Gingrich: A “reliable Senator” tells me two networks have stand-down e-mails from Donilon’s office
posted at 12:01 pm on October 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Via the Daily Caller, Newt Gingrich thinks that the Benghazi scandal might blow wide open over the next two days, thanks to e-mails that he claims two networks now possess from the office of the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon. According to a “reliable Senator” who tipped him to the information, Gingrich says that the e-mails came in response to the request to aid the consulate in Benghazi after the attack began, and asserted that the attack wasn’t a terrorist action and therefore didn’t need a response:
“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”
That may not be the only scandal that Gingrich thinks will go prime time this week, either:
After noting that the rumor, if true, would have a substantial impact on the presidential election, Gingrich pointed to another possible “October surprise” in the coming days.
“The other big story, I think, that is going to break is on corruption and extraordinary waste in the solar power grants and direct involvement by the Obama White House, including the president, in the solar panel grants involving billions of dollars, and I suspect that’s going to break Wednesday and Thursday of this week,” Gingrich added.
Well, why won’t the “reliable Senator” speak up about the e-mails directly? I’d guess that the e-mails have been kept close to the vest at the White House end, but that someone on the other end in the intel community gave them to the “reliable Senator” either simultaneously as they were sent to the two networks, or the “reliable Senator” passed them along himself. It’s all about plausible deniability on the leak, especially since we won’t see any action in the Senate on Benghazi until after the election — not because it’s Democratic-controlled, but because they’re all back home with Congress out of session for the election.
Gingrich could be fishing, but specifying that two networks have the e-mails makes it sound like Gingrich got some inside dope. If these e-mails surface, it will create a huge headache for Barack Obama and the White House, which insisted that it didn’t deny assistance to Benghazi during the attack. Donilon works in the White House, directly answering to Obama himself. While Donilon would probably fall on his sword (or have an underling do so) if these e-mails say what Gingrich claims, there’s little chance that anyone will buy that Donilon or his staff took that decision on their own shoulders.
CNS News has another piece of the puzzle. At the time that the consulate in Benghazi came under attack, Obama and Leon Panetta were in a meeting together. What did they discuss? The White House refuses to say:
President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.
The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.
“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”
It’s impossible to imagine that the subject of the attack on the consulate didn’t come up in this discussion. It’s also impossible to imagine that Donilon would have made the decision to “stand down” on his own while both the President and the Secretary of Defense were meeting in the White House after being notified of the attack. It’s equally impossible to imagine that Panetta would have made that decision without checking with Obama during the meeting that we know they had an hour into the attack.
This leak, if it occurs, would show that the intel community has no intention of taking the fall for this debacle. That leaves a very small number of people who could have made that decision — and who need to start explaining themselves ASAP.
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 5 Next »
That’s not what I said, now, is it, MOBY?
It seems that you are so intent on establishing your talking points as “fact” that you are starting to lie blatantly.
Evidently, you have always been a REMF and bent over for your masters – but, that’s what MOBYs do.
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM
I’m afraid you are right. Romney could build some major points if he appoints an aggressive AG, points him in the right direction and says, “Get em!”, but, I don’t think that’s in the cards.
a capella on October 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM
This is what I keep hearing at the Ex-Military blogs. An active “Stand Down” order went out. As each Commander demanded a confirmation, the order was repeated (hence the “three times”).
He left them there.
Bulletchaser on October 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM
That’s fine.
Look, I don’t know if Newt’s information is accurate or not (frankly, I don’t think that it is), but it’s irresponsible to claim that everyone would simply disregard a message from Obama’s NSA especially if NSA says that he just finished discussing the matter with Obama.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Keep in mind, the msm, the Democrat Party have all seen the commuincations from Kerrys swiftboat, they have seen it all,
still they lie. The sorry bull shiting commie Keery still has his C.I.A. hat and the sob made his daughters grow up with him telling these bull shit lies and all the others he tells.
Obama the same, his two kids will have to live knowing what his in fact is.
Sick.
They are selfmade fools and no amount of facts changes any thing.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Yeah. Narcissistic MOBYs are like that.
