Signs and people with signs impeach obama this morning

[rebel-son]

rebel-son: "Common knowledge" does not mean the same thing as "true" or even "fact-based".

Come back when you have facts and evidence from reliable sources.

His order to not deport young leechers because its "the right thing to do" was stated by him during a press conference and also has bee stated by numerous senators as well as that disgrace that is the secretary of homeland security.

You are not an Obama lover are you?

 

[vvvvvvv]

His order to not deport young leechers because its "the right thing to do" was stated by him during a press conference and also has bee stated by numerous senators as well as that disgrace that is the secretary of homeland security.

You are not an Obama lover are you?

No, and you still haven't cited anything.

 

[Shadowrider]

This seems to be the crux of your argument. The problem is, there is no evidence that I have ever read that even hints that the small CIA teams hypothetically available to intercede in Libya would have been effective in any way. There were 2 armed guards at the facility - sending in another small team of 3-5 men would only have resulted in them being killed or captured as well. The reason I mentioned the team in Italy is that they were the closest force feasibly capable of altering the outcome of the consulate attacks and as I said, even if they had lifted off the second the first shots were fired, they would have arrived 6.5 hours too late and would very likely have come under heavy attack themselves. Unless you think Obama should have deployed a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to Benghazi 12 hours after the attack concluded to level the city and kill everyone, there are seriously zero viable options that the President had, at least from the options that are known to the public. Is there a hypothetical secret option that Obama had and decided not to take because he's just that stupid or enjoys seeing US servicemen killed? Sure, I suppose anything is possible. But what you have to consider is that unlike his predecessor, this President has surrounded himself with military advisors at the highest level that aren't clueless ideologues. While I'm sure Obama's military judgment is probably about as good as mine (which is to say, amateur at best), the people advising him are pros. Leon Panetta is no Donald Rumsfeld.

I personally knew one of the victims of this attack, Sean Smith. When I found out that he had been killed it hit me like a ton of bricks - Sean had just emailed me a couple weeks prior to give me feedback for a paper I was writing. Since the attacks I've sort of made it my mission to find out as much as I can about how he died, because the US military has a pretty messed up track record of lying to victims' families or giving them false information regarding their deaths (Pat Tillman is perhaps the most prolific example of this). Trust me when I say I wanted to find someone to blame for why my friend died. I have looked high and low for a way to pin this on Obama's lack of military experience, over cautious attitude, or general ineptitude. In good conscience I can't do it.

For all the other reasons you've listed for wanting to impeach the President, I say good luck and godspeed. But for Benghazi, there was simply nothing anyone could have done to prevent what happened other than to have either left the consulate (Stevens didn't want to) or granted the State Department's repeated requests for more security (Congress refused to). Aside from those two options, no one lacking omnipresent powers could have prevented their deaths.

First let me echo thanks for serving, it is appreciated.

But I gotta disagree with the last portion of this. The bolded part. Where were all the FEST teams and other assests on the anniversary of 9/11? Why were they over 8 hours away from the most dangerous post on the planet? This administration is just incompetent. Pure and simple. Or there is far more to the story. Take your pick, either one isn't good for Obama and his minions. What sucks is that we'll probably never know and more importantly neither will the families of those lost.

 

[GolfWhiskey]

Where were all the FEST teams and other assests on the anniversary of 9/11?

I don't mean to sound disparaging in any way when I say this, but I think there's been a lot of misinformation being bandied about as to what a FEST team is and what they do. I often hear people say "what about the FEST teams? Those were sent in after the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania bombings? Why is Obama so stupid???"

First off, FEST teams are not secret squirrel tactical teams that go into dangerous situations and perform Jerry Bruckheimer-style rescue operations. They are more like a combination of FEMA and the FBI for foreign soil. They don't go in to save people, they go in to cut through foreign bureaucratic red tape and conduct investigations into terrorist attacks, most often bombings. It should be noted that in all of the mentioned scenarios (the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania) the incidents being investigated took place in relatively safe, politically stable environments where security was established and the FEST teams would be exposed to minimal (if any) danger.

THIS is what a FEST team is.

Benghazi on 9/11 was more like Mogadishu in 1993 than any of those other scenarios. Sending a FEST team into Benghazi that day would have been like sending a lone detective in to investigate a liquor store robbery at the height of the LA Riots.

The Pentagon didn't even have aerial surveillance (via drone) on the consulate until after the building had already been abandoned and the entire staff was MIA. At that point what was the President supposed to do? Both he and the State department lobbied Congress for more security funding to protect these and other consulates. Our dysfunctional legislature (composed of dipshits of all political sorts) is to blame for the shoddy security situation in Benghazi on 9/11. They'd rather spend money studying the flow rate of ketchup and giving out hundreds of millions to hipster ********* "green" energy companies than hire ample security to protect true bad asses like Chris Stevens and Sean Smith.

