decide upon when your election rolls around.

Something that reeks like poop, shady, crooked, and cheap. Tragedy by inactivity.

or

A lets git er done attitude where operators are sent pronto chop chop to weed out garbage and keep diplomats safe.

I personally would of felt better losing a few defending what is right and just, rather than feeling crappy and sad about losing good people because nothing was done.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Swills

 

Why you keep arguing mute points, such as if it really was a consulate or not,department

Of course it's important. What the place was indicates who ran it, who was responsible for securing and most importantly-Why it wasn't secured. If was simply a CIA post then it does explain the lack of security. They wouldn't want it to be conspicuous. My whole point is this media blame game is simply a cover for a CIA operation, that is all. As for my comments on what a terrorist would do, think about it-What was attacked next? The CIA annex. The group accused of doing it has CIA connections. These aren't benign connections.

Has the State Department stepped forward and cleared up any confusion over what the location actually was? In most news reports from the start, it was referred to as a consulate. With all of the question and answer sessions that have happened, one would think that the categorization of the place would have been addressed by now.

How about when Secretary of State Clinton accepted responsibility for what happened there? As Secretary of State, is she responsible for CIA safe houses and posts?

Here is a CNN report of what she said:

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision." But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

CNN

I just checked to be sure, and sure enough, the CIA is an independent department.

Meaning it is not a part of the State Department.

So, if Hillary Clinton accepted responsibility for security concerns at the compound that we can't seem to put a name on, it must be part of the State Department.

Thank you Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madam Secretary.

reply to post by butcherguy


Do you seriously think the government would admit to running a large CIA operation in that city? Hillary is lying, it's that simple.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I just checked to be sure, and sure enough, the CIA is an independent department.

Meaning it is not a part of the State Department.

So, if Hillary Clinton accepted responsibility for security concerns at the compound that we can't seem to put a name on, it must be part of the State Department.

Thank you Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madam Secretary.

Business as usual. Say I am some big multinational oil company. I spy me some oil I covets in a country like Libya. I set up a merc army to oust the regime of state owned oil. I know one or many of my multinational countries isn't keen on either. I get my fanny into trouble and I blow a whistle. Here comes the marines to my rescue waving the flag of patriotism.

Sound familiar? It should.

So what?

No response and only 4 people died. Obviously a response wasn't needed.

And really, if we weren't there in the first place, and trying to control a sovereign nation, none of this would've happened.....
be angry about that, you sheep, following whatever Fox News tells you to be mad about.

Originally posted by Ghost375
So what?

No response and only 4 people died. Obviously a response wasn't needed.

And really, if we weren't there in the first place, and trying to control a sovereign nation, none of this would've happened.....
be angry about that, you sheep, following whatever Fox News tells you to be mad about.

edit on 28-10-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

You sir or madam are a fresh breath of sanity in a crazy upside-down world. I give you my star!

reply to post by Ghost375


So what? So what about you? So what about your life? This goes for the person who starred your post as well.


Seriously what don't you understand about not leaving anyone behind?

"What If America" A Wake Up Call...

reply to post by antonia


Well, there are our choices.

Of course, I could ask you to prove that it was a CIA compound.

Doesn't it seem silly to quibble over whether it was a consulate or a diplomatic post, then claim it is a CIA post, when all along it has been represented by the govt as diplomatic, to the point that Clinton accepts responsibility for it's lack of security?

Especially when the US govt admits that there is a CIA post one mile away from it? it isn't like they are trying to hide the fact that the CIA was there.

Hillary is lying, it's that simple.

let us not forget this when she runs for POTUS again.