Why would Obama issue an order to Stand Down?

On November 9, 1979 our embassy in Tehran was over run in support of the Iranian Revolution. 52 Americans were held for 444 days while Carter attempted to negotiate the release of the hostages. On April 24, 1980 he ordered operation Eagle Claw to rescue the hostages. This resulted in the death of 8 American Servicemen and the destruction of two helicopters in the desert. It was a failed mission and Carter was seen as totally incompetent. He could neither negotiate nor rescue the Americans held hostage.

On November 21, 2007 Obama stated he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to America's relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim. Obama led the U.S. to believe that Muslim hostility would cease if he were elected President. During his time in office, there has been Muslim violence all over the world. To be fair, the Muslim violence started prior to his taking office but certainly did not diminish after he took office.

If Obama did issue the order to Stand Down, there would possibly be two reasons why he would have chosen this alternative. First, he did not want a failed rescue mission to reflect on his presidency as it did Carter’s. For you that don’t know or remember history it was a death sentence for Carter’s re-election.

The second reason is that Carter failed in his negotiations to free the hostages. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the day after the signing of the Algerian Accords, a deal brokered by Algeria between America and Iran, just minutes after American president Ronald Regan took the Oath of Office.

Obama believes himself to be a great orator and negotiator. I think Obama believed this would be a great opportunity for him to negotiate the release of the 30 people in the embassy compound without risking a mission that failed like Eagle Claw.

The problem is that Obama doesn’t realize that not all of the Muslim world respects nor admires him. I don’t think that he could believe that the hostages would be murdered. I believe his order, if given, to stand down, would give him the opportunity to display his talents as a negotiator and achieve the release of the hostages…since he understands them.

Of course this is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

reply to post by Nite_wing


Without anything coming from the White House, your reasoning is very valid.

SnF

Stevens was marked for death because he procured the 9 megaton nuclear bomb that was detonated at the bottom of the ocean, near Japan on March 11, 2011. Obama knew this so he told his people to stand down. Stevens was just a gun runner for the CIA. Too bad about the collateral damage.

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Stevens was marked for death because he procured the 9 megaton nuclear bomb that was detonated at the bottom of the ocean, near Japan on March 11, 2011.

As a guy that often shakes his head at the wonderment that comes out of Romney Supporters mouths.
I say this is about Par for the Course.

reply to post by Nite_wing


There's a reason Carter 'failed' negotiating in the Iran Hostage crisis. Reagan or his cronies engineered it. Arms to the Revolutionaries were promised if Reagan won the Presidency, in exchange for the hostages. The Ayatollah, after that promise (made in secret of course), vetoed every single offer Carter made because he wanted those weapons for his revolution.

Similarly Nixon defeated Humphrey by making the Democrats look bad through a secret promise to the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with him in office. Scheduled Peace Talks that were expected to end the war resulted in South Vietnam not showing up to the table. Nixon of course won and the war continued for another 4 years

Both acts of treason. One has to wonder what the GOP is breathing so hard about with Benghazi. This is becoming text book GOP sabotage.

Yep, you break it down well. Obama had a few options/outcomes:

1. Grieve over our fallen men and women, bury truth, call the naysayers out for 'playing politics.' Nation rallies.
2. Masterfully negotiate the hostages out of harms way, call the naysayers out for playing politics. Nation rallies.
3. Rescue the 4 men, good story, but no dead Bin Ladens or anything.
4. Rescue mission fails, he's on the hook.

I'm always one to believe the official story and the reality will by their nature diverge, but I just keep thinking there's a heck of a lot easier ways to off somebody if that were the goal. It's so routine it's practically an industry unto itself. So if Stevens was the target, why go to such lengths to remove him?

reply to post by Kali74


That was ancient history.

Let's talk about current history

reply to post by Nite_wing


Umm, you brought up the Iran Hostage Crisis in your OP.

I'm perfectly on topic.

reply to post by Kali74


I'm talking Iran. You are talking Viet Nam.

reply to post by Nite_wing


I talked about Iran as well.
I supported it with Nixon and Vietnam.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

There's a reason Carter 'failed' negotiating in the Iran Hostage crisis. Reagan or his cronies engineered it. Arms to the Revolutionaries were promised if Reagan won the Presidency, in exchange for the hostages. The Ayatollah, after that promise (made in secret of course), vetoed every single offer Carter made because he wanted those weapons for his revolution.

Similarly Nixon defeated Humphrey by making the Democrats look bad through a secret promise to the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with him in office. Scheduled Peace Talks that were expected to end the war resulted in South Vietnam not showing up to the table. Nixon of course won and the war continued for another 4 years

Both acts of treason. One has to wonder what the GOP is breathing so hard about with Benghazi. This is becoming text book GOP sabotage.

You know I have wondered about when Romney came out and made that misguided speech only minutes after the reports of an attack and it was later put out by Romney’s staff that they had all met discussed and came to a unanimous decision to make that speech. It was like they were waiting for something to happen because the timeline doesn’t add up for all of that to happen. That would explain why Romney was so far off the mark with his speech based on the available Intel that had been released.

I always remember Romney’s team is comprised of some of the same people involved with the Iran Contra.

