Okay so the conclustion of all of this is that, yes, the President and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton all lied to us about this being because of a movie. Do I have that right?

Yes you do – and now for probably the first time in your, life try to build upon it to the point where you are no longer a drone who believes what Slimy Brother wants you to.

King Putt – ‘… if the political winds shift, I will side with the Muslims’
Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obamugabe Obowmao – ‘My Muslim faith’
Now I don’t fully believe this line of thought but who else do you know that have voiced these sentiments? Anybody?

I’m sorry to disappoint you. I hope it doesn’t make it worse when I tell you that liberal presidents often cause politics to trickle down further into the officer ranks.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Oh what the heck…hit me with it all at once…it’s better to take off the rose colored glasses I suppose. :-) Between the election last week and having my eyes opened a bit more about the electorate, and now getting a glimpse into the unknown regarding the military…I think I may just have to turn into a cynic after all.

Being obligated to support the C-I-C and specific objectives is one thing… but if it involves compromising on what is right and just…then I find myself disappointed.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I’m sorry to disappoint you. I hope it doesn’t make it worse when I tell you that liberal presidents often cause politics to trickle down further into the officer ranks.

4-stars very often begin playing politics without regard for doing the right thing, and far too many of them arrived at their current positions by playing that game very well.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Well, aren’t I the naive one. That just burst my bubble. I never wanted to think some of our most decorated and distinguished military leaders would actually choose to relinquish their adherence to principles in favor of politics. Being obligated to support the C-I-C and specific objectives is one thing… but if it involves compromising on what is right and just…then I find myself disappointed.

I haven’t become that much of a cynic yet to believe our military leadership did not act with complete integrity and honor. If mistakes were possibly made by the military chain of command…my suspicions would not lead me to think those mistakes were at all deliberate….with the administration, I would definitely question the motives behind their choices.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I think it tends to get murky that high up the chain of command. Theater commanders and Pentagon advisors such as CJCS know that they were appointed in order to support the Command-in-Chief’s strategy/objectives – even if such strategy/objectives are politically motivated. In other words, if the Obama administration makes it clear that they want a light footprint type profile for Libya, then it’s possible that military 4-stars would be slow to order something that disrupts this strategy – such as busting Libyan airspace and going in guns blazing without regard to collateral damage in the neighborhood surrounding the compounds. That may have only been a Hail Mary effort which could have done far more bad than good, and these guys know it.

So, it’s not always black and white with respect to reluctance to make difficult decisions sometimes. Obviously, it should be assumed that members of the administration are going to be far more political and less worried about doing the right thing than military 4-stars. However, 4-stars have a constitutional obligation to obey their civilian commanders (and we like this obligation), and that includes obeying them with respect to big-picture strategies, too. That being said, 4-stars very often begin playing politics without regard for doing the right thing, and far too many of them arrived at their current positions by playing that game very well.

I’ve been discussing the issue of procuring dip clearance for these aircraft at length on the Benghazi threads over the last few weeks. This is certainly nothing new.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I don’t get the chance to read every Benghazi post and every comment on the thread….it sounded new to me.

I’m being realistic.

Okay…but then understand that here at HA there are many different opinions and for those of us without enough knowledge to know who may be right and who may be wrong…discernment becomes difficult.

You do sound like a Truther.

That gave me a chuckle…no, I am not.

I’ve made it clear dozens of times, that I think it’s quite possible that poor decision makers in the chain of command and/or Obama administration may have contributed to a lack of assistance getting to the compounds in Benghazi, and I would like to know the truth about this.

I’m glad then that we are on the same page…again, I don’t read everything that’s out here. And when the discussion gets into the weeds about the military …I am in unchartered territory….and frankly….lost….and that’s when I start skipping over alot of comments. :-)

In my opinion, these are the wrong issues to focus on. I’d like to know why more security wasn’t provided in the first place.

I think it is all equally important.

Are you lumping theater commanders and other 4-stars in with the bureaucrats and politicians with this statement? If not, then why not?

I am not lumping any of our military personnel in with my reference to “bureaucrats and politicians”. I haven’t become that much of a cynic yet to believe our military leadership did not act with complete integrity and honor. If mistakes were possibly made by the military chain of command…my suspicions would not lead me to think those mistakes were at all deliberate….with the administration, I would definitely question the motives behind their choices.

I’ve been discussing the issue of procuring dip clearance for these aircraft at length on the Benghazi threads over the last few weeks. This is certainly nothing new.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Btw, it’s quite possible that help was slowed because of the dip clearance issue. This is a big reason that Obama should have been awake and helping with the situation. If I had been president, then I would have been pushing any available, capable assets into the country regardless of dip clearance.

