General Petraeus Disavows Standown Order

[AUTaxMan]

Sorry, I can't even see Romney being that incompetent.

I don't believe that either. It was just a theory.

[AUTaxMan]

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

The truth is going to get out, and it's going to be ugly. I, like wickabee, just can't understand why Panetta and/or Obama wouldn't send in military support when they knew Americans were under attack and they could do something about it. Even if they wanted to pitch the phony riot story, sending in back-up would not damage that narrative. That gets me back to the incompetence theory. I don't really believe it, but it's the only thing that makes logical sense, based on what we know, as to why military personnel weren't deployed to defend the folks in Benghazi.

[Wickabee]

I've heard Obama's incompetent...funny, he's seemed pretty competent thus far and, like him or not, he's not stupid. So I can't buy that.

I've also heard it's political. What person running for President would gain politically from letting his own people die?

These theories make no sense. I haven't heard maybe a republican general gave the order? Maybe the order never actually existed? Maybe it was Clinton's fault? Maybe there was a miscommunication? I don't know. I just cannot believe how many Americans are willing to throw their own President under the bus. It is sad what media has done to otherwise smart, good people. And I am by no means speaking of this board alone.

[AUTaxMan]

I've heard Obama's incompetent...funny, he's seemed pretty competent thus far and, like him or not, he's not stupid. So I can't buy that.

I've also heard it's political. What person running for President would gain politically from letting his own people die?

These theories make no sense. I haven't heard maybe a republican general gave the order? Maybe the order never actually existed? Maybe it was Clinton's fault? Maybe there was a miscommunication? I don't know. I just cannot believe how many Americans are willing to throw their own President under the bus. It is sad what media has done to otherwise smart, good people. And I am by no means speaking of this board alone.

The theories make no sense because the facts make no sense.

[Wickabee]

Yet so many have their minds made up. The fact remains that the only speculations are
1: Obama is in incompetent
2: Obama let them die for political gain

That's it. Its either Obamas fault or Obamas fault. There is no other possibility in so many minds, but it's not being used in a partisan way for political gain by Reps. Not at all...

[AUTaxMan]

Yet so many have their minds made up. The fact remains that the only speculations are
1: Obama is in incompetent
2: Obama let them die for political gain

That's it. Its either Obamas fault or Obamas fault. There is no other possibility in so many minds, but it's not being used in a partisan way for political gain by Reps. Not at all...

We know that there was a live feed of what was happening in the situation room as early as 2 hours after the attack had begun. The president had to know about it. He either (a) ordered backup, and his orders weren't followed by someone, (b) ordered backup not be sent, or (c) allowed others to make the decision not to send in troops. So, he is ultimately responsible for back-up not being sent in. The motives are irrelevant to that aspect of it.

[Wickabee]

Did you just say he's responsible if his orders were not followed?

Unless he's a complete moron, which he's not, there has to be a motive. Without Obama having a motive, what is the point in focussing on him? Why not think, "who involved stands to gain from this?" Of course, since the answer to that question isn't Obama, no conservative would ever do that.

Motive matters if you're looking for the truth. If you're looking to railroad a guy because you don't like him, then you're right...though you'd probably also blame him for others ignoring his orders.

[tpeichel]

Why give the benefit of the doubt when the more we learn, the more we find lies and deceit? He has to know exactly what happened at this point. He was watching this tragedy unfold before him. If he gave a direct order to save the Americans asking for help, he would know by now why that order was not followed and who gave the order to stand down. Instead, all we see is a bunch of finger pointing and denying responsibility. I seem to remember both the Secretary and President taking "responsibility" for this debacle. What exactly does that mean?

[Wickabee]

He wasn't ever given any benefit of anything. From day one it was his fault and there was no other possibility in the minds of conservatives. Since then, said cons have come up with many theories that make no sense but none that do make any sense. Never once was another possibility explored. That's my problem with this issue. I rely hope none of you are detectives, because you're terrible at exploring possibilities. Seriously. Just awful.

[AUTaxMan]

He wasn't ever given any benefit of anything. From day one it was his fault and there was no other possibility in the minds of conservatives. Since then, said cons have come up with many theories that make no sense but none that do make any sense. Never once was another possibility explored. That's my problem with this issue. I rely hope none of you are detectives, because you're terrible at exploring possibilities. Seriously. Just awful.

What are you talking about? No president would have been given the benefit of the doubt, especially when almost immediately, conflicting versions of the "truth" emerge. We are finding out new facts about this almost every day. The more we find out, the worse it looks for Obama.

Also, did I leave out a fourth or fifth possible scenario? What is your theory?