The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 96
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    LOL, if your idea of read between the lines is make up stuff, then I suppose I could learn. How about the part where they said it is the policy not to interfere with the folks out there doing their job. Maybe, just maybe they had some confidence that what was happening there was the best and correct approach. Again, there are all kinds of reasons to let the CIA handle it. Perhaps you can read between the lines to figure out why this might be a good thing?
    Also--what exactly is wrong with the CIA sending help? Do you believe they're not qualified? What exactly is wrong with ONLY sending the CIA to help? Is it normal policy to call all the full brigade from every agency in a situation like this? I'm thinking it's not...

    And let me state again--I don't think that everything went just fine and dandy, and oh crap, how sad some people died but it happens. People definitely screwed up, and there are legitimate questions to be asked re: monitoring intelligence on the ground, communication with the ambassador and his staff, and the overall security and diplomatic strategy in Libya.

    But coverup? So far, there is NO evidence of one. The video DID spark protests at other embassies (and, not just U.S. embassies) as well as quite a bit of chatter on social media throughout the Muslim world that day and the rest of the week. There were elements in the crowd around the Benghazi diplomatic mission demonstrating against the video that night as well. So, it was entirely logical, given that full details weren't known yet, to assume that this situation was directly related to the video as well.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but demanding answers real time in an incident involving national security is just silly. There is a reason they don't disclose everything and this should be obvious to everyone. I for one do NOT want my government telling the world exactly what their strategy is at every moment.

    And using this incident as political fodder is just plain wrong. Offensive.

    A tragic event occured and there is NO evidence of wrongdoing by the administration. NONE.
    Yeah, can you say COVER UP!!


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
    Also--what exactly is wrong with the CIA sending help? Do you believe they're not qualified? What exactly is wrong with ONLY sending the CIA to help? Is it normal policy to call all the full brigade from every agency in a situation like this? I'm thinking it's not...
    And let me state again--I don't think that everything went just fine and dandy, and oh crap, how sad some people died but it happens. People definitely screwed up, and there are legitimate questions to be asked re: monitoring intelligence on the ground, communication with the ambassador and his staff, and the overall security and diplomatic strategy in Libya.

    But coverup? So far, there is NO evidence of one. The video DID spark protests at other embassies (and, not just U.S. embassies) as well as quite a bit of chatter on social media throughout the Muslim world that day and the rest of the week. There were elements in the crowd around the Benghazi diplomatic mission demonstrating against the video that night as well. So, it was entirely logical, given that full details weren't known yet, to assume that this situation was directly related to the video as well.
    The CIA is not the military. We do not "send the CIA" in to fight terrorists. Those people are called the Marines. Which by the way were within an hour or two of the Embassy.

    Those two guys who went to help were ex SEALS, and happened to be disobeying direct orders to stand down.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2007
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    I (as an Obama supporter) believe somebody at the State Dept. screwed up royally but naming that name would only make it appear they are just coming up with a scapegoat, so they're hoping it goes away until after the election. Nothing impeachable about that, unfortunate as it was.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Sunny59 (refering to an article saying the CIA rushed help to Bengazi) This article supports the point that the WH withheld sending help in the seven hour battle. Notice the sender of help was the CIA... not the Dept of Defense. (air force, navy, marines,etc ) or the state department.

    You might learn to read between the lines and what is NOT said. Look up the definition of "IS" Clinton salvaged his career with lawyer speech.
    Pulled this post from the other thread, another good article.

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Just in case an expert critique might add a little to the conversation.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...zi-expert-says



  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaintedHunter View Post
    what about Joe Scarborough and Wolf Blitzer? They aren't even just commentators but full-on HOSTS.

    Okay .. I don't watch tv news so thanks for the examples. The balance is still liberal POV as documented by Pew's research. see here ... Pew: MSNBC’s coverage of Romney more negative than Fox’s of Obama

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...foxs-of-obama/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    The CIA is not the military. We do not "send the CIA" in to fight terrorists. Those people are called the Marines. Which by the way were within an hour or two of the Embassy.

    Those two guys who went to help were ex SEALS, and happened to be disobeying direct orders to stand down.
    They were not obeying order to stand down. This has been DIRECTLY denied by the CIA.

    Also, here are some facts for you: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ttacks-110212/

    And, re: the military getting involved:

    The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops.



  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    9,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Those two guys who went to help were ex SEALS, and happened to be disobeying direct orders to stand down.
    Says some news reports - my understanding is there were not orders to "stand down" but to "sit tight" while they got everything together (coordinated people, supplies, etc)

    There's a difference there. I know people who hate obama would love to say he "told them not to help!" or something but from what I'm seeing that's not true. It's much more sensational and interesting to go with that story, for sure, but that doesn't make it true. I think there's a lot of perception vs. reality too - in the heat of the moment, someone who wants to go help RIGHT NOW is going to be frustrated if someone higher up says "wait a minute" while they get coordinated with other area resources. But I think that has turned into "the white house told them not to help and got people killed!" which is something altogether different (and rather disgusting, if you ask me).