Sure that would have created some problems that we would have been forced to deal with later, but it would have expedited the help – if the help truly was being delayed for dip clearance.

I think you’re being a bit disingenuous.

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM

You’re wrong. I’m being realistic. I’m attempting to prevent Hot Air from becoming a Truther website about this issue.

…you also display a stunning lack of curiosity …

You do sound like a Truther. Just asking questions, right?

the role of the administration during those crucial hours of the attack…and how they may have impeded our military response.

I’ve made it clear dozens of times, that I think it’s quite possible that poor decision makers in the chain of command and/or Obama administration may have contributed to a lack of assistance getting to the compounds in Benghazi, and I would like to know the truth about this.

But my specific experience prevents me from automatically assuming that the right options existed for the decision makers. Sure, the right options may have existed, and I hope we find that out. But it’s wrong for anyone to claim that there’s no way the US military was unable to provide the right options. That’s just wrong, and I will challenge that claim on here.

In my opinion, these are the wrong issues to focus on. I’d like to know why more security wasn’t provided in the first place. In some other dangerous countries, Americans only travel with large amounts of security. Was the security denied because the Obama administration wanted to make sure that Libya seemed like a secure, happy place?

It has never even crossed my mind that our military failed to do it’s job properly on 9/11/12…but that doesn’t mean that Washington did. The bureaucrats and politicians remain suspect and for good reason…but you do not give the impression that their role in this is of any concern to you.

Are you lumping theater commanders and other 4-stars in with the bureaucrats and politicians with this statement? If not, then why not?

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

More troubling news….

lynncgb on November 12, 2012 at 8:01 AM

I’ve been discussing the issue of procuring dip clearance for these aircraft at length on the Benghazi threads over the last few weeks. This is certainly nothing new.

I’m not. I’m pushing back on people that are making claims or allegations about military capabilities simply because it “doesn’t sound right” to them.

blink on November 12, 2012 at 7:50 AM

I think you’re being a bit disingenuous. In your attempts to point out that military capabilities may not be what we think …you also display a stunning lack of curiosity as to the role of the administration during those crucial hours of the attack…and how they may have impeded our military response. How can all the pieces of this puzzle fit so perfectly together for you, without question…when we don’t even have them all yet?

It has never even crossed my mind that our military failed to do it’s job properly on 9/11/12…but that doesn’t mean that Washington did. The bureaucrats and politicians remain suspect and for good reason…but you do not give the impression that their role in this is of any concern to you.

Military sources familiar with the orders given to the CIF team tell Fox News the CIF plane headed to Libya — not to first stage at Sigonella as the Pentagon timeline suggests. The Pentagon denies this, saying simply that they were ordered to an intermediate staging base.

Hmmm…more conflicting info.

What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.

Me thinks the Pentagon needs to answer this question.

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

More troubling news….

So who is to be believed? Think I’ll go with those on the ground at the annex.

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM

By all means believe that they heard somebody state “feet dry”, but that doesn’t mean that an aircraft actually transitioned to feet dry. Also, feet dry doesn’t imply that anything is hovering. Feet dry simply means that an aircraft was over Libya. The term applied to fixed wing as well as rotary wing aircraft, and it doesn’t mean that anything was necessarily overhead Benghazi.

And of course, they may have heard someone mistakenly claim that something was feet dry.

jpcpt03 on November 11, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Your comment isn’t very coherent. The only thing you seem to claim is that they should have “buzzed” the compound with a Predator. That would have sounded more like a toy airplane flying by than an intimidating jet.

And honestly….I don’t understand why you are giving the administration the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I’m not. I’m pushing back on people that are making claims or allegations about military capabilities simply because it “doesn’t sound right” to them.

As I have said, I can not argue any specifics about military capability. I will leave that to others. I don’t know if the timeline from Panetta is reasonable or not…

lynncgb on November 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

We can just leave it at this.

“FEET DRY OVER LIBYA”

Survivors of the attack at the annex say that they heard over the radio net that night that U.S. military assets were, “feet dry over Libya,” which would refer to assets crossing from sea to land and hovering. The Pentagon denies this.

So who is to be believed? Think I’ll go with those on the ground at the annex. The Pentagon still has waaay too much explaining to do.

And hovering? That could be a possible explanation as to why it took our rescue forces so long to actually arrive in Libya. Could the U.S. response team have been stuck waiting and waiting….trying to land in Libya? Since the CIA team from Tripoli got stuck waiting for three hours before they were allowed to leave the Benghazi airport…then it looks like there is a pattern of delays developing.