 

[Shadowrider]

I don't mean to sound disparaging in any way when I say this, but I think there's been a lot of misinformation being bandied about as to what a FEST team is and what they do. I often hear people say "what about the FEST teams? Those were sent in after the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania bombings? Why is Obama so stupid???"

First off, FEST teams are not secret squirrel tactical teams that go into dangerous situations and perform Jerry Bruckheimer-style rescue operations. They are more like a combination of FEMA and the FBI for foreign soil. They don't go in to save people, they go in to cut through foreign bureaucratic red tape and conduct investigations into terrorist attacks, most often bombings. It should be noted that in all of the mentioned scenarios (the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania) the incidents being investigated took place in relatively safe, politically stable environments where security was established and the FEST teams would be exposed to minimal (if any) danger.

THIS is what a FEST team is.

Benghazi on 9/11 was more like Mogadishu in 1993 than any of those other scenarios. Sending a FEST team into Benghazi that day would have been like sending a lone detective in to investigate a liquor store robbery at the height of the LA Riots.

The Pentagon didn't even have aerial surveillance (via drone) on the consulate until after the building had already been abandoned and the entire staff was MIA. At that point what was the President supposed to do? Both he and the State department lobbied Congress for more security funding to protect these and other consulates. Our dysfunctional legislature (composed of dipshits of all political sorts) is to blame for the shoddy security situation in Benghazi on 9/11. They'd rather spend money studying the flow rate of ketchup and giving out hundreds of millions to hipster ********* "green" energy companies than hire ample security to protect true bad asses like Chris Stevens and Sean Smith.

My bad, it was an end to a long day. I meant MSD instead of FEST.

But it still goes to my original point. Why were no assets in reach? The funding argument doesn't cut it. If we couldn't provide security we should not have been there. At the time there was no diplomatic post more dangerous than this one. Maybe not the most important post, but it was sure the most dangerous. And this begs to an even bigger question. Why were we there in the first place with the dangers in mind? The Brits and even the Red Cross had hauled ass. They even moved assets out right before the attack. Was that because they wanted fewer eyes around? Obama and Hillary had a reason to be there and they can't say why.

 

[uncle money bags]

This seems to be the crux of your argument. The problem is, there is no evidence that I have ever read that even hints that the small CIA teams hypothetically available to intercede in Libya would have been effective in any way. There were 2 armed guards at the facility - sending in another small team of 3-5 men would only have resulted in them being killed or captured as well. The reason I mentioned the team in Italy is that they were the closest force feasibly capable of altering the outcome of the consulate attacks and as I said, even if they had lifted off the second the first shots were fired, they would have arrived 6.5 hours too late and would very likely have come under heavy attack themselves. Unless you think Obama should have deployed a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to Benghazi 12 hours after the attack concluded to level the city and kill everyone, there are seriously zero viable options that the President had, at least from the options that are known to the public. Is there a hypothetical secret option that Obama had and decided not to take because he's just that stupid or enjoys seeing US servicemen killed? Sure, I suppose anything is possible. But what you have to consider is that unlike his predecessor, this President has surrounded himself with military advisors at the highest level that aren't clueless ideologues. While I'm sure Obama's military judgment is probably about as good as mine (which is to say, amateur at best), the people advising him are pros. Leon Panetta is no Donald Rumsfeld.

I personally knew one of the victims of this attack, Sean Smith. When I found out that he had been killed it hit me like a ton of bricks - Sean had just emailed me a couple weeks prior to give me feedback for a paper I was writing. Since the attacks I've sort of made it my mission to find out as much as I can about how he died, because the US military has a pretty messed up track record of lying to victims' families or giving them false information regarding their deaths (Pat Tillman is perhaps the most prolific example of this). Trust me when I say I wanted to find someone to blame for why my friend died. I have looked high and low for a way to pin this on Obama's lack of military experience, over cautious attitude, or general ineptitude. In good conscience I can't do it.

For all the other reasons you've listed for wanting to impeach the President, I say good luck and godspeed. But for Benghazi, there was simply nothing anyone could have done to prevent what happened other than to have either left the consulate (Stevens didn't want to) or granted the State Department's repeated requests for more security (Congress refused to). Aside from those two options, no one lacking omnipresent powers could have prevented their deaths.

