Main Menu

Benghazi = birther?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney compared nonsense politicized questions about Benghazi by Republicans to questions about the President’s birth certificate.

Who woulda’ thunk?

80 Responses to Benghazi = birther?

  1. avatar
    aarrgghh May 25, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    in either instance the target is the same: despoiling obama’s legacy

    Viennacon: I’m serious, Obama wants a second term, we’ll f*** up everything he tries to do. Some states should simply refuse to obey Obama’s doctrine, as Arizona has done. Go rogue! Make ourselves heard loud and clear. We do NOT recognize TOTUS as our POTUS.

    DiogenesLamp: I want the History books to have an asterisk by the name Obama. ( * Not a legitimate President.) The fight is bigger than just one legal issue. Everything the man has done needs to be looked upon as having the taint of illegitimacy.

    DiogenesLamp: For me, it is not enough that Obama be thrown out of office, He should never be recognized as having been there legitimately in the first place. He is like an invading force which overwhelmed our Castle’s defenses and sat on our King’s thrown. Once he is thrown off the throne, it is not enough to claim he rightfully ruled while there. He needs to be exposed as an illegitimate bastard that never had a right to be there in the first place!

    This is what our History books need to say, and this lesson needs to be hammered into the consciousness of America. He was NOT our President. He was a Con-Man that fooled the majority of Stupid people into letting him sit on the throne.

    James G. Borden: Barack Hussein Obama II must not be listed in American history as a United States President.

    jersey117: [The eligibility issue] can still be used to ruin his legacy. I’d certainly get a lot of satisfaction if it could be proven to the country and the world that he’s a fraud and a liar. Even if he couldn’t be removed.

    markomalley: We don’t want a martyr. We want him ruined. Destroyed for all history.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG May 25, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    There is a parallel.
    In both instances, no matter what the factual actual evidence says, there is a group of people who have it in their head that things happened a certain way, and anything else MUST be a lie!
    Each group screams for the same things, to happen to the President: impeachment, prison time, or worse.
    Both groups aren’t very well informed, nor do they wish to be.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm #

    I personally don’t think that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting organizations with “Tea Party” in their name for extra scrutiny. After all, the purpose of the 501(c)(4) screening to to make sure that the organization is a charity whose MAIN PURPOSE is not political. Everybody knows that Tea Party usually means politics. What I criticize is that the IRS didn’t do their closer screening and get it over with, instead of drawing it out for years and in some cases asking unreasonably complex questions (if indeed that’s what they did).

    And as for Benghazi, the Republicans have gotten 10 times as many things wrong about that subject than the Obama administration did. And what matters, the military response, was done well. After all, it was Congress that cut the funds for embassy security, not the Obama Administration.

  4. avatar
    G May 26, 2013 at 3:49 am #

    I agree with your assessment on both issues.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I personally don’t think that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting organizations with “Tea Party” in their name for extra scrutiny. After all, the purpose of the 501(c)(4) screening to to make sure that the organization is a charity whose MAIN PURPOSE is not political. Everybody knows that Tea Party usually means politics. What I criticize is that the IRS didn’t do their closer screening and get it over with, instead of drawing it out for years and in some cases asking unreasonably complex questions (if indeed that’s what they did).

    And as for Benghazi, the Republicans have gotten 10 times as many things wrong about that subject than the Obama administration did. And what matters, the military response, was done well. After all, it was Congress that cut the funds for embassy security, not the Obama Administration.

  5. avatar
    Paper May 26, 2013 at 9:54 am #

    Lawrence O’Donnell has been pointing out on his show for over a week, and now it is starting to get some traction in Congress, if not in the scandal-driven section of the media, that:

    a) the actual statute from Congress reads that such organization must “exclusively” work for the social welfare, and that

    b) the IRS, on its own initiative, in 1959 changed that word in their regulations to mean “primarily.”

    Your point still holds, but even more so. Any organization with any political name, not to mention activity, should be reviewed, and almost certainly rejected per the actual statute.

    Not only did the IRS in 1959 put itself in a questionable (illegal?) position, by changing the word to “primarily,” they become involved automatically in the process of reviewing how much of a % is devoted to politics, how much to the social welfare. If they operated using the word in statute, “exclusively,” they would have far less review and be more efficient at it.

    Moreover! These organizations are not actually required to file for the status in the first place!

    I think it was still O’Donnell, or was it Colbert?, who pointed out that some of these organizations oppose big government and its involvement in our affairs, and here they are asking to be reviewed by big government, by the IRS nonetheless, when they don’t even have to.

    Colbert just filed his 501c(4) with the IRS this last week, on his show, with Trevor Potter, after noting how he never has filed an application with he IRS, because his lawyer, Potter, had advised him he didn’t need to do so. So now, he is filing it with a dba name, an exceedingly long name with all kinds of political buzzwords, including as well the phrase “I dare you to reject this application.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I personally don’t think that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting organizations with “Tea Party” in their name for extra scrutiny. After all, the purpose of the 501(c)(4) screening to to make sure that the organization is a charity whose MAIN PURPOSE is not political. Everybody knows that Tea Party usually means politics. What I criticize is that the IRS didn’t do their closer screening and get it over with, instead of drawing it out for years and in some cases asking unreasonably complex questions (if indeed that’s what they did).

    And as for Benghazi, the Republicans have gotten 10 times as many things wrong about that subject than the Obama administration did. And what matters, the military response, was done well. After all, it was Congress that cut the funds for embassy security, not the Obama Administration.

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 26, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I personally don’t think that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting organizations with “Tea Party” in their name for extra scrutiny. After all, the purpose of the 501(c)(4) screening to to make sure that the organization is a charity whose MAIN PURPOSE is not political. Everybody knows that Tea Party usually means politics. What I criticize is that the IRS didn’t do their closer screening and get it over with, instead of drawing it out for years and in some cases asking unreasonably complex questions (if indeed that’s what they did).

    And as for Benghazi, the Republicans have gotten 10 times as many things wrong about that subject than the Obama administration did. And what matters, the military response, was done well. After all, it was Congress that cut the funds for embassy security, not the Obama Administration.