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Point taken.
a capella on October 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Best laugh your ass off comment in Nam…
“Pres. Johnson gave a direct order we could not do this.”
f’n commie drunk dumb ass “big ear” too.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Feel free to clarify what you meant by this strange claim:
blink on October 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM
+ 1 googleplex
The NSA may provide policy interpretation and guidance, but operational orders flow only through the chain of command. Further, unless there was a standing order already in place, the operational order for a US combat aircraft to violate another sovereign nation’s airspace would have originated with the CINC. In this case the order apparently was not given, and the forces on alert were apparently told to stand down…
Sounds like Ham may have not been too happy about those orders to stand down, and consequently it may have cost him him job…
OnlyOrange on October 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Top level military MUST be cleaned up ASAP, we have nothing but career driven liberal cowards in charge who obviously forgot what their job description means and entails.
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Good long term vote idea.
Do not vote for “big ear” Democrats.
No race problem with that.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM
He’ll be employed rather quickly.
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM
You asked, I answered, next time ask a complete question, it’s not my job to keep you informed…not that you want to be, you have your own agenda, and no matter what link I provide you, you will discount it.
You honestly think anyone can give orders for us to fly into a foreign country’s air space? Do you think any Senator, or cabinet could give that order?
Yeah, you probably do, because anything that discounts your argument, you ignore…
The fact is, the President is the only one authorized (exception would be a vote in congress, but we are talking about “immediate” response) to give orders to fly into foreign territory.
I don’t think I need to provide a link…at least for most people with some basic common knowledge of what the CINC responsibility’s are…good grief…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM
blink,
before you pop off on what Billy Waugh could not do and shit.
do your google due diligance fast.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM
YOU figure it out, MOBY. You’re the intel & military matters expert. It should be simple for a mind like your to grasp.
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Hawkdriver smack down coming in 3… 2… 1…
And the troll is still hiding behind someone else’s skirt…
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…I think Newt is a genius, this pits two competing news outlets against each other…if they stand together, they will be castigated as reliable journalists (an oxymoron), but if one comes clean, Obama is done for.
I say they report this on Tuesday night or Wednesday, and say they had to confirm the sources before they printed it…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM
In other words, you are unable to support your claim.
Yes, to prevent stupid Hot Air commenters, like you, from jumping to conclusions without adequate evidence to support such conclusions.
With dip clearance the President’s authority is most certainly NOT needed. Are you definitively claiming that dip clearance was unavailable?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Newt applied the pressure brilliantly.
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM
There are protocols for Presidential orders. IF the President said what he says he did, Panetta & Dempsey would have immediately given the order by secure phone to the sector commander (Ham) but then it would be immediately typed and transmitted as a written order as well.
That’s the way presidential orders are handled. ALWAYS. There is no alternative method for controlling the military. EVERY order is transmitted in writing.
If Obama told them to “do everything they can to secure our people,” there is an order stating exactly that. It would be easy enough to produce, there really wouldn’t be much that would have to be redacted to show it publicly.
Obama did not give the order to go, may have given an active order of NO GO, but in both cases he watched them die and refused to help.
Adjoran on October 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM
That’s pretty much the bottom line as far as I’m concerned. It’s been nearly a full two months since this happened and if the WH was able to produce some shred of evidence that would help to absolve the actions and decisions of the administration …you could be sure it would have been offered. The silence we are hearing from Obama makes me believe the truth is as ugly as we think.
lynncgb on October 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Wait, are you talking about me?
LegendHasIt on October 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM
I already figured it out. You were STUPID to claim that…
blink on October 31, 2012 at 3:39 PM
This is not being reported by the mainstream media. Therefore, it never happened. /s
Sterling Holobyte on October 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM
The troll, not you.
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Newt,
Have someone drop a “fake” e-mail that says so and so, words that are real bad for Obama etal.
Then they will show the real one of do a fake one.
Both in the end would sink them.
Seems just claming up just now would be way bad.
The stonewall has little cement left now.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM
A salient point.
If they did not discuss or attend to it or watch with the security chiefs, why not? Someone should be fired.
Obama has not fired anyone. Mrs. Clinton said she stopped the buck at her desk, and she did not get fired. Donilon is still there so, Obama doesn’t know about this? He should have made it his business to know.
Clint says it’s time to let him go.
Fleuries on October 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Oh, OK. Couldny figure out what I should be hiding from, …
or where I was supposed to find someone wearing a skirt within 15 miles of me.
