Former CIA chief in Benghazi says 13 hours movie is a lie (Page 8): Don't you get it? Worrying about veterans committing suicide will not help beat Hillary win the presidency. And that...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

jasfourth401 wrote:

I admire folks that take the time to dig into an issue and argue their position with facts. You are to be commended.

The purpose of my post was establish the validity of this military man who detailed the chain of command in situations like this. And so far, no one has pointed out that it is false. So my first question is, if this is SOP, then why would the military deviate from it? If it is their stated responsibility to handle it themselves, why would it be shoved up the chain of command when those "down below" are tasked with dealing with it? It is a very legitimate question.

The second point is the issue of "standing down." If that type of order is the responsibility of the military operation in that area, why would it float up to DC? They can't offer any insight or recommendations that are worth anything. It's a military matter between those on the ground and the system already in place.

The third point is the statement that this country left four people at risk for 13 hours. That is factually inaccurate. Two were dead in under four hours, including the ambassador. I would imagine (this is my speculation) that Washington, upon hearing the news of a dead ambassador and the successful evacuation of 30 people by 1 AM, was focused exclusively on that disaster and left the remaining issues (two ex Seals) for the military to deal with, as that was protocol as noted by the military man who went through how the chain of command (and who issues what order from "go" to "stand down") works.

My last point is the one most important to me. I fully understand the anger and outrage over the deaths of four people. But since Benghazi, over 30,000 US veterans have committed suicide and almost 50,000 US veterans are still living on the streets. That's where our focus needs to be. That is what congressional hearings should focus on. This country has lost its sense of priority and is focusing on issues that won't save any lives.

Thanks for the extensive list of links and information.

I admire folks that take the time to dig into an i... (show quote)

Don't you get it? Worrying about veterans committing suicide will not help beat Hillary win the presidency. And that is ALL Benghazi is to the GOP.

Liberty Tree

nwtk2007 wrote:

Don't you get it? Worrying about veterans committing suicide will not help beat Hillary win the presidency. And that is ALL Benghazi is to the GOP.

Defeating Hillary is a necessary part of a plan to pave a way to help veterans.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Liberty Tree wrote:

Defeating Hillary is a necessary part of a plan to pave a way to help veterans.

That makes me laugh.

Liberty Tree

nwtk2007 wrote:

That makes me laugh.

I am sure it does and therein lies the problem with Obama and Hillary worshippers.

SBSHINE Loc: Whitefish, MT

nwtk2007 wrote:

That makes me laugh.

You're laughing? At what? The vets laying in a hospital? Clinton's performing another White House soap opera? We're waiting for you to man-up a little. Get some backbone. You're gonna need it going forward in life.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Liberty Tree wrote:

I am sure it does and therein lies the problem with Obama and Hillary worshippers.

Oh that's right, another typical OPP conservative. Anything which in the least counters anything you might have said, instantly transforms that writer into a liberal Hillary/Obama lover. Once again, I forgot.

Liberty Tree

nwtk2007 wrote:

Oh that's right, another typical OPP conservative. Anything which in the least counters anything you might have said, instantly transforms that writer into a liberal Hillary/Obama lover. Once again, I forgot.

I cannot transform you into what you already are.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Liberty Tree wrote:

I am sure it does and therein lies the problem with Obama and Hillary worshippers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep! Sure does. None of them can think independently, totally without logic in their psyche.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Liberty Tree wrote:

I cannot transform you into what you already are.

So what you're saying is that liberals are for getting rid of welfare, are for all people working and making a living rather than living off the government dole, are for free enterprise and capitalism, are for lower taxes, are against "right" for one's sexuality, are basically against abortions, are for term limits, and think Obama is one hell of a piss poor president, etc, etc????

Radiance3

jasfourth401 wrote:

I admire folks that take the time to dig into an issue and argue their position with facts. You are to be commended.

The purpose of my post was establish the validity of this military man who detailed the chain of command in situations like this. And so far, no one has pointed out that it is false. So my first question is, if this is SOP, then why would the military deviate from it? If it is their stated responsibility to handle it themselves, why would it be shoved up the chain of command when those "down below" are tasked with dealing with it? It is a very legitimate question.

The second point is the issue of "standing down." If that type of order is the responsibility of the military operation in that area, why would it float up to DC? They can't offer any insight or recommendations that are worth anything. It's a military matter between those on the ground and the system already in place.

The third point is the statement that this country left four people at risk for 13 hours. That is factually inaccurate. Two were dead in under four hours, including the ambassador. I would imagine (this is my speculation) that Washington, upon hearing the news of a dead ambassador and the successful evacuation of 30 people by 1 AM, was focused exclusively on that disaster and left the remaining issues (two ex Seals) for the military to deal with, as that was protocol as noted by the military man who went through how the chain of command (and who issues what order from "go" to "stand down") works.

My last point is the one most important to me. I fully understand the anger and outrage over the deaths of four people. But since Benghazi, over 30,000 US veterans have committed suicide and almost 50,000 US veterans are still living on the streets. That's where our focus needs to be. That is what congressional hearings should focus on. This country has lost its sense of priority and is focusing on issues that won't save any lives.

Thanks for the extensive list of links and information.

I admire folks that take the time to dig into an i... (show quote)

==================
Re: Comment of jasforth401.
I am sorry I could not take your comment at face value.
Many political reasons come to my mind.

First of all Libya should have never been invaded and removed Qadaffi from power. He became mellowed and ruled his country much better economically for his people and had improved relationship with the West.

My second opinion is why was Ambassador Stevens never given security when he requested 600 times?

More Than 600 Benghazi Security Requests Never Reached Clintons Desk, But Reports on Libya from Her Friend Did

By Melanie Hunter | October 22, 2015 | 1:12 PM EDT

Sidney Blumenthal, longtime Hillary Clinton aide and confidant (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged to the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday that of the more than 600 security requests related to Libya and Benghazi that came in in 2012 before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack none ever reached her desk.

However, Blumenthals 150 emails reached her desk, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said.

POMPEO: "Do you know how many security requests there were in the 1st quarter of 2012?"

CLINTON: "For everyone or for Benghazi?"

POMPEO: "Im sorry, yes maam. Related to Benghazi and Libya. Do you know how many there were?"

CLINTON: "No."

POMPEO: "Maam, there were just over 100 plus. In the 2nd quarter, do you know how many there were?"

CLINTON: "No, I do not."

POMPEO: "Maam there were 172ish might have been 171 or 173. How many were there in July and August and then in that week and few days before the attacks? Do you know?"

CLINTON: "There were a number of them. I know that."

POMPEO: "Yes, maam 83 by our count. Thats over 600 requests. Youve testified this morning that youve had none of those reach your desk. Is that correct also?"

CLINTON: "Thats correct."

POMPEO: "Madam Secretary, Mr. Blumenthal wrote you 150 emails. It appears from the materials that weve read that all of those reached your desk.

"Can you tell us why security requests from your professionals, the men that you just testified are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the art of keeping us all safe, none of those made it to you, but a man who was a friend of yours, whod never been to Libya, didnt know much about it at least thats his testimony didnt know much about it, every one of those reports that he sent on to you that had to do with situations on the ground in Libya, those made it to your desk?

"You asked for more of them. You read them. You corresponded with him, and yet the folks that worked for you didnt have the same courtesy."

CLINTON: "Congressman, as youre aware, hes a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was. Some of it wasnt. Some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. The professionals and experts who reviewed it found some of it useful, some of it not.

"He had no official position in the government, and he was not at all my adviser on Libya. He was a friend who sent me information that he thought might be helpful."

POMPEO: "Madame Secretary, I have lots of friends. They send me things. I have never had somebody send me a couple of pieces of intelligence with the level of detail that Mr. Blumenthal sent me every week. Thats a special friend."

