The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2013, 12:11 PM   #401
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Could help have arrived in time? You're missing the point. Maybe deliberately.

Help should've been there ahead of time. It wasn't, and it looks like political optics were most likely the reason. Could help have gotten there "in time" after the attack? That's an open, yet mostly irrelevant question.

Because the only real-world effort they made to respond at all was one to gin up a scapegoat to claim they couldn't have seen this whole thing coming (on 9/11). The President and his administration didn't make a single effort to send assistance. They didn't have any idea how long the assault would go on. Yet not a single order anywhere for anyone to even attempt to assist. And that fell exactly in line with what appeared to have been their existing motivation all along... reelection campaigns ahead of lives.

To wonder whether help could have gotten there in time, when it's crystal clear that help was never going to be sent in the first place is interesting to say the least.
Try reading my post again. Here, I made it nice and big for you.
Quote:
why wasn't security better managed,
The rest of your post is mostly nonsense.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 12:17 PM   #402
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,231

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This benghazi fabrication by Republicans is already falling apart. The IRS story will fall apart as well. The AP story may have a little leg to it but three will be non-issues by summer.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 12:29 PM   #403
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,597
Default

Quote:
When the CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testifies Thursday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is expected to say that the agency never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The disclosure may put an end to one line of inquiry into the Benghazi affair about why reinforcements from the region were not sent on the night of the attack. “Assistance from the U.S. military was critical, and we got what we requested,” the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

According to a Pentagon timeline made public last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepared multiple military responses from the region at around midnight Benghazi time, more than two hours after the initial assault began. Those orders included mobilizing two special Marine platoons known as Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) from Rota, Spain, to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also ordered a special operations force, training in central Europe, to deploy at the Signonella Airbase in Italy. Another special operations team based in the United States also prepared to deploy to Libya.

The CIA, however, requested none of that assistance. Neither did the State Department. None of those teams ever arrived in Benghazi.

On the evening of the attack, the military provided two kinds of support to the CIA security officers who tried to fend off an attack at the U.S. diplomatic mission and then later stood guard at a CIA base less than a mile away, which was hit in a second wave at about 5 a.m. (A U.S. military team working for the CIA was sent that evening from Tripoli, but that team did not arrive at the CIA annex until after the U.S. diplomatic mission was overrun.)

The military support included an unarmed predator drone that recorded the dramatic rescue of U.S. personnel from the diplomatic mission to the CIA base at about midnight. (Timelines differ between the Pentagon and the CIA.) The U.S. military also provided medevac support to survivors of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department communications specialist Sean Smith, and two retired Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...zi-attack.html
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 12:50 PM   #404
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,597
Default

Quote:
...here's what nobody seems to get: Benghazi was not a terrorist act. Or an act of terror. Or an act of terrorism.

Before my Republican friends start getting red in the face, that doesn't mean it wasn't awful. Many awful things are not terrorism. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. Jeffrey Dahmer's murders weren't terrorism. Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is something quite specific: the intentional killing of civilians in order to achieve a political end. It's the "civilian" part that makes it terrorism and not something else. Perhaps some conservatives think that any violent action committed by Muslims is terrorism, but it isn't.

As it happens, there's a nice succinct definition of terrorism in U.S. law, section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code, which reads, "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target.

Of all the things you could say about Benghazi, why is this the one Republicans are so obsessed with? My guess is because they have so little else to work with. But they're being abetted by the Obama administration, which continues to play this game, because they've bought into the idea that if you call an attack "terrorism," that means you're really mad about it and you'll be tough and strong in your response, while if you call it something else you're not very mad and you'll be all wimpy about it.

So everybody gets Pinocchios. Can we move on now?
http://prospect.org/article/benghazi...nor-act-terror
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 01:25 PM   #405
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,030
Default

I'm fine with calling it a military/intell blunder. That Obamas state dept and CIA too stupid to have enough firepower around to defend themselves. Hell the whole country wouldn't have been in that spot had Obama not supported Egypt and Libya killing their leaders. Oh wait Mubarek still alive until he dies in prison lol. He finally learned lesson in Syria and decided maybe we don't want assad gone as much as we all thought we did. One day all these countries unite under islamic leadership and we can have our final war i guess? Is that the plan lol.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 01:50 PM   #406
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Try reading my post again. Here, I made it nice and big for you.