    I understand that some of the guys wanted to go help right away, but some of what happened there was the result of being under-armed as they didn't have time to wait anymore for better weapons/support.

    That to me does not say "stand down" it says they were scrambling to get everything they needed to go in there - going off without any coordination and resources at all likely would have just ended even worse with more people dead.

    To me, the failings are those of setup. This was a center of violence in a violent place to begin with, with shaky new government and not entirely dependable local military/militia forces, many of whom were likely from different political poles (many disparate groups joined to fight gaddafi, after all), with people from different belief systems/groups indistinguishable. There should have been more military and air support nearby. In a perfect world there would have been less holdup while the teams got supplies and coordinated with those already on the ground (which should have been dependable security forces). Security should have had a much higher priority to begin with, with more military and resources in the immediate area. There's plenty of blame to go around here without making stuff up, IMO
    "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

    My CANTER blog.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
    They were not obeying order to stand down. This has been DIRECTLY denied by the CIA.

    Also, here are some facts for you: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ttacks-110212/

    And, re: the military getting involved:

    The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops.
    Natalie, that is the same link someone posted earlier, a Washington Post link, exact same story.

    However, they were told to STAND DOWN, told not to go from the annex to the consulate location. They went anyway.

    One of the ex-seals has a laser fixed on the enemy location, thinking that reinforcements were coming to bomb, sadly, those orders were never given.

    This quote really takes the cake:

    "The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops."


    According to Leon Panetta, next time we plan on bombing terrorists attacking US personnel, we will have to make sure to get permission first. bbbwwwhahahaha.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Natalie, that is the same link someone posted earlier, a Washington Post link, exact same story.

    However, they were told to STAND DOWN, told not to go from the annex to the consulate location. They went anyway.

    One of the ex-seals has a laser fixed on the enemy location, thinking that reinforcements were coming to bomb, sadly, those orders were never given.

    This quote really takes the cake:

    "The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops."


    According to Leon Panetta, next time we plan on bombing terrorists attacking US personnel, we will have to make sure to get permission first. bbbwwwhahahaha.
    Alright, I'm starting to think you can't read for comprehension, or something.

    NOBODY WAS TOLD TO STAND DOWN. Actual officials FROM THE CIA have said there was no call to stand down--the reacted as quickly as they could. Apparently they were there within 24 minutes, armed and ready to go, and made real-time decisions on the ground. It's in the report.

    And that quote takes the cake? Why?? We aren't occupying Libya. It has its own government. Not marching military in is STANDARD PROTOCOL for ANY administration. It has nothing to do with who is in office--it's how you don't start wars with other countries...you know, respect their sovereignty and all that. Other nations give us the same respect--Canada can't just send its troops ablazin' in if some crazies decide to start throwing rocks at one of their embassies here.

    Regardless of how soon anyone knew about the nature of the attack, at the time it was happening there was no clear info, so to say that people stood by while terrorists killed Americans is factually inaccurate and quite frankly, disgustingly untrue.

    Why is it so hard to believe that people legitimately screwed up--and can and should answer it--without malicious intent?

    Or right...because Obama is an infidel hell-bent on taking us down from the inside.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
    Alright, I'm starting to think you can't read for comprehension, or something.

    NOBODY WAS TOLD TO STAND DOWN. Actual officials FROM THE CIA have said there was no call to stand down--the reacted as quickly as they could. Apparently they were there within 24 minutes, armed and ready to go, and made real-time decisions on the ground. It's in the report.

    And that quote takes the cake? Why?? We aren't occupying Libya. It has its own government. Not marching military in is STANDARD PROTOCOL for ANY administration. It has nothing to do with who is in office--it's how you don't start wars with other countries...you know, respect their sovereignty and all that. Other nations give us the same respect--Canada can't just send its troops ablazin' in if some crazies decide to start throwing rocks at one of their embassies here.

    Regardless of how soon anyone knew about the nature of the attack, at the time it was happening there was no clear info, so to say that people stood by while terrorists killed Americans is factually inaccurate and quite frankly, disgustingly untrue.

    Why is it so hard to believe that people legitimately screwed up--and can and should answer it--without malicious intent?

    Or right...because Obama is an infidel hell-bent on taking us down from the inside.
    Well alrighty then, glad to know Natalie is not the CIC.

    Arguing the technical merrits of our non-response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi on this BB is like arguing nuclear fission with pre-schoolers.
    Last edited by Noms; Nov. 2, 2012 at 03:39 PM. Reason: sp.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2004
    Location
    Medford Oregon
    Posts
    914



  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Natalie, that is the same link someone posted earlier, a Washington Post link, exact same story.

    However, they were told to STAND DOWN, told not to go from the annex to the consulate location. They went anyway.

    One of the ex-seals has a laser fixed on the enemy location, thinking that reinforcements were coming to bomb, sadly, those orders were never given.

    This quote really takes the cake:

    "The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops."


    According to Leon Panetta, next time we plan on bombing terrorists attacking US personnel, we will have to make sure to get permission first. bbbwwwhahahaha.
    On one hand, that could be right.

