Skip to comments.SATIRE: Defense Secretary Justifies Inaction in Benghazi Attack
Posted on 10/26/2012 11:53:54 PM PDT by John Semmens
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and himself all decided against any intervention to rescue those besieged because we lacked a clear picture of what was happening.
Panetta admitted that while the drone surveillance did give us a real-time view of events on the ground, there were still some unanswered questions. First, we couldn't be sure how many attackers were involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn't be sure how many reinforcements to send.
Second, the pictures from the drone couldn't clearly establish the intent of the attackers, Panetta continued. We had no way of knowing they would actually kill the Ambassador. Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn't risk negating this potential option.
There was always the chance that an attempt to rescue the Ambassador might make things worse, Panetta added. As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would've been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.
The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. It's to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation, he said. It's hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you're in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
Panetta sounds like a genuine idiot. Surrender? Nuts!
Fumbled that 3:00 am call.
Panetta serving up extra large portions of B.S. tonight!
Hard to tell what is satire and what isn’t these days.
“By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
I'm a bit surprised that you didn't have him also say "We also need to respect the air space of a sovereign nation".
Drone video, site security video and a guy on the ground on the phone just doesn’t give you a full picture. We need to give the terrorists some sat phones or iPads so they can send us their side of the fight to look at.
Sheesh. Yup, you are correct. Hard to tell with these jerks in office.
lol!! I would not put it past them. Optimally they won't put the bumps in the road in those words.
“we couldn’t be sure how many reinforcements to send.
Umm, ALL OF THEM!
HE IS A FREAKING ASSHAT!
Don’t add the satire tag to the front end, John. Don’t let them do that to you.
Don’t add the satire tag to the front end, John. Don’t let them do that to you.
Since this attack happened on foreign soil, I’m surprised they didn’t claim they couldn’t differentiate between the good and bad guys. Video being grainy, it being night time and all...
Did anyone of them take a potty break during this 7 hour violent action movie? I’m sure bozo took a pot break.
At the end of this “movie” did the credits say “I am barack obama and I approve of this message”?
I had an argument with a lib, and he said he saw an ABC special on Benghazi a few days ago, and what he learned was that the ambassador acted like a cowboy going to Benghazi instead of staying in the capital. So ABC is blaming the victim, in this instance, the dead victim!
Nothing the MSM does can surprise me anymore. I hope.
this is not a subject for satire.
I rather think that anyone who who lost a son that night would not think so - ever.
and we all lost sons that night - they were ours.
this is throwing fuel on the fire - for what? a chance for some attention - to show cleverness?
With a side order of: Collusion, delusion, deception and evil...
Zer0 and his administration are a menace to our nation and damn near everyone living here.
An Obama supporting friend of mine said: “He had his reasons. No biggie.” They really are spinning...
It wasn’t optimal.
They were afraid of what Putin my do if we sent our military in to protect the CIA complex and it’s occupants. Does the term Candy A$$ mean anything to ya.
John, I actually heard one of the Dem talking heads on FNC yesterday say, "If we sent in planes to help they could have crashed and then we'd be talking about the casualties from that!"
Dumbest thing I've ever heard!
Satire looses it’s effect when it’s less absurd than the official administration story.
‘The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. It’s to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation, he said. It’s hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you’re in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.’
Reminds me of the line Gene Hackman’s Luthor says to his henchman Otis in “Superman: The Movie”: “Your life which I would gladly sacrifice by the way.” How magnaminous of Luthor/Panetta!
He didn’t say “no Libyan blood on our hands” - -
But I bet that was the real reason.
Probably closer to truth than satire this time. At least we have 3 names to fire.
John Semmens ~:” Panetta added. As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would’ve been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
If I , or my country, is being attacked , I really don’t care about the attackers nationality .
An “attack” is still an attack ,even if they are being attacked by stones.
There were no innocent Libyians fireing RPG’s , or automatic weapons at the compound ; chances are they were Muslim Buddiehood looking to use the incident as an excuse for successful strategy , additional munitions , and “a Sh*tload of American money “.
Laser painted targets are not innocent observers !
You have demonstrated that adherance to “Der Leader” agenda supercedes logic !
“Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive.”
Yeahm right. That’ll work.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. And angering.
Thanks again, John, for the ping.
You are absolutely right...and it’s not even that clever.
Unfortunately this sounds more like the truth than satire. This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach.
Hard to recognize satire with the Obama team on the job.
Here’s a real article from a real source on this same subject:
“Panetta Says We Lacked Real-Time Benghazi Intel”
Not much different from the satire piece.
Thank you for keeping me in your list for all these years, through all my deployments... But I don’t recall you ever calling your articles out as satire... Were you made to do this? Part of the fun was seeing all the bites you would get.
Seems to be part of a trend. The magazine SALVO has some hilarious satirical ads (no real ones) in each issue. A couple of issues ago they started labeling them "Fake Ads." Incredible. Have we reached the point where no one can any longer recognize satire?
My favorite bites:
- “First, we couldn’t be sure how many attackers were involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn’t be sure how many reinforcements to send.
- “Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn’t risk negating this potential option.
- “If we had sent in troops there likely would’ve been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.
- It’s hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you’re in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.
John, you did something deeper/wider with this “article”. I read it and laughed out loud. Others read it and wrote the serious comments above. Thanks for your effort.
Jonathan Swift received much of the same criticism for his satire...and it wasn’t because he chose noncontroversial, amusing subject matter. The pointed criticism in this piece is directed at the dithering incompetence and political considerations that cost the four lives. It should be roundly criticized, mocked, assailed and attacked in every way. IMHO, not doing so would be a disservice to those who died.
WOW John! THAT one hits on the mark. THAT’s precisely the attitude of Leftist’s as we’ve seen before. Thinking back on “Collateral damage”, “Death Panels”, and the like. These asshats of the Left haven’t any respect for yours, nor my life whatsoever, but I’d sure like to see one of them when they have to face the business end whimpering, and pleading of an enemy weapon themselves.
Hopefully we’ll see them whimpering, and pleading in court one of these days.
“Have we reached the point where no one can any longer recognize satire?”
Apparently so because the inmates now run the asylum.
Moreover, Obama wants to make it perfectly clear that he did not in theory officially request the denial of a virtual authorization for a proposed rescue mission by operatives whose potential existence cannot be confirmed for reasons of national security.
You put “satire” right at the beginning and you’re still fooling people. Excellent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.