Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

reply to post by MsAphrodite

General Ham was fired for not following orders to stand down?

Has this been confirmed now?
I have been waiting for it to be confirmed, was rumor earlier.

reply to post by butcherguy


Lots of smoke, I think there might be a fire.

Joe Sterling for CNN

Stars and Stripes

Seeing this everywhere.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by butcherguy

 

plus real time video of the next 5 and a half hours of the attack.

Only according to FOX and the Blaze and the blogosphere regurgitating their vomit.

no, according to Panetta himself ... you can update here as there are transcripts from Panetta included.

SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me — let me speak to that, because I’m sure there’s going to be — there’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

We — we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But — but the basic principle here — 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. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren’t giving enough of a clear picture is what you’re saying.

SEC. PANETTA: This — this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

didn't have enough intel my arse ... the drone is capable of supplying plenty, the rest is hogwash and finger pointing.

reply to post by Honor93

Panetta says 'it all happened in a few hours.' Try seven hours. What I am reading is that the deaths occurred six hours into the attack.

They are full of crap.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Honor93

 

Panetta says 'it all happened in a few hours.' Try seven hours. What I am reading is that the deaths occurred six hours into the attack.

They are full of crap.

yeah, i read that too ... a few is any amount greater than 2 ... so, poor choice of words sure, but accurate all the same.

i'm still chuckling over the "rapid response" comment ... really ???
i'm wondering how fast they can say NO

personally, i am hoping this whole debacle is enough to put the entire apparatus known as the CIA on ice but of course, i do know better.
however, we all have our fantasies and that'd be one of mine.

Originally posted by Honor93
SEC. PANETTA: This — this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.

Wow. He's basically admitting to a scenario of incompetent hemming and hawing about what to do in a crisis. The military people were ready to go and waiting for the go ahead. The political people wanted more information and couldn't make a decision while people were dieing.

Monday morning quaterbacking? Sure it is, but it's obvious now that they really really screwed up.

Speaking of Monday morning, Panetta should have a resignation letter ready to go on Monday morning. Obama may very well ask him for one to try to contain the fire for now.

The MSM can't and won't ignore this forever, they are just waiting for the White House to give some indication about how they are going to handle it so that they can all fall in line. Basically, they've got the weekend to get their act together.

I personally don't take Petraeus's statement as "throwing Obama under the bus". I take it as Petraeus toting the storyline....or party line or whatever you want to call it. "No, we didn't deny any requests."

At this point no one in this administration, nor anyone appointed by them, denied the requests. I guess it was Elmer Fudd impersonating someone who looked like one of them.

Let's blame on it Joe...he's the one that resembles Elmer Fudd the most.

reply to post by 11andrew34


And then there was Sandy. The timing couldn't be more convenient.

reply to post by 11andrew34

yes and no ... yes to your opinion ... it's like the football replay that alludes to a fumble at the line of scrimmage rather an incomplete pass that was called on the field.

no to Petraeus ... they have much bigger plans for him and Condi is already shaming the world for discussing the situation

now that Gen Ham has been replaced, it's back to game on.
i'm guessing Lebanon will be next.

ETA: since i'm on the downside of the aging mountain, how many of you remember playing games like Stratego or Risk ?? this, was a horrible Stratego move but a borderline brilliant Risk move ... if you know the games, you know what i'm saying.

Originally posted by Destinyone
This fetid ball of *who done what* yarn is rapidly unraveling. The news leaks are starting to flow like a stab wound breaking open under a band aid. Now, I'm waiting for a *not me* statement from Hillary and the State Dept.

I never in a million years expected Petraeus to turn down this path...it's opposite from the one he's been peddling.

This was just announced on TV, am looking for more links, If you have any please post. TIA...Des

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need? www.weeklystandard.com...

edit on 26-10-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

The President is ultimately responsible for any decision to use military force. Hillary Clinton is responsible because she is the head of the department in charge of making sure that security is at all embassies around the world.

So where did it fail ? I think it starts at the State Department and ends in the Oval Office. Period !

First Hillary gets thrown under the bus, now Obama.....all I want to know is can I drive this bus?

(and hey, I don't mind rolling over a few Republicans either)

reply to post by Destinyone


NO ... one ... cares. It will have ZERO effect on the election. Only people paying attention are Freepers. This does NOT matter . . . and that's before we even discuss what is true and what is not.

Remember, the echo chamber is a very lonely place.

reply to post by Destinyone


So in another thread on this topic, a FOX news article claims that the CIA either refused to pass along requests for help from the Benghazi S.D. compound or denied the request. Now you have posted this statement by Petreaus in which he states the CIA at no level denied aid to the Benghazi compound.

But you then jump to the assumption that someone indeed denied/refused the aid and suggest it was then the WH. How do you jump to this conclusion? Ever think that the reports that aid was denied are false? No, of course not. Obviously something very untoward was done by the Obama administration because Obama is clearly the anti-Christ -- not to mention not a natural-born US citizen.

So let me get this straight....people die. Now people are trying to spin this politically.

THose people died in the first place due to politics.. now you people are doing the same dam thing.


The vicious cycle continues.... you slug heads.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

General Ham was fired for not following orders to stand down?

Has this been confirmed now?
I have been waiting for it to be confirmed, was rumor earlier.

I don't know if it's true Ham was relieved of his post due to refusing to stand down. But it's very interesting that Obama has nominated Ham's replacement....coincidence, I don't know....From Stars and Stripes....

Obama to nominate Army Gen. Rodriguez to lead AFRICOM
Paxton tapped to be assistant commandant of Marine Corps
null

Army Gen. David Rodriguez is President Barack Obama's nominee to head the U.S. Africa Command.
U.S. Army

By Jennifer Hlad
Stars and Stripes
Published: October 18, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

www.stripes.com...

Des

I find all of this Obama bashing in ATS of all places really amusing, many people in here hate Obama, but then want someone like Romney in instead, that's just pure hypocrisy. Anyways Obama has this election in the bag, and even if by a miracle Romney wins, you will see no change at all, but I bet when Romney keeps doing the the same thing Obama is doing, you people won't even bash him the same way you do towards Obama.

Again, this thread should be in the hoax bin.

There is No credible link backing the claim.

It is all pure speculation and lies.

Originally posted by poet1b
Again, this thread should be in the hoax bin.

There is credible link backing the claim.

It is all pure speculation and lies.

As the OP of this thread, I disagree with you. I suggest you go start your own thread to state your concerns, since this one seems to bother you so much. This is your second request to have this thread moved to the hoax bin. Maybe you should see if a MOD will oblige you.....

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


No opposing views allowed?

You could always provide a credible link.