I don't mean to sound disparaging in any way when I say this, but I think there's been a lot of misinformation being bandied about as to what a FEST team is and what they do. I often hear people say "what about the FEST teams? Those were sent in after the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania bombings? Why is Obama so stupid???"

First off, FEST teams are not secret squirrel tactical teams that go into dangerous situations and perform Jerry Bruckheimer-style rescue operations. They are more like a combination of FEMA and the FBI for foreign soil. They don't go in to save people, they go in to cut through foreign bureaucratic red tape and conduct investigations into terrorist attacks, most often bombings. It should be noted that in all of the mentioned scenarios (the USS Cole, Kenya, and Tanzania) the incidents being investigated took place in relatively safe, politically stable environments where security was established and the FEST teams would be exposed to minimal (if any) danger.

THIS is what a FEST team is.

Benghazi on 9/11 was more like Mogadishu in 1993 than any of those other scenarios. Sending a FEST team into Benghazi that day would have been like sending a lone detective in to investigate a liquor store robbery at the height of the LA Riots.

The Pentagon didn't even have aerial surveillance (via drone) on the consulate until after the building had already been abandoned and the entire staff was MIA. At that point what was the President supposed to do? Both he and the State department lobbied Congress for more security funding to protect these and other consulates. Our dysfunctional legislature (composed of dipshits of all political sorts) is to blame for the shoddy security situation in Benghazi on 9/11. They'd rather spend money studying the flow rate of ketchup and giving out hundreds of millions to hipster ********* "green" energy companies than hire ample security to protect true bad asses like Chris Stevens and Sean Smith.

Let me address your last para of the initial quote first, so there inst any confusion as to where I stand. First, I have not, and do not, support the impeachment of the president, nor have I called for his impeachment. Second, the state department's request for more money to secure their consulates and embassies is a red herring. There is plenty of money in their budget to do so if only it were used in that manner. This argument has been put forward by those wishing to project the blame for this debacle onto other parties, namely the republicans in congress.

Going back to the top, my argument that there were assets in place to react to the developments in Benghazi included civilian and military. I an using the term civilian to mean other government entities outside of the military chain of command. While this includes the CIA and other state department personel, it is not exclusive to them.

Taking into account the time line, we see the beginning of the attack occurred at approximately 2140; or 9:40 pm for those not familiar with 24 hr clocks. At that time, Amb. Stevens calls deputy Hicks and informs him that an attack is under way. Doherty and Woods are killed on the annex roof at 0400 during the second wave of the attack. If we only take into account the time from the onset of hostilities and notification of the attack to deputy Hicks to the last two casualties we have a time period of 6 hours and 20 minutes. Any argument that this was a 30 minute to 1 hour long attack is false, unless you are only counting the attack on the consulate (sic).
Instead of regurgitating the whole timeline I am reposting the link here.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/05/damning-benghazi-timeline-spreadsheet.html

With the new info that Mr. Ubben was on the roof of the annex with Doherty and Woods when the annex was attacked, being gravely injured himself, and waited for 20 hours before help arrived I think the failure to send help was wrong, and supports my contentions.

As I stated before, there was no way to know how long or how widespread the attack would be at the onset, but we did know there was an attack. With the timeline in place, any argument in hind sight that a response would be futile is false.

speaking of the military side response. The command of the EUCOM CIF (C-110) was transferred to the control of the AFRICOM commander at some point during the night of the attack. This is a 40 man team whose sole responsibility is the QRF response to situations like this. At the time they were conducting exercises in Croatia, three and a half hours away from Benghazi. According to what I am familiar with; considering muster and upload time, their time on station would have been around 4 to 6 hours. While this may not have allowed enough time in country to plan a successful operation that would have saved Mr. Doherty's and Mr. Wood's life, they certainly could have been there to help the exfil and security. Instead, according to Gen. Dempsy, the team was " told to begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base” in Germany."
Further, there were approximately 15 Special Forces troops at the consulate in Tripoli. They were ordered to stand down and remain at Tripoli to guard that facility in case of attack. I think it was the wrong decision.
Once again, I come back to the unknown of how long the attack would be, and should not have been a factor in deciding to deploy.
I somewhat agree with the correlation to Mogadishu. Inadequate resources to accomplish the mission, civilian leadership that doesn't understand or care about the threat, supposed allies betraying us, ( guards at Benghazi, Italians at Mog), and then the subsequent clusterf@#$ blamed on the military.

As it is, I do not know why these "problem solvers" were not utilized. I suspect it is the same reason assets in Italy were not on a higher alert status that night, including F16s in Avianno, especially considering the date and the threat information the consulate had provided to the state department. At the very least, an increase of security personel in country would have been advised. Our civilian leadership dropped the ball, and have tried to hang our military out to dry for it. Whether they did it out of incompetence or intentionally remains to be seen.

