I've seen some of the invetigation on CSPAN, but I haven't seen where anyone has asked the question I'm very interested in.....Who told the responce team that was ready to roll to stand down. That shouldn't be a hard question to ask, and it should be a clear answer. Have I just missed that somehow? Go Blazers
Good call. I don't think you'll find a formal link, but I do think there was a lot of "wink-wink" going on with people who were predisposed to discriminate against small government folks (i.e., bureaucrats).
hmm logic would dictate that oboma made the call. by everyones admission very soon into the event, oboma left for the night. No way in hell does the commander in chief of the United States of America walk away from a situation with the outcome still n doubt
Yeah, I read it. It was still bringing up Bush for no reason other than you want to keep comparing them. It is irrelevant who appointed who. They screwed up. We are currently in this situation, stop looking for scapegoats and diversions by claiming we should have been better about holding Bush accountable. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
It's the host country's responsibility to provide security for foreign embassies such as ours. So for us to send in our military would have required permission from the Libyan government such as it was. We basically started from a position where there was no authority to move tanks, planes, helicopters, troops, etc., in to save our guys. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/ Hicks said that around 10 p.m. on the night of the first attack, he was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli talking to State Department officials in Washington, regional security officer John Martinec at the U.S. Embassy, defense attache Lt. Col. Keith Phillips and others. Phillips was reaching out to officials with the Libyan Ministry of Defense and to the chief of staff of the Libyan Armed Forces, as well as officials with the Joint Staff and the U.S. Africa Command. Hicks recalled asking Phillips, "Is there anything coming?" He said Phillips replied "that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano." There was one team that headed from Tripoli to Benghazi, arriving at around 1:15 a.m., Hicks said. Phillips, Hicks recalled, "worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way." The Libyan prime minister called Hicks and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which "the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements." Hicks said that four U.S. Special Forces troops in Tripoli -- led by the leader of the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, SOCAfrica -- planned to hitch a ride on the Libyan plan to travel to Benghazi to help. "We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability, to the bare minimum," Hicks recalled. But the four were informed by someone with SOCAfrica that they didn't have the authority to go, Hicks said. "So Lt. Col. Gibson, who is the SOCAfrica commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAfrica which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now,'' Hicks said. "And so they missed the flight." "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," Hicks said. "I still remember Col. Gibson, he said, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.' A nice compliment." The C-130 left between 6 and 6:30 a.m., so the four Special Forces troops would not have arrived in time to fend off the 5:15 a.m. attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi. Hicks said he recalled asking Phillips again if any military help was coming. "The answer, again, was the same as before. It's too far away, there are no tankers. ... There is nothing that could respond. ... "I guess they just didn't have the right authority from the right level," Hicks recalled.
“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.” — Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
If the Libyan Government (such as it was) was unwilling or unable to provide protection for our Consulate, we have the right and responsibility (to our people) to try and defend them. Also, it wouldn't have taken an invasion force. Simply deploy a couple of F-18's, A-10s or other ground attack aircraft and have them strafe the area around the consulate until you can get an AC-130 Spectre overhead. Have the Spectre wipe out anything that comes until you can get Special Forces to come get our diplomats. Bottom line, the idea of knowing it was "impossible" before the second attack occurred and using that as an excuse to not even try doesn't pass the smell test.
