Benghazi Attack videos-unbelievable


#1

Just got this in my email. This is absolutely appalling.

» Benghazi Attack: Can you believe they said this? » The Loft – GOPUSA


#2

The last paragraph says it all:

This was a failure of leadership from the very top, and yet no one seems to care. The president of the United States, while Americans were under attack, was not engaged in the situation at all. And this man was then reelected?

Two things stick out here.

As the author points out, it’s absolutely horrific and incredible that the . . . U.S voter (was going to take a swipe at the unwashed masses, but my views there are likely well known and probably becoming a bore) . . . reelected this bozo!

And secondly, and perhaps the most sickening, " no one seems to care". This thing has been, and will continue to be swept under the rug. And I guess what bothers me the most about this is that BHO’s incompetence is so OBVIOUS. A five year old could spot it!


#3

Without getting sensationalist, what would have been the correct response to the attack? During and after? And I’m not looking for “find 'em and kill 'em” because that’s a gross over simplification. So really, what is the correct course of action during and after?


#4

Are you unaware that these people begged for more security and the President & Sec. of State ignored them? Are you aware that those who could (and tried) to protect them had been ordered not to? (In other words, let 'em die, we don’t care.)


#5

Yes. And yes, I doubt it was a “we don’t care” and more of “let’s not send in more people to be killed and make this situation worse”


#6

You also didn’t answer the question


#7

[quote=“BullsOnParade, post:3, topic:38146”]
Without getting sensationalist, what would have been the correct response to the attack? During and after? And I’m not looking for “find 'em and kill 'em” because that’s a gross over simplification. So really, what is the correct course of action during and after?
[/quote]First of all, there were two attacks. One on a compound designed to “protect” the consulate, and one on a CIA annex to the consulate. There were at least six hours between the assaults on the two separate locatiions, that time span being pertinent to any claim that “it happened so quick, there just wasn’t enough time to respond or monitor.” B.S.!!!

Let’s first take a look at what SHOULD have been known prior to the attacks and then we can proceed to the possible remedies (which is your question.)

Up to six months BEFORE the attacks, there were more than a dozen violent terrorist events in Benghazi (this was brought to light by investigators looking into it AFTER the attacks.) In a normal competent administration, this would have been discovered and communicated BEFORE the attacks, and would have been a heads up that the Benghazi embassy was in a high risk area and action could have been taken to remedy this BEFORE the attacks. A presence of beefed up security in the embassy might have prevented the attacks, because the terrorists might NOT have viewed it as so easy a target, and they DID see it as an easy target.

There would have been two options there (First answers to your question.)

First, if budgetary constraints prevailed, then just withdraw and close down the embassy, especially considering your claim that you don’t have enough money to provide for high risk security (a claim the BHO administration HINTED at, but never came right out and stated explicitly . . . for obvious reasons.) While this may have been viewed as a “cut and run” strategy, that is the only option you have if you insist you don’t have the money, AND it would have saved lives. Not necessarily a palatable option, but if budgetary constraints prevent doing otherwise, it’s about the only option you have.

Now if your intent is to keep the embassy, no matter what, then you’re compelled to defend it with all the resources you have available for response (obviously NOT the “entire” military, nevertheless a substantial contingent) and have them on stand-by and ready to respond.

As far as I know, the BHO administration didn’t even get this far in an evaluation, stalling itself on poor communications, or NO communications . . . IOW, incompetence. Hillary sidestepped the whole issue by deftly skipping to the end and stating, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” An interesting red herring if there ever was one.

Now let’s take a look at what COULD have been done after the attacks started (Interestingly, Hillary testified the she did not watch the attacks in real time. Another incompetent symptom.)

Since there were between 125 and 150 attackers, armed with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), hand grenades, various assault rifles and small arms, mortars, heavy machine guns, and artillery mounted on gun trucks, the resources deployed in response would have had to have been substantial to repel that kind of attack. A Rapid Response team, which we have available throughout the globe, with substantial manpower and arms supplements would have to have been deployed (a handful of DSS agents at the embassy doesn’t get it) That in turn would have required substantial coordination and communications, none of which were in evidence by the BHO administration during the attacks.

Evacuation DURING the attacks might have been an option, assuming you DIDN’T deem the maintenance of the embassy was necessary. (COMPLETE evacuation, that is. There were some halfhearted attempts for partial evacuations.)

