American consulate in Pakistan under siege, one rioter killed
posted at 8:41 am on September 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Welcome to a second week of American diplomatic outposts in Muslim nations living under siege. Today, the news comes from Karachi, Pakistan, where the military had to respond to the American consulate to keep it from being overrun by rioters. One died in the melee and “dozens” injured, the New York Times reports:
One person was killed and dozens of people were injured when anti-American protesters tried to storm the American Consulate in the southern port city of Karachi and clashed for several hours with the police and paramilitary troops on Sunday evening, rescue workers and police officials said.
The outbreak of violence came after days of peaceful demonstrations in Pakistan against the release of a video mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Pakistani officials had increased security in all major cities before Friday Prayer services, which have in the past served as flash points for protests, and until Sunday, calm had prevailed. The American Embassy here said in a message posted Sunday evening on Twitter that “all American personnel are safe and accounted for at U.S. Consulate, Karachi.” …
The demonstration on Sunday was spearheaded by two groups of Shiites, a minority in Pakistan, which had urged demonstrators to march “toward” the American Consulate.
The police responded by blocking the road that leads to the American Consulate with concrete barriers and shipping containers on Sunday afternoon. Then, as the march neared, the police fired tear gas canisters into the crowd. That failed to contain waves of angry demonstrators, who grew increasingly agitated, witnesses said.
The police and Rangers, a force controlled by the Interior Ministry, then fired shots into the air as demonstrators rushed through the clouds of tear gas, trying to reach the outer boundary wall of the heavily fortified consulate building. Water cannons were also used on the protesters, who began hurling stones.
So what was the message? We’ll get to that in a moment. Meanwhile, Iranian state media is promoting an effort by a “religious foundation” to increase the bounty on Salman Rushdie’s head, after all these years:
An Iranian religious foundation has increased its reward for the killing of British author Salman Rushdie, in response to a U.S.-made film that mocks the Prophet Muhammad, sparking protests across the Muslim world.
Rushdie, an Indian-born British novelist who has nothing to do with the film, was condemned to death in 1989 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s late leader, over his novel “The Satanic Verses,” saying its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad was blasphemous.
Khomeini’s fatwa – or religious edict – was condemned in the West as incitement to murder and an assault on freedom of speech, but a wealthy Iranian religious organization has offered a large reward to anyone carrying it out and decided to increase the bounty amid the furor over the online film.
“I am adding another $500,000 to the reward for killing Salman Rushdie, and anyone who carries out this sentence will receive the whole amount immediately,” said Hassan Sanei, the foundation’s head, in a statement carried by the Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA).
In case anyone wonders, the bounty is now up to $3.3 million — for a novel written nearly 25 years ago. When the book got published, radical Islamists started riots around the world, which sounds rather familiar this month.
Let’s get back to the message. The Times includes this paragraph at the end of its report on the riot in Karachi:
Protesters held placards and shouted slogans against the United States government. One placard read, “O Obama, we are all Osama.” Another placard read, “Blasphemy is not freedom of expression, and its sentence is death.”
The message from Karachi, Iran, and the burning embassies in Arab nations is that radical Islamists reject freedom of speech and religious expression entirely. They want to impose dhimmitude on the rest of the world, just like they did in 1988 when Rushdie’s novel was published, just like they did on 9/11, and just like they always have. Pretty speeches in Cairo won’t change that, and sending out messages condemning the “denigration” of religious belief as an “abuse” of free speech won’t change it, either. In fact, it just encourages more of this response in the long run.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
IMPEACH
WisCon on May 6, 2013 at 10:12 PM
I admire your optimism. Alas, see above.
Jaibones on May 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM
And then along comes Bayam:
Just. Go.
can_con on May 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM
I proposed this same ludicrous lie for the Obama gang within the first week after Benghazi.
I thought it would take till this Summer before Benghazi blew up in Barack’s face.
Right on schedule, so far.
profitsbeard on May 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM
So,
Blink, try to guess how many Captians Mast I had in my 2 years and 6 months in the I-Corps from late 1966 to 1969.
