Quantcast

FLAG OFFICERS CASHIERED FOR REFUSING TO STAND DOWN ON BENGHAZI MILITARY RESCUE ATTEMPT!

Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/10/30 03:44:57
Click on link and be prepared to become very angry.It seems that several high-ranking military leaders refused to 'stand down' when asked to not to respond to cries for help from the SEALS defending the American Consulate in Bengazi.And for these officers refusing to stop launching rescue efforts.These officers were 'relieved on the spot' from higher ups at the Pentagon!

http://www.markmatter.com/2012/10/flag-officers-cashiered-for...
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/10/30 11:03:32
  • ReconMa... Stevern... 2012/10/30 18:35:46
  • Stevern... ReconMa... 2012/10/31 03:50:11
    Steverno~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I'm glad to share this blog with you and others.This info needs to come out!
  • ReconMa... Stevern... 2012/11/05 20:05:12
  • Rusty Bubbles 2012/10/30 10:27:01
    Rusty Bubbles
    +20
    One scenario has Stevens being set up to be kidnapped, only to be rescued a month later by one of the military special operation units that Obama would take full credit for..... Just before the elections.

    The snafu occurred when the navy seals, who were told to "stand down", disobeyed the order and tried to fight off the attackers as best they could, until they were simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers This is what caused the plan to go completely wrong resulting in Stevens being killed

    Is this what really happened?.....who knows, but this needs to be investigated until the end, these murdered Americans deserve nothing less
  • MR. 2012/10/30 10:20:32
    MR.
    +16
    "We salute you".
  • Sheila MR. 2012/10/30 14:24:52
    Sheila
    +9
    And here is the new salute for Obama-- Exactly what he deserves. salute while flipping bird
  • Rusty B... Sheila 2012/10/30 21:08:45
    Rusty Bubbles
    +1
    Me and Obama are just like this:


    crossed fingers




    This one is me:


    index finger
  • Drew~PWCM~JLA~ 2012/10/30 08:57:21
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +15
    The Jr Officers that made them stand down also need to be castigated beyond redemption!
  • Ron in ... Drew~PW... 2012/10/30 20:37:29
    Ron in Oregon
    +3
    Castigated...no way....castrated.....YES.
  • Informed Voter 2012/10/30 08:54:44
    Informed Voter
    +24
    Obama has proven himself not only "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible," but TREASONOUS!
  • Kaleoku... Informe... 2012/10/31 18:52:53
    Kaleokualoha
    You have been misled. General Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander (see http://www.africom.mil ). Further, there is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied, either through the CIA or any other channel. This appears to be a complete fabrication, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. In fact, there were there were NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

    From ARMYTIMES.COM:

    [QUOTE]
    SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday. In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

    "(T...















    You have been misled. General Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander (see http://www.africom.mil ). Further, there is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied, either through the CIA or any other channel. This appears to be a complete fabrication, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. In fact, there were there were NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

    From ARMYTIMES.COM:

    [QUOTE]
    SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday. In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

    "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    In a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether the White House considered military options during or immediately after the attack, and he questioned what the president knew about the security threats in the country. He said that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.
    "Can you explain what options were presented to you or your staff, and why it appears assets were not allowed to be pre-positioned, let alone utilized? If these reports are accurate, the artificial constraint on the range of options at your disposal would be deeply troubling," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote.

    U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which has become a heated campaign issue less than two weeks before the election. Republicans have criticized the Obama administration's failure to more quickly acknowledge that intelligence suggested very early on that it was a planned terrorist attack, rather than spontaneous violence erupting out of protests over an anti-Muslim film.

    House and Senate Republicans as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have criticized President Barack Obama and administration officials over the response to the attack and whether officials failed to provide enough security at the consulate. And there have been ongoing questions about whether there should have been additional military forces sent to the consulate immediately after it became clear that the Americans were under attack.

    As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began. Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign country — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.

    During his news conference, Panetta lamented the "Monday morning quarterbacking" that has been going on about how the U.S. handled the attack. And Dempsey, sitting alongside Panetta, bristled at questions about what the military did or did not do in the aftermath. Noting that there are reviews already going on, Dempsey added, "It's not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers. I can tell you, however, sitting here today, that I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation."