IF the maintenance of the embassy was a necessity, then the response would have had to have been major , IF your purpose was to maintain and defend the embassy and therefore prevent civilian casualties (again, a handful of DSS agents was no where near adequate.) Essentially, it would have required a substantial military effort and commitment, and QUICK, something the BHO administration was either unwilling to do to defend the embassy and prevent civilian casualties, or more likely wasn’t even aware of to begin with . . . another symptom of incompetence.

AFTER the attack had begun, “negotiation” as a tactic was no longer realistic.

BTW, there WAS a quick reaction team available at the CIA annex, but it was much too anemic for any effective response considering the number and armaments of the attackers . . . a fact that might have been apparent if there had been any real time monitoring in Washington.

Now, what to do after the attacks? Well, BHO got the first part of this right: conduct a review and determine what was done wrong. The results of the review (Accountability Review Board . . . “Accountability” being a joke and swept under the rug anway) and various committee hearings (prompted by Republican people, NOT the BHO administration) have since been largely forgotten or ignored completely. However, some actions as a result of those reviews have been implemented . . . like beefed up security at high risk embassies, and a 50 man Marine rapid response team located in Libya. Interestingly, had those actions been taken BEFORE the attack, it might have either been avoided or dealt with adequately.

So let me summarize: Either withdraw BEFORE, or beef up security to where you think, WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, that enhanced security will discourage attacks. . . or DURING THE ATTACKS, attempt to evacuate COMPLETELY or respond with a substantial military operation. AFTER? HOLD HIGH-UP ADMINISTRATORS ACCOUNTABLE with more than just a light MSM rebuke. "HIGH-UP ADMINISTRATORS being the Secretary of State and the President. Fire/Impeach their butts!!!


#8

Indirectly, I did; they should have done what I said they failed to do. And no, there was no concern for anyone else being killed. It was definitely a “We don’t care.” Obama said as much when he said (paraphrased), “Only 4 people? Just a bump in the road.”


#9

It would have also been helpful if BO had attended his daily meetings instead of blowing them off like an incompetent megalomaniac buffoon. Thanks for your AWESEOME post, BobJam!!!


#10

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:9, topic:38146”]
It would have also been helpful if BO had attended his daily meetings instead of blowing them off like an incompetent megalomaniac buffoon. Thanks for your AWESEOME post, BobJam!!!
[/quote]Yes, I think he was out politicking in Vegas or prepping for appearances on the View and Letterman. Fine tuning that “Nero fiddling while Rome burns” attitude.

And thanks for the kind words.


#11

NERO!!! I never thought about him and BO in the same sentence!! Yep! We’d better keep it quiet or the next thing we’ll see is BO staking Christians and setting them on fire on the WH lawn! holy sheep


#12

He’d probably like to - if he dared. And I suppose it could eventually come to that.


#13

Well personally, I believe we are in the new Christian persecution–and I believe it will become much worse. The blatant and nazi-like obamacare and his infringement upon religious organizations and their beliefs are just the beginning. We’ve given him 4 more years to “sing while Rome burns.”


#14

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:13, topic:38146”]
Well personally, I believe we are in the new Christian persecution–and I believe it will become much worse. The blatant and nazi-like obamacare and his infringement upon religious organizations and their beliefs are just the beginning. We’ve given him 4 more years to “sing while Rome burns.”
[/quote]That’s perhaps a borderline Conspiracy Theory, and I don’t believe in Conspiracy Theories. Nevertheless, I have to agree with you that it certainly looks like it’s trending that way.

To pull off a Conspiracy Theory, the group has to be especially competent, and the BHO administration can never be accused of being competent. BUT, BHO and his Chicago brethren (Axlerod and his thugs) ARE politically competent, and since this is primarily a political maneuver, it’s not that much of a stretch to say it is going according to plan.


#15

Absolutely–agreed. Many conservatives and republicans think he is intelligent. I beg to differ. He is shrewd–not intelligent. One need not have intelligence to know the ins and outs of master manipulation. (Many historians believe Hitler was a genius. Perhaps only in his ability to rant and rave and to hypnotize his audience.) In addition, we have no idea of his intelligence because he refuses to divulge any of his history–and I can well understand why he won’t.


#16

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:15, topic:38146”]
Absolutely–agreed. Many conservatives and republicans think he is intelligent. I beg to differ. He is shrewd–not intelligent. One need not have intelligence to know the ins and outs of master manipulation. (Many historians believe Hitler was a genius. Perhaps only in his ability to rant and rave and to hypnotize his audience.) In addition, we have no idea of his intelligence because he refuses to divulge any of his history–and I can well understand why he won’t.
[/quote]Yes, the Hitler thing is very valid.