You are making sense to me.

reply to post by Grimpachi


And funny too how Romney hasn't said a word since the second debate. I'm wondering if it might have something to do with an ONGOING investigation and manhunt for those responsible.

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — The Tunisian government has confirmed it has arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian reportedly linked to the U.S. consulate attack in Libya.

Tunisian Interior Ministry spokesman Tarrouch Khaled said Wednesday that Ali Harzi was in custody in Tunis. Khaled tells The Associated Press ‘‘his case is in the hands of justice.’’ He did not elaborate.

In Washington, the State Department had no comment. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. has been looking into the arrests of two Tunisian men being detained in Turkey reportedly in connection with attacks on a consulate in Libya last month.

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in the Libyan capital of Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Boston Globe

To address the title of the OP which I have to say is misleading to my eyes based on what was written.

I know that there were two Generals as advisors with the president during the attacks and they have come out and said they were not willing to send in more Americans with the available Intel they were receiving. So if Obama did issue a stand own order instead of having one of those Generals give it. I would assume it would be based off of what his military advisors were saying.

After I read through what happened with the conflicting reports coming in I can only think how much worse it could have been if we had sent in soldiers blindly. I can imagine it being another Battle of Mogadishu. Same environment less Intel and same local temperament with a similar mission.

reply to post by Grimpachi


This is exactly what I was thinking last night when I was reading the account in Time.

I kept thinking, "This could have turned into another 'Black Hawk Down' situation". In that event, we actually had troops being drug behind cars on TV.

I think Obama didn't want to risk more lives and have things end up being WORSE. We already had local militia support, Seals brought in from Tripoli, and the Ambasador's own security detail.

The "fog of war" is a very real phenomenon, and blindly jumping into a hornets nets of insurgent activity probably would have ended badly and made the Whitehouse look even worse.

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Stevens was marked for death because he procured the 9 megaton nuclear bomb that was detonated at the bottom of the ocean, near Japan on March 11, 2011. Obama knew this so he told his people to stand down. Stevens was just a gun runner for the CIA. Too bad about the collateral damage.

rollsthepaul
Please provide us with more info/detais as to how Stevens might have been involved with the A-Bomb that you are referring to - thank you.

In light of those comments this would be also a good time to reprise some of the details of the Minot to Barksedale missing A-Bomb incident. Let's speculate more on your initial speculation and then let us suppose that the source of the bomb to which you refer had something to do with the Minot to Barksedale missing A-Bomb incident.

Please consider the following: The only time military personnel put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site... Barksdale Air Force Base was being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations? Someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes - now that is something else. Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride... Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration was staging nukes for Iran or even possibly for some future purpose?

Six (Leave from Minot) Minus Five (Arrive at Barksdale) Equals: ONE MISSING NUCLEAR BOMB

The real question in my mind was why that compound was under-secured in the first place. Why were requests for additional security ignored to the degree they were, especially after the British consulate left the area as well as the Red Cross. It was just too dangerous, and a bell should have gone off in the minds of those in this administration that with Nine Eleven approaching, perhaps SOMETHING should be done.....at least put us on ALERT status. He did NOTHING.

Your question as to why he would issue an order to Stand Down is valid, but he is not talking. Why?

Information has been released showing that Ambassador Stevens practically begged for more security less than a month before the attack and that Al-Qaida and their affiliates were on the increase. They were ignored.l

The call to defend a surprise attack on an Embassy
may not go immediately to the President. I think we have commanders
on the ground to make that decision. Imagine how many calls he'd get for
IED's and truck bombs. They aint got time for that.
So who made the stand down decision?
Remember on 911 we had been hit on our soil for over an hour and the call
"allegedly" to Stand down was made by Cheney, the VP.

IF there was an actual order to stand down, then perhaps it was because you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing exactly you are dealing with. Without knowing, then sending in support may have resulted in another Mogadishu-like firefight (Blackhawk Down) and cost even more lives.

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Stevens was marked for death because he procured the 9 megaton nuclear bomb that was detonated at the bottom of the ocean, near Japan on March 11, 2011. Obama knew this so he told his people to stand down. Stevens was just a gun runner for the CIA. Too bad about the collateral damage.

I did find this though in answer to my own question --> HERE But how reliable is Ben Fulford ???

rollsthepaul
Please provide us with more info/detais as to how Stevens might have been involved with the A-Bomb that you are referring to - thank you.

The murder of CIA “ambassador” Stevens in Libya, was a part of the ongoing battle. According to the gnostic illuminati, Stevens was murdered because of his role in smuggling the nuclear weapon into Japan that was used in the 311 tsunami and nuclear terror attack…

…It is true that there is a resemblance between the Stevens who was implicated in the nuclear attack on Japan and the one killed in Libya. However, the Stevens in Asia was supposed to be a British SAS trained former senior Hong Kong police official while the Stevens in Libya was CIA.

There is a deliberate fog of disinformation surrounding this death but what is clear from public statements is that the Obama faction failed to protect him and the Bush faction are furious about this fact. It is also well known that there was no US embassy in Benghazi and that Stevens was involved in some sort of violence related clandestine work.