The rest of your post is mostly nonsense.
Lolz. I guess Nixon mostly just had hisself a "management" problem

And I'll have to use that "the rest is just nonsense" stuff on Tony next time"

Usually he wants to copy and paste 1,000 word essays from his favorite thinkers and demand I respond line by line.

I wrote all my own stuff and instead of seeing a coherent response, it gets brushed off like yesterday's dandruff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 01:53 PM   #407
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I wrote all my own stuff...
Well there's your problem. You're far too enamored of your own opinion while quickly brushing off every opinion that differs from yours, most of which come from people far more informed, intelligent, and accomplished than you. Every once in a while you need to listen to voices other than your own.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:04 PM   #408
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm fine with calling it a military/intell blunder. That Obamas state dept and CIA too stupid to have enough firepower around to defend themselves. Hell the whole country wouldn't have been in that spot had Obama not supported Egypt and Libya killing their leaders. Oh wait Mubarek still alive until he dies in prison lol. He finally learned lesson in Syria and decided maybe we don't want assad gone as much as we all thought we did. One day all these countries unite under islamic leadership and we can have our final war i guess? Is that the plan lol.
You're getting to the meat of why Obama didn't want a huge footprint in Libya, or why he didn't want to send military resources in to make a scene in Benghazi (and maybe save some American lives)

Bush Sr had the wisdom to know in Gulf War I that plinking a tin-pot dictator is the easy part. It's the vacuum that comes after that gets fugly. He decided we weren't ready to go there. Then Bush II went there. At least with some kind of understanding (though not nearly enough) that we'd be somewhat responsible for what came next, if we went in and deposed Saddam.

Obama's Libya policy was even more short-sighted. Yes, plinking Muammar was easy for us. But without boots on the ground, you have little say in what comes after. An election season filled with stories of Obama's newly liberated anti-American Al Qaeda playground was exactly what they worked overtime to avoid. And they held it up for as long as the needed to.

So I guess, Mission Accomplished?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:10 PM   #409
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Well there's your problem. You're far too enamored of your own opinion while quickly brushing off every opinion that differs from yours, most of which come from people far more informed, intelligent, and accomplished than you. Every once in a while you need to listen to voices other than your own.
I've listened. But didn't I establish that Ezra was full of ****? Once you've established that kind of pattern with someone, you should no longer take their word as authoritative. I mean there are things, philosophical things, where you can have honest disagreement.

But some people just make stuff up as they go. Ezra's one of those. Sirota is also. I'm not sure Sully's so much dishonest as maybe just a little bit crazy.

And over the years I've probably read more of their stuff than most people you know.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:57 PM   #410
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. I guess Nixon mostly just had hisself a "management" problem

And I'll have to use that "the rest is just nonsense" stuff on Tony next time"

Usually he wants to copy and paste 1,000 word essays from his favorite thinkers and demand I respond line by line.

I wrote all my own stuff and instead of seeing a coherent response, it gets brushed off like yesterday's dandruff.
So are you saying Obama intervened to ensure help didn't arrive and/or short changed security?

Or are you disputing the E Mails that were released yesterday and suggesting Obama ordered a cover up?

....and your previous post was mostly nonsense.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:58 PM   #411
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You're getting to the meat of why Obama didn't want a huge footprint in Libya, or why he didn't want to send military resources in to make a scene in Benghazi (and maybe save some American lives)

Bush Sr had the wisdom to know in Gulf War I that plinking a tin-pot dictator is the easy part. It's the vacuum that comes after that gets fugly. He decided we weren't ready to go there. Then Bush II went there. At least with some kind of understanding (though not nearly enough) that we'd be somewhat responsible for what came next, if we went in and deposed Saddam.