 

[subprep]

This seems to be the crux of your argument. The problem is, there is no evidence that I have ever read that even hints that the small CIA teams hypothetically available to intercede in Libya would have been effective in any way. There were 2 armed guards at the facility - sending in another small team of 3-5 men would only have resulted in them being killed or captured as well. The reason I mentioned the team in Italy is that they were the closest force feasibly capable of altering the outcome of the consulate attacks and as I said, even if they had lifted off the second the first shots were fired, they would have arrived 6.5 hours too late and would very likely have come under heavy attack themselves. Unless you think Obama should have deployed a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to Benghazi 12 hours after the attack concluded to level the city and kill everyone, there are seriously zero viable options that the President had, at least from the options that are known to the public. Is there a hypothetical secret option that Obama had and decided not to take because he's just that stupid or enjoys seeing US servicemen killed? Sure, I suppose anything is possible. But what you have to consider is that unlike his predecessor, this President has surrounded himself with military advisors at the highest level that aren't clueless ideologues. While I'm sure Obama's military judgment is probably about as good as mine (which is to say, amateur at best), the people advising him are pros. Leon Panetta is no Donald Rumsfeld.

I personally knew one of the victims of this attack, Sean Smith. When I found out that he had been killed it hit me like a ton of bricks - Sean had just emailed me a couple weeks prior to give me feedback for a paper I was writing. Since the attacks I've sort of made it my mission to find out as much as I can about how he died, because the US military has a pretty messed up track record of lying to victims' families or giving them false information regarding their deaths (Pat Tillman is perhaps the most prolific example of this). Trust me when I say I wanted to find someone to blame for why my friend died. I have looked high and low for a way to pin this on Obama's lack of military experience, over cautious attitude, or general ineptitude. In good conscience I can't do it.

For all the other reasons you've listed for wanting to impeach the President, I say good luck and godspeed. But for Benghazi, there was simply nothing anyone could have done to prevent what happened other than to have either left the consulate (Stevens didn't want to) or granted the State Department's repeated requests for more security (Congress refused to). Aside from those two options, no one lacking omnipresent powers could have prevented their deaths.

Im really so sorry that you knew these people personally but its not 'just' what happened in Benghazi, it's the flat out lies and cover ups afterwards, I mean this guy was your friend and our government leaders LIED LIED LIED not only to the american people but straight to the faces of the family members blaming the video etc it stinks to high heaven, there is a cover up here why else would they say those things? The people involved just get a free pass, susan rice - promoted, hillary "what difference does it make" clinton - prob gonna run for president, it is sickening.

 

[GolfWhiskey]

And this begs to an even bigger question. Why were we there in the first place with the dangers in mind?

Ambassadors in any given nation or assignment have the authority to close their own embassies or vacate the country if they believe their diplomatic staffs are in danger. At any point, Stevens could have said "ok guys let's get out of here" and made that happen. Stevens was a big believer in what his team was doing - he apparently had faith that the situation wouldn't deteriorate as it did as quickly as it did. The answer to your question of "why were they there?" is simple: Stevens wanted his team to remain in place. He requested additional security in the months leading up to the attack, and the refusal/inability of State to provide that might have been evidence enough for a more cautious man to leave, but he decided not to. It was his expressed intent and desire to stay, it's not like he was begging Obama personally to close the consulate for weeks prior and Obama was just telling him "no" because he's dumb or evil or whatever.

All of these accusations that are being leveled regarding the President's motives lack one strong element: evidence. I find it troubling that of the 13 embassy and consulate attacks that occurred under Bush, none apparently displayed Bush's ineptitude or dubious motivations. 13 attacks, and not a single call for impeachment based on any one of them. Yet for the last year that's all we've heard from the far right. Impeach because Benghazi.

 

[GolfWhiskey]

At the time they were conducting exercises in Croatia, three and a half hours away from Benghazi.

Wait what? Croatia is further from Benghazi than most of Italy. How did you get 3 hours?

I somewhat agree with the correlation to Mogadishu. Inadequate resources to accomplish the mission, civilian leadership that doesn't understand or care about the threat, supposed allies betraying us, ( guards at Benghazi, Italians at Mog), and then the subsequent clusterf@#$ blamed on the military.

As it is, I do not know why these "problem solvers" were not utilized. I suspect it is the same reason assets in Italy were not on a higher alert status that night, including F16s in Avianno, especially considering the date and the threat information the consulate had provided to the state department. At the very least, an increase of security personel in country would have been advised. Our civilian leadership dropped the ball, and have tried to hang our military out to dry for it. Whether they did it out of incompetence or intentionally remains to be seen.