Then try to guess the charges.
Then what the Captians and one Gen. had to say and the level of the fines.
I will give you the answer when you at the “can’t do that” deal later when you pop your head up once more.
bad habit at times some say
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Wow..Just Wow..:(
Dire Straits on May 6, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Obama 2nd Debate: “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.”
Ya don’t say Mr President.
can_con on May 6, 2013 at 10:34 PM
Of course, Hillary will say that she knew nothing of this and anyway those kind of decisions would be “left to the experts.” It seems in her department all critically important life or death decisions are left to subordinates – and just try to find out who.
She reminds me of Jon Corzini of MF Global with the same kind of low-life excuses no one believes. They are beneath contempt.
Chessplayer on May 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM
The lib argument here is offensive to me.
There were no alert birds on 9/11?
Really? In or around Libya.?
You can’t explain this away.
I was Navy and you can bet your ass we had assets floating off the coast, alert 5. SEAL Team ready. Benghazi is on the coast.
They could have lit that place up in under an hour. More like 10 minutes. F-16′s breaking some windows. AC-130 guns enroute.
Any of you libs think otherwise? That a Team couldn’t have gotten there?
REALLY?
Barky went to bed. Hitlery was probably drunk.
Your nonsense arguments won’t erase reality.
wolly4321 on May 6, 2013 at 10:55 PM
It’s fairly obvious Ogabe, ValJar and Shrilary wanted to be sure those four didn’t survive Benghazi.
Precisely why is something hopefully can be found out before Just-Us or similar corruption can
Reno-izeer, destroy all evidence if they haven’t already.viking01 on May 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/audio-benghazi-drone-operator-to-hannity-we-were-not-allowed-to-be-armed-that-night/
ted c on May 6, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Bayam, are you kidding? To you,Bengazi fails in comparison to ‘Mission Accomplished’.
socalcon on May 6, 2013 at 11:10 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/06/Media-Plays-Catchup-on-Benghazi-Scandal
ted c on May 6, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Associated Press has FINALLY come out with a “Big Story” on this:
More here
The only problem is……will the mainstream media dare print/publish what AP has written?
Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 11:31 PM
The denial continues. This is one of the biggest stories since Watergate and liberals are trying their hardest to pretend it’s just “a bump in the road.”
MrX on May 7, 2013 at 12:32 AM
There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.- Susan Rice
My take.
kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 AM
You gotta cut it a little slack. The better trolls got sequestered.
bigmacdaddy on May 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM
Updated.
Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 7:46 AM
OT
A couple of those trolls are in mourning. They just lost their girlfriends in Cleveland.
Bayam, on the other hand has not left his mommy’s basement the last 10 years so he had not found himself a women yet.
Not sure what the big deal is here. What difference does it make that our ambassador was sodomized to death and dragged in front of a cheering throng of subhuman filthy animals cheering allah akbar and beating his body as it was dragged by. Why would anyone care that we had a squad of special forces ready to go in and wipe these scumbags out but instead were ordered to stand down while our head muslim went to bed for the night and concocted this “video story” in his brilliant rem state.
Like North Korea nothing will happen to our kenayn demi god
acyl72 on May 7, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Issa has a document SIGNED BY HILLARY personally denying Ambassador Stevens’ request for additional security, a direct contradiction to her testimony under oath the 1st time before Congress on this matter. In short, Issa has the evidence that Hillary perpetrated the Felony CRIME of Perjury. If anything, I am sure Hillary will blame a faulty memory, and hopefully it will do no more good than that excuse worked for Scooter Libby. Hillary does not just ‘deserve’ to go to jail but ‘NEEDS’ to go to jail to prove to this country that the laws of this nation still apply to everyone.
Eric holder has already gotten away with 3 Felony Crimes of Perjury before Congress over Fast & Furious simply because his hand-picked Justice Department cronies refused to do their job and press charges. Because of that I don’t have much hope that ‘justice’ will be done in this case regarding Hillary’s crimes, either.
If the GOP/Issa does NOT push for criminal charges against Hillary, having such d@mning evidence in hand, then that just proves Washington is just one big elitist club that believes they are above the law, protects eah other from the law, & there isn’t one Republican worth a d@mn up there!
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 8:27 AM
So, to make a long story short,
An American Embassy comes under attack,
The C.I.A. and the Military were forced to watch and do nothing about it, while Americans were being killed.
Because to do anything would have POLITICAL implications.
And, Cankles says, “What difference does it make?”
franksalterego on May 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM
franksalterego on May 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM
- Sorry, you didn’t do it justice & came up short:
Obama ordered the U.s. Military, that had been fighting & killing Al Qaeda for the last 8 years, to HELP Al Qaeda-backed rebels take over Libya. He then imposed a Libyan Foreign Policy of ‘Low Profile’ which consisted of hiring those same Al Qaeda-backed/associated rebels to protect OUR Ambassador rather than have a U.S. military contingency do so. After 2 failed terrorist attacks on Stevens, after Intel reported threats, after Stevens warned of 10 new terrorist training camps in Benghazi/Al Qaeda flags over Benghazi govt buildings/that he would die without additional help, & after the Brigade (rebel ‘protecton’) ‘quit’ 2 months before 9/11/12, Obama & Hillary proided no additional security & did not order stevens out of Benghazi. At the start of the attack the CIA notified both Obama & Hillary, who at that point decided in order to perpetuate their lie that Al Qaeda was ‘finished’/there was no ‘war on terror’ & to avoid a successful terrorist attack resulting in the 1st dead Ambassador in over 30 years being pinned on Obama before the re-election they came up with the lie about a ‘demonstration’. This administration then doctored/re-wrote Intel reports & engaged in lareg-scale lying and deception of the American people. Rescue forces were not permitted in because they had to contain the area & story – no one in to refute their ‘demonstration’ lie…the survivors could be threatened/bribed/silenced. Obama & Hillary committed the heinous act of treason, betraying Americans who fought for their lives for apprx 12 hours while waiting for help that would never come. Obama/Hillary/Rice lied, stalled, and covered-up all of this for his re-election, hoping with the media’s help that it would all just go away.
SIDE-STORIES/STORY: INCOMPETENCE OR TERRORIST COLLABORATION?
On the anniversary of 9/11, despite numerous pieces of Intel reports warning of pending Terrorist attacks, 20 (TWENTY) US Embassies were attacked, many ransacked/overrun/burned. This is a MASSIVE FOREIGN POLICY / SECURITY FAILURE — This administration did not only FAIL to prepare & have those Embassies well defended & prepared, there is evidence to suggest the Obama administration was in direct collaboration in regards to at least 1 or 2 of those attacks.
For example, Intel reports stated a rival Terrorist Organization to the Brotherhood in Egypt informed the Brotherhood of the coordinated attack on Embassies throughout the Middle East on 9/11/12 & insisted they were going to attack the Embassy in Cairo. If the Brotherhood opposed they threatened to spread the word that the Brotherhood was nothing more than a U.S. puppet. Accordig to the Report the Brotherhood allowed the attack on the Cairo Embassy as long as no Americans were killed. Just before that attack the State Department ordered the Marines guarding the Cairo Embassy to NOT carry live ammo that day on 9/11/12. It appears the Brotherhood informed the U.S. of the pending attack, the agreement that no Americans would be killed, & possibly negotiated for the Marines to be disarmed so no Muslims would be killeed, either. This way the Brotherhood gets to save face by allowing the attack, the Terrorists got to take part in the Middle East-wide attacks on US Embassies, & neither side lost lives.
If this administration was willing to not only sacrifice Stevens but sacrifice the lives of 2 Navy SEALs who fought for their lives for almost 12 hours, does anyone think they would not sacrifice a few buildings? The administration could not have been complicit in all 20 Embassy attacks but were guilty of complete incompetence & underestimating the enemy and therefore did not have those Embasies prepared for attacks on the anniversary of 9/11!
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM
‘Toon of the Day: I Am Not A
CrookLiarResist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM
If you’re going to comment on something I said, at least mark the quotation.
I posted what I heard and I’d like to ask; In light of Fast & Furious, Solyndra and other duplicitous actions taken by the current regime, why is the scenario outlined by the caller “a stretch?”
I wouldn’t put anything past Zero. He’s perfectly capable of doing something like this.
Other callers posited that Zero was sending arms to Syrian rebels through Benghazi. Is that a stretch?
I don’t think so.
dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM
On WRKO this morning, Jeff Kuhner said he thinks Fox can blow this thing wide open and really make a name for themselves if they keep on it.
The rest of the media will have to cover it.
dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Willing to sacrifice American lives after the attack is already going down I can definitely believe, but – and maybe I am just hoping – that even O would not pre-coordinate an agreed swap of people as described.
By refusing to poot boots on the gorund in Libya & secure the more than 2,000 rocket launchers in Libya’s arsenal Obama allowed those weapons to travel already as far as Egypt & Gaza, into the hands of Terrorists throughout the Middle east. We saw some of those being carried by terrorists who attacked Stevens in Benghazi that night. If Obama wanted to arm Terrorists in Syria he would just have the CIA do so, just as they did with the Al Qaeda-backed rebels in Libya…all in the name of ‘freedom/democracy’ in those nations…just as he touted for Egypt while helping the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood seize power in Egypt.
I hate to admit it but you are probably right…
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM
It’s not BS. The military is NOT adequately funded to be a worldwide 9-1-1 service.
If you think that this is wrong, then feel free to look at the most recent QDR and let us know how you would reprioritize the military’s budget in order to allow for faster worldwide response.
That being said, Obama and Panetta should have been much more aggressive with their response. They should have both been awake and pushing from the top down.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Yes, air defense of CONUS and search and rescue (non-combat SAR) are the two biggest uses of alert aircraft. Neither of these are a primary responsibility of the US overseas. In the Mediterranean, SAR areas of responsibility are divided up amongst the countries with Mediterranean coastline. Air defense is a HUGE responsibility for Air Force fighters protecting our homeland, but not Europe or Africa.
None of this means that the US has substantial alert aircraft overseas for all types of missions.
Again, I’m sorry if you don’t like this. Feel free to read the QDR and propose changes.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 10:37 AM
1. See above comment about air defense of the homeland being a huge priority for the military.
2. The military of the 1980′s is most certainly not the military of today.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM
If an F-16 made a couple strafing runs that night or even used a missile or two and then had to ditch in the Med, the outcome at Benghazi would have been different.
I’ll gladly trade a plane for American lives.
dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM
It IS ‘BS’ because the military does not operate that way, anyway! We have A/C on alert to respond to potential Troops In Contact in certain areas. We often have aircraft for potential SPECIFIC threats. We train & have SpecOps personnel trained in the EXACT TYPE of Situation that happened in Benghazi for that EXACT type situation that occurred in Benghazi – not by accident but by design!
Of course we don’t have assets just sitting alert 24/7 all over the place like cabs waiting to pick up a fare or cops waiting to respond to ANY event…. thus making the comment moronic.
We had intel that there was a good chance this attack was going to go down. Al Qaeda leaders had already called for it in response to a Libyan-born Al Qaeda having been killed several months earlier – there had already been 2 previous terrorist attacks on Ambassador Stevens in the months leading up to 9/11/12 – AND 9/11/12 was coming up. Who the H#LL would NOT put assets on alert to respond to a potential threat in Benghazi based on all of that, especially knowing Stevens had no security any more after the Brigade they hired had quit 2 months earlier?!
No we should not have had assets prepared and on alert BY COINCIDENCE – they should have been prepared BY DESIGN! Of coure, if this President, Sect of Stae, & Sect of Defense had been worth a d@mn 20 Embassies throughout the Middle East would have been prepared, the Marines in Cairo would have been fully armed & would have lethally repelled the Islamic Extremist attack rather than been overrun, & Stevens & the 2 Seals would be alive today!
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM
That is why this SpecOps Specially Trained Unit was specifically trained in this EXACT type of mission! Just like Air Defense assets are used for Air Defense, just like SAR asstes/teams are used for SAR events – each specifically trained for their missions, THIS TEAM was specifically trained for ITS mission…and they could have and would have been there in time if not ordered to ‘Stand Down’ bo whoever betrayed those SEALS who fought for their lives while waiting for help that neveer came!
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Gen Ham was not relieved of command that night for just TALKING about an intent to send those SpecOps QRF Team, which according to Obama could never have made it there in time. Ham was relieved of command for deciding to send that team which he determined could make it there and time, the team he determined were fully capable of carrying out their mission & saving those 2 SEALs.
Had the order not been given to dis-arm the drone, the lasing of the mortar would have resulted in that mortar team being taken out & potentially begun changing the tide. Had that Team been allowd to launch they would have been there in time to also strike the mortas being lased and definitely change the course of battle. Panetta is right that the military doesn’t operate like a 9-1-1 service that stands around waiting for ANY event – we have specific missions and specific teams that respond to specific events. Panetta knows d@mn well that on 9/11/12 we had one of those specially trained teams that were trained & qualified to handle what was going on in Benghazi preparing to go, would have reached Benghazi in time, & they were told to stand down. THAT is why his ’9-1-1′ comment is BS and just part of the cover-up!
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM
It is inconceivable for an American president to act as Obama does. But.. if one views him as the de facto leader of the Muslim world..his actions make perfect sense! He is doing more harm to this country from within the white house than the world trade terrorists did on 9/11! Look at all of his behavior through that prism and it will make perfect sense!! He needs to be impeached before any more damage can be done by this Muslim imposter and fraud!
Marco on May 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM
I commend your aggressive thinking. Would you have ordered this? And would you have ordered the F-16 to bust through Libyan air defense systems without dip clearance and without any of the support that’s typical of air defense incursions?
blink on May 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM
The military does not operate what way? The military doesn’t claim to be capable of supplying worldwide rescue forces within a matter of hours! How on earth can you claim otherwise?
Again, read the QDR and tell me where the military claims to have this capability?
Response times to embassy evacuations (and this wasn’t even an embassy – but a consulate [or whatever]) are NOT planned to be within hours. I’m sorry that this disappoints you.
Of course we do, but in areas where we know to expect that our troops will be in contact (such as in war zones) – not everywhere.
Thanks for finally admitting this. Hopefully, many Hot Air readers will take note of this admission.
Yes, yes, yes, yes! This is the EXACT question that I have been asking from the begging! This is the question that I want answered.
Why was there not better security? Why weren’t more assets dedicated to providing security? Was it because the Administration wanted to avoid making Libya seem like a dangerous place? Was it political?
I agree 100% with this, too. Unfortunately, I think the State Department and ambassadors tie the hands of their Marine security teams too frequently.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Well, this is certainly the right question to be asking. Was there a specific order to stand down given? If so, then by whom? Remember that there’s a difference between being ordered to stand down and a lack of authorization. Was this group asking for authorization, or were trying to go on their own authority only to be preempted from above?
These are important questions.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM
This would certainly be a big deal is this is true. Can you support these claims?
Ham seemed to be EUCOM for a couple months after September 12, so was he only temporarily relieved?
Was the UAV ordered to be disarmed, or was the mission never planned to be armed from inception?
blink on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Based on what the drone op said on Hannity, they usually go armed. He was surprised they were told to go out empty.
dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM
While it’s true the military doesn’t offer a 24/7 911 service, they ARE charged with protecting US Embassies and their personnel. And rescuing them if necessary.
dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM
bink, I am not disagreeing with the idea that the military Is not a ‘generic 9-1-1’ response service. We both know there are many different situations, many different locations, many different whens/wheres/whys, etc when A/C and assets are placed on alert. I am not going to delve into debating every minute detail of those. Here is my point — When those A/C / assets are put on alert they are placed there for a specific reason. Panetta knew that better than anyone, and he also knew that in the case of Benghazi there was no need for a generic ‘9-1-1’ service – there should have been specific assets on alert on 9/11/12 based on very specific reasons. Words mean something & Panetta used the ‘9-1-1’ reference to paint a picture to the average American that the military are not ‘cops’ waiting on a ‘9-1-1-‘ call and any expectation that someone / forces should have been sitting by waiting for an emergency in Benghazi that day is ‘ludicrous’ or just plain silly. The fact is it is NOT ‘ludicrous’ or silly.
You and I BOTH AGREE that forces SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON ALERT ON 9/11/12 specifically for Benghazi BECAUSE 1) Stevens had been attacked twice before, 2) Al Qaeda leaders were calling for a 3rd attack for retaliation for a Libyan-born Al Qaeda Leader being killed months earlier, 3) the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up, 4) the primary/only security Stevens had – the Brigade, an Al Qaeda-associated militia – quite, stopped protecting him, 2 months earlier, & 5) Stevens reported himself the growing presence of Al Qaeda (10 new camps, flags, etc) & the fact that if he was attacked a 3rd time he would die! Based on all that, based on the fact that forces should have already been on alert, THAT is why Panetta’s ’9-1-1’ comment was BS.
Obama’s Libyan ‘Low Profile’ policy, which placed Stevens’ security/American lives in the hands of Al Qaeda (9/11)-backed/associated rebels rather than having Americans protect them was an immediate ‘death sentence’ – it wasn’t a matter of ‘IF’ but rather ‘when’! Two previous terrorist attacks in which the Brigade failed to show in time (2hr response time) PROVED to the administration that Stevens was in danger & should have forced their hands to either assign more security in Benghazi or order Stevens out of Benghazi. WHILE that additional security was being provided (or immediately after the FIRST failed terrorist attack) forces should have been put on-call for Benghazi. Of course, Obama / Hillary / Panetta did nothing. 2 months prior to 9/11/12 the Brigade ‘quit’, declaring they could no longer protect Stevens (DUH!). Again, this should have forced their hands to either assign more security in Benghazi or order Stevens out of Benghazi – forces put on call for Benghazi. Again, the 3 Amigos did nothing.
Knowing Al Qaeda leaders were calling for a 3rd attack…knowing the security they had hired for Stevens had quite 2 months earlier…knowing warning of a pending attack were there…knowing Stevens had reported a massive increase of Al Qaeda in Benghazi & that if a 3rd attack occurred he would die….knowing the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up…even Panetta knows/knew that there should have been a dedicated set of assets – like that highly trained SpecOps team – should have been put On-Call versus some stupid idea of a ‘generic 9-1-1’ idea. THAT is why Panetta’s comments are ‘BS’! He KNEW they F*ed up by completely ignoring all the warning signs/Intel, by trusting the terrorists would not kill Stevens because we helped give them Libya to rule, by not preparing for a 3rd attack &/or for the anniversary of 9/11, by not having a team even semi-ready to go, & finally by ordering a team of highly trained military specialists taught to handle that specific event going down in Benghazi to ‘Stand Down’.
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Can I support these claims? If you are asking for video, audio, or a signed document, no. If you are asking for 1st-hand info that is a different story. Temporarily relieved – yes. Eventually forced to leace entirely – yes.
easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Yes, and do you know the planned response time?
blink on May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Obviously, we agree that there should have been more security for Stevens, but more security probably ran counter to Obama’s admin wanting to create the impression that Libya was a happy, safe place.
But I think Panette’s comments regarding the 9-1-1 service were in response to claims that capable assets were deliberately held back from helping for nefarious reasons.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM
I’d love to hear more specifics about this 1st-hand info. I’d love to hear about Ham definitively being relieved of command because he wanted to be more aggressive about the utilization of assets for Benghazi.
Please explain.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM
The Hannity caller claims that it was a Predator.
blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4