CLINTON: "It was information that had been shared with him that he forwarded on, and as someone who got the vast majority of information that I acted on from official channels, I read a lot of articles that brought new ideas to my attention, and occasionally, people including him and others would give me ideas. They all went into the same process to be evaluated."

POMPEO: "Yes, maam. I will tell you that the record that weve received today does not reflect that. It simply doesnt. Weve read everything that we could get our hands on. Its taken us a long time to get it, but I will tell you, you just described all of this other information that you relied upon, and it doesnt comport with the record that this committee has been able to establish today."

I think I would trust more those who died and those who fought right there, protecting some of those who survived.
I think this is my conclusion based on what transpired since the beginning. I will make it short. Thank you.

jasfourth401

nwtk2007 wrote:

Don't you get it? Worrying about veterans committing suicide will not help beat Hillary win the presidency. And that is ALL Benghazi is to the GOP.

I actually take issue with the context of this comment. Sure, there are those that simply want to make hay of this disaster, but there is also a large group of veterans and active duty folks that take the concept of "not leaving anyone behind" very seriously. It is a sacred bond they share as defenders of this country, coupled with a deep sense of pride toward their fellow comrades. I can't for one minute doubt this sincere attitude.

Liberty Tree

nwtk2007 wrote:

So what you're saying is that liberals are for getting rid of welfare, are for all people working and making a living rather than living off the government dole, are for free enterprise and capitalism, are for lower taxes, are against "right" for one's sexuality, are basically against abortions, are for term limits, and think Obama is one hell of a piss poor president, etc, etc????

No they are opposite of all that and for everything else that makes America strong.

jasfourth401

Radiance3 wrote:

================== br Re: Comment of jasforth401. ... (show quote)

I have no political ax to grind here. I am a republican. All I am doing is asking why stated protocol was not followed in this matter. The military man who outlined how the chain of command works was very clear as to who made decisions...and who was not involved. I do not have the knowledge about how this works to make this case. I have to rely on others who understand how the system works. And until someone can definitely state that the SOP was incorrect, I have no choice but to accept it at face value. He is the expert, not me.

The points you raise above related to hundreds of security requests not reaching her desk (per her testimony) are interesting from two perspectives. The first is who is the person that "filtered" these requests and kept them from her (and why). The second is whether she is telling the truth about it. I don't know the answer to that, but my question back to this issue is what would those requests have gained? I seriously doubt a large security build up would have been green lighted for a diplomatic compound while ignoring the embassy in Tripoli. They would have started there first. And since no increase in Tripoli occurred, it is no surprise to me that Benghazi received the same treatment.

The real question in all of this for me, is who were these 30 people evacuated? That seems like a large number of people for such a desolate outpost. The only thing I can think of (speculate), is that this was a big CIA arms deal gone horribly wrong.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

jasfourth401 wrote:

I actually take issue with the context of this comment. Sure, there are those that simply want to make hay of this disaster, but there is also a large group of veterans and active duty folks that take the concept of "not leaving anyone behind" very seriously. It is a sacred bond they share as defenders of this country, coupled with a deep sense of pride toward their fellow comrades. I can't for one minute doubt this sincere attitude.

I know the bond dude. The politicians are taking advantage of vets and that bond to build support. They really, could not care in the least about the military lives. I'd just as soon they take their "thanks for your service" comments and shove it up their asses. I rather they just said nothing and went on their way.

ninetogo

Pulfnick wrote:

The radical progressive Washington Times propagand... (show quote)

____________________________________________________________
Polfnick:
To further substantiate your post, we have to wonder why General Carter Hamm was immediately relieved of duty during this fubar event? He planned to go against the 'stand down' order and foment a rescue operation. SOMEONE did not want a rescue operation to be performed and immediately relieved him of duty as Commander of CENTCOM, responsible for military operation in Africa.