You have to respect their airspace. There has been something going on that I find that Obama has very much in common with Nixon, though. Nixon (and Kissinger) is considered a war criminal by left wing extremists for spilling the Vietnam war over into Laos and Cambodia. He did so because North Vietnamese guerrillas would attack some target in South Vietnam and then cross over the border into one of those other countries to escape. LBJ's military wouldn't go after them once they crossed the border. Similarly, the Taliban attacks some target in Afghanistan and then flee into the tribal regions of Pakistan. Obama sends drones over the border into the territory of an actual ally of ours and bombs the place. Where's the outrage? Saved exclusively for Nixon and Kissinger because of the (R) next to their names? It sure seems so. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/13-6 Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal' Despite invoking Dr. King, Obama 'tied to Wall Street and drones,' said West. - Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer In an interview with the Guardian published on Sunday, renowned professor and prolific critic of the "military-industrial-complex" and rampant "plutocracy" in the U.S. and around the world, Dr. Cornel West explained his views on the state of America today and his fall from grace, by design, with President Barack Obama: "He's just too tied to Wall Street. And at this point he is a war criminal." "They say I'm un-American," West told interviewer Hugh Muir, referring to Obama's team. But from someone who actively campaigned for the man, only to be quickly and vastly disappointed, West sees in Obama the epitome of Washington corruption: "He talked about Martin Luther King over and over again as he ran," West said of their campaign stops together, adding later, "You can't just invoke Martin Luther King like that and not follow through on his priorities in some way." "King died fighting not just against poverty but against carpet-bombing in Vietnam; the war crimes under Nixon and Kissinger." West goes on: You can't meet every Tuesday with a killer list and continually have drones drop bombs. You can do that once or twice and say: 'I shouldn't have done that, I've got to stop.' But when you do it month in, month out, year in, year out – that's a pattern of behavior." [...] I think there is a chance of a snowball in hell that he will ever be tried, but I think he should be tried and I said the same about George Bush. These are war crimes. We suffer in this age from an indifference toward criminality and a callousness to catastrophe when it comes to poor and working people." [...] "I knew he would have rightwing opposition, but he hasn't tried," West said of Obama's unwillingness to curb Wall Street's hold on Washington. "When he came in, he brought in Wall Street-friendly people – Tim Geithner, Larry Summers – and made it clear he had no intention of bailing out homeowners, supporting trade unions."
The IRS leaked tax information on conservative groups and individuals to liberal groups ... being in possession of such records is a felony. Pro-publica must be trying to get out in front of this emerging scandal. http://www.propublica.org/article/i...ed-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
I don't believe you have to respect the airspace of a country that doesn't defend your diplomats or provide safe harbor to your enemies. MacArthur was right in Korea, Johnson and Nixon were right in Vietnam and Bush and Obama have been right in Pakistan. What is curious, however, is why Obama is so willing to send drones into Pakistani airspace, but felt he had to respect the airspace of a nascent, not fully formed government in Libya. He didn't have a problem providing air support and cover against Gaddafi.
Remember when Harry Reid said on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes in ten years? I now wonder if that (as it turns out, false) information came from the IRS. If so, shouldn't he be compelled to release the source of the leak?
Harry Reid literally just defended the IRS doing this to "shadowy groups" applying for tax-exempt status by vetting them. The law does not matter to Harry Reid, and I'm sure it goes much deeper than Harry Reid condoning this behavior. These people are sociopathic. This one is much bigger than Benghazi, which was a simple conspiracy afterward to control the message. This involves selective discrimination, by the IRS, of individual Americans based on political leanings. Formal hearings start on Friday.
Again, let me point out that the IRS is in charge of administering ObamaCare, and that 16,000 new agents are being hired for the program. I wonder if political affiliation will come into play for who gets treatment, and who does not get treatment?
I think Obama wanted to respect their airspace. Other presidents have sent in small forces to evacuate US citizens from nations when they were in danger. But this speaks only to Obama being incompetent, which the really smart people already knew. I think the drones in Pakistani airspace without permission is an international crime, don't you? As far as taking out Gaddafi, that was a NATO operation and we are bound by our constitution to honor treaties.
Why are some people talking Benghazi in this thread? Isn't there already a thread for that scandal. This IRS thing is gaining momentum, and is much more concerning in terms of our civil liberties and freedom as citizens.
...then why didn't he say this? Nobody in his administration has said that; in fact, they said there was no help close enough, which was clearly wrong after listening to last week's hearing. Besides, that excuse is so hypocritical, it would be met with hoots and laughter from the media.
The scandals seem to be related, so the thread has discussed the other scandals when appropriate (they came up). Read my previous post from CNN. They were trying to get the Libyan military and other branches of government to comply or directly help.