    Military officials have noted that there had been no specific intelligence pointing to a possible attack in Libya, and that there were protests and other unrest in various locations around the Middle East and Africa. Asked whether the military was on alert in that area because of 9/11, Dempsey added, "Yeah, and let me point out, it was — it was 9/11 everywhere in the world." The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced it will hold a closed hearing Nov. 15 into the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, and additional hearings will follow.
    [END QUOTE http://www.armytimes.com/news... ]

    To reiterate: "But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began."
    (more)
  • Informe... Kaleoku... 2012/10/31 20:07:26 (edited)
    Informed Voter
    YOU have been misled!

    WHY did the president on 9/12 in the rose garden say it was JUST an attack then head off to a campaign fund raiser shortly afterward?

    WHY did HE authorize UN Secretary Rice to LIE to the American people and say the attack was due to some video that NO ONE saw?

    WHY did MSNBC continue to echo that same song?



    WHY were the military WHO ASKED FOR INSTRUCTIONS and PERMISSION TO ACT ORDERED TO STAND DOWN?
  • Kaleoku... Informe... 2012/10/31 20:29:49 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    1. "WHY did the president on 9/12 in the rose garden say it was JUST an attack then head off to a campaign fund raiser shortly afterward?"

    He did not say it was "just an attack." It is a FACT that President Obama called the murders "acts of terror" the day after the attack (September 12), in his "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya" (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

    On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

    "White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20: "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was fou...





















    1. "WHY did the president on 9/12 in the rose garden say it was JUST an attack then head off to a campaign fund raiser shortly afterward?"

    He did not say it was "just an attack." It is a FACT that President Obama called the murders "acts of terror" the day after the attack (September 12), in his "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya" (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

    On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

    "White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20: "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

    Claiming that the President meant anything other than what he SAYS he meant in his September 12 speech, especially when the point of contention was explicitly listed as the SUBJECT of that speech, is disingenuous at best! Any such claim is arrogant and reflects poorly upon the intellectual honesty of ANY American. Such specious speculation is without merit and may be dismissed with impunity.

    2. "WHY did HE authorize UN Secretary Rice to LIE to the American people and say the attack was due to some video that NO ONE saw?"

    It is a fact that there were anti-video demonstrations in TWENTY countries, which obviously means that your "no one say" comment is false. Further, It is a FACT that initial intelligence reports, echoed by the Obama administration, indicated that the attack was predicated upon demonstrations:

    [QUOTE]
    Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.

    The talking points say, among other things, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

    In addition, the briefing says this “assessment may change as additional information is collected” and that the “investigation is on-going.”

    The theory that the attacks were spontaneous was echoed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Sept. 14, just three days after the attacks, and again on Sept. 16 by Ambassador Rice. On Sept. 18, Carney said, “Based on information that we—our initial information, and that includes all information—we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack.”
    [END QUOTE http://www.thedailybeast.com/... ]

    3. "WHY were the military WHO ASKED FOR INSTRUCTIONS and PERMISSION TO ACT ORDERED TO STAND DOWN?

    Problems with reading comprehension? Once again: There is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied, either through the CIA or any other channel. This appears to be a complete fabrication, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. In fact, there were there were NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

    Thanks for asking!
    (more)
  • Informe... Kaleoku... 2012/10/31 21:08:55
    Informed Voter
    FACT he did NOT call the murders, an "act of terror."

    SHOW ME!

    Here's the transcript of what he said:

    OBAMA: Good morning.

    Every day all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

    Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.

    And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

    The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

    Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

    But there is absolutely ...























    FACT he did NOT call the murders, an "act of terror."

    SHOW ME!

    Here's the transcript of what he said:

    OBAMA: Good morning.

    Every day all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

    Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.

    And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

    The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

    Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

    But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had tied.

    It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage and resolve he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.

    When the Qaddafi regime came to an end Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy. And I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.

    He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

    Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. As (ph) today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.

    I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who loved them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror (the ONLY place he used the word terror, but NOT in direct connection with this attack, get it?) will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

    Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

    We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory and let us continue their work in seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

    Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.

    Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politi...
    (more)
  • Kaleoku... Informe... 2012/10/31 21:18:38
    Kaleokualoha
    Problems with reading comprehension? The subject of his speech was "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya."

    When he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

    He mentioned the four deaths in the sentence immediately following the one containing "acts of terror"!

    Once again: "Claiming that the President meant anything other than what he SAYS he meant in his September 12 speech, especially when the point of contention was explicitly listed as the SUBJECT of that speech, is disingenuous at best! Any such claim is arrogant and reflects poorly upon the intellectual honesty of ANY American. Such specious speculation is without merit and may be dismissed with impunity."

    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Informe... Kaleoku... 2012/10/31 21:37:53
    Informed Voter
    Problem is yours!

    And right after Obama's alleged definition of "terror attack" he went on Letterman and the view and blamed it on a video. Or don't you recall UN Amb Rice going on several TV shows saying the attack was spontaneous?
    Sorry, but THINKING PEOPLE don't buy it!

    "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Kaleoku... Informe... 2012/11/01 02:20:44
    Kaleokualoha
    Blaming it on video and saying it was a terrorist attack are not inconsistent. This terrorist attack was sparked by the video.

    1. It is a FACT that the insulting video sparked the terrorist attack:
    [QUOTE]
    The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.
    …[I]n in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.
    [END QUOTE http://www.latimes.com/news/n... ]

    Even Fox News is now admitting that the video may have sparked the attack (see http://www.sodahead.com/unite... )

    The demonstration in Cairo predated the Benghazi attack. There have been protests in twenty countries (see http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17... ). Here is a timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/new...

    Also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

    2. It is a FACT that the attack was an act of terrorism: ANY unlawful violence for political purposes may be considered "terrorism" regardless of whether or not they were preceded by demonstrations:

    "Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal R...














    Blaming it on video and saying it was a terrorist attack are not inconsistent. This terrorist attack was sparked by the video.

    1. It is a FACT that the insulting video sparked the terrorist attack:
    [QUOTE]
    The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.
    …[I]n in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.
    [END QUOTE http://www.latimes.com/news/n... ]

    Even Fox News is now admitting that the video may have sparked the attack (see http://www.sodahead.com/unite... )

    The demonstration in Cairo predated the Benghazi attack. There have been protests in twenty countries (see http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17... ). Here is a timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/new...

    Also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

    2. It is a FACT that the attack was an act of terrorism: ANY unlawful violence for political purposes may be considered "terrorism" regardless of whether or not they were preceded by demonstrations:

    "Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)." http://www.fbi.gov/stats-serv...


    3. It is a FACT that initial intelligence reports, echoed by the Obama administration, indicated that the attack was predicated upon demonstrations:

    [QUOTE]
    Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.

    The talking points say, among other things, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

    In addition, the briefing says this “assessment may change as additional information is collected” and that the “investigation is on-going.”

    The theory that the attacks were spontaneous was echoed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Sept. 14, just three days after the attacks, and again on Sept. 16 by Ambassador Rice. On Sept. 18, Carney said, “Based on information that we—our initial information, and that includes all information—we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack.”
    [END QUOTE http://www.thedailybeast.com/... ]

    Also see http://abcnews.go.com/politic...
    (more)
  • Informe... Kaleoku... 2012/11/01 08:59:13
    Informed Voter
    +1
    What dream land do YOU live in?

    The narrative was NOT "terrorist attack" or he would have called it such!
    It couldn't POSSIBLY be an anything other than simply "senseless violence" because according to the Democrat Convention speeches, "Al Qaeda is on the run ever since "Obama killed bin Laden." (or don't you remember him taking resonsibility for that?)

    1) Re-read HIS statement: not ONCE did he call THIS SPECIFIC attack a terrorist act.
    2) The "video" excuse was to rationalize the fantasy that this act of "senseless violence" was "spontaneous" and due exclusively because of the video (even though REAL TIME information proved otherwise!

    Sorry, but this president lied!