Obama's Libya policy was even more short-sighted. Yes, plinking Muammar was easy for us. But without boots on the ground, you have little say in what comes after. An election season filled with stories of Obama's newly liberated anti-American Al Qaeda playground was exactly what they worked overtime to avoid. And they held it up for as long as the needed to.

So I guess, Mission Accomplished?

You keep suggesting this, do you have a shred of evidence to confirm this?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 03:12 PM   #412
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
So are you saying Obama intervened to ensure help didn't arrive and/or short changed security?

Or are you disputing the E Mails that were released yesterday and suggesting Obama ordered a cover up?

....and your previous post was mostly nonsense.
One, it's incredibly likely that decisions on what to do militarily in an attack on a US embassy in a non-combat theater would go straight to the President. Low level commanders weren't issuing "stand down" orders without checking upstairs.

Two. If Obama didn't originally order the cover up, he certainly played a part in it and the perpetuation of the Youtube myth while knowing the truth.

Being cool with a cover-up idea someone else came up with isn't really any better than ordering it yourself. It's not exactly clear which happened, but it is pretty clear it had to be one scenario or the other.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 03:30 PM   #413
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
One, it's incredibly likely that decisions on what to do militarily in an attack on a US embassy in a non-combat theater would go straight to the President. Low level commanders weren't issuing "stand down" orders without checking upstairs.

Two. If Obama didn't originally order the cover up, he certainly played a part in it and the perpetuation of the Youtube myth while knowing the truth.

Being cool with a cover-up idea someone else came up with isn't really any better than ordering it yourself. It's not exactly clear which happened, but it is pretty clear it had to be one scenario or the other.
Ok, so you have no proof Obama was in on a 'cover up,' it's just your opinion/hope/wish?

The 'stand down' order is interesting. I have not been able to source this claim, even though it was used to create sensational headlines, after the attack and later going into the inquiry.

Hicks, while giving testimony, was being pressured to use that term, he resisted.

Who exactly made that claim?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 03:39 PM   #414
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Ok, so you have no proof Obama was in on a 'cover up,' it's just your opinion/hope/wish?

The 'stand down' order is interesting. I have not been able to source this claim, even though it was used to create sensational headlines, after the attack and later going into the inquiry.

Hicks, while giving testimony, was being pressured to use that term, he resisted.

Who exactly made that claim?
Quote:
JASON CHAFFETZ: Were any of these U.S. military personnel not permitted to travel on a rescue mission or relief mission to Benghazi?

GREGORY HICKS: They were not authorized to travel.

JASON CHAFFETZ: What happened with those personnel?

GREGORY HICKS: They remained in Tripoli with us. The medic went with the nurse to the hospital and his skills to the treatment of and care of our wounded.

JASON CHAFFETZ: How did the personnel reacted to be told to stand down?

GREGORY HICKS: They were furious. I can only say, well I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson — he said “this is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.”
...
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 03:47 PM   #415
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Ok, so you have no proof Obama was in on a 'cover up,' it's just your opinion/hope/wish?
Carney outright lied man. And was even called out by the press for it. Now you can cling to your shred of hope that Obama sends his press secretary out with no idea of what he's planning to say, and that he's just an innocent bystander in his administration while all these monumental decisions are being made.

But come on. Really? Really??
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 03:54 PM   #416
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,231

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Whatever,this"scandal"is already starting to fall apart. What's more likely to happen,is a backlash against rethugs for blatantly politicising this issue.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:00 PM   #417
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
...
So it was Chaffetz who coined the term?

Quote:
REP. ROBIN KELLY: You said that four military personnel were told not to the board that plane and that this call came from Special Operations Command Africa. Is that right?

HICKS: That's what I understand.
Ok, now this is the story I have read, and it differs greatly from the FOX propaganda.

From the WSJ....the bastion of pro Obama apologists. :sarc:

But as it puts the 'stand down' order squarely at the Pentagon' doorstep, you're probably not interested.

Quote:
"Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?" Mr. Hicks said he asked.

The defense attaché told him that the nearest fighter jets were based in Italy, and it would take two to three hours for them to "get on-site"—but there were no air-refueling aircraft available so they could make the trip.

"I said, 'Thank you very much.' And we went on with our work," Mr. Hicks testified.

At about 12:30 a.m. local time, diplomats in Tripoli learned of a new threat by Islamists—to attack the embassy complex in the Libyan capital city. The 55 diplomatic personnel in two facilities began to prepare to evacuate.

Through the night, Mr. Hicks and his team frantically decided they needed to send a second team from Tripoli to Benghazi to secure the airport for the withdrawal of personnel. They decided that a team of special-operations forces should go. But the team was told to stand down, a call Mr. Hicks said he believed came from the military.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_3
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:05 PM   #418
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Whatever,this"scandal"is already starting to fall apart. What's more likely to happen,is a backlash against rethugs for blatantly politicising this issue.
I wouldn't say it's falling apart. More like getting drowned out with even more shocking displays of ineptitude.

They really really effed up declaring war on the media. It'll take awhile to put that lapdog back on the leash.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:08 PM   #419
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,662

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Carney outright lied man. And was even called out by the press for it. Now you can cling to your shred of hope that Obama sends his press secretary out with no idea of what he's planning to say, and that he's just an innocent bystander in his administration while all these monumental decisions are being made.

But come on. Really? Really??
I have no interest in shielding anyone. I do have an interest in 'facts,' 'evidence' and 'proof,'

I have 'zero' interest in partisan pissing contests that are nothing more than wishful thinking.

I have difficulty believing Obama....or Clinton, gave the stand down order and have seen no proof that either did......and neither have you.

Anyway, why would they, it makes no sense.

Instead of the 'investigation' focusing on how the attack was later described, the security prior and the response to the attack are the real issues.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:10 PM   #420
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
So it was Chaffetz who coined the term?
Ok, so soldiers itching to go in are told not to, and are pissed about it. You want to argue over who chose what verbiage for that.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-to-stand-down

Quote:
The chief diplomat at the embassy in Libya the night of the Benghazi attacks claims the Pentagon ordered Special Forces troops in Tripoli to "stand down," despite his belief that they were needed to support evacuation and security efforts.
"That's not fair! They may have paraphrased!" says Denbrit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:16 PM   #421
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I have difficulty believing Obama....or Clinton, gave the stand down order and have seen no proof that either did......and neither have you.

Anyway, why would they, it makes no sense
Again, this isn't a war theater. They don't need to be ordered not to go. They'd have to be given permission. Most likely by the President.

It's virtually guaranteed he was asked. All he had to do was nothing to get the result he got. And that's the most reasonable explanation that can be drawn for what happened that day.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:18 PM   #422
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,597
Default

^ Beavis, from your link:

Quote:
...the Pentagon ordered Special Forces troops in Tripoli to "stand down,"
That says the Pentagon, not the White House or Sec of State. Right?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:20 PM   #423
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
They'd have to be given permission. Most likely by the President.
You may be right. But then again, do you know this for a fact? Do the Joint Chiefs need the order/permission of the POTUS in this situation?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:20 PM   #424
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
^ Beavis, from your link:



That says the Pentagon, not the White House or Sec of State. Right?
Following the logic of what I just said. They're going to tell everyone to stand down in a non-theater country until they are given explicit approval by the President. It's kind of a control they have in place to keep the military from launching it's own international wars.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:24 PM   #425
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
You may be right. But then again, do you know this for a fact? Do the Joint Chiefs need the order/permission of the POTUS in this situation?
Do you think a Joint Chief would ever feel comfortable launching a military operation in a non-theater without asking the President? That's completely his call.

They'd tell everyone to stand down until the President gave the green light. It couldn't work any other way. If you're suggesting that the Pentagon just forgot to ask the President, I'm assuming you'll join me in demanding some Court Martials. That's not an acceptable breakdown.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Denver Broncos