    I agree. My big complaint is with the media. Their distorted notion of fairness allows these stories to gain traction and keep rolling longer than they deserve.

  7. avatar
    donna May 26, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    re 501(c)4s, in what universe does “exclusively” mean “primarily”? can you imagine a spouse agreeing with that?

    david cay johnston fixes it in 8 words: to qualify for a 501(c)4 tax exempt status you must be “exclusively devoted to promoting social welfare, and prohibited from engaging in political election activity”.

    “In one recent year, Rove’s organization’s tax return shows that it spent 99.9 percent of its money on politics, and 1/10th of 1 percent on social welfare. That clearly is neither exclusively, nor primarily on social welfare”

    http://m.npr.org/news/Politics/185534662?start=10

    in 2012, colbert and his attorney, mocked the PACs as “money laundering”

    Now Colbert asked his lawyer to put in an application for his group under another name which might draw more scrutiny, and here’s what they came up with:

    Making America A Better Tea Party Patriot 9-12 Place To Constitution America Tea Party Nominally Social Welfare Conservative Political Action Tea Party Secret Money Liberty I Dare You To Deny This Application Of America Tea Party

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-mocks-tea-partiers-whining-about-t

  8. avatar
    alg May 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    All three so-called “scandals” have been overhyped by Republicans in Congress and the media.

    The IRS “scandal” was the product of bureaucratic ineptness. The choice of these key words for targeting tax exempt status applications was driven by belief shaded by unintended bias rather than objective data. It may be true that organizations with such names are more prone to not qualify, but the IRS didn’t base the extended scrutiny quantifiable evidence, so they are unable to defend the practice.

    The AP “scandal” was clearly a legal use Justice Department authority in pursuit of the safety of our intelligence officers. No laws were broken. This is simply a political and risk management question. Notably, I doubt that a Republican administration would have acted differently under these same circumstances.

    The Benghazi “scandal” is all about denting Hillary Clinton’s reputation. The focus on the development of talking points is a distraction from the real lessons that should be learned from this tragedy. Republicans in Congress do the nation and those who a died a disservice by not concentrating on what we can do in the future to prevent this from ever happening again.

  9. avatar
    G May 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

    I agree with your characterization of all 3 scandals. The only thing left out in describing them is that the GOP uses anything and everything as an excuse to reflexively attack and attempt to smear Obama. That sort of sadly, is a given in today’s political climate, I guess.

    alg:
    All three so-called “scandals” have been overhyped by Republicans in Congress and the media.

    The IRS “scandal” was the product of bureaucratic ineptness.The choice of these key words for targeting tax exempt status applications was driven by belief shaded by unintended bias rather than objective data.It may be true that organizations with such names are more prone to not qualify, but the IRS didn’t base the extended scrutiny quantifiable evidence, so they are unable to defend the practice.

    The AP “scandal” was clearly a legal use Justice Department authority in pursuit of the safety of our intelligence officers.No laws were broken.This is simply a political and risk management question.Notably, I doubt that a Republican administration would have acted differently under these same circumstances.

    The Benghazi “scandal” is all about denting Hillary Clinton’s reputation.The focus on the development of talking points is a distraction from the real lessons that should be learned from this tragedy.Republicans in Congress do the nation and those who a died a disservice by not concentrating on what we can do in the future to prevent this from ever happening again.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2013 at 3:54 pm #

    I would note that Carney declined to include the AP phone logs in his “birther” analogy.

    G: I agree with your characterization of all 3 scandals.

  11. avatar
    JPotter May 27, 2013 at 2:22 am #

    This is the birther’s 2nd greatest achievement (after serving as a boat anchor on the GOP’s chances in the 2012 elections): providing a go-to, shorthand, generally understood reference with which the administration can use to broadbrush a story as nuts.

  12. avatar
    richCares May 27, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    today, Memorial Day, a crowd of mostly military cheered Obama as he honored our fallen heroes. Birthers hate Obama being cheered., poor Orly hates it even more.

  13. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG May 27, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    richCares:
    today, Memorial Day, a crowd of mostly military cheered Obama as he honored our fallen heroes. Birthers hate Obama being cheered., poor Orly hates it even more.

    Orly hates ANYONE being cheered, unless their name is Orly Taitz.

  14. avatar
    Line in the Sand May 29, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    So what are we suggesting here? That every scandal that Obama might be linked to – not just Birtherism – is simply a concocted ‘conspiracy’ by his political enemies?

    Benghazi, IRS, AP, Fast and Furious…he has no possible wrongful connections with any of them?

    That seems very rash to me.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    I think the point is not to jump to conclusions, and to represent the facts fairly. I don’t see how anyone can deny that Obama’s opponents are distorting facts, exaggerating events and generally playing politics. Maybe Obama plays politics too. No one is saying Obama is perfect, but I am saying that not everything he is accused of is true or fair. So let’s take your list:

    Benghazi: The best information to date is that the military response was the best it could have been at the time. What makes no sense is the main Republican response, that it was a cover-up. Covering up what? You can’t have a cover up without something to cover up, and that has not been found.

    IRS: I am certainly not saying the IRS acted properly. I am only saying that some of what they did seemed OK, and the rest not. However, we should keep in mind that the head of the IRS was appointed by Bush, not Obama. To date, there is no information that would link the White House to this IRS activity, and until there is, there’s no reason to claim otherwise. One needs facts before criticism.

    AP: I haven’t said anything about the AP story. I don’t know enough. However, I do not think that anyone is alleging that laws were broken, and if a legal activity is against the public interest, perhaps the problem is with the laws.

    Fast and Furious: I have never discussed this topic on the blog.

    But let me give you another example that I’ve seen in emails and on Facebook lately, talking about how much money Obama has spent compared to his predecessors. Under the US Constitution, Congress controls the levels of spending and taxation. Not the President. Obama hasn’t spent a nickle that Congress hasn’t mandated.

    You may not be old enough to remember Ronald Reagan, but the number of criminal indictments brought against his administration was staggering. The Obama administration is squeaky clean compared to many of his predecessors.

    What is of immediate concern here is that you are distorting what I said in the article, and that isn’t welcome here. Criticism is fine, but not misrepresentation. Maybe you should find somewhere else to comment.

    Line in the Sand: So what are we suggesting here? That every scandal that Obama might be linked to – not just Birtherism – is simply a concocted ‘conspiracy’ by his political enemies?

    Benghazi, IRS, AP, Fast and Furious…he has no possible wrongful connections with any of them?

    That seems very rash to me.

  16. avatar
    Line in the Sand May 29, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    I wasn’t referring to your specific opening comment, but to the general tone of all comments which seemed to suggest that Obama is now faultless in the face of multiple scandals.

    I also strongly disagree on Benghazi. We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President) asked for military assistance but this was denied. No one has the authority to do that lightly except the President (as Rep Ann Wagner, former Ambassador, rightly pointed out). But the President says he gave a green light to all military support. So, someone evidently took it upon themselves to deny the Charge when they didn’t have the authority to do so. This will be determined in due course, as the investigation only has to work up the chain of command from the military unit in Tripoli and see who tumbles to giving that ‘Stand Down’ order. We’ll see….

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    You might find this report interesting that basically says that Congress is asking the wrong questions:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/183659329/drawing-security-lessons-from-benghazi-mission-attack

    As for the testimony you mention, it is limited in perspective, and possibly self-serving.

    Line in the Sand: I also strongly disagree on Benghazi. We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President) asked for military assistance but this was denied.

  18. avatar
    gorefan May 29, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

    Line in the Sand: We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President) asked for military assistance but this was denied.

    AMBASSADOR PICKERING,
    “The question of, could military aircraft have made a difference? Could they have gotten there in time? And the answer at that time, through the defense attaché, to Mr. Hicks was, “No.” Subsequently, Admiral Mullen looked at that very carefully. General Dempsey did. They both have testified that there was no military capacity to get there.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584095/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-12-2013-gates-pickering-ayotte-durbin-and-angelou/?pageNum=2

    BOB GATES (former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Bush and Obama:
    “Well, first of all I have to say I only know what I have read in the media. I haven’t had any briefings or anything. And I– I think the one where place where I might be able to say something useful– has to do with some of the talk about– the military response. And I listened to the testimony of– both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey. And– and frankly had I been in the job at the time– I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East. Despite all the turmoil that’s going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment’s notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way– would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And frankly, I’ve heard “Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ’em with the noise or something?” Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft– over Benghazi under those circumstances. And– and with respect to– sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously. And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous. And personally, I would not have approved that because we just don’t it’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584095/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-12-2013-gates-pickering-ayotte-durbin-and-angelou/?pageNum=4

  19. avatar
    RetiredLawyer May 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm #

    Line in the sand,

    A few points:

    1. The charge de affairs was in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. There is several hundred miles of two lane road between the two cities. There was no available air transportation. By the time they could have gotten there, the entire attack would have been over.

    2. The four man squad he wanted to take was already being tasked with securing the embassy in Tripoli. An important job they could do right then.

    3. The CIA had a entire working center right next to the consulate. That had enough people and arms to do the job.

    4. The Ambassador and the other three did not die in the fire fight. They died of smoke inhalation while attempting to leave the building through the same exit used by everyone else. Apparently they got lost heading for the exit. This happened within the first half hour to hour after the attack began.

    5. In short, there is nothing to your claim.

  20. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

    Line in the Sand: We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President)

    What is your source for this assertion…that the Chief of Mission reports “only to the President”?

  21. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 29, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    And as somebody testified (Pickering? I forget) there was no way of knowing whether Benghazi was actually a diversionary tactic to lure security forces away from the Tripoli facility so the evil bastards could kill DOZENS of Americans there, in addition to the four in Benghazi. So the call was made not to authorize that small force leaving Tripoli, period.

    Benghazi hysteria= partisan witch hunt.

  22. avatar
    G May 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    These are all partisan witch hunts. If they were approaching all of this supposed “scandals” seriously, they would be focusing on what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again, aka, “lessons learned”. Instead, all we have is a bunch of partisan hyperbole that is so over-the-top, that it bears little difference from blaming Obama for the weather…which I’ve noticed some crazy conspiracies now do as well. It was completely ludicrous when Bush Derangement Syndrome had people blaming Bush for the weather and ever unrelated gripe in the world. These faux “scandals” are nothing more than ludicrous Obama Derangement Syndrome at play today. What a waste of time and pointless “finger pointing” misdirection away from actually solving or improving anything…

    Thomas Brown: Benghazi hysteria= partisan witch hunt.

  23. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater May 29, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

    CarlOrcas: What is your source for this assertion…that the Chief of Mission reports “only to the President”?

    It’s horseshit because the Chief of Mission reports to the Secretary of State and fall under the State Department.

  24. avatar
    Arthur May 29, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

    RetiredLawyer: 5. In short, there is nothing to your claim

    Can line in the sand say, “epic fail”? Because he did. Fail, that is.

  25. avatar
    Daniel May 29, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    I wasn’t referring to your specific opening comment, but to the general tone of all comments which seemed to suggest that Obama is now faultless in the face of multiple scandals.

    I also strongly disagree on Benghazi.We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President) asked for military assistance but this was denied.No one has the authority to do that lightly except the President (as Rep Ann Wagner, former Ambassador, rightly pointed out).But the President says he gave a green light to all military support.So, someoneevidently took it upon themselves to deny the Charge when they didn’t have the authority to do so.This will be determined in due course, as the investigation only has to work up the chain of command from the military unit in Tripoli and see who tumbles to giving that ‘Stand Down’ order.We’ll see….

    This is what happens when arm chair analysts get their “facts” from other arm chair analysts. Especially when the aim is to find something to blame on one individual, at any cost.

  26. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 29, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: It’s horseshit because the Chief of Mission reports to the Secretary of State and fall under the State Department.

    Of course it is. I was just interested in seeing what cyber orifice he/she managed to pull that bit of information out of.

  27. avatar
    gorefan May 29, 2013 at 11:04 pm #

    Daniel: This is what happens when arm chair analysts get their “facts” from other arm chair analysts. Especially when the aim is to find something to blame on one individual, at any cost.

    People like LIS would have preferred another “Black Hawk Down” type incident, then they could blame President Obama for acting to rashly.

  28. avatar
    Rickey May 29, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    It’s worth noting that the Republicans seem to have given up on the “failure to respond” meme and have been focusing almost exclusively on what they claim is a talking points coverup. It is apparent that the Pentagon concluded that there were no fighter aircraft close enough to Benghazi to be able to fly there, and they weren’t about to strip the Embassy of its security personnel when there was a possibility that the Embassy might be attacked. And of course there is no evidence that anyone gave a “stand down” order.

    Fast and Furious is a program which began during the Bush Administration in 2006. It obviously did not turn out well, but that hardly makes it a scandal.

    As for the IRS flap and the Justice Department’s leak investigation, it remains to be seen if any laws were broken, which is far from clear based upon what we know at this point.

    What we do know for certain is that the Republicans have been frothing at the mouth for a scandal to attach to Obama. What really chafes them is that it isn’t working. The Gallup Daily Tracking poll today has Obama’s job approval rating at 50% positive, 43% negative.

  29. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 30, 2013 at 3:00 am #

    Line in the Sand: We have clear testimony that the acting Charge (who operationally, as acting Ambassador, reports only to the President) asked for military assistance but this was denied. No one has the authority to do that lightly except the President (as Rep Ann Wagner, former Ambassador, rightly pointed out).

    Translated into Butter birfer language: “We have clear evidence and testimony, based on the legal analysis of the PDF by the Cold Case Corsi Posse, that the long form birth certificate is a forgery. Mr Onaka, who operationally reports only to the President (as Dr Orly Taitz, Esq, former Estate Agent, rightly pointed out) has given multiple hints that there is no original, but requests to see it have always been denied.”

    Can you believe it is not Butter?

  30. avatar
    Rickey May 30, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    .No one has the authority to do that lightly except the President (as Rep Ann Wagner, former Ambassador, rightly pointed out).

    How would Rep. Wagner know what the protocol in the Defense Department is? Did she have experience with military operations while she was the Ambassador to Luxembourg?

    It’s amazing how people with zero military experience are suddenly experts on the military chain of command.

  31. avatar
    Line in the Sand May 31, 2013 at 11:57 am #

    Bottom line, Obama says he greenlighted any necessary support, and the CDA Hicks said he wanted it. The A Team said they wanted to go. That leaves the remaining question, who definitely said no? We don’t have a name yet.

    I worked for multiple Ambassadors. They answer operationally only to the President(Hillary is in the Administrative chain, not Operational). Although they do not command military assets under a theatre command, they may request them or the assistance of any U.S. asset in their country of posting – particularly for security and protection reasons. And whomever denies it – better be ready to give a name and reason. Ambassadors (or acting) have the equivalent rank of a 4 Star, by the way).

    I love the comment many are making – ‘help wouldn’t have arrived in time’…this is saying the powers that be were clairvoyant on the night of the attack, as if anyone could know how long an attack will last or how long the defenders could hold out. If there ever was ‘horsechit’…there’s some.

    Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department

  32. avatar
    Line in the Sand May 31, 2013 at 12:29 pm #

    There’s so much wrong here I had to respond…

    ‘1. The charge de affairs was in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. …By the time they could have gotten there, the entire attack would have been over.’ – this is just dumb, see my previous comment on being ‘precognitive’.

    ‘2. The four man squad he wanted to take was already being tasked with securing the embassy in Tripoli. An important job they could do right then.’ – The Ambassador (or, in his absence, the CDA) decides what he wants to do with his own Mission protection assets (the Mission includes Consulates, Annexes, etc.). Substantiate the claim that the A team was there for Embassy protection specifically.

    3. The CIA had a entire working center right next to the consulate. That had enough people and arms to do the job. – duhhhh…guess not, one dead Ambassador and 3 others.

    4. The Ambassador and the other three did not die in the fire fight. They died of smoke inhalation while attempting to leave the building through the same exit used by everyone else. Apparently they got lost heading for the exit. This happened within the first half hour to hour after the attack began. – Get your facts straight, the SEALs were killed by mortar fire hours after the Ambassador and the commo guy, this is really basic facts here you’re messing up.

    5. In short, there is nothing to your claim. – wrong…you screwed up every point.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Claims from anonymous experts are meaningless.

    Line in the Sand: Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department

  34. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 31, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

    Line in the Sand: I worked for multiple Ambassadors. They answer operationally only to the President(Hillary is in the Administrative chain, not Operational). Although they do not command military assets under a theatre command, they may request them or the assistance of any U.S. asset in their country of posting – particularly for security and protection reasons. And whomever denies it – better be ready to give a name and reason. Ambassadors (or acting) have the equivalent rank of a 4 Star, by the way).

    Given your claimed time with the military and State Department I assume you can quickly provide a link to government sources that back up your claims…..right?

  35. avatar
    Majority Will May 31, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Given your claimed time with the military and State Department I assume you can quickly provide a link to government sources that back up your claims…..right?

    It’s in a secure database in his “Bat Cave” along with his Batman p.j.s and utility belt.

  36. avatar
    Daniel May 31, 2013 at 3:53 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department

    And how many years did you work for Santa Claus?

  37. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

    Line in the Sand: 5 years of Special Oops,

    FIFY : )

  38. avatar
    Line in the Sand May 31, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    Gee, really witty comebacks from Daniel and Majority Will. Do you come up with a lot of those in your little Obot circlejerks?

  39. avatar
    Daniel May 31, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Gee, really witty comebacks from Daniel and Majority Will.Do you come up with a lot of those in your little Obot circlejerks?

    I’m sorry, are you under the mistaken impression that I’m an Obama supporter? I guess that’s just one more ridiculous assumption of your’s that you’re completely wrong about.

    Sorry Lino, but I’m a Conservative and a registered Republican. I didn’t vote for Obama, and I don’t support him.

    However, one does not have to support Obama to oppose the sedition that is birtherism.

  40. avatar
    CarlOrcas May 31, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Gee, really witty comebacks from Daniel and Majority Will.Do you come up with a lot of those in your little Obot circlejerks?

    So….how about an answer to my question?

  41. avatar
    Majority Will May 31, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    “Obot circlejerks (sic)”

    It’s actually a large, well furnished oval.

  42. avatar
    RetiredLawyer May 31, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    Line,

    If, and I say if, your propositions were actually correct, then the charge de affairs would have had the authority to overrule who ever had given contrary orders to the four person squad. Since either he did not have that authority (and you have lied), or he had that authority and did not exercise it (in which case if anyone is to blame it is him). Your point which is “he was going to do something but was told no” is silliness. Since even the idiot himself does not claim that he was told no by Clinton or the POTUS.

    Since you appear to tacitly agree with my timeline, at least as to the ambassador, what, pray tell, could the squad have done, had they gotten there six or ten hours later? All the dead were dead, everyone was out of the consulate.

    And, BTW, your idea that the “acting ambassador” has all the authority of the real ambassador if/when the real ambassador is not available does not seem to jibe with actuality, nor does your idea that the ambassador has direct authority over the military assigned to the embassy. For someone who has already shown that he does not comprehend that all diplomatic people work for the State Dept, and the SoS, you compound your problem with lines of command by stating that the ambassador is in charge of the military — he is not. The military answer up their chain of command to DoD and then from Sect of Defense to the POTUS. What the ambassador can do is make a request, not give a command. The request can be turned down for any reason, such as “we are ten hours away from there” and/or “we need these people here, in case there is an attack on this building” and/or “there is an entire CIA base there, and at least one local militia that can do that job”.

  43. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater May 31, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

    Dump in the Dirt:
    Gee, really witty comebacks from Daniel and Majority Will.Do you come up with a lot of those in your little Obot circlejerks?

    *yawn* got anything original to bring to the discussion?

  44. avatar
    Northland10 May 31, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Bottom line, Obama says he greenlighted any necessary support, and the CDA Hicks said he wanted it. The A Team said they wanted to go.That leaves the remaining question, who definitely said no?We don’t have a name yet.

    I worked for multiple Ambassadors.They answer operationally only to the President(Hillary is in the Administrative chain, not Operational).Although they do not command military assets under a theatre command, they may request them or the assistance of any U.S. asset in their country of posting – particularly for security and protection reasons.And whomever denies it – better be ready to give a name and reason.

    I love the comment many are making – ‘help wouldn’t have arrived in time’…this is saying the powers that be were clairvoyant on the night of the attack, as if anyone could know how long an attack will last or how long the defenders could hold out. If there ever was ‘horsechit’…there’s some.

    Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department

    Read Gorefan’s quotes from a real Ambassador and a real former Secretary of Defense Gates, who disagrees with you. It is not us but actual, non-anonymous experts who state you are full of it.

    Minus any show of actual proof, I assume you are just a full of it troll.

  45. avatar
    Rickey May 31, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Northland10: Read Gorefan’s quotes from a real Ambassador and a real former Secretary of Defense Gates, who disagrees with you.It is not us but actual, non-anonymous experts who state you are full of it.

    Minus any show of actual proof, I assume you are just a full of it troll.

    I found an interesting paper from the Institute for National Strategic Studies which covers in great detail the relationship between ambassadors and DOD, and also points out that “Ambassadors typically are directed to communicate to the President through the Secretary of State.” thus undercutting Line in the Sand’s claim that the acting charge “reports only to the President.”

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndu.edu%2Fpress%2Flib%2Fpdf%2Fstrategic-perspectives%2FStrategicPerspectives-2.pdf&ei=bU-pUbLdHLTW0gGoooHIDg&usg=AFQjCNEB6zaEGIuH0ZrMbSjumIPqGG043w&sig2=6iy9uIMux4KswWjjufk-5g&bvm=bv.47244034,d.dmQ&cad=rja

    The paper also points out that the relationship between and ambassador and the military is governed by the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which provides:

    Under the direction of the President, the chief of mission to a foreign country:

    (1) shall have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government executive branch employees in that country (except for employees under the command of a United States area military commander); and

    (2) shall keep fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of the Government within that country, and shall insure that all Government executive branch employees in that country (except for employees under the command of a United States area military commander) comply fully with all applicable directives of the chief of mission.

  46. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 6, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    Hello Rickey…I don’t think what you’ve found and stated contradicts my statements. Ambassadors ‘typically are directed to communicate through the President through the Secretary of State’. Big deal. This also implies that some communications can be a-typical or routed directly. In real life many Ambassadors are direct policital appointees of the President. They may be close friends. They were appointed by him and serve completely at his behest and have his direct ear. Neither Hillary nor anyone else in the State Department may have a say in criticizing these Ambassadors and certainly can’t fire them or even discipline them f they’re friends of the President. Get my point?

    You’re correct about the military, but I stated as much. Don’t confuse the ability to directly command the military with the power the Ambassador has to request them and not be denied by lesser ranks. Again, this is fairly easily checked if you compare GS and FS rankings with military ranks, ambassadors ‘typically’ hold the equivalent of a 4 star – no Colonel or Generals of lesser rank, for instance, would dare say no to an Ambassador, particularly if he’s serving in the Ambassador’s country of posting – any such request would be immediately bumped up the chain to the highest levels.

  47. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 6, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    So, once again, I welcome an clear answer from anyone on one simple unanswered question, among several, regarding Benghazi. Lt. Col. Gibson, Special Operations Command (SOC) Africa, was supposedly ‘furious’ that he was given a stand down order to respond with his team to Benghazi.

    The President is on record saying that he fully authorized all reasonable means to help and left it at that. So we know he never said ‘Stand Down’ to LTC Gibson.

    Therefore, WHO, by name, has admitted to giving that stand down order to LTC Gibson and therefore denied a possible rescue to the Benghazi defenders? Someone in the military’s chain of command had to say ‘Stand Down’! ..who was it?? Panetta hasn’t said it was him. Hillary didn’t say it was her (anyway she’s not in the chain anyway and wouldn’t have the authority). We’ve ruled out Obama, the CIC….so who gave the order??

    This is not an outrageous question. It goes to the absolute heart of whether this administration supports its men and women in harm’s way, or if it’s willing to toss away lives for political expediency, and then ignore any responsibility for a potential treasonous act! Any of you who’ve served in the military or a position of risk would certainly appreciate the significance of this.

    If you know, please tell me by citing the person’s name, their exact quote, and your source.

  48. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 6, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    It seems we can narrow this down, the Chain of Command was 1) Lieutenant Col. Gibson to 2) Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, Commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, to 3) Rear Admiral Brian Losey, to 4) General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. AFRICOM.

    That’s it, because Ham reports to the CIC, Obama (but we rule Obama out because he’s already on record, stating that it wasn’t he who denied help).

    So, it had to be Commander #2, 3, or 4….which one?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2013 at 6:50 pm #

    Well, if the question is so central, why did the Congress not ask it? One might wonder if the Republicans in Congress preferred that the public not know. Why would they do that? Certainly they aren’t trying the protect Obama, just the opposite.

    Line in the Sand: This is not an outrageous question. It goes to the absolute heart of whether this administration supports its men and women in harm’s way,

  50. avatar
    misha marinsky June 6, 2013 at 7:06 pm #

    Line in the Sand: It goes to the absolute heart of whether this administration supports its men and women in harm’s way, or if it’s willing to toss away lives for political expediency

    13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

    First, explain the difference between Shrub and Obama.

    Line in the Sand: if it’s willing to toss away lives for political expediency, and then ignore any responsibility

    See Iraq. All those died and were maimed for Halliburton. WMDs were created from whole cloth.

  51. avatar
    sfjeff June 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, if the question is so central, why did the Congress not ask it? One might wonder if the Republicans in Congress preferred that the public not know. Why would they do that? Certainly they aren’t trying the protect Obama, just the opposite.

    I actually have been wondering that from the first time I heard the quote that the request was made and denied.

    Why didn’t anyone just ask Lt. Col. Gibson, Special Operations Command (SOC) Africa who gave the order to stand down.

    Frankly I think this is an question that should interest everyone- both who gave the order and the context- and as Doc pointed out- why on earth didn’t anyone in Congress ask him that at the time?

    I will not be surprised if when the dust finally settles and the poop flinging subsides, that there may be people who made the wrong decisions at the time and are reluctant to admit it now.

    But it has been apparent from day one, that the ‘loyal’ opposition was more interested in finding someone in the Administration to blame than to actually finding out what happened and making our embassies and consulates more secure.

    To me nothing makes that more apparent to me than the continued focus on what Rice said a few days after the attack- rather than on the attack itself.

    This attack was a tragedy for sure- but being old enough to have lived through others- all the way back to the Marine barracks being bombed in Lebanon with 300 or so dead under Reagan- this is the most politicized and partisan response I have ever seen to attacks on Americans.

  52. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Line in the Sand:

    You’re correct about the military, but I stated as much.Don’t confuse the ability to directly command the military with the power the Ambassador has to request them and not be denied by lesser ranks.Again, this is fairly easily checked if you compare GS and FS rankings with military ranks, ambassadors ‘typically’ hold the equivalent of a 4 star – no Colonel or Generals of lesser rank, for instance, would dare say no to an Ambassador, particularly if he’s serving in the Ambassador’s country of posting – any such request would be immediately bumped up the chain to the highest levels.

    Equivalence of rank between a civilian and a military commander is meaningless in the context of military actions. It is equivalence of authority which matters, and the Ambassador has no authority to direct military action.

  53. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

    sfjeff: I actually have been wondering that from the first time I heard the quote that the request was made and denied.

    Why didn’t anyone just ask Lt. Col. Gibson, Special Operations Command (SOC) Africa who gave the order to stand down.

    That’s a great question. As far as I can determine, as of today nobody has questioned Lt. Col. Gibson, so we only have the hearsay statement from Gregory Hicks that Gibson was “furious” when he was not allowed to go to Benghazi. Indeed, hardly anyone even seems to know Lt. Col. Gibson’s first name (some sources say that it is “Steve”).

    And of course there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of “stand down.” “Stand down” means to do nothing. Gibson was not told to stand down, he was told to go to the Tripoli airport and provide security there.

    Pentagon spokesman Maj. Rob Firman told Fox News: “They weren’t told to stand down. They were simply told not to go to Benghazi. They were told to go to the airport in Tripoli to provide security there.”

    http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23910&content=92845923&pageNum=-1

  54. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 6, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    Line in the Sand: It seems we can narrow this down, the Chain of Command was 1) Lieutenant Col. Gibson to 2) Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, Commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, to 3) Rear Admiral Brian Losey, to 4) General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. AFRICOM.

    That’s it, because Ham reports to the CIC, Obama (but we rule Obama out because he’s already on record, stating that it wasn’t he who denied help).

    I think I’ve asked you about this before but I’ll try again. You keep saying that the commander of US AFRICOM reports to the President.and I’ve asked you to provide some support for that. You haven’t.

    So I just checked the command’s website and it’s pretty clear:

    “United States Africa Command, (U.S. AFRICOM) is one of six of the U.S. Defense Department’s geographic combatant commands and is responsible to the Secretary of Defense for military relations with African nations, the African Union, and African regional security organizations. A full-spectrum combatant command, U.S. AFRICOM is responsible for all U.S. Department of Defense operations, exercises, and security cooperation on the African continent, its island nations, and surrounding waters. AFRICOM began initial operations on Oct. 1, 2007, and officially became an independent command on Oct. 1, 2008.”

    http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command

    So….the head of the command does not report to the President….never has and probably never will.

  55. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    CarlOrcas:

    So….the head of the command does not report to the President….never has and probably never will.

    And Line in the Sand apparently believes that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command.

  56. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 7, 2013 at 12:57 am #

    Rickey: And Line in the Sand apparently believes that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command.

    Actually they aren’t. That changed sometime in the 1980’s as I recall. They now act as advisors to the Secretaries of Army, Navy, etc., and to the President.

    Today I believe the chain for the commanders like AFRICOM goes to the Secretary of Defense who reports to the President. The idea was that the unified commands made operational sense but then they didn’t know what to do with all those other folks wandering around the Pentagon.

    There is a case to be made, I think, for a single military service and I think this was a small step in that direction.

  57. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 7, 2013 at 5:39 am #

    Carl Orcas, I stand slightly corrected on the point that SecDef is also between Gen. Ham and the President in the ‘operational’ chain of command, but he is the only additional layer. CJCS is only in the ‘communications chain’.

    By the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986, Congress clarified the command line to the combatant commanders and preserve civilian control of the military. The Act states that the operational chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders

  58. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 7, 2013 at 5:54 am #

    Rickey – ‘Equivalence of rank between a civilian and a military commander is meaningless in the context of military actions. It is equivalence of authority which matters, and the Ambassador has no authority to direct military action.’

    This is quibbling. I’ve said several times now that Ambassadors have AUTHORITY. No, they don’t directly command some troops under THEATRE COMMAND (but some military they DO COMMAND, like those posted to the Mission who serve at their pleasure – i.e., DAO / DIA assets, USMC detachments, any visiting military that the Ambassador has granted country clearance to, etc, – the Ambassador can move those people about or kick them out of country at a moment’s notice). Also, in reality, ambassadors have stopped cold some large-scale military ops planning until they lend their full approval thru the State Dept. chain to the NCA decision-makers. This is common knowledge to anyone with Foreign Service or warplanning experience.

  59. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 7, 2013 at 10:39 am #

    Line in the Sand: I stand slightly corrected

    Ah, “slightly corrected”. Is that like “slightly pregnant”?

    Interesting admission from a person who just a week ago told us: “Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department.”

  60. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am #

    CarlOrcas: Ah, “slightly corrected”. Is that like “slightly pregnant”?

    Interesting admission from a person who just a week ago told us: “Oh, and my experience, 5 years military Special Ops, 12 years U.S. State Department.”

    Or a little dead or very unique.

  61. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    Line in the Sand:
    Rickey – ‘Equivalence of rank between a civilian and a military commander is meaningless in the context of military actions. It is equivalence of authority which matters, and the Ambassador has no authority to direct military action.’

    This is quibbling. I’ve said several times now that Ambassadors have AUTHORITY.No, they don’t directly command some troops under THEATRE COMMAND (but some military they DO COMMAND, like those posted to the Mission who serve at their pleasure – i.e., DAO / DIA assets, USMC detachments, any visiting military that the Ambassador has granted country clearance to, etc, – the Ambassador canmove those people about or kick them out of country at a moment’s notice).Also, in reality, ambassadors have stopped cold some large-scale military ops planning until they lend their full approval thru the State Dept. chain to the NCA decision-makers.This is common knowledge to anyone with Foreign Service or warplanning experience.

    It is not quibbling. It is totally relevant. The point is that an Ambassador (much less a temporary acting Ambassador) had no authority to send combat troops from Tripoli to Benghazi.

    According to James Dobbins of the RAND Corporation, “In practice, an ambassador’s authority over representatives of other agencies is very limited. He has no control over their budgets or personnel decisions. In extreme cases, a chief of mission can send representatives home for insubordination or unsuitable behavior.”

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/fa_subcontent/67833/67835

    Having the authority to “send representatives home for insubordination or unsuitable behavior” is hardly equivalent to the authority of a General.

  62. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 7, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    CarlOrcas, I’m big enough to admit I forgot the SecDef in the chain (probably because he’s already pled ‘not guilty’ to giving the stand down order). You’re evidently not gracious enough to respect my admission. My service was, specifically, Capt., US Air Force TAC and Joint Special Ops Command; 12 years DOS Special Agent posted in D.C., Africa, Greece, and a total of 97 foreign deployments. – what exactly is your military or Foreign Service experience – other than dream about it from your armchair in your momma’s basement??

  63. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    CarlOrcas, I’m big enough to admit I forgot the SecDef in the chain (probably because he’s already pled ‘not guilty’ to giving the stand down order).You’re evidently not gracious enough to respect my admission.My service was, specifically, Capt., US Air Force TAC and Joint Special Ops Command; 12 years DOS Special Agent posted in D.C., Africa, Greece, and a total of 97 foreign deployments. – what exactly is your military or Foreign Service experience – other than dream about it from your armchair in your momma’s basement??

    My experience is irrelevant….just as irrelevant as your anonymous claims are to the matter at hand.

    The bottom line is that you were wrong and when you appeal to your self-proclaimed authority you just ask for the ridicule you’ve gotten here.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    CarlOrcas: My experience is irrelevant….just as irrelevant as your anonymous claims are to the matter at hand.

    The bottom line is that you were wrong and when you appeal to your self-proclaimed authority you just ask for the ridicule you’ve gotten here.

    Hear, hear.

  65. avatar
    Rickey June 7, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    CarlOrcas, I’m big enough to admit I forgot the SecDef in the chain (probably because he’s already pled ‘not guilty’ to giving the stand down order).You’re evidently not gracious enough to respect my admission.My service was, specifically, Capt., US Air Force TAC and Joint Special Ops Command; 12 years DOS Special Agent posted in D.C., Africa, Greece, and a total of 97 foreign deployments. – what exactly is your military or Foreign Service experience – other than dream about it from your armchair in your momma’s basement??

    There was no “stand down” order. If you really have the experience you claim, you would know what “stand down” means.

  66. avatar
    Daniel June 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    My service was, specifically, Capt., US Air Force TAC and Joint Special Ops Command; 12 years DOS Special Agent posted in D.C., Africa, Greece, and a total of 97 foreign deployments. – what exactly is your military or Foreign Service experience – other than dream about it from your armchair in your momma’s basement??

    You have anything to back up these claims of yours? Or do we just have to take the word of a birther?

    My military experience tells me you’re making up at least most of yours.

  67. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

    Daniel: You have anything to back up these claims of yours? Or do we just have to take the word of a birther?

    My military experience tells me you’re making up at least most of yours.

    We know birthers are habitual liars. He or she could be one of those pathetic fools who buy medals on eBay and fake a military career.

  68. avatar
    Lupin June 8, 2013 at 3:17 am #

    Line in the Sand:
    This is quibbling. I’ve said several times now that Ambassadors have AUTHORITY.No, they don’t directly command some troops under THEATRE COMMAND (but some military they DO COMMAND, like those posted to the Mission who serve at their pleasure – i.e., DAO / DIA assets, USMC detachments, any visiting military that the Ambassador has granted country clearance to, etc, – the Ambassador canmove those people about or kick them out of country at a moment’s notice).Also, in reality, ambassadors have stopped cold some large-scale military ops planning until they lend their full approval thru the State Dept. chain to the NCA decision-makers.This is common knowledge to anyone with Foreign Service or warplanning experience.

    I have zero military experience, but from outside this box, your argument seems totally insane.

    Unless I’ve grossly misunderstood your case, you seem to want to somehow penalize President Obama for a decision he may or may not have made that may or may not have helped the Benghazi personnel.

    Leaving aside the “may or may not”s — which are far from clear — ARE YOU INSANE????

    It is the job of each General, Admiral and ultimately CIC to make tough decisions, and some will inevitably results in the death of Americans, and some may even be (in hindsight) bad decisions. You do not go after them, ever, on that basis.

    For example, Truman relieved MacArthur of his command because of disobedience, not because of his disastrous command in the November 1950 Korean War Chinese offensive.

    So even if President Obama was responsible for what you claim was a bad decision (all very debatable points), there is still no reason for this circus, especially when the previous President was ultimately responsible for the largest military disaster in US history — and has not been held accountable.

    My dad, my two grandfathers, my uncle and my godfather all served in the Army or the Navy. For a self-proclaimed military man, you come across as a righteous prig unworthy of your uniform.

  69. avatar
    Line in the Sand June 8, 2013 at 4:39 am #

    Daniel, you’re quite frankly full of shit like most of the Obot dickwads on this site.The only military you were in was when you stuck your GI Joe up your butt in the bathtub.

  70. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 8, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    Line in the Sand:
    Daniel, you’re quite frankly full of shit like most of the Obot dickwads on this site.The only military you were in was when you stuck your GI Joe up your butt in the bathtub.

    Me thinks we’re dealing with a little psychological projection here.

  71. avatar
    John Reilly June 8, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    During the time I was in the Air Force I was often in foreign countries. 97 postings is a lot. A lot in the sense that it is difficult to believe. And I occasionally ran across our ambassador if I was invited to a function somewhere and he or she was there. I cannot recall a single instance where the ambassador (or a designee) attempted to tell me or anyone in our unit what to do. We had orders from whatever command was running our operation, and that is to whom we reported. Sometimes someone was there from State at a pre-planning meeting expressing a foreign policy view, but not in the sense that State had any authority over us. And sometimes our missions were secret and the information was shared with very few, and certainly not with people in other departments who had no need to know. I can recall no instance when we were actually in the detail of planning and carrying out a mission that anyone was present from any agency other than DOD or the intelligence agencies.

    Had anyone from State, including the Ambassador, approached me and said, “Lt. Col. Reilly, you are ordered to fly your fighter from point A to point B” I would have politely referred him to my commanding officer. Had I followed the Ambassador’s order, I would have been written up. And not in a good way.

    As best as I can determine from the facts, no one could reach Benghazi in time, although perhaps that was not known in real time. Moreover, we do not simply tell an air force pilot, like me, hey someone’s in trouble, go buzz this distant foreign city with absolutely no planning. I have not seen the intel on Benghazi, but I would guess there is a concern that there are a fair number of shoulder fired missiles available. We do not need a very expensve plane shot down, its technology shared with the Chinese or Russians, and a pilot held by some dissidents. Maybe the ambassador should have had more security, but that is outside my expertise. Shifting already thin forces already in country from Tripoli to Benghazi risks assets currently in Tripoli if the Benghazi action is a feint or ruse. Real military people actually think about such things. And whoever is the military commendar would think about such things.

    The plain fact is that a determined foe who wishes to attack our ambassador in a foreign country can do so. The amount of security around the ambassador is not enough, in any country, to prevent attacks. Once the ambassador goes out and about, which is in his job description, he is a target. The embassy is always a target.

  72. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater June 8, 2013 at 11:07 am #

    Dick in the Mud:
    Daniel, you’re quite frankly full of shit like most of the Obot dickwads on this site.The only military you were in was when you stuck your GI Joe up your butt in the bathtub.

    As usual you can’t address what is actually said to you but instead jump to petty insults. Obviously you can’t back up what you said.

  73. avatar
    misha marinsky June 8, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    Line in the Sand: what exactly is your military or Foreign Service experience

    Here’s how it works in the IDF:

    General, to aide: “Get Lt. Finkelstein – and hurry.”
    Aide: “Don’t get excited, don’t get excited. First, I have to know one thing.”
    General: [exasperated] “What is it?!”
    Aide: “Do you want Lt. Finkelstein the tailor, or Lt. Finkelstein the furrier?”

  74. avatar
    Northland10 June 8, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Daniel, [Redacted the rest of the rant]

    Responses like this do not add to your credibility.

  75. avatar
    Northland10 June 8, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    John Reilly: Real military people actually think about such things. And whoever is the military commendar would think about such things.

    I suspect Line and others are getting their operational details from the movie Rules of Engagement. Even if the film was authentic about operational details, it would not show everything due to film length, needs of the story and the military’s wish not to demonstrate their security and operational planning to the entire world.

  76. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 8, 2013 at 1:42 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    -birther tripe-

    Anyone else notice that birthers seem to have this fixation with butts, and things going into them?

  77. avatar
    Rickey June 8, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Daniel, you’re quite frankly full of **** like most of the Obot ******** on this site.The only military you were in was when you stuck your GI Joe up your butt in the bathtub.

    My, such a potty mouth from someone who claims to have been an Air Force Captain.

  78. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2013 at 3:53 pm #

    Line in the Sand:
    Daniel, you’re quite frankly full of shit like most of the Obot dickwads on this site.The only military you were in was when you stuck your GI Joe up your butt in the bathtub.

    Hey I’m not the one claiming 97 foreign deployments. So that would make you…. about 300 years old now?

  79. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    Northland10: Responses like this do not add to your credibility.

    A delusional birther bigot earns no credibility.

  80. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 8, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    Rickey: My, such a potty mouth from someone who claims to have been an Air Force Captain.

    And knowing is half the battle!