;-)
LegendHasIt on October 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Is anyone interested in commenting on this story?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM
what if it were his children???
….just left them there…..
..and let those dirty, rotten, stinkin’ Al Qaeda goat effers to run rickshod over their AO.
hor-rific…. no other way to put it.
ted c on October 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM
If this is true, and the President is more involved than he(and the msm) want us to believe/know, then he is an even more wretched, despicable puss-bucket than we thought. And not only would he need to lose the election, but also he would need to be brought up on charges, the least of which would be negligence.
Sterling Holobyte on October 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Not only that, but after accepting blame Shillary then came out and said that she did request beefed up security prior to 9/11 and was turned down.
Q #1: Who exactly turned down the request provided Shillary can substantiate her claim?
Q #2: If she did request beefed up security and was turned down by someone higher up, then why did she accept blame via “buck stops here”?
Doesn’t make any sense. Not that Shillary has never lied to us before.
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Yep. That appears to be the bottom line. If he could provide evidence to the contrary, it would be front and center.
a capella on October 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM
MOBY, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m beginning to think that you’ve about run your string out – and you’re at the point that you can only call people names and say they’re stupid for having the effrontery to disagree with you and/or (Oh, noes!) know more than you do about some things.
But, by all means, keep digging, MOBY.
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM
THIS PERSON WHO IS IDENTIFIED BY THIS DOCUMENT IS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECT ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!
DO NOT DETAIN OR QUESTION HIM!
HE IS AUTHORIZED TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHING, CARRY UNUSUAL PERSONAL WEAPONS, TRANSPORT AND POSSESS PROHIBITED ITEMS INCLUDING U.S. CURRENCY, PASS INTO RESTRICTED AREAS AND REQUISTION EQUIPMENT OF ALL TYPES INCLUDING WEAPONS AND VEHICLES.
IF HE IS KILLED OR INJURED DO NOT REMOVE THIS DOCUMENT FROM HIM. ALERT YOUR COMMANDING OFFICER IMMEDIATLEY.
blink
some go any where any time,,,
when others blah, blah and sit with their Democrat finger up their ass
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM
I’ll comment on this part:
1. If this person doesn’t think that an F-16 can deliver munitions with a CEP of 3-5 feet on a target being painted (i.e. laser designated), then everything else they say is VERY suspect…
2. Since General Ham has apparently been quickly relieved of command since, I know few people naive enough to think he may have been relieved for failure to act (or trying to act)… in fact, the reverse is far more likely — that he didn’t respect the “stand down order” and was relieved…
Given that, I don’t give the whole article a whole lot of credibility in interpreting what went on and drawing conclusions… some details may be accurate, but the understanding and interpretation is certainly lacking.
OnlyOrange on October 31, 2012 at 3:58 PM
LOL.
A. That’s not “issuing an order.”
B. If SECDEF or the DCI were approached by the National Security Advisor in this manner, they would wonder what he had been smoking. It doesn’t work like that. Issuing orders to operating forces isn’t a matter of collegial hints. It’s a yes-no, fully recorded, completely accountable procedure, and the president is the one who has to veto a proposed military response in a crisis. He can issue an active veto, or can veto the military response passively, by waiting and declining to order it.
I realize this isn’t getting through to blink, but it may be of assistance to others.
60 minutes is the standard for immediate deployment of an RRF. There has been no public information I know of about what time they got to Sigonella. Given command-center reaction times, and the understanding that they could brief in Sig rather than wasting time doing it elsewhere, it was probably between hours 3 and 4.
No idea what Wolfowitz article you’re talking about. If you provide a link I might have a comment.
J.E. Dyer on October 31, 2012 at 3:58 PM
This “person” was Deputy SecDef from 2001 to 2005.
He said that it would have “difficulty” given the confused firefight in a densely populated residential area. If you’ve read the timeline as described by the Libyan security guards, the firefight definitely seems confused given the proximity of friendly militias in the area.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Also, the budget deal that was made about a month ago, that everyone was so mad at the Republicans about, was done so that nothing major would happen during the lame duck session. About all Obama can do is EO’s and pardons and such. Financially, I think they pretty much tied his hands.