A couple things here. I don't know of anyone who has expressly blamed the military for the attack on the consulate. If anything I keep hearing people say that the military was waiting in the wings with every available resource but Obama was just sitting in a bunker watching a live feed of the staff as they were murdered while eating popcorn and cackling. Seriously the Benghazi attacks have become like a nexus of all the irrational hate directed at Obama. There's so much to hate on him for - and no reason to include this incident.

F16s? What in the holy bejeezus are F16s going to go to help rescue 4 embattled consulate employees in a burning building surrounded by thousands of angry protesters, mostly civilian? Should they have just dropped a few JDAMs onto the crowd for kicks? I just don't get it. As I stated before, none of these small QRF forces would have been nearly enough to attempt a rescue operation in a fubar situation like that. An entire 150 man assault force consisting of Rangers, SEALs, Delta Force, and over a dozen helicopters got their teeth kicked in at Mogadishu - a town lacking any sort of AA or organized paramilitary strength. To suggest that a much smaller, less elite force would have been capable of inserting into a city with much more capable defenses and succeeding in rescuing the ambassador and his staff is a huge stretch - I mean like Tom Clancy-level stretch.

 

[uncle money bags]

Wait what? Croatia is further from Benghazi than most of Italy. How did you get 3 hours?



A couple things here. I don't know of anyone who has expressly blamed the military for the attack on the consulate. If anything I keep hearing people say that the military was waiting in the wings with every available resource but Obama was just sitting in a bunker watching a live feed of the staff as they were murdered while eating popcorn and cackling. Seriously the Benghazi attacks have become like a nexus of all the irrational hate directed at Obama. There's so much to hate on him for - and no reason to include this incident.

F16s? What in the holy bejeezus are F16s going to go to help rescue 4 embattled consulate employees in a burning building surrounded by thousands of angry protesters, mostly civilian? Should they have just dropped a few JDAMs onto the crowd for kicks? I just don't get it. As I stated before, none of these small QRF forces would have been nearly enough to attempt a rescue operation in a fubar situation like that. An entire 150 man assault force consisting of Rangers, SEALs, Delta Force, and over a dozen helicopters got their teeth kicked in at Mogadishu - a town lacking any sort of AA or organized paramilitary strength. To suggest that a much smaller, less elite force would have been capable of inserting into a city with much more capable defenses and succeeding in rescuing the ambassador and his staff is a huge stretch - I mean like Tom Clancy-level stretch.

I said three and a half hours.
I dont know what map you are looking at, but Zagreb on my map is about 100 miles closer to Benghazi than Aviano. I count 970 miles.
How long does it take for a C 130 to make that flight? how long does it take a C17? Include the ramp time and run up if you want.

Now we have at least some agreement, as far as expressly blaming the military. What I have heard is that if the military assets which could have been able to respond were at a readiness level commensurate with the threat level , Benghazi would have ended much differently. I interpret one way, you another.

F16s. They would be able to do the same thing they do anywhere else in the world, and JDAMS are not the only ordnance they could do it with. you and I have different opinions on this as well. I believe, if someone comes to the fight and then sticks around after it is apparent that the "protest" part is over and the "killing" part has started they get no quarter from me. Any one of those American lives at that point are worth more to me than (insert number here) of the enemy. You seem to believe that just because some of them were "unarmed" they shouldn't be counted as combatants. I don't think the lesson learned in Mog about this has been learned on your part.

Speaking of Mogadishu. You and I have differing opinions about that too, it seems. That's fair and I welcome it. However, to claim " ( Mogadishu)...a town lacking any sort of AA or organized paramilitary strength.", is pretty far fetched considering the loss of three helicopters and considerable damage to several others. And considering that the whole reason we were in the country to begin with was because of the " organized paramilitary" threat. There are several reasons for what happened in Mog. The primary of which was poor leadership at key levels of the military leadership, insane communication protocols that made it damn near impossible to direct a fight, denial of equipment that would have done a better job protecting soldiers while they did their job. I think a lot of those problems have been addressed as part of the lessons learned feedback. I also believe that the military forces that were available could have made a difference at Benghazi.

Finally, I disagree as to your assessment that the protesting force in Benghazi had " much more capable defenses". The fact is, there were no significant differences between the weapons used in either place, except perhaps counting mortar tubes. If the opfor at Benghazi was such a formidable force I am confident that we would not have the info we have now because there wouldn't be any one left to tell us about it.