    "The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About
    Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment. (The Wall Street Journal)

    Today, the issue is not so much the withholding of information as the denial of the obvious: The stubborn insistence by top Obama administration officials on an interpretation of events starkly at odds with the plainly correct conclusion of terrorism. When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally acknowledged that the terrorism conclusion was "self-evident" after he had spent the previous eight days pressing a wholly different account of events, Mr....
    What dream land do YOU live in?

    The narrative was NOT "terrorist attack" or he would have called it such!
    It couldn't POSSIBLY be an anything other than simply "senseless violence" because according to the Democrat Convention speeches, "Al Qaeda is on the run ever since "Obama killed bin Laden." (or don't you remember him taking resonsibility for that?)

    1) Re-read HIS statement: not ONCE did he call THIS SPECIFIC attack a terrorist act.
    2) The "video" excuse was to rationalize the fantasy that this act of "senseless violence" was "spontaneous" and due exclusively because of the video (even though REAL TIME information proved otherwise!

    Sorry, but this president lied!

    "The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About
    Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment. (The Wall Street Journal)

    Today, the issue is not so much the withholding of information as the denial of the obvious: The stubborn insistence by top Obama administration officials on an interpretation of events starkly at odds with the plainly correct conclusion of terrorism. When White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally acknowledged that the terrorism conclusion was "self-evident" after he had spent the previous eight days pressing a wholly different account of events, Mr. Carney's admission carried strong echoes of Nixon-era Press Secretary Ron Ziegler declaring that his earlier Watergate statements were "inoperative." "
    Source: http://online.wsj.com/article...
    (more)
  • Kaleoku... Informe... 2012/11/01 18:05:36
    Kaleokualoha
    It is a FACT that President Obama called the murders "acts of terror" the day after the attack (September 12), in his "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya" (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

    On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

    "White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20: "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

    Claiming that the President meant anything other than what he SAYS he meant in his September 12 speech, especially when the point of contention was ...
    It is a FACT that President Obama called the murders "acts of terror" the day after the attack (September 12), in his "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya" (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the... )

    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

    On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. He then added, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

    "White House spokesman Jay Carney sought to clear up any confusion on September 20: "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

    Claiming that the President meant anything other than what he SAYS he meant in his September 12 speech, especially when the point of contention was explicitly listed as the SUBJECT of that speech, is disingenuous at best! Any such claim is arrogant and reflects poorly upon the intellectual honesty of ANY American. Such specious speculation is without merit and may be dismissed with impunity.
    (more)
  • Informe... Kaleoku... 2012/11/01 20:06:02
    Informed Voter
    +1
    It's a FACT Obama blamed the attack on "spontaneous not a premeditated" attack because of a video no one saw... just days later!

    GET your story straight!





  • Dwight PWCM 2012/10/30 08:54:12
    Dwight PWCM
    +16
    If this rumor is true, then the Cain of Command was within their legal rights to relieve both officers, but that leaves open the question of Why the Stand Down order was given.

    IMO, instead of stopping a possible Failed Op from taking place, the Administration has created a new problem for the President.

    Who made the call, and why were two carrier Flag offocers convinced of the wrongness of the Stand Down order enough to disobey it.

    Only a Board of Inquirery will be able to answer these questions.
  • Drew~PW... Dwight ... 2012/10/30 09:01:28
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +16
    One was the AfroCom officer and on the ground. Would have been less than 1 hr before help could have arrived and the situation fixed. Instead they watched on TV for a full 7 hrs. Our men died due to the stand down order.
  • Maria Drew~PW... 2012/10/30 16:05:50
    Maria
    +4
    7 hrs is like more than movie they do nothing but sit and watch just to make sure they are officially our America 4 guys dead...they didn't bother to send help right away...
  • Drew~PW... Maria 2012/10/30 19:55:02
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +3
    Exactly.
  • Dwight ... Drew~PW... 2012/11/01 00:11:38
    Dwight PWCM
    +2
    The hole the Administration & organs have dug gets deeper daily. It may be a while before all details come out, but I think this is the October Suprise Obama never counted on.

    Details are coming out regular because the Intelligence Agencys & Mil/Int are having none of it.
  • Drew~PW... Dwight ... 2012/11/01 07:26:08
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +2
    He is toast. ;)
  • Dwight ... Drew~PW... 2012/11/01 08:31:04
  • Drew~PW... Dwight ... 2012/11/01 09:01:21
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +1
    LOL! ;)
  • Thor American EXPAT n New G... 2012/10/30 06:51:33
    Thor American EXPAT n New Guinea
    +19
    All American officers that refused or did not come to the aid of AMERICANS being attacked in a foreign country need to be tried for violating the trust to Uphold and DEFEND the Constitution of the UNITED STATES and her citizens. Those AMERICANS being attacked were their employers and have every right to expect their nations military to DO THEIR DUTY.
  • Drew~PW... Thor Am... 2012/10/30 09:03:20
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    +17
    That includs Obama for issuing the stand down orders and he needs TREASON charges to be implemented against him.
  • Maria Drew~PW... 2012/10/30 16:07:02
    Maria
    +4
    Obama is worst ever than Nixon...and Nixon impeached and why can't Obama impeach right away...
  • Grandpa Thor Am... 2012/10/30 14:38:46 (edited)
    Grandpa
    +4
    You can start with General David Rodriguez and his buddies PAXTON and DUNFORD who sold out honor and those AMERICANS who needed thier help for a RAISE IN PAY AND RANK >>. Was it worth it guys ???/ Your promotion was on the bodies of A dead Ambassador and 3 fellow AMERICANS >>. Guess thats the way to get ahead in todays Military service >>. Join up and your comanders will throw you to the wolfs for a promotion >> Don't come up with that following orders CRAP >> You don't sell out your fellow AMERICANS to get promoted >>.I hope our next president will remember those who sold out our country >>>. Vote wise in 2012
  • AL 2012/10/30 06:24:39
    AL
    +14
    The more I hear about this, the more discussed i get with our incompetent Commander in Chief!
  • redhorse29 2012/10/30 05:56:45
    redhorse29
    +16
    This is a story I can believe. Obama firing senior military officers that defied his orders to let the embassy personnel die.
  • Rodney 2012/10/30 05:37:30
    Rodney
    +18
    I have heard this from other sources too. If it is fact, I am sure Gen. Ham will be stepping forward to speak his piece.
  • Kaleoku... Rodney 2012/10/31 18:53:08
    Kaleokualoha
    You have been misled. General Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander (see http://www.africom.mil ). Further, there is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied, either through the CIA or any other channel. This appears to be a complete fabrication, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. In fact, there were there were NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

    From ARMYTIMES.COM:

    [QUOTE]
    SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday. In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

    "(T...















    You have been misled. General Ham is still the AFRICOM Commander (see http://www.africom.mil ). Further, there is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied, either through the CIA or any other channel. This appears to be a complete fabrication, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. In fact, there were there were NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.

    From ARMYTIMES.COM:

    [QUOTE]
    SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday. In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

    "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    In a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether the White House considered military options during or immediately after the attack, and he questioned what the president knew about the security threats in the country. He said that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.
    "Can you explain what options were presented to you or your staff, and why it appears assets were not allowed to be pre-positioned, let alone utilized? If these reports are accurate, the artificial constraint on the range of options at your disposal would be deeply troubling," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote.

    U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which has become a heated campaign issue less than two weeks before the election. Republicans have criticized the Obama administration's failure to more quickly acknowledge that intelligence suggested very early on that it was a planned terrorist attack, rather than spontaneous violence erupting out of protests over an anti-Muslim film.

    House and Senate Republicans as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have criticized President Barack Obama and administration officials over the response to the attack and whether officials failed to provide enough security at the consulate. And there have been ongoing questions about whether there should have been additional military forces sent to the consulate immediately after it became clear that the Americans were under attack.

    As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began. Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign country — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.

    During his news conference, Panetta lamented the "Monday morning quarterbacking" that has been going on about how the U.S. handled the attack. And Dempsey, sitting alongside Panetta, bristled at questions about what the military did or did not do in the aftermath. Noting that there are reviews already going on, Dempsey added, "It's not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers. I can tell you, however, sitting here today, that I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation."

    Military officials have noted that there had been no specific intelligence pointing to a possible attack in Libya, and that there were protests and other unrest in various locations around the Middle East and Africa. Asked whether the military was on alert in that area because of 9/11, Dempsey added, "Yeah, and let me point out, it was — it was 9/11 everywhere in the world." The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced it will hold a closed hearing Nov. 15 into the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, and additional hearings will follow.
    [END QUOTE http://www.armytimes.com/news... ]

    To reiterate: "But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began."
    (more)
  • Rodney Kaleoku... 2012/10/31 23:18:49
    Rodney
    +1
    That is all spin. They had eyes in the sky relaying in REAL TIME what was happening AND they knew that the guys on the ground had the Mortar nest Lazar marked for any missile targeting from plane or drone.

    You are being suckered in by the politics of misdirection, lies and coverup.
  • Kaleoku... Rodney 2012/11/01 02:24:10
    Kaleokualoha
    What "guys on the ground? The civilian ex-SEAL contractors working as Embassy security? FYI: Close Air Support requires more than a guy with a laser. It requires a coordinated effort from a Forward Air Controller.

    [QUOTE]
    Close air support, or CAS as it is known, is an aerial attack mission flown against enemy ground forces that are close enough to friendly forces to require detailed coordination before commencing the attack. When supporting the fluid, violent world of ground combat, the flier must confirm the target with some on-site observer or risk shooting the wrong people. Though noncombatants and other friendly groups aren't usually included in the official definition of "enemy," they face the same risk if they're in the battle area.
    [END QUOTE http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/b... ]

    There is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied (either through the CIA or any other channel), that anyone in the Obama administration watched live video feeds from the drones, that the Ambassador was raped (he was dressed and died of smoke inhalation and had no physical trauma, according to the examining physician at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0... ), or that AFRICOM Commander General Ham was replaced (see http://www.africom.mil ). These appear to be complete fabrications, s...





















































    What "guys on the ground? The civilian ex-SEAL contractors working as Embassy security? FYI: Close Air Support requires more than a guy with a laser. It requires a coordinated effort from a Forward Air Controller.

    [QUOTE]
    Close air support, or CAS as it is known, is an aerial attack mission flown against enemy ground forces that are close enough to friendly forces to require detailed coordination before commencing the attack. When supporting the fluid, violent world of ground combat, the flier must confirm the target with some on-site observer or risk shooting the wrong people. Though noncombatants and other friendly groups aren't usually included in the official definition of "enemy," they face the same risk if they're in the battle area.
    [END QUOTE http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/b... ]

    There is no evidence that ANY requests for assistance were denied (either through the CIA or any other channel), that anyone in the Obama administration watched live video feeds from the drones, that the Ambassador was raped (he was dressed and died of smoke inhalation and had no physical trauma, according to the examining physician at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0... ), or that AFRICOM Commander General Ham was replaced (see http://www.africom.mil ). These appear to be complete fabrications, similar to the "mobile weapons lab" fabrication from "Curveball" that led to the Iraq Invasion. Such propaganda is par for the course in the Conservative Disinformation Network!

    In fact, according to this ARMYTIMES article, there were "NO American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began."

    [QUOTE]
    SecDef: Lack of info hampered Benghazi response By Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Oct 25, 2012 17:18:46 EDT

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday. In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.

    "(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." Panetta was referring to Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    In a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether the White House considered military options during or immediately after the attack, and he questioned what the president knew about the security threats in the country. He said that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration's response to the attack.
    "Can you explain what options were presented to you or your staff, and why it appears assets were not allowed to be pre-positioned, let alone utilized? If these reports are accurate, the artificial constraint on the range of options at your disposal would be deeply troubling," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote.

    U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which has become a heated campaign issue less than two weeks before the election. Republicans have criticized the Obama administration's failure to more quickly acknowledge that intelligence suggested very early on that it was a planned terrorist attack, rather than spontaneous violence erupting out of protests over an anti-Muslim film.

    House and Senate Republicans as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have criticized President Barack Obama and administration officials over the response to the attack and whether officials failed to provide enough security at the consulate. And there have been ongoing questions about whether there should have been additional military forces sent to the consulate immediately after it became clear that the Americans were under attack.

    As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began. Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign country — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.

    During his news conference, Panetta lamented the "Monday morning quarterbacking" that has been going on about how the U.S. handled the attack. And Dempsey, sitting alongside Panetta, bristled at questions about what the military did or did not do in the aftermath. Noting that there are reviews already going on, Dempsey added, "It's not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers. I can tell you, however, sitting here today, that I feel confident that our forces were alert and responsive to what was a very fluid situation."

    Military officials have noted that there had been no specific intelligence pointing to a possible attack in Libya, and that there were protests and other unrest in various locations around the Middle East and Africa. Asked whether the military was on alert in that area because of 9/11, Dempsey added, "Yeah, and let me point out, it was — it was 9/11 everywhere in the world." The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced it will hold a closed hearing Nov. 15 into the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, and additional hearings will follow.
    [END QUOTE http://www.armytimes.com/news... ]

    To reiterate: "But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began."

    The myth that the CIA denied backup has been debunked:

    [QUOTE]
    CIA Denies Calling Off Backup in Benghazi
    Reuters
    Oct 26, 2012

    In response to a Fox News story claiming CIA operatives in Benghazi were prevented from aiding U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens during his time of need, the CIA says it never instructed any of its personnel from helping the four Americans who died on Sept. 11. In an e-mailed statement, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood says "no one at any level in the CIA" told operatives at a local CIA annex in Benghazi not to help Amb. Stevens:

    "We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

    The blanket statement is in response to a range of allegations brought up by Fox News's national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin. Among the allegations, Griffin said "sources who were on the ground in Benghazi" said CIA operatives about a mile away from Amb. Stevens' compound were told twice to "stand down" after hearing gunshots during the night of the assault. (The gunshots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m.) Additionally, Griffin's report says that former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods disobeyed orders to "stand down" and rushed to the U.S. compound housing Amb. Stevens alongside at least two other personnel. After receiving fire from militants near the compound, the team reportedly evacuated everyone they could find and returned to the CIA annex to call for more backup. "At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied," reported Griffin. There are a number of details in Griffin's story that will likely raise more questions, such as an extended account of a security officer manning a "heavy machine gun" on the roof of the CIA annex who couldn't receive assistance from higher ups. For now, the CIA isn't saying no one was ever prevented from assisting the U.S. compound but it is vowing that the agency itself never played a role in denying those requests.
    [END QUOTE http://www.theatlanticwire.co... ]

    The myth that the White House denied backup has also been debunked

    [QUOTE
    The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
    "Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
    [END QUOTE http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/t... ]

    You have apparently been misled by anti-Obama propaganda, just like Americans were misled by anti-Iraq propaganda in 2002 (e.g., Curveball's bogus "mobile weapons labs"), and Germans were misled by anti-Semitic propaganda (e.g., the bogus "Protocols of the Elders of Zion") in the 1930's.

    Just as most victims of these earlier disinformation campaigns eventually recognized that they had been fooled, so too will most victims of the Benghazi disinformation campaign everntually recognize that THEY had been fooled.

    Professional propagandists know that they cannot deceive their audience indefinitely, But they don't have to. They only need to deceive long enough to meet their specific goals. Propaganda Minister Goebbels only needed public support long enough to set the Holocaust in motion. The Bush administration only needed public support long enough to invade Iraq. Conservatives today only need public support long enough to defeat President Obama. With the continuing support of enough useful idiots, they may succeed!

    Perhaps if you relied on reputable news sources rather than virtual tabloids, you would have more accurate information.
    (more)
  • Rodney Kaleoku... 2012/11/01 02:38:56
    Rodney
    +1
    You just stick to your misinformation and when the truth comes out, I will be happy to hear how you spin it then.

    It takes daylight and at least a full day to set up a mortar position. The British had pulled their people, the Red Cross had pulled their people, in June there was an attack on that same outlet that blew a hole in a wall big enough for 40 men to walk through. Ambassador Stevens requested additional security prior and with previous knowledge of the danger in Benghazi, he was ordered there anyway.
    Here's a chronicling of incidents in Libya against Foreign embassies since 2011,
    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 12:21:13

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals