Requests to support Benghazi team denied 3 times

USANick7 · 10-26-2012, 11:43

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/

MR2 · 10-26-2012, 20:00

This Libyan Fiasco will be to Obama as Bay of Pigs was to Kennedy.

Truly sad and what a waste.

Red Flag 1 · 10-26-2012, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR2

This Libyan Fiasco will be to Obama as Bay of Pigs was to Kennedy.

Truly sad and what a waste.

Earlier today, on Rush's EIB Talk Show; a theory was floated exploring the thought that the issue that the Ambassador was supposed to be kidnapped, and held for randsom. The randsom was for the "return" of the "blind sheik". The theory was suggested to support the idea of the repeated turndowns for direct action to defend the Ambassador. The idea of adding more arms to the issue would be detrimental, and put the Ambassador at greater risk.

Quite a theory

. But the question remains, "why no support", before and/or during the event. Just more and more questions, with no answers.

I think the usual reply of, "It's Bush's fault" won't fly this time.

RF 1

MR2 · 10-26-2012, 20:16

I had the kidnap thought earlier this week, but guessed it was to trade the Ambassador for the Blind Sheik and not for more weapons. Rationale was that they did not blow open the safe room which probably would have killed anyone inside and the alleged association of the attackers with Egyptian groups.

Who knows anymore with all the lies, damn lies, and fairy tales the Administration has been telling.

ZonieDiver · 10-26-2012, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR2

This Libyan Fiasco will be to Obama as Bay of Pigs was to Kennedy.

Truly sad and what a waste.

This 'fiasco' won't come to light until after Obama is re-elected (sorry Dusty... it pains me, but I think it will come to pass, though I pray it will not). After his 100 days' "honeymoon", many in the MSM will turn on him and become 'baying hounds' - a la Nixon-Watergate. Though many are liberals, they all want Pulitzers, or to be famous...and this would give it to them. (See Woodward-Bernstein, or Rather)

Then... impeachment hearings, Senate trial, whatever.

The end result - paralysis. Just what the USofA needs in the next few years.

That's my nightmare... and I ain't putting this in the Comedy Zone.

(I left out 'resignation - and a Biden presidency' because I do have to sleep tonight.)

Dozer523 · 10-26-2012, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

Earlier today, on Rush's EIB Talk Show; a theory was floated exploring the thought that the issue that the Ambassador was supposed to be kidnapped, and held for randsom. The randsom was for the "return" of the "blind sheik". The theory was suggested to support the idea of the repeated turndowns for direct action to defend the Ambassador. The idea of adding more arms to the issue would be detrimental, and put the Ambassador at greater risk.

Am I understanding that Rush is floating the idea that the American White House planned for our Ambassador (selected and nominated by this administration) to be captured and held for ransom so there would be an excuse for this administration to release an enemy of the US? And somehow the plan got a little out of control resulting in the Ambassador's death? Holy Shite!

"Movin on up ... to the East Side! To a De-lux apartment in the sky. Oh, oh oh!
Movin on up cuz the ALCOA stock's gonna be high, high, high!

frostfire · 10-26-2012, 20:57

this latest development sent shivers down my spine. Even if the higher up says no, I thought personnel on stand by would side with their conscience, oath, duty, and honor, and render aid

looks like time to put a halt in my CIA application process

PSM · 10-26-2012, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Am I understanding that Rush is floating the idea...

No. A caller called in and said that he heard (or read) it.

Pat

ZonieDiver · 10-26-2012, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSM

No. A caller called in and said that he heard (or read) it.

Pat

Okay, where was Paslode today?

PSM · 10-26-2012, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Okay, where was Paslode today?

Don't know, Sarge. Not my day to watch him.

Pat

BKKMAN · 10-26-2012, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

This 'fiasco' won't come to light until after Obama is re-elected (sorry Dusty... it pains me, but I think it will come to pass, though I pray it will not). After his 100 days' "honeymoon", many in the MSM will turn on him and become 'baying hounds' - a la Nixon-Watergate. Though many are liberals, they all want Pulitzers, or to be famous...and this would give it to them. (See Woodward-Bernstein, or Rather)

Then... impeachment hearings, Senate trial, whatever.

The end result - paralysis. Just what the USofA needs in the next few years.

That's my nightmare... and I ain't putting this in the Comedy Zone.

(I left out 'resignation - and a Biden presidency' because I do have to sleep tonight.)

The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial. A conviction on impeachment requires a super-majority in the Senate...just not going to happen in a Democrat-controlled Senate, even if a Republican-controlled House voted to impeach President Obama...

My guess is the IF President Obama was reelected (and I don't believe that that will happen), even if Libya/Benghazi gets dug into, I personally think there will be no shortage of liberals in the Obama White House/Administration who will fall on their sword(s) on cue, to protect him...

ZonieDiver · 10-26-2012, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKKMAN

The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial. A conviction on impeachment requires a super-majority in the Senate...just not going to happen in a Democrat-controlled Senate, even if a Republican-controlled House voted to impeach President Obama...

My guess is the IF President Obama was reelected (and I don't believe that that will happen), even if Libya/Benghazi gets dug into, I personally think there will be no shortage of liberals in the Obama White House/Administration who will fall on their sword(s) on cue, to protect him...

About 40 years ago, I never would have thought that Barry Goldwater would recommend that a sitting, Republican President of the US should resign to avoid an impeachment by the House and a loss in the Senate trial that even he (Goldwater) would join in voting to convict. But, he did.

MOO, Romney will win the popular vote by less than 2%, but fail to carry a couple of 'battleground' states by narrow margins, and Obama will win the Electoral College.

Do I think my nightmare will happen? No, I don't. Like most nightmares, it is just that. However, I don't think this Libya mess will be resolved in the next ten days or so, either. Therefore, I am praying that what we are witnessing is massive incompetence on many levels and in many government areas - and not some 'evil plot' - which it seems to me that some here are relishing WILL be the case.

**Airbornelawyer** · 10-26-2012, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Am I understanding that Rush is floating the idea that the American White House planned for our Ambassador (selected and nominated by this administration) to be captured and held for ransom so there would be an excuse for this administration to release an enemy of the US? And somehow the plan got a little out of control resulting in the Ambassador's death? Holy Shite!

I think the theory wasn't that there was any WH plan. Rather, that when the WH first was notified of the attack on the Embassy, someone theorized that the attack was an attempt to kidnap/hold hostage the ambassador. Therefore, they counseled against a direct action response, thinking that might endanger any hostages. Similar to the pre-9/11 protocols when terrorists attempt to hijack an airliner, where the assumption was that the hijackers were seizing the aircraft as a prelude to negotiations, so flight crews were instructed to cooperate.

BKKMAN · 10-26-2012, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

About 40 years ago, I never would have thought that Barry Goldwater would recommend that a sitting, Republican President of the US should resign to avoid an impeachment by the House and a loss in the Senate trial that even he (Goldwater) would join in voting to convict. But, he did.

MOO, Romney will win the popular vote by less than 2%, but fail to carry a couple of 'battleground' states by narrow margins, and Obama will win the Electoral College.

Do I think my nightmare will happen? No, I don't. Like most nightmares, it is just that. However, I don't think this Libya mess will be resolved in the next ten days or so, either. Therefore, I am praying that what we are witnessing is massive incompetence on many levels and in many government areas - and not some 'evil plot' - which it seems to me that some here are relishing WILL be the case.

Color me optimistic, brother...

I agree that at times it has felt like Romney and his campaign managers were doing everything in their power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

I also hope that it is just sheer incompetence or the perfect convergence of a multitude of careerist drones who exemplify the Peter Principle, rather than a deliberate and calculated decision or series of decisions...

BKKMAN · 10-26-2012, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

I think the theory wasn't that there was any WH plan. Rather, that when the WH first was notified of the attack on the Embassy, someone theorized that the attack was an attempt to kidnap/hold hostage the ambassador. Therefore, they counseled against a direct action response, thinking that might endanger any hostages. Similar to the pre-9/11 protocols when terrorists attempt to hijack an airliner, where the assumption was that the hijackers were seizing the aircraft as a prelude to negotiations, so flight crews were instructed to cooperate.

Should have called the Israelis...those cats are pretty good at dealing with highjackings in Africa...Entebbe anyone? As a matter of fact, Bibi Netanyahu's older brother was killed during that operation...