White House Tries to Throw Military Under Bus

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


I have thought the same thing. Go back and listen to Obama's speeches about this and other events. He hardly ever calls them terrorists, evildoers, murderers, etc. He uses terms like "attackers"---"violence took lives"---"families have lost loved ones to acts of terror".

He is unable or unwilling to call them what they are.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Listen, it may be plausible and all that....but it is such a serious accusation that it will only be construed as someting concocted by right wing nutjobs unless you can connect a whole lotta dots to support it.

For now we should focus on proving negligence. We can address motive once that is out of the way.

Some patriots with guts and integrity are going to have to stand up and blow the whistle here for this to ever be proven.

I want to throw this question out there. WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE "STAND DOWN" ORDER?

I do believe the caller on the Rush show said it would have come from the President. Is that incorrect information?

Originally posted by queenofswords
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

I have thought the same thing. Go back and listen to Obama's speeches about this and other events. He hardly ever calls them terrorists, evildoers, murderers, etc. He uses terms like "attackers"---"violence took lives"---"families have lost loved ones to acts of terror".

He is unable or unwilling to call them what they are.

Backing you up here:

Obama Calls Jihadists Who Carried Out Benghazi Attack “These Folks”…

weaselzippers.us...

“My biggest priority right now is bringing those folks to justice.

Folks are what you call people you would invite to dinner.

Also found here:
news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


sad-eyed-lady....I noticed that one, too. "These folks" somehow just doesn't describe these people (and I use the word 'people' loosely.)

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Listen, it may be plausible and all that....but it is such a serious accusation that it will only be construed as someting concocted by right wing nutjobs unless you can connect a whole lotta dots to support it.

For now we should focus on proving negligence. We can address motive once that is out of the way.

Some patriots with guts and integrity are going to have to stand up and blow the whistle here for this to ever be proven.

I want to throw this question out there. WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE "STAND DOWN" ORDER?

I do believe the caller on the Rush show said it would have come from the President. Is that incorrect information?

I don't disagree with any of the above in the slightest.

I only urge caution when trying to link his motive to a desire to protect the Muslim Brotherhood. That type of talk brings in the folks who shout down and derail threads with accusations of racism. Once that is done, everything becomes a nontopical debate on what is and is not racist.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Your title is completely misleading and bordering on disinformation. That being said, you offer no sources that support you main point, only provide your opinion on what appears to be unrelated premises.

Non sequiter

We need to slow down and really analyze what each faction is saying publicly...because each word is critical. It's pretty obvious there's a serious sh*tstorm that could blow up over the incident. Look at the OP's reference to the CIA denial:

news.yahoo.com...

On the heels of yesterday's CIA statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." "No one...in the CIA told anybody not to help..."

If this blows up, they can fall back on this defense. We didn't compromise classified data, but we were clear about who wasn't to blame.

Many of the other statements being thrown about are similar, including her royal highness Hillary's.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


There are some links on the steve Quayle site....

Generals like Gen Ham the commander of the USAs Africa forces was relieved of command a mere 30 seconds after he ordered support for the Americans under attack in BenGhazi Libya

a General Rodreguize (sp?) told the rescue team to stand down... this was most likely the action of the CIC/POTUS
as the defense secretary has no command authority other than what he is instructed to relay to the commanders in the field HQs


so--- yes---- some brass are getting thrown under the bus
www.americanthinker.com...


or else Øbama will have a mutiny by the military on his hands (imho)

what was that 60s movie,' 7 days in May'
?? about a coup attempt by the armed forces

we might be seeing that sort of thing or just a big group of soldiers refusing to serve under this CIC





AS FOR THE STATEMENT:

Originally posted by blamethegreys


news.yahoo.com...

On the heels of yesterday's CIA statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." "No one...in the CIA told anybody not to help..."

But ---- the CIA heroes who defied the stand down orders and went to aide the embassy crew of 2... were on the hot line to the commander of AFRICOM... a General Ham...see this link
www.americanthinker.com...

the CIA was lower in the chain of command than the rescue/support team under AFRICOM... so the waffler Panetta might be correct in a very fine point of law but he's wrong in the actual spirit of protecting Americas assets/personnel ... regardless if the CIA had no authority to issue commands like stand down--- which somebody evidently had issued, my guess it was General Hams' immediate replacement that aped the Obama order to stand down

reply to post by beezzer


You forgot General Carter Ham and Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. Looks they are both dying on their swords ahead of those who deserve that fate in their place.

link

link

link

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by Maluhia

 

He has answered it several times.

The thing is, you are only reading crap like this thread and they're merely hit pieces, echoing the same tired right wing rhetoric. You are happy there are dead Americnans because you can join the Obama Bad threads.

If you read real news all the info you're referring to is there. I warm you though, you may not like it. There are actually more than one paragraph at a time which dont paint the president as a devil worshiping, communist muslim who wants to take your money and give it to the Wu Tang Klan.

Umm what planet are you living on? Did you watch the debates? In the second debate, Obama was asked point blank, "Who denied the requests for additional security in Lybia?" I dare you to post his answer. I double dare ya!

Originally posted by Secret009
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Your title is completely misleading and bordering on disinformation. That being said, you offer no sources that support you main point, only provide your opinion on what appears to be unrelated premises.

Non sequiter

Since you are the second person to throw this in my face, I will say that I am very sorry not to have run with this story:
White House Tries to Throw Military Under Bus.
www.weeklystandard.com...

If you do a google search you will see that there are 2 pages of news outlets who used this title as well.

Don't blame this military investigations/reassignments aka "getting thrown under the bus" on the White House if you wish. From what I am reading it is certainly not far-fetched to see the "fall guys" are the one who quite possibly acted to aid the consulate before before the "stand down" came from higher up or ignored the order to "stand down" completely.

Regarding Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette's investigation:
www.stripes.com...

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment. The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.

also here:
usnews.nbcnews.com...

“The particular commander being relieved, and you know translating that to just moving him back to a continental U.S. base while the investigation continues, is unlike anything I've ever seen before,” said Zerbe.

and General Ham's story:

Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

IMHO no military leader would have given a stand down order. I am having a very hard time trying to imagine why they would. If someone can help me understand why they might do this I would appreciate it.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

BS!

I'm going to avoid a full and complete statement I'd violate about 10 ATS's T & C's that I agreed to....

Suffice it to say.

It was requested then either denied or simply ignored

"Yes We can!"

My ass!

edit on 27-10-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

I'm going to put my vote on denied. Leaving those men to die was no different than sending a drone to execute them.

I find it more and more suspicious that the very people Obama helped overthrow Libya are the same people who attacked us at Benghazi. Same crap as afghanistan, we arm OBL and teach them how to use stinger missles and make I.E.D.'s and after they drive out the russians they turn that knowledge towards using it on the same people who helped them. It's the same damned mentality and now it's playing out in Syria all over again. Syria is Lybia 2.0. Our government is funding the FSA terrorists, just like they funded the terrorists and helped them overthrow Ghaddafi who kept the region stable. Someone is helping the Muslim Brotherhood build an Islamic Caliphate. If you notice since the Arab Spring every nation that got flipped ended up in MB hands. The same Arab Spring i hear rumors was also funded by...the U.S.

I posted this on another thread, but it belong here as well.
Below is a video where reporter gives details of a conversation he had with General Ham. Ham said he was not requested to take action.

What he did not say was whether he was told to "stand down."

Likely conversation: "Should I take action"?

Response: "No. Stand down."

Who would have given the response/command/order to do nothing, the President or Secretary of Defense or both? They were together with Biden at the White House in a scheduled meeting at 5PM on 9/11/2012 and they received an email at 4:05 PM that the Libya consulate was under siege. This was 25 minutes after it began - meaning the attack just began at 3:40 PM Washington, DC time.

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded
cnsnews.com...