Night Owl on October 31, 2012 at 4:12 PM
This we know to be false. Correct? There was another drone sent from Sigonella after the attack began, which we were told was also unarmed. If that is true, why was a second unarmed drone sent when we already knew that a strike may be needed?
lynncgb on October 31, 2012 at 4:13 PM
It’s basically what Newt was describing.
Oh please. I once witnessed the creation and deployment of a rescue force (and associated command and reporting structure) because it was wanted by the VICE CJCS – not even the CJCS.
Again, stop overplaying your hand, J.E. Dyer.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:13 PM
If the target(s) were not being painted (remember there are reports that one of the two ex-SEALs were painting them), then it would have been difficult in the dark, in town, in a firefight…
As it is, it only makes a case of “plausible deniability” for those who apparently don’t know better — such as you…
OnlyOrange on October 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Oh boy…you Googled a word you don’t know what it actually refers to…DIP refers to primarily foreign planes into the U.S. for diplomatic missions…usually it’s a, I believe, a three day waiting period, except for emergency…I’m pretty sure you don’t get clearance to bomb the U.S., or Marshall Islands, and a few other places.
The military cannot invade foreign airspace without prior approval for the specific mission, without the Presidents personal input…exception would be an act of war, that we are interactively engaged in war, in that case, other acts and powers come into play.
However, for diplomatic purposes, not war or agression, the DoD directive is filed with the embassy’s on foreign soil, to bring diplomats in and out of the foreign country…I don’t think an a missile from a drone or c-130 is considered a diplomat….
HAHAHHAAHA! I crack myself up…and you are such an easy target…
Good grief….
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Here you go, J.E. Dyer.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:15 PM
I think it is so cute when leftists pretend that they hold the high ground when it comes to honesty or morality.
Night Owl on October 31, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Remember the “SEAL team” they waited for the command from the president, it was made a big deal that the president makes those decisons…now the president may turn to a “general” and say, “You make the call”, or something to that effect…but we do not enter into foreign territory without authorization, and certainly do not fire our weapons without consent…and a General is not high enough in command to make that decision…speaking of attacking, not defending.
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Ad blink would say…show us the link…I don’t think he ever made that promise…show us the link…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM
I note that the F-16s at Aviano are equipped with both Sure Strike and the Sniper Pod, the latter of which allows laser spot tracking from a laser designator on the ground. Sure Strike allows the F-16 to receive digital target data from a ground source, although I doubt anyone in the fight in Benghazi had the capability to transmit such data. In any case, F-16s from Aviano, if staged through Sigonella, had the capability to use laser-designation by the CIA security officers (the former SEALs) on the ground.
J.E. Dyer on October 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Ha! Obviously, that’s what you did, and you got it wrong.
Too funny!
No, no, no.
Dip clearance is short for diplomatic clearance. It’s something that a US military aircraft (and even individual members) needs to enter a foreign country with permission.
Again, it most certainly doesn’t require presidential approval to fly an aircraft into another country if dip clearance is obtained. Such dip clearance can often be obtained on an emergency basis when higher level channel discussions (but below NCA level) are taking place.
Dip clearance could have been obtained for a rescue force. Are you claiming that it wasn’t?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM
So, this entire post is based on a rumor…a New Gingrich rumor.
Oh my.
chumpThreads on October 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/republicans-senators-press-obama-admin-again-for-answers-on-benghazi/
ted c on October 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM
I think you could identify them…they were the ones shooting at the embassy…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:21 PM
ted c on October 31, 2012 at 4:23 PM
While Clenis LIED on live TV to, oh, just 300 MILLIONS of Americans. But who’s counting…
Do you idiots even understand any subject you post on?
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Read my post…idiot…
DIP falls under the Dod directive, FCP….good grief, that is, as you pointed out, for diplomatic purposes, not to engage the enemy war…however I do remember Hitler giving us DIP clearance to bomb Berlin….Sheeesh!!!
You are pathetic…you think diplomacy involves the landing of troops to quell an attack on our embassy…good grief, how foolish and to what lengths do you go to, to defend your fantasy assumptions.
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM
My best guess,
It was a hqts clerk, possible in the personal office.
There it could read incomeing and outgoing orders info he was
the go fer to the fax machine or scan doc machine.
Got the gig due to his family making donations to the Democrat Party, had a “political influence” red card in his own personal file.
Now it is a grade a prime time bull shit expert. aka “drip under pressure.”