    On the other hand, if they insist they were waiting for the local government there to give them the head's up, they don't do that when they go after terrorists, wherever they find them, do they.
    They just go on bombing and assaulting them without waiting for permission.
    Remember Osama Bin Laden?

    I know, I know, in war, everything goes.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    The CIA is not the military. We do not "send the CIA" in to fight terrorists. Those people are called the Marines. Which by the way were within an hour or two of the Embassy.

    Those two guys who went to help were ex SEALS, and happened to be disobeying direct orders to stand down.
    Actually, there is evidence that this is not true.

    And if you think about it, 50 people were saved so obviously something was going on more than the two. 4 were tragically lost, but two were killed before any help was available. And while the two that were killed afterwards did send coordinates, waht do you think would have happened if there had been a strike on the location and half a dozen of our people were killed by collateral damage? the ones firing the mortars were too close to our people to safely take that shot. We're good, just not that good.

    My heart goes out to the families that lost their own. It should never happen. But in this world we live in, it unfortunately does.

    I see no evidence that there was misconduct. Did everything go perfect? NO, but when does it ever in these situations?

    No evidence of cover-up either. Sorry, it is not there.... only in the minds of those that want to believe it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    5,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Arguing the technical merrits of our non-response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi on this BB is like arguing nuclear fission with pre-schoolers.
    Correcti-mundo.

    But it serves a purpose of taking focus off Romney's lies and the Taliban-like views of many GOP congressmen. Trying to get people to make this tragedy something it was not because they don't have anything else big against Obama. After all, it's not like when Bush was specifically told repeatedly up until August of 2001 that bin Laden was planning an attack and did nothing. It's not like that, is it? Let's forget about that.

    I just read an endorsement of Romney in my local paper and the columnist did an online chat. Even he thinks the Benghazi blowhards are trying to create something were nothing is. But I thought this was interesting. Someone asked him if the lies Romney tells (easy to find videos on YT of him saying this, then the opposite) bothered him. His reply was yes, Romney has lied a lot, "and I find it disturbing," yet he's still going to vote for him. Now that attitude is incomprehensible.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne FS View Post
    Correcti-mundo.

    But it serves a purpose of taking focus off Romney's lies and the Taliban-like views of many GOP congressmen. Trying to get people to make this tragedy something it was not because they don't have anything else big against Obama. After all, it's not like when Bush was specifically told repeatedly up until August of 2001 that bin Laden was planning an attack and did nothing. It's not like that, is it? Let's forget about that.

    I just read an endorsement of Romney in my local paper and the columnist did an online chat. Even he thinks the Benghazi blowhards are trying to create something were nothing is. But I thought this was interesting. Someone asked him if the lies Romney tells (easy to find videos on YT of him saying this, then the opposite) bothered him. His reply was yes, Romney has lied a lot, "and I find it disturbing," yet he's still going to vote for him. Now that attitude is incomprehensible.
    This thread is talking about Obama's utter failure and mishandling of Benghazi and you respond "But it serves a purpose of taking focus off Romney's lies and the Taliban-like views of many GOP congressmen"

    Programmed response by Obama suporters,,, "Romney Lies"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caffeinated View Post
    There's a difference there. I know people who hate obama would love to say he "told them not to help!" or something but from what I'm seeing that's not true. It's much more sensational and interesting to go with that story, for sure, but that doesn't make it true. I think there's a lot of perception vs. reality too - in the heat of the moment, someone who wants to go help RIGHT NOW is going to be frustrated if someone higher up says "wait a minute" while they get coordinated with other area resources. But I think that has turned into "the white house told them not to help and got people killed!" which is something altogether different (and rather disgusting, if you ask me).

    This is what gets me. People want to believe that Obama (and others) just sat there watching and refused to help. Whether you like him or not, this just doesn't even make sense. There is no motive to do such a thing. Unless you believe Obama is both evil and stupid. And while I believe he is neither, apparently some people do.

    Good point on the "perception of the moment."

    I'm sure those watching the live feed were equally frustrated about not being able to do something RIGHT NOW to end it all.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Sorry duplicate



  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Natalie, that is the same link someone posted earlier, a Washington Post link, exact same story.

    However, they were told to STAND DOWN, told not to go from the annex to the consulate location. They went anyway.

    One of the ex-seals has a laser fixed on the enemy location, thinking that reinforcements were coming to bomb, sadly, those orders were never given.

    This quote really takes the cake:

    "The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops."


    According to Leon Panetta, next time we plan on bombing terrorists attacking US personnel, we will have to make sure to get permission first. bbbwwwhahahaha.
    and you know this how? You heard the order to stand down?

    and as far as having the target locked in, this was much later and it was in a dangerous location for a strike.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,440

    Default

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. The liberal media cover up of Benghazi?
    By jetsmom in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 11:47 PM
  2. Response time
    By andylover in forum Off Course
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Aug. 9, 2010, 06:12 PM
  3. Swiss response
    By snoopy in forum Dressage
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jan. 27, 2008, 07:58 PM
  4. Post response to ad
    By AnotherRound in forum Help Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul. 23, 2007, 10:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness