MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Here sweetie you want verifiable? It's going to take you awhile, go...

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Oh, nice. You posted four hours of youtube videos for all of us to watch, without explaining what the relevance is to the thread, or what they contain.

Can you narrow this down a little, maybe with some descriptions and time intervals? It's really asking a lot of people to watch four hours of video without even knowing what the point is supposed to be.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Really?

The videos are of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearings entitled, "The Security Failures of Benghazi" to examine the state of security at the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Libya prior to the assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his colleagues on September 11, 2012.

Hopefully they will pass your truthiness test. Sorry about that four hour thing, but if you are sincere about wanting to get "credible information"... here you go.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


But how does this relate to the claims made by the Limbaugh caller (which is the topic of this thread, if you recall)? are they verified, or not?

You give no indication. Sorry, I'm not going to watch 4 hours of video when you haven't explained what they have to do with the OP. Frankly, I doubt that you can tell us whether or not these videos are relevant. There's no indication that you've watched them yourself.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Oh, nice. You posted four hours of youtube videos for all of us to watch, without explaining what the relevance is to the thread, or what they contain.

Can you narrow this down a little, maybe with some descriptions and time intervals? It's really asking a lot of people to watch four hours of video without even knowing what the point is supposed to be.

Thanks in advance.

You aren’t kidding on that I am in part of the world where it could take hours just to buffer through 20 minutes of that and nobody will even say what relevance it has. Gee thanks for nothing great wise ones.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Well sweetie, all I can say is you have to have the bigger picture in order to form a sound opinion. It takes time and intellectual curiosity to search it out. I have watched every minute of every video, and if you care you will too. If you don't care then please don't harass those of us who do.

I find it especially ridiculous that you need a recap of the Rush video, but here goes...

Doug asserts:

The President knew immediately, in real time what was happening.
There are specific procedures and systems in place within the military to make sure this happens.
There is a protocol.
The White House denied this. That was BS
Caller suggests what many other military have confirmed. Stand down orders via protocol come from the top.
There were three emails. Why is the White House denying they saw them?
The difference between email and Flash traffic, it is immediate like an IM. You can’t ignore it. You MUST respond.
Who has authority to order C130’s to go in? What if the President can’t be found? A 4 star general can do this? Military leaders have standing orders to observe life. They would have been monitoring this in real time. Everyone was ready to go but, Potus, Vpotus, SOS said NO. This order came from the top, otherwise military would have acted. This is what they do.
At this point caller Doug displays an intimate knowledge of geography, how much time it would take to fly a mission in this part of the Middle East and other specifics.
Was this political? Doug says no. It was incompetence and not understanding, “You don’t leave anyone behind.”
Rush’s opinion, someone failed to make a gutsy call.


As for the other videos, sorry I didn't take notes so my recap will just be a few highlights from memory:

(If you want to skip any part of the two videos go midway into the first one. The beginning is giving each committee member a chance to speak, kind of interesting. The best part is the questions and answers.)

Point of the hearings: to assess failures, accountability and decisions
My personal takeaway: At best (and this would be a very generous assessment) it was utter negligence.
The best testimony: Mr. Kucinich great comments and questions. Mr Lankford's questioning of Ms Lamb and Ambassador Kennedy. There is a 50 minute tape of the incident the committee wants to see. (me too!) Mr. Issa is angry that the committee hasn’t seen this video.
Danger pay was increased for the DoD by the DoS, all the while assets were being denied. Assets were denied because the need for them was determined to be unnecessary. (yeah it's government, lol)
Watch the last 10 minutes for sure.
Testimony of Lt. Col. Wood and Mr. Nordstrom are quite gripping.
(I went and found this one quote for you because I found it so compelling) Mr. Nordstrom “It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”
Both Nordstrom and Woods emphasize the difficulty of working with the DoS to get what they feel they need.

Take the time to watch this. You really need to do this to understand what has happened here. You don't know the truth.

XOXOXO ~MsAphrodite~

Why would a spokes model who's a glorified teleprompter reader who was voted in by the illuminati and builderburg and who spends most of his time golfing order anything, except maybe a domino's pizza? they don't make the decision.

reply to post by Grimpachi


As for you Grimpachi, I found this via a google search. I guess you can't do those where you are either???

tra nscript

Scroll down and you will find transcripts of other's testimony as well. I don't know if it is all there, but at least you can see some of it.

XOXOXO ~MsAphrodite~

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Thanks for the transcript to the hearings that is the only part of this thread that has any credibility in my opinion.

Unconfirmed Retired Lt.Col Doug has zero credibility on this issue as far as I am concerned. For god’s sake listen to yourselves and think about this.

BTW my search function is fine but the internet is slow I guess you do not understand things like that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


As I've said many times in this thread I've worked in military intelligence dealing specifications with message traffic.

usmilitary.about.com...

Cryptologic Technician - Communications (CTO)

CTOs perform a variety of duties associated with operating telecommunications systems that exist across the global communications spectrum. Advanced AIS networking and information management skills support the movement of huge volumes of data to operating forces ashore and afloat.

Other Requirements:

Must have normal hearing. Security Clearance, (TOP SECRET) Requirement (SSBI). Must be U.S. citizen.

Now whether you believe Lt.Col. Doug is up to you, believe whatever you want, but I verify what he said is absolutely true.

Bottom line Washington & many other sources in the DOD were well aware of the attack in Libya in real time & they choose not to assist for whatever reason.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Unconfirmed Retired Lt.Col Doug has zero credibility on this issue as far as I am concerned. For god’s sake listen to yourselves and think about this.

Spoken like someone that truly has no clue or real life experience with the Military and what the Retired Officers from the Military do after retirement.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Unconfirmed Retired Lt.Col Doug has zero credibility on this issue as far as I am concerned. For god’s sake listen to yourselves and think about this.

Spoken like someone that truly has no clue or real life experience with the Military and what the Retired Officers from the Military do after retirement.

O…. Kay so if I claim to be a Ret general with some knowledge of the inner workings of the military you will believe it as long as someone like Rush puts it on the air and it sounds like I know what I am talking about? Wow just wow. That is beyond ignorance.

It’s almost as bad as making the assertion that I know nothing about the military because of my post where I refuse to believe something just because someone claims they have credentials with zero proof. Was your MOS an 88M I am just asking because those guys didn’t need a very high ASVAB score? That was for the Army I don’t know where they sent those guys in the Marines.

So far your intuition is definitely not infallible.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Your statements do indeed drip with ignorance. I would like to see you try to call into any show & claim to have knowledge of the inner workings of any intelligence field. That said, I can & have verified everything the Lt. Col has said. Seems like you really really want his remarks to be all fantasy but the truth is he's absolutely right about everything he stated, whether you like it or not. I dunno what your agenda is here, maybe you're an Obama fan or just a troll but either way you are completely wrong and yet you still argue these points.

Let me ask you some questions. Where you ever in the military? Have you ever help a clearance (confidential, secret, top secret)? Have you ever worked in the Washington DC, ie White House, Pentagon, etc? What makes you an authority to discredit everything the Lt. Col. stated?

And I could prove my claims real quick by posting a pic of my DD 214 which clearly states my rate, CTO, but I imagine you'd still argue against the good Lt. Col. & his remarks.

Originally posted by Grimpachi


O…. Kay so if I claim to be a Ret general with some knowledge of the inner workings of the military you will believe it as long as someone like Rush puts it on the air and it sounds like I know what I am talking about? Wow just wow. That is beyond ignorance.

Nope, has nothing to do with Rush. Has to do with knowing who to ask and just search . 90% of retired officers go into the "consulting" world and are tied heavily with active operations and theaters.

Or, just be around those people.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
It’s almost as bad as making the assertion that I know nothing about the military because of my post where I refuse to believe something just because someone claims they have credentials with zero proof. Was your MOS an 88M I am just asking because those guys didn’t need a very high ASVAB score? That was for the Army I don’t know where they sent those guys in the Marines.

So far your intuition is definitely not infallible.

Ah, the Army guy speaks about MOS. Nice.
Not Army nor Marines. Nice try though. Way to bag on other branches though. You stay classy.

reply to post by Swills


I will not post my DD214 but I will tell you I was posted to MI LI in 1995 in Orlando FL on the now decommissioned Navy nuclear training base it was the only Army battalion there at the time and that was only because when I returned from Korea my father had a heart attack so they assigned me temporary duty there however the Col and CSM liked me and when one of the soldiers PCSed they kept me on because I had 55b qualifications and they had a range coming up. I later PCSed to H.A.A.F. where I served the remainder of that tour until I ETSed and at that time Clinton was downsizing the Military and if I had stayed in they weren’t offering anything and all I wanted was to be stationed somewhere else I wasn’t greedy but they wouldn’t even send me to FT Hood where I had previously served however they were offering 20K to get out so I took it and used my GI bill until a little over a year later the military had downsized too much and they offered a bonus for me to re-enlist which I did.

I do not really care if you believe me or not what matters is whether I believe a random caller with zero verification aside from a random poster with Zero verification. If you want to make this a pissing contest have at it. Since you brought up political affiliations let me ask how can a prior service man justify voting for a man who twice used religious deferments to get out of serving his country while at the same time rallying for others to fight in his stead and now wants to be Commander and Chief. Help me understand that line of thinking.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So you were in the army. That's a start but while you served did you hold a clearance and or work with message traffic and or work with military intelligence? Whether you believe Doug or not I can verify everything he said is spot on and that's because I worked in that world my entire naval career. I worked mainly with message traffic which is why I know these politicians are lying. Anyone who worked in the intel field or is familiar with message traffic knows this as well, like Lt. Col. Doug. He's a absolutely right so why do insist he's wrong when not am I vetting him but right now as we type this other sources are coming out and saying the same thing.

And who do you think I'm voting for? I'll tell you it's never for a donkey or elephant.

reply to post by Swills


MI LI stands for Military Intelligence Battalion Low Intensity.

I have given you more than enough information on the matter and I do not feel the need to answer anymore personal questions based on your assumptions. To be frank its pissing me off that you have the audacity to pry into my life and simply come back with unsubstantiated claims of your qualifications. I couldn’t care less about what you can verify under these circumstances if anything it goes to show me the caller could be any rank but I already knew that from being in a MI unit where most of the soldiers in those classified conexes were my friends and very few held a Rank above mine. One of the reasons why the Col liked having e there was because of my clearance otherwise I would have had to work in the motor pool because as I said it was a Navy Training Base.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Wait a minute, my claims of my naval career are unsubstantiated but yours aren't? What sense does that make? What personal info am I demanding of you that is, well, so personal? I haven't asked for your name, address, SSN, phone number, next of kin, nothing but easy questions such as have you ever held a clearance and or worked with message traffic? If you don't wanna answer it then that's fine but don't accuse me of prying into your private life, especially since you've been out the Army all these years. So like I've said time and time again, my DD 214 proves my claims and whether you believe Doug or not he's still absolutely correct.

Now who knows he could be lying about his rank but either way it doesn't matter because what matters is the information he provided, not his rank or even what branch he served, but the information he provided, information the majority of the US population has no clue about. So when the media reports that politicians say the message was lost amongst a bunch of emails that is a BOLD face lie & Lt. Col. Doug just wants the American public to know this. But like I said, whether you believe him or not other sources are corfirming this obvious fact already, and I'm sure more is to come.

So if keep on posting in this thread stating Doug is full of crap then you can expect me.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Actually I was chiding you for not finding the transcripts yourself. It took me about 30 seconds.


As for discounting what caller Doug said. Did you not understand the amount of obvious insider information he had? Anyone who listens to the call will see clearly that he does know information none of us could know unless we had been involved with the military in that specific part of the world. Many other sources I have read confirm exactly what he said.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills

 

MI LI stands for Military Intelligence Battalion Low Intensity.

I have given you more than enough information on the matter and I do not feel the need to answer anymore personal questions based on your assumptions. To be frank its pissing me off that you have the audacity to pry into my life and simply come back with unsubstantiated claims of your qualifications. I couldn’t care less about what you can verify under these circumstances if anything it goes to show me the caller could be any rank but I already knew that from being in a MI unit where most of the soldiers in those classified conexes were my friends and very few held a Rank above mine. One of the reasons why the Col liked having e there was because of my clearance otherwise I would have had to work in the motor pool because as I said it was a Navy Training Base.

edit on 30-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: Punctuation

SO you get pissy when asked about your qualifications yet are fine to question others???

You have presented the dumbest idea here today.
Having worked within the Field of Comm and IT since 97 I will second the fact of how communications are passed and presented within the SOF world and normal world.

Showing my age, I will bet they had a STU III if not newer piece of equipment on site, alongside the other computer comms available.

Plain and simple, the Retired Officer can be validated, you just show willful ignorance and laziness is not doing so.
The process for how traffic and info is passed can be confirmed as well.