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Meanwhile, back to what this post is about…as this other idiot poster try’s to monopolize with ignorant posts…
The question is, can they smoke out Obama before the election? They have less than a week, will someone buckle and produce the emails?
The problem is, exposing the Senators or others who gave up those emails,if they were top secret, that’s a problem for them.
It needs to be a journalist, so they can hide behind the First Amendment…Newt can be forced to tell his sources.
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Not sure what good two networks having emails are if they don’t report on them and then follow up on it.
Sitting on it until after November 6 is not going to do much.
If Obama wins then the issue will be dead.
albill on October 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM
There is no talking to you.
Mitsouko on October 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Are you claiming that the military doesn’t obtain dip clearance in order to insert members into foreign countries?
Providing boots on the ground in Libya for the purposes of repelling an attack against terrorist is NOT the same as starting a war against the host nation.
It’s interesting that you always back down from your original claims.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:37 PM
You know this is true. You were basing your comments on what you think Ham said based on 2nd hand information. It might be 100% accurate, but there’s nothing wrong with you admitting that.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Since time is so short, unless someone is willing to take a risk and start singing like a canary in the next day or two it is likely that The Dear Leader can keep a lid on it until Tuesday…
Something tells me a candid interview with a certain cashiered general would be very interesting. Could result in a real “perfect storm.” Hurrican Ham. (Now there’s a name that jihadists can love!)
spiritof61 on October 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM
This is what I hear reading your posts:
blah, blah, blah, you are wrong, blah, blah, blah, change the subject, blah, blah,blah, where’s the link, blah blahblah, whine, whine, whine, blah, blahblahblah, blaaaaah, I’m always right, blah, blah, blah, eveyone is wrong but me, blah, blah, blah, I am saying nothing, blah, blah, blah,
That’s all I hear, nothing of substance…keep posting you are F’in brilliant…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Oh, mitsuoko, right2bright, everyone–please don’t feed blink. We’ve all had enough.
spiritof61 on October 31, 2012 at 4:44 PM
I already figured it out. You were STUPID to claim that…
Great. Hope he doesn’t have access to the football.
Fail.
Tenwheeler on October 31, 2012 at 4:44 PM
I am afraid he can stall until next week, that is all he needs to do…but I have a feeling we don’t need this to secure the win, it would be nice, but I think Mitt has this in the bag.
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Roger, that was my last post to him…but come on, nothing like reading a pathetic loser posting, it’s like watching an ugly girl who thinks she is hot…you stare in disbelief of the lack of self awareness…
right2bright on October 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM
I have no doubt that you have trouble understanding.
I will be happy to spend more time schooling you on dip clearance.
I’m quite sorry that your Google search didn’t properly educate you about it.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Did you comment on this story yet?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Someone google LBJ and his piss sec. Bill Moyers re: Americans in Laos.
For sure LBJ nor Obama would lie or piss sec. woruld to the world about sending armed forces into a country without telling the goverment there.
For sure Obama and Sec. Cliton told the Mexican Govt. all about the gun running into their country that got hundreds of Mexican citizens killed by those guns.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Hmmm. Maybe they are in “ships that goes underwater” or something.
IrishEyes on October 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM
I think you’re right. I wonder how strong the determination will be to pursue the Benghazi debacle if Mitt wins.
Incidentally, two news organizations holding onto these “emails” could rank up there with the Los Angeles Times hanging onto the video of the tribute dinner for Rashid Khalidi, in which Obama figured as an endorser of Khalidi. LAT has refused all demands to make the video public. Bet they’ll do it to get clicks once O is out of office.
J.E. Dyer on October 31, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Code
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Coward
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM
By
Soul
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Shifter
Obama
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM
This contradicts another account that there were two drones. One was low on fuel so they sent in another supposedly. Also, how long has Obama been targeting individual terrorists with drones? He doesn’t care about the collateral damage caused by that, so why would “the high liklihood of civilian casualties” bother him now, when our people are the collateral damage? Finally, General Ham says no one ordered or requested him to do anything. This story seems so biased and full of holes that it is not worth anything as far as getting to the truth of the matter.
Night Owl on October 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM
And IF it was unarmed, what was the laser target designator linked to?
Either it was linked to an armed drone – which did not fire.
Or, it was linked to the fire control system of an armed aircraft – which did not fire.
