Ret. Lt. Col.:His Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack

Originally posted by Secret009
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Its laughable that you think a Retired Lt Col would know whats going on inside the situation room, arguably the most secure room in the world. But it gets even worse when you think that a Lt. Col would essentially spy on his own country.

You obviously have no clue as to how the Military operates, in relation to "Retired" Officers. Approximately 90% of retired officers are still actively involved with the decisions made for operations.

I have a problem understanding how it would have been possible to have saved any lives on the ground in Bengazi by bringing in a C-130 and Marines.... As far as I can tell doing so would have resulted in a bloodbath and death to far more Americans.... It sounds to me that those making accusations have little or no experience to back up them .... I'm basing what I say on practical knowledge acquired by being in tight situations as a Marine Corps Tactical Air Control Party operator with an infantry company that would have likely have been deemed expendable due to our location along the Laotian border in early 1969.... We were damned lucky.

It was one of those days where you remember when you remember where you where at when the news came out. I feel that people where on heighten alert given the anniversary and it kind has a way of pulling you in towards the event. The question I would ask is did TPOTUS have a copy of the "My Pet Goat" book nearby?

true or not, will he be impeached? nope, heh they will give him another nobel peace prize.

Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi?

Someone should start a new thread about this: goo.gl...

Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area. According to reports*, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.

*(link to report here: times247.com...)

reply to post by Vitruvian


In my view this makes Watergate look like child's play. I don't know how people can look the other way on this and still vote for the guy.

reply to post by wasaka


Also, the Navy Seal who was killed also disobeyed the order to stand down, went anyway and sacrificed his own life. I saw the interview with the Seal's father and I wept through the entire thing.

Obama sacrificed four American lives Jimmy Carter in his worst moment made an attempt to rescue Americans. No honor, no faith, a traitors disposition.

Originally posted by hypervigilant
I have a problem understanding how it would have been possible to have saved any lives on the ground in Bengazi by bringing in a C-130 and Marines.... As far as I can tell doing so would have resulted in a bloodbath and death to far more Americans.... It sounds to me that those making accusations have little or no experience to back up them .... I'm basing what I say on practical knowledge acquired by being in tight situations as a Marine Corps Tactical Air Control Party operator with an infantry company that would have likely have been deemed expendable due to our location along the Laotian border in early 1969.... We were damned lucky.

edit on 29-10-2012 by hypervigilant because: corrected a typo.

Technologies and operations have changed since TACP in 69. Laos is also a different physical environment, one is jungle and farm areas. Benghazi is an Urban environment.
Not really comparable.
The Spookies can deliver pin point fire to a specific point, depending on the armament used the kill radius is 10-15 feet to larger.
The Last SEAL on the roof had lazed an enemy mortar team, and yet the mortar team was never taken out.
QRFs were within what, an hour or so? That is their job, to go in and rescue those in need, regardless of the situation.
Has the Military not learned the lesson from Somalia in 93? This moronic idea of not wanting to display force cost lives there, cost lives in Benghazi and will continue to cost lives until the President of the US gets his big boy pants on and actually takes the job of Commander in Chief, not Campaigner in Chief.

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack

The plot thickens to the point where this is an unavoidable scandal for the populist left wing Obama supporting press - they will soon have to relent and start to report on this tremendous treachery on the part of the BHO administration. This is proof positive that BHO was present and watching the horrendous events as they happened, i.e., in real time, and did nothing to help rescue the men under his charge. This is tantamount to homicide - i.e., murder on the part of the Commander in Chief - BHO, and all others who took part - who were "just following orders" as the saying goes.


Posted on October 28, 2012 at 8:11am by Madeleine Morgenstern

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.
Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.
Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.
“He, only he, could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done,” Shaffer said.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week the military did not intervene because they did not have enough information about what was happening on the ground.
Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, said the military could have had jets in the air within 20 minutes and forces on the ground within two hours.
“The issue is always political with the White House, but the secretary of defense gives the order, has to be approved by the White House, they wouldn’t pull the trigger, and it’s disgraceful,” Hunt said. “We’ve got guys dead.”

Nota Bene
I didn't realize (forgot actually) that parts of the content of this thread/topic was covered earlier - My apologies to the OP of this thread--->MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response

edit on 28-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

I think it's pretty unreal what we take for proof positive anymore. Somebody has a source who has a source and nobody is sure who the source is. To go on Fox News and bring a story that was told to you by a close source that you can't or won't name has no credibility. This is propaganda pure and simple. The thing I am noticing more and more, and particularly here at ats is a willingness to accept anything as fact, especially if it appeals to our own particular prejudices. This works in the opposite direction as well People are unwilling to accept what is obviously true. You can see this in the several threads about the storm Sandy. I get the feeling this place is just a bunch of disinformation artists talking to one another. Critical thinking has had it's day it appears.

reply to post by macman


The technology in 1969 was adequate for very effective use the AC-47 Spooky gunships .. It was the matter of being in violation of international law by being where they were and why..... The Benghazi situation appears to be of questionable legality to me... The two FORMER Navy Seals were hired from a private contractor in the UK and the place suggested to be a consulate has been described as being a CIA safe house...

Originally posted by hypervigilant
reply to post by macman

 

The technology in 1969 was adequate for very effective use the AC-47 Spooky gunships .. It was the matter of being in violation of international law by being where they were and why..... The Benghazi situation appears to be of questionable legality to me... The two FORMER Navy Seals were hired from a private contractor in the UK and the place suggested to be a consulate has been described as being a CIA safe house...

That may be an issue. MAY.
But, an attack on an Ambassador is an attack on a US figure that holds higher accountability and a different set of processes.
Also, the tech has made huge leaps and has a greater capability then 69.
Kind of like comparing NV from 69 to the GEN III stuff.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Just breaking now on Fox.........

This is new and Romney will have to confront BHO on this sometime within the next few days !

Note that the MSM seems to be on top it it finally............we shall see.

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG)

by FOXNEWS analyst Greta Van Susteren Posted in: Benghazi, CBS, Libya
Nov 1 2012 - 6:29 PM ET

Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack

By Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News “From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses.”

Link to more of the story -

Originally posted by Vitruvian

MORE BREAKING on Benghazi :

It just keeps going, and going and going.
New Details on Benghazi
Nov 1, 2012 4:19 PM EDT
Two U.S. officials tell Eli Lake that the State Department never requested military backup the night of the attack.
Opening paragraph(s)

On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast.
In its seventh week, discussion about what happened in Benghazi has begun to focus on why military teams in the region did not respond to the assault on the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex. The only security backup that did arrive that evening were former special-operations soldiers under the command of the CIA—one from the nearby annex and another Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli. On Friday, Fox News reported that requests from CIA officers for air support on the evening of the attacks were rejected. (The Daily Beast was not able to confirm that those requests were made, though no U.S. official contacted for this story directly refuted the claim either.)
It’s unlikely any outside military team could have arrived in Benghazi quickly enough to save Ambassador Chris Stevens or his colleague Sean Smith, both of whom died from smoke inhalation after a band of more than 100 men overran the U.S. mission at around 9:30 p.m. that evening and set the buildings inside ablaze.

But military backup may have made a difference at around five the following morning, when a second wave of attackers assaulted the CIA annex where embassy personnel had taken refuge. It was during this second wave of attacks that two ex-SEALs working for the CIA’s security teams—Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods—were killed in a mortar strike.