Results 1 to 10 of 39
-
10-28-2012, 01:40 PM #1
General Petraeus Disavows Standown Order
General Petreaus claims that no one in the CIA gave an order for the military to stand down when Americans on the ground in Benghazi requested help. And certainly, no one in the military would leave Americans to die when they had assets ready and waiting to help. The obvious conclusion is that the stand down order came from the White House.
In the debate when President Obama acted indignant that Mitt Romney and other critics would insinuate that the White House response (actually non-response) to the Benghazi incident was politically motivated, I felt his anger was pretty ingenuous. The more we learn, the more outrageous his response and his overall be havior as Commander in Chief becomes.
-
-
10-28-2012, 01:51 PM #2
What political gain does Obama get by letting 4 people die in an election year?
Semms like it would actually be a bad thing...
-
10-28-2012, 04:34 PM #3
I don't know. The list of unanswered questions continues to grow.
-
-
10-28-2012, 04:56 PM #4
Just thinking about this a little more. The President claims that his first response when he heard about the attack was to give an order to make sure that the people were safe. When the requests for help came in and someone gave the stand down order (if it truly wasn't him), why would he allow it to stand when it contradicted his first order?
-
10-28-2012, 05:22 PM #5
I just don't understand what the motive would be with this timing. If I put on my tin hat I can see a Republican giving a stand down order and by the time it got to the President they were already dead. Theres motive there to make Obama look bad in an election year. What motive would Obama have to make a stand down order?
-
-
10-28-2012, 08:12 PM #6
Could just be pure incompetence.
-
10-28-2012, 09:07 PM #7
Sorry, I can't even see Romney being that incompetent.
-
-
10-28-2012, 09:55 PM #8
President Obama keeps bringing up that he has severely degraded Al Qaeda's capabilities. Perhaps he felt like sending in an airstrike to support the Americans on the ground would have in some way damaged his claim? That jibes with their persistence in trying to peddle the story of an angry mob that attacked the consulate instead of terrorists.
-
10-28-2012, 10:41 PM #9
How would sending in airstrikes damage his claim? His claim speaks for itself. If anything, it would do the opposite.
Why do all the theories on this require Obama to be brain dead?
-
10-28-2012, 10:54 PM #10
Because it seems brain dead to have Americans getting attacked and having laser guides on the terrorists shooting the mortars, but someone is giving an order not to send help.
It looks like General Ham may be losing his job by attempting to disobey the order.
http://times247.com/articles/is-a-ge...-over-benghazi
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africom.I wonder if this Admiral attempted to disobey the stand down order as well?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews
-
Originally Posted by Wickabee 