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Yes, I know. I found that interesting as well.
Do you know the origin of the account about the existence a UAV that relieved the original one on-station?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM
I concur, otherwise he would have attacked strongly at the foreign affairs debate. Mitt is reasonably secure and wants to play it safe, foregoing the killing coup de grace that Benghazi offers.
The affair is about more than just the honor of the personnel ordered to stand down, and the integrity of the officials that Obama will ask to fall on their swords. It’s about a nation’s shame at having such a disgrace as its chosen commander-in-chief.
spiritof61 on October 31, 2012 at 5:08 PM
I’m assuming that you are referring to the paraphrasing provided 2nd hand by Chaffetz.
Biased? Wolfowitz was Rumsfeld’s deputy, and isn’t he the original imperialist neocon?
Can you tell me what you think his bias would be?
blink on October 31, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Please see my comment at 4:19 PM, NightOwl. I suspect Wolfowitz may be out of date on the capabilities of the F-16s at Aviano. They do now have the premier capability for laser spot tracking (LST), but they didn’t when Wolfowitz was Dep SECDEF. It looks like he’s assuming an older standard package for the USAREUR F-16 in his comments.
Some of the other assertions in his AEI piece conflict with the separate reporting out there. We won’t know about any of those data points for sure until there’s a full accounting to Congress — assuming that happens.
J.E. Dyer on October 31, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Obama gives disgrace a bad name.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Glenn Beck just announced he knew who these two media outlets are, he has his own sources and he has the proof, and he will nail them if they don’t soon come clean. “And I am not bluffing”.
petefrt on October 31, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Are you 100% sure? Why not go directly from AVB and communicate thru the drone or other air asset? I don’t doubt you, just asking Sir?
AF DCGS
Sniper Pod
AN/AAQ-28(V) LITENING Targeting Pod
FireStorm (PDF)
Northrop Grumman develops, demonstrates SmartNode pod
luckybogey on October 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM
SARC::
a link or a source of the “and I am not bluffing” quote…..
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Excellent.
spiritof61 on October 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM
One other point to ponder: There were 37 other Americans at the consulate…and d’ohbama was perfectly willing to let ALL of them die.
It was only through the heroic efforts of Woods and Doherty that there were no more casualties than the four caused by the failure of the CinC.
(There were also two Marines wounded among the ‘extraction force’ during the fight at the “safe house”.)
Solaratov on October 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM
How do we know that Glen Beck would say such a thing on his show.
Do you have any History to point to on this.
Can you name the producer who edited this segment of Glen Becks show.??
do not make me frown at you……..
APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 31, 2012 at 5:22 PM
blockquote>I doubt anyone in the fight in Benghazi had the capability to transmit such data.
J.E.
< Dyer on October 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Are you 100% sure? Why not go directly from AVB and communicate thru the drone or other air asset? Just asking the question?
luckybogey on October 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM
But suppose…
riddick on October 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM
You calling Chaffetz account of the conversation “paraphrasing” seems to show some sort of bias on your part. I think the bias is with the AEI in putting forth a possible account they think will relieve Obama of responsibility, but that’s just my opinion. As for the rest, what she said:
I do not know enough to argue the fine points of military procedure/chain of command or diplomatic protocol, but I do know when something smells fishy, and this smells fishy.
Night Owl on October 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM
He said it at the start of his 5:00 afternoon show. So it’ll probably be on The Blaze before long.
petefrt on October 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM
That is a more than fair assessment of Wolfowitz.
novaculus on October 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM
I agree. It is important for everyone to remember that there were other American lives at risk in Benghazi.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Ha! I knew it! Said so up thread somewhere – the tv stations have copies of the emails, not the originals and they would get out somehow.
Mitsouko on October 31, 2012 at 5:32 PM
What????
How on earth can you make this claim? That’s exactly what it was – paraphrasing. He certainly didn’t seem to be providing a direct quote.
Accusing me of bias for saying that Chaffetz is incredibly strange.
But what bias would cause Wolfowitz to write this? The left labeled Wolfowitz an imperialist neocon.
blink on October 31, 2012 at 5:32 PM
I believe he said one was a network and the other outlet he wasn’t going to specify yet.
petefrt on October 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM
I hear there is audio of Ty Woods…
Seven Percent Solution on October 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »