Former Pacific Fleet chief: We need full disclosure on Benghazi — now
posted at 9:31 am on October 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Retired Admiral James A. Lyons likely pulled few punches as commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet during his career … and he hasn’t started pulling punches now, either. In a blistering column at The Washington Times, the former commander blasts the lack of action from the US when the administration learned our consulate in Benghazi had come under attack, writing that “courage was lacking” that might have saved at least some of the four American lives lost on September 11. “Someone high up in the administration,” Lyons writes, “let our people get killed” — and he wants some answers immediately as to whom:
The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.
I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.
I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.
Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only incomprehensible, it is un-American.
There has been plenty of speculation as to what Ambassador Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi in the first place, which Lyons touches on in his column. Even apart from that, though, this argument above is the key to the failure of the American response. We always come to the aid of our diplomatic missions when under attack, especially with as many assets in the area as we had at the time. It’s worth noting that we intervened militarily in Libya in the first place to prevent a massacre of civilians by Moammar Qaddafi in Benghazi — and now we’re supposed to believe that we couldn’t coordinate a military response to an attack in that same city on our own consulate in seven hours?
Here’s another curiosity, too. General Carter Han, who commanded AFRICOM on September 11th, had already been rotated back home. Now we find out he’s leaving the Army altogether:
General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) and a key figure in the Benghazi-gate controversy, is leaving the Army. On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had announced that General Ham would be succeeded at AFRICOM by General David Rodriguez. Later speculation tied this decision to the fallout from the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. However on Monday October 29 a defense official told The Washington Times that “the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career.” Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command.
James Robbins notes that the White House insisted that Ham took part in the decision not to supply assistance to the consulate, but Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz that no one had asked him about it. Ham’s retirement could mean that the Pentagon had some sort of disciplinary action pending against him over the incident (also the subject of much speculation, but little in the way of direct sourcing), or it could have a different meaning altogether. It would be inappropriate for Ham to criticize his Commander in Chief while still in uniform, although he could go to Congress to report any perceived malfeasance at any time.
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
The AC-130 falls beneath the US SOCOM, so they are loaned out to all of the services, so at any given time one could (and has been) a Navy asset.
As well as having the AC-130 (light, not a gunship)…better stick to what you know…but then you would never post anything…
right2bright on October 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM
CNN headlines—Who is Ben Gazi, and why is Fox talking about him?
right2bright on October 30, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Well, if we take Fast and Furious as basis, and F&F was a much simpler matter to investigate IMO, then investigating Benghazi will take what, 8-10 YEARS? With F&F it was only one agency to deal with, here we have 5 and counting. So far, Shillary was not even brought in, neither was Panetta, nor Petraus. All 3 were and are available to Issa’s panel. Start there, get NAMES from these hacks and then walk DOWN the chain and see just who wants to SERVE TIME. Explain to all questioned that CRIMINAL CHARGES will be brought up for on the job negligence that led to multiple deaths and then see who starts singing first and loudest.
Q to Panetta: If you say that you did not have enough information, who is it in YOUR department that is in charge of collecting such information and presenting it to you? Name and title, please.
Call that person in, ask same question and explanation what it was exactly that prevented them from doing THEIR JOB. Bring emails, phone call logs, field reports, etc.
Down the line. 3-5 or more people per day. GET NAMES, as many as possible, find a canary.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Wow… where to start with this one…
Note, it is called PACOM now, but used to be known as CINCPAC… Fleet Admiral (5 star) Nimitz was CINCPAC in World War II…
As CINCPAC, he was in charge of the LARGEST Combatant Command in the world… US Military assets from the west coast of the US to the East Coast of AFRICA (where AFRICOM starts now)…
As a 4 star Admiral (there just are not a whole lot of them at any given time (maybe 8, depending on CJCS and VCJCS), he would know fleet compositions (as CINCPAC, he would primarily be concerned with 3rd and 7th Fleets)…
He would have had about 36-38 years of Naval experience before he retired…
He would always have been the “smartest man in the room”… in every room…
A “nobody”?? In a US Navy of “around” 600,000 personnel (Active, Reserve and including the IRR), with CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) being Lineal Number 1 and Vice CNO being Lineal Number 2, CINCPAC would usually be Number 3 on the Seniority List… of the ENTIRE US Navy…
If “Ace” Lyons is talking, I would respectfully recommend that you listen… His candor has always been refreshing…
I suggest you “Google” the following terms: Admiral Lyons official Naby bio… You may be surprised at what you learn…
Signed: retired Navy guy (30 years)
Khun Joe on October 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Navy bio… agggh!!
Khun Joe on October 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM
As the weeks have gone by and more information come to light, I have found myself ruminating this whole fiasco looking for a grain of logic to any of it. In situations like this I think one’s imagination starts to contribute more than what is reasonable, maybe.
Has anyone else had the thought that the take down of Osama bin Laden was a negotiated event? That there had to be a price for the information about OBL? I mean OBL was the crown jewel of Obama’s re election bid. What’s a crown jewel worth these days?
A sheep left tied to a tree?
mojowt on October 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM
snake talk
snake eyes blinking
bad habits snakes have of crawling low in the grass
take a good long look sometime at Pres. Obama’s eyes.
remember when you looked into eyes filled with hate.
some things are easy to see if you care to keep your own eyes.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM
No. They are US Air Force assets administratively attached to the US Air Force and flown by Air Force personnel – even if they are operationally attached to other commands.
Even if a naval commander has OPCON or TACON of a US Air Force asset that doesn’t mean that it’s not an Air Force asset that happens to be chopped operationally or tactically to a naval commander.
The same is true for an Aircraft Carrier. An Aircraft Carrier isn’t an Air Force assets just because an air force commander has opcon/tacon of it.
Pure irony.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM
You’re starting to panic, MOBY.
Going from the logical to the personal.
Interesting to watch your progression there.
Solaratov on October 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM
We need more Congressmen like you to help Issa!! The major problem I’ve seen for a long time, is that the Government is filled with those that don’t have our interests front and center. Americans versus Anti-Americans.
bluefox on October 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM
I’ve seen that. Especially with Romney in the last debate and before with
Netanyahu.
bluefox on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM
What do you think Navy SEAL 6 team helicopter “accident” was all about in Afghanistan a short time later? No way in hell Afghanis “got lucky” with that shot.
Way too many “co-incidences” for this openly crooked admin and minions to accept. Numbers and odds wise, simply cannot happen.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM
The azked poster you responded to was just being sarcastic. can’t believe that you missed that.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Ha! I’m not panicked at all.
My comments about you personally were completely logical.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM
If you think that the US military was complicit in Obama somehow allowing SEALs to get killed as some sort of payback for help getting Bin Laden, then you are no better than 9/11 Truthers – and just as stupid.
And there’s no way for Obama to have done that without having members of the US military be complicit in something. If you believe otherwise, then you are even a bigger idiot than I thought.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM
The azked poster you responded to was just being sarcastic. can’t believe that you missed that.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM
2 x overnight shifts on my train and 5 hours of sleep… my bad…
Khun Joe on October 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Is Axelrod himself posting here now? I miss gumby…
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM
It’s quite ok, just funny coz he was trying to make exactly the same point you were :)…that when an ex general of that caliber comes out and demands answers on Benghazi and calls it a cover up, it’s actually a big deal…
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM
riddick, do you believe many conspiracy theories or do you pick and choose?
blink on October 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Admiral.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Pretty much everybody believes this, that he wanted a light footprint there for political reasons. And people died because of his judgement on this whole thing. so, if you believe the same thing that most of us do, that he had the assets and capability to save those people lives, but he didn’t want to use them in order not to upset a fragile political situation…also he probably didn’t want to send a heavy military rescue force in a country that was perceived as our ‘ally’ after we ‘liberated’ them, then why were you trying to obfuscate the matter a few days ago by saying that the special forces wouldn’t have had enough time to reach Benghazi in 7 hours from Sigonella, or Aviano or elsewhere) , etc, or that maintaining 24 hour readiness force is expensive, etc, when obviously that was not the case. The assets were there, so was the readiness capability, o ly the CiC ordered them not to intervene.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM
that when an ex general …
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM
Admiral.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Yes, admiral.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM
No implicit criticism in my comment above, just trying to figure where you come from on this.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM
WH talking points. Nothing but… Excuses upon excuses.
At least gumby was funny with randomly generated numbers.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM
The story that he was relieved of command because he was about to launch a rescue mission against orders is plausible, but I’ll certainly agree it may be apocryphal. It’s too good a story not to be repeated, true or not.
But I don’t know that it really makes that much of a difference. What we DO know is that General Ham said he had the assets to launch a rescue mission, and told the chain of command as much. So the notion that it was just not possible is dead in the water. We also know that he did not receive any order to send his team, even though he made it plain that he could.
So it still points down to SecDef or POTUS refusing to allow a rescue mission.
Now, you can argue all you want that the rescue mission might not have been feasible, but given the fact that a team was available and was not sent, there should be no argument but that we should be able to ask, “Why?”
tom on October 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Sure, MOBY. You keep on dreamin’.
Solaratov on October 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM
This cannot be emphasized and repeated enough.
We had military assets available and ready to attempt a rescue. We could have at least tried.
Someone issued an order to not even try.
Who issued that order?
farsighted on October 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Lol, randomly generated numbers :)… Well, he’s past generating numbers now, he’s in full force on the other thread telling us that obama is in fact the mesiah (i kid u not, his words) if he managed to get a hurricane to save his campaign in the ladt minute…he is convinced that obama will shine through this all the Sandy aftermath disaster relief effort and more people will vote for him :)…i think he is in full meltdown…
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
When an Admiral takes command, it becomes “his” asset, no matter who flies it, he has control of that asset, he is the “man”, if he makes a mistake, he doesn’t say “it’s not mine, it’s not my responsibility”…pure irony, actually with your posts it’s pure stupidity…
right2bright on October 30, 2012 at 5:11 PM
That’s why I think that Issa’s investigation went after “wrong” people. Never start at a low(er) point in the command, always start at the top. Names, names and more names. And drill DOWN, not up as they have done so far.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM
It is that one question, one simple question, that is of paramount importance…who told the military to stand down.
I refuse to believe that an Admiral/General of any stature would refuse to assist, and allow our men to die…while watching, without any attempt, no matter how viable, feeble, improbable…they know that without an attempt, it was death to those men…I refuse to believe our military, our professional military leaders, would sit by and watch our men die without any effort.
right2bright on October 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Hussein in remake of the classic, this time called “The 2 lost commandments”, Hussein defeats Sandy just by swinging a walking staff at it and proclaiming “Let my people go!”. Of course, “people” in this case would have to be muslims in ME…
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Any mission like this has one, and only one person who can give a specific order to cross over into foreign territory airspace…the president is the only one that can give that order, no other person. To invade a foreign air space, only the president can issue that order, not counting having a special congressional debate, etc.
right2bright on October 30, 2012 at 5:18 PM
I think a Congressional investigation is inevitable. Presumably, Gen. Ham is waiting for that.
tom on October 30, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Can’t be other than the POTUS himself. Think about it, there are not an awful lot of people between a genneral like Ham and the POTUS. Now, make no mistake, it was probably all planned so that POTUS went to bed that night, that’s how they are prepared to get out of this whole mess, and left Panetta in charge (as usually, this POTUS voted present). He will let anybody in his admin take the fall, could be Panetta himself, but he won’t take any responsibility, though it’s all because of his stupid FP doctrine that this shite happened. Hopefully he will be released of all preezy duty next Tue and we might get a chance at finding out the truth.
jimver on October 30, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Great point. Hadn’t thought of that. It had to be Obama
farsighted on October 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Yes, admirals can have control/command of assets. That doesn’t make them naval assets. You’re an idiot for insisting otherwise.
An asset under the admiral’s operational or tactical control is not necessarily under his administrative control, and an Air Force asset would never end up under administrative control of an admiral. Do you even understand the difference between the different types of command/control at all?
Again, an Aircraft Carrier that chops operationally or tactically to an Air Force commander is NEVER an Air Force asset. It is a navy asset under opcon or tacon to an Air Force commander. An AC-130 is an Air Force asset that might “chop” opcon or tacon to a navy commander.
Stop talking out your azz.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM
This president in not and never will be inclined to protect Americans. Not EVER!
By his actions or lack there of he make my point and many others here.
He arms and protects our enemy’s.
I can’t wait to kiss his butt good-by!
If he thinks coming on TV and reassuring Americans they’ll be alright following a storm.. will get him votes he is whistling past the grave yard!
It makes me ask where was he during the murders in Benghazi?
Oh, I forgot he was in Las Vegas….
Delsa on October 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Hearings started 2 weeks ago. Lasted a day and then quickly DIED. Adding to the mystery rather than trying to get to the bottom of it.
I know its campaign season and all that, but still…
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 5:39 PM
I believe that this is possible. I’m not yet convinced that the available assets definitively represented a practical solution to what was needed. I’m not saying that they couldn’t be sent into action with imperfect intelligence – of course they can be. I’m saying that the tactical picture might not have adequately clear, the lack of planning/coordination might have been incredibly constraining, and the timing of certain solutions might have been been a compelling reason to focus on other efforts instead.
However, all this being said, I have no problem believing that politics could have been a primary reason for avoiding the use of certain assets. I would just like to see more convincing evidence of this first.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 5:41 PM
I was saying that it’s possible that certain assets did not represent a viable solution to the problem.
In the very first thread about this, I accepted that a force had probably been repositioned from Germany to Sigonella, but we’ve yet to hear anything about the time that they arrived in Sig and what their plan could have been to get the boots to the compound. Were they going to run from the airport to the compound? Were they going to jump from a fixed wing aircraft to somewhere in the vicinity of the compound? Were they going to try to rent (or otherwise procure vehicles at Benghazi airport)? If they had organic ground transportation assets were they basically going to “take over” the airport and drive to the compound? All are options, but I haven’t heard a word about it.
I also haven’t heard anything about the timing that they could have been expected to arrive at the compound. All these tiny little details are important.
My point was that not all assets are maintained on a 24/7 alert. I was saying that putting assets on such an alert requires a commitment of resources that doesn’t always make it reasonable to do.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 5:49 PM
I find it hard to believe that an investigation won’t become very serious after the election — no matter WHO wins. If it’s Obama, this is probably heading the way of Watergate. If Romney, then there will suddenly be a lot less deference to the Obama administration.
tom on October 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM
This again? You’re like a broken record on every Benghazi thread.
You’ll see your “convincing evidence” sometime after November 6, 2012.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM
If you blink real fast, jump in the air, then click your heels together three times before you land on earth Obama will appear and you will be allowed to kiss his ass.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Dr. Utopia is going to be diddling Sandy for all he’s worth for the next 48 hrs. That’s two less days to stonewall on Benghazi. The weekend will require nonstop campaigning and he won’t be able to take questions on Libya, Hillary and Panetta will be busy, and the media lackeys will be handicapping and spinning Dem poll losses.
Sorry, Admiral. I think he can play out the clock on us.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Yes because these are the right comments to make.
I’m merely responding to “broken record” commenters jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence.
Tell me this. Do you support riddick’s conspiracy theories?
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Time Out.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 6:26 PM
You’re a moron, old man.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Conspiracy theories aside, is B. Obama a clear and present danger to all fee people on earth and Americans for sure.
Yes or No.
Keep it simple.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Obama’s communist ideals (and other radical beliefs) are a threat to the quality of life of all Americans – which represents a threat to the quality of life of all free people on earth.
Furthermore, Obama’s Johnsonesque management/leadership style as CinC has and is severely harming our military and our military operations.
Is that simple enough for you?
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Sorry, I don’t play strawman. But you’d better stop giving the benefit of the doubt to these people “in the absence of evidence.” As the Admiral says, the Obama Team let our people get killed. He has the experience (and the sources, presumably) to speak out with authority on this. The information that has leaked out so far, and a lot of circumstantial evidence, points right at the Oval Office.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 6:38 PM
quality of life
Good thing you did not help write the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.
management / leadership style,,,
Seems to me “back shooter” is his style.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Another thing. Benghazi is huge. It’s the kind of thing that brings a government crashing down to the ground. And the timing could not be worse for Obama. In fact, the timing is so bad that it’s actually working in his favor as far as the stonewalling is concerned: mouths have to be gagged for only a short time. In one week it won’t matter any more.
Obama could lose the election in a landslide if a leaker is willing to sacrifice his career and talk to Fox News or Issa right now, spilling the beans on what could have been done militarily on 9/11/12. General Ham? Are you close to retirement?
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM
Do you agree with riddick’s conspiracy theories or not. You might not like the question, but it certainly isn’t a strawman.
You need to be a bit smarter. I’m not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence.
I’m refusing to jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.
Learn the difference.
Except that it’s quite possible that Obama muttered something like, “help them if you can” before disconnecting himself to the situation.
And it’s possible that Panetta made the final decision not to provide assets for many reasons. Some political and some tactical. It’s quite possible that CJCS and AFRICOM didn’t push back on Panetta.
That doesn’t excuse Obama. I think I would have been likely to have been in the SitRoom actually pushing for the aggressive use of assets. I would have been actively pushing so that my Secretary and commanders knew the importance I placed on this. Also, because I think the CinC’s pushing fosters much better cooperation and coordination between agencies, branches, etc.
Overall, I suspect there is plenty of blame that should be directed at Obama. But I don’t think it does us any good to definitively claim things that might not be true – because this would give Obama political cover that he doesn’t deserve.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM
1. Of course it will still matter. In fact, it matters even more if he is reelected.
2. I completely understand that Obama is desperately trying to run out the clock on this. In fact, I may have been the first one to make that claim in these threads.
I completely support the piercing questions being asked. I even support using an accusatory tone when asking the questions.
But I absolutely refuse to endorse making definitive claims that aren’t adequately supported by the evidence that we have so far.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Idiot Old Man
You do realize that clear and present danger is a legal standard used by the Supreme Court, right? Do you think Obama is a clear and present danger as defined by the Supreme Court?
blink on October 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM
Sorry to say the Supreme Court disqlified themselves regarding Obama when they ok’d Obama care.
Blinking Child of Obama’s loins.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM
or
What Mark Levin would say.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM
“clear and present danger” is the standard we used on dope smoking liberal anti war punks who ended up in Nam and would not fight.
Made good tempory point walkers when we needed bait.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 7:06 PM
I’ve been watching you pontificate at length on Benghazi for a few weeks now. I haven’t seen any particular evidence of either your intellectual or rational superiority in repeatedly asserting what military forces could and couldn’t possibly do at Benghazi. You know as much as I or any other informed reader. You are speculating as much as the rest of us, but we seem to be ready to go where the evidence leads while you make a science of equivocation.
Yeah. This is possible…that is possible…it takes 120 minutes to assemble assets…flight times… coordination…navigation… possible collateral damage…
I would pay a lot more attention to what the Admiral is saying. Read his article again and knock off the superiority complex. You are becoming a flaming bore.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 7:06 PM
But this shmuck says he know s so much more than either the Admiral or Gen. Scales. Who needs them when you this liberal azzhole who knows everything.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 7:15 PM
What is really bothersome is Issa and Co. “investigated” for all of a day and nothing since. They could have covered a lot of ground in the 2 weeks since.
riddick on October 30, 2012 at 7:17 PM
You’re an idiot, Old Man.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Wrong. It matters not one whit if he is defeated; he is done. If he wins, he will squash leakers and create a fantasy narrative with media support.
Faulty logic. These are hypotheses, possible explanations, based on the evidence that we have. Whether they are adequately supported is a subjective determination. For you the threshold of evidence is high. For Admiral Lyons the threshold has already been passed that someone is guilty of dereliction at least. Last time I checked you were still arguing the presence/absence/capabilities of naval/air assets in the theater, etc.
You go by your best evidence, period. If you wait for clarification–well, you know what can happen.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Then you have been willfully ignorant.
Name one assertion that I’ve made regarding what military forces couldn’t possibly do that isn’t true. The only assertions I’ve definitively made with respect to what military forces couldn’t possible do were governed by S=RT, fuel ranges, etc. I also definitively claimed that there was no way that Sig, Souda, and Aviano all had AC-130s prior to the start of the attack. I’ve also definitively claimed that no F-18s are permanently based in Sigonella.
What I’ve repeatedly done is question the definitive assertions that others have made about what military forces COULD have definitively done that night. I’ve also repeatedly question the definitive conclusions that many of jumped to based on tiny pieces of evidence – evidence that leads to more than just one conclusion.
No. It’s quite obvious that I know much more than you and many other readers on here.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Yup, I wonder if you’ll get attacked for writing this.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM
That’s the confirmation that we needed, blink. You’re truly awesome.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 7:32 PM
It absolutely matters!!! Americans lost their lives quite possibly due to politics being played in the White House, Pentagon, and theater commanders. This is incredibly important even if Obama loses the election.
I would be more than happy to explore the hypotheses with anyone that wants to speculate. This is 100% the right thing to do.
The wrong thing is to draw definitive conclusions.
Inaccurate definitive claims were being made, but let me know if you’d like to try to defend some of them.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:33 PM
This is true with or without confirmation.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:34 PM
No. I’m done debating you. And let’s make that permanent, shall we? Pretty please.
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Nobody can force you to engage.
And you are smart to disengage.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM
Benghazi, Libya was not always such an unwelcoming place to the United States and our military. I am reminded that our Army Air Force B-24 bombers took off for their historic bombing run on the oil fields of Ploesti from Libya and a few lucky ones managed to make it back to our airbase in Benghazi. This was one of the most dangerous missions of the second world war and many fine Americans were lost.
The point here is that America has completely lost its way. We have gone from having Libya as an important strategic base to rid the world of Nazi domination to having the last our guys brutally killed and our country humiliated at the hands of a bunch of RPG wielding thugs. This is not the fault of the brave men who carry on in the tradition of past generations of warriors. No, this fault lies squarely with our feckless, impotent so-called leaders. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear they are working for the demise of this once great country. Regardless, if we don’t clean house, the sad future of the United States is already a fait accompli. That’s a little French lingo for all you rabid Eurocentric liberals out there who probably feel we get what we deserve.
leapsandbounds on October 30, 2012 at 8:06 PM
This is real simple.
The chain of command runs from the President to the SecDef to General Ham. The President says he gave an order to do what was necessary to protect our people. General Ham says he never got a request to launch a rescue mission. Panetta is the guy in the middle who either disobeyed the president or froze like a deer in the headlights. Panetta is a pro, been around DC a long time. My guess is that Obama’s guidance was so vague that Panetta felt he could intrepret it anyway he wanted. And, of course, Obama wasn’t available for any follow up because he was on his way to Vegas.
Hell of a way to run a government.
BillyRuffn on October 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Yowzah! Yowzah! Yowzah!
A legend in your own mind.
You don’t know as much as you’d like others to think you know.
What are you…about 19 years old or something? You’d do well to listen to people who have been there and done that, kid – even if it is some “old man”. (a term that snot-nosed punks like to toss around)
Solaratov on October 30, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Joe was there?
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Link for above
spiritof61 on October 30, 2012 at 9:12 PM
In an article from the Joplin Globe it is stated that General Ham was relieved of his duties on the night of September 11, during the attack at Benghazi. It also says he immediately returned to Washington for administrative assignments pending further investigation….and that the DoD has not provided any further information as to why that action was taken.
Now an article from the Washington Times says…
a defense official told The Washington Times that “the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career.”
Would he be able to retire if there was an impending investigation?
lynncgb on October 30, 2012 at 9:38 PM
Didn’t quite finish that….had to leave for a few minutes….
Was wondering also if the military would offer to drop any investigation….if General Ham “agreed” to retire.
Or maybe the story from the Globe is questionable…or maybe the announcement of the general’s retirement does not mean it is immediate.
lynncgb on October 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM
“Wise” Old Man.
Thank you very much, sonnyboy.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 10:08 PM
oh,
Keep your diaper changed often, k?
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 30, 2012 at 10:09 PM
It doesn’t take a legend to know more about you than these things, and I most certainly know much more than you about these things.
Actually, I know more. I just don’t disclose specifics.
Obviously, I’m not.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM
While he may have been relieved the night of September 11th, it seems as if he would have had to be almost immediately reinstated. The USAFRICOM website has announcements and photographs of General Ham being in-theater doing official duties. So, the whole “immediately returned to Washington…pending further investigation” doesn’t seem likely.
blink on October 30, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Dude, you’re just out and out lying now. My comments on the thread before had nothing to do with anyone except what you said to smooth sailing. You invented a conversation you had with him about AC130s that did not exist and asserted he was wrong about everything he wrote. You could not provide a single instance to substantiate what you were saying was said in that thread. You then ran away from the thread like a scalded dog. Do not ever lie about what I say in a thread. Or my friend smooth sailing. And don’t make me repost the entire thing here again. I’d think you were already embarrassed enough at how wrong and screwed up you were in that thread.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2012 at 10:38 PM
As a matter of fact DH, post the comments here and now where I asked to to repost anyone’s comments except your exchange with smooth sailing. You a freaking liar.
You’re getting to be not better worse than a troll yourself with the thread bullying you’re doing. I actually defended you at the end of that thread too, numb nutz.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM
As a matter of fact DH, post the comments here and now where I asked you to repost anyone’s comments except your exchange with smooth sailing. You’re a freaking liar.
You’re getting to be not much better than a troll yourself with the thread bullying you’re doing. I actually defended you at the end of that thread too, numb nutz.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM
(Sorry, confronting a liar got me pretty well upset, that really required a new comment to correct the typos)
The commenter riddick is either very stupid, or a bare faced liar. Sorry to post such a screwed up comment and sorry to be so direct.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2012 at 10:49 PM
What you are is a conceited, condescending fool.
And, I’d say, a lifetime REMF.
Run along, MOBY. Your game is over, and your crap stinks.
Solaratov on October 30, 2012 at 11:33 PM
People… people… Obama himself was pinned down on a rooftop that same day.
By Jay Z, in Vegas, who forced Barack to do a Jell-O shooter off Beyonce’s sacral dimple.
That’s tough duty for a guy who prefers his “body man”!
Barry’s knows the pressures of being Commander In Chief!
Give him a break.
Nobody told him about Benghazi until weeks later.
He thought it was a reality TV show they were watching in the situation room because Panetta kept saying: “Stand down! Stand down!” so naturally Barack thought it was “Undercover Boss“.
profitsbeard on October 31, 2012 at 1:48 AM
When Hillary said, “We came, we saw, he died”, was she referring to Bin Laden or Ambassador Stevens?
olesparkie on October 31, 2012 at 5:36 AM
It’s not conceited to claim that I know much more than you. It’s simply the truth.
What’s funny is that sometimes the best “REMFs” were once the best “tip of the spear” guys. If you’ve never been a “REMF” then you most certainly don’t have the same level of experience.
Good luck convincing anyone that I’m a MOBY- anyone other than your conspiracy theorist friend, riddick.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 8:46 AM
No post by riddick to prove his lies about the other thread exchange?
hawkdriver on October 31, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Honestly, I think he confused me with smooth sailing. He doesn’t seem very bright.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Then he’s doubling down on stupid. He called that kid a communist. He’d served in the 101st and 82nd, been to OEF and OIF and it’s not right.
hawkdriver on October 31, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Yeah, but only a communist would defend General Petraeus from being called a traitor. There’s absolutely no valid reason for General Petraeus to have done what he did other than treason. /sarc
blink on October 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM
On Knowing:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Instant-Gunships-4-14-2010.ssp
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 12:13 PM
On Knowing how to post a link:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Instant-Gunships-4-14-2010.asp
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4