CIA Rapid Response Team told to STAND DOWN

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by Pete

RR you have any PM's you haven't responded to?

A few weeks back some folks had some questions for you.

My last was on 10/3, where Sigaba hinted I might be banned for something I posted, I did respond.

As far as this thread, they were expendable.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

My last was on 10/3, where Sigaba hinted I might be banned for something I posted, I did respond.

As far as this thread, they were expendable.

Click on your profile and hit find all posts - you've made a number of posts since 10/3.

None of them addressed the issue in question from 9/28.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

My last was on 10/3, where Sigaba hinted I might be banned for something I posted, I did respond.

As far as this thread, they were expendable.

RR--

You misread the PM I sent you. Also, if I had wanted others to know the content of that communication, I would not have sent you a PRIVATE message.

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by Pete

Click on your profile and hit find all posts - you've made a number of posts since 10/3.

None of them addressed the issue in question from 9/28.

This was an attempt at sarcasm, and with new revelations just how much the current administration has been outright lying, it does ring hollow. That's not me.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

Re: The Admiral supposedly being made the scape goat.

Edit: I guess I should add that my thoughts are worthless. But if the information in the link above is true it seems unlikely that the Admiral had anything to do with Libya.

Thank you for the link. Again, I am seeing several blogs where individuals doubt the Admiral's temporary removal is linked to Gen. Ham and/or Benghazi. So to me that means it probably is not, but until the facts are known I'll but it in the unknown column. For what it's worth... this link states they arrived at their destination on 9/16. Could they have been in a position on 9/11 to send in support? I have no idea but am sure somebody does.

http://rt.com/news/naval-training-persian-gulf-258/

the exact number of aircraft carriers, battleships and submarines taking part is unclear. Three American aircraft carriers out of the four currently in commission are reportedly gathering in the Persian Gulf for the training. USS Enterprise, USS John C. Stennis, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower have reportedly arrived.

Individuals at SOFREP.com question the validity of Gen. Ham and refer to it as "RUMINT".

[Ape Man]

I can understand putting the Gen Ham into the unknown column. But personally, I am inclined to doubt that any General/Admiral was all that concerned about it until or unless I see people speaking out or quitting.

As for the Admiral, I don't understand what difference it would make when he arrived on station. Why would you launch a support operation from the Persian Gulf when you had lots of assets in Europe? Maybe there is something I am missing.

I suppose it is possible that he was the source of some leak or other.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

As for the Admiral, I don't understand what difference it would make when he arrived on station. Why would you launch a support operation from the Persian Gulf when you had lots of assets in Europe? Maybe there is something I am missing.

What you say makes sense. My comment on the timing was in reference to the first point noted on the page you linked. I believe they indicated fleet didn't arrive until October 17th.

It may be a stretch pertaining to Gen. Ham. However, he did tell Senator Chaffetz that he had forces ready but wasn't given the order. That seems inconsistent with Panetta's statement that Gen. Dempsey and Gen. Ham made the decision, along with him, not to send in force.

(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."

My hope is in time more information will surface that will bring clarity.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

However, he did tell Senator Chaffetz that he had forces ready but wasn't given the order. That seems inconsistent with Panetta's statement that Gen. Dempsey and Gen. Ham made the decision, along with him, not to send in force.

Sho' 'nuff do.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Had the CINC In-Extremis Forces arrived on site there would have been hundreds of armed & very dead muslim nationals on the tv for all to view.

Team Sergeant, Blackfive has an opinion piece called, "Beep... Beep... Beep.... If you go to the comments, an individual posted a link to a podcast where a former member of CIF, like yourself, shares his insight. He mentions that we know 4 died, but hear little about those that were injured. His closing words... "this is a serious issue, people were left to die"

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/1....html#comments

[LongWire]

And another:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...protected.html

[Paslode]

It's just keeps on coming.....

On the note of Benghazi and the media. Breitbart is insinuating that CBS shelved a 60 minutes interview between Obama and reporter Steve Kroft that took place on 9/12, the day after the attack in which Obama stated:

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

The clip was apparently brought to light by Fox News when it found the clip embedded in a CBS News article by Sharyl Attkisson (The same reporter who brought Fast & Furious to the MSM).



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...About-Benghazi

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...ck-on-sept-11/

[Firelord]

I normally refrain from posting but I need to wonder out loud as a father of an active duty soldier: If the current administration is willing to write off an ambassador for what, at least at this point in time, appears to be political expediency, who or what else are they willing to write off?

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Firelord

I normally refrain from posting but I need to wonder out loud as a father of an active duty soldier: If the current administration is willing to write off an ambassador for what, at least at this point in time, appears to be political expediency, who or what else are they willing to write off?

Everyone and everything for power and control!

And thank you for your son's duty.

[Pete]

'Cooling Out' the Voters

Another home run by Thomas Sowell

http://www.creators.com/print/conser...he-voters.html

"Confidence men know that their victim — "the mark" as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."..........................."

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Pete

'Cooling Out' the Voters

Another home run by Thomas Sowell

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

Not gonna debate the "film maker's" past behavior that got him no small amount of probation heat; the Judge ordered him held w/o bail as a flight risk. Still, the Fed was certainly digging for him quickly, and con gusto. The admin made no small effort to get it (Alibi #1) pulled off the internet also, but were told to pound sand by YouTube's parent (Google).

I hope the families get better answers than Brian Terry's parents have.