Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk'
CNN ^ | October 26, 2012 | Chris Lawrence

Posted on 10/26/2012 4:20:01 AM PDT by maggief

The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

(Excerpt) Read more at security.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhocia; panetta; shadowwars; threatmatrix; unfit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
Interesting...

"He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began."

1 posted on 10/26/2012 4:20:05 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maggief

Sec. Panetta,

Keep talking, you idiot. Keep contradicting the previous statements from you, your people, and your boss.


2 posted on 10/26/2012 4:24:02 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
General Powell's kinda Leadership

Or did he ride the brains of Gulf War 1 General Norman Schwarzkopf

3 posted on 10/26/2012 4:24:36 AM PDT by scooby321 (AMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; penelopesire; thouworm; Protect the Bill of Rights; LucyT; SE Mom; MestaMachine; ...

“He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as “looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground.””

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For what purpose was a drone aloft nearby, yet security had been scaled back?


4 posted on 10/26/2012 4:26:03 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Translation:

We armed Al Qaeda with such high-tech weapons that a rescue team would have been slaughtered upon arrival.


5 posted on 10/26/2012 4:26:45 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

First of all, the battle lasted for more than 6, 7 hours! And more indications that there would be trouble over the area in the days prior.

Why can’t we deploy a freking drone directly over the area?

Someone(s) should have been watching the drone live feed, but not to Sec. Panetta’s knowledge???!!! Is it even plausible after > 40 days?


6 posted on 10/26/2012 4:29:53 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
...a lot of chaos on the ground.

This could have been the target.

7 posted on 10/26/2012 4:30:28 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Good point.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?

EXCERPT

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

“This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”


8 posted on 10/26/2012 4:31:51 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maggief

“(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’”

Yeah, someone might break a nail.


9 posted on 10/26/2012 4:32:54 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

So basically Panetta was saying,

Yeah, we deserted the security forces on the ground.

Nothing can be done for them, cause we don’t have good intel.


10 posted on 10/26/2012 4:32:54 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I had to look twice to ensure this wasn’t satire


11 posted on 10/26/2012 4:36:49 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (We can’t just leave it (food choice) up to the parents. -- moochele obozo 2/12/2012 (cnsnews))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Where are the REPUBLICAN LEADERS(?)

Reverse this situation with an R as Pres and the Dems would be 24/7 hits, especially with an election 2 weeks away.

I don’t expect the R’s to be quite as nasty as the D’s might be - but at least stand up and demand SOMETHING.


12 posted on 10/26/2012 4:37:04 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "even a garden gnome casts a long shadow at sunset".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

“”You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,” Panetta said”

If this is your thinking Panetta then BRING back ALL of our men and women overseas that are serving!


13 posted on 10/26/2012 4:38:25 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Hmmmm

Was Panetta locked out of a secret CIA/WH (and State Dept? was HRC part of it or kept out of direct channels to ensure she had plasuible deniability) operation to provide arms to Syrian jihadists via the US Ambassador to Libya, via an innocuous undefended operation site in Benghazi?

Of all the scenarios to try to account fof the WH puzzling cover up, this one is starting to make sense.

A CIA covert operation gone wrong, so-called militia “allies” gone over to the dark side in an al Qaeda directed revenge attack, and a WH-directed cover up using a video as mob incitement excuse

Of course B. Hussein Obama can’t come clean-
endrunning Congress and pissing off the Russians and maybe NATO too is real bad ju-ju

Curious silence by Petraeus, eh


14 posted on 10/26/2012 4:44:03 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

“(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This is the kind of idiotic mindset that ‘allows’ a single gunman to shoot up a school/mall/..whatever..
Hundreds of cops outside, swat team in place while shooter operates freely, excuse being “We didn’t know how many gunmen were involved”, “Had a bead on “A” shooter but didn’t know if he had allies” etc .

Right, wrong or indifferent, cops in ‘my day’ would not just stand by - waiting. Some fool or two would rush the building.

The same mindset that allows a lone person ‘threatening to jump off a bridge’ hours while shutting down a busy highway.

Humanitarianism is one thing, sheer stupidity another.


15 posted on 10/26/2012 4:45:05 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "even a garden gnome casts a long shadow at sunset".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Sending in helicopters and jets would make them easy targets for the anti-aircraft weapons we gave to Al Qaeda.

The rescue mission could have resulted in many more American deaths.


16 posted on 10/26/2012 4:47:43 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Is that why the drone was in the area, watching the movement of weapons to Syria?

Odd this all took place on 9/11, isn’t it?


17 posted on 10/26/2012 4:53:23 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maggief

al Qaeda B O M B E D the Pentagon and America.

But Panetta DEFENDS them?

This is simple treason, but for who?
and for how much?


18 posted on 10/26/2012 4:54:44 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

This confirms my initial reaction:

Obama pounded the table and declared:
“We will NOT inject American forces into another mid-East country and create the impression we’re involved in a civil war!”

From there, the team set about inventing excuses.


19 posted on 10/26/2012 4:56:42 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
There were security forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

This says it all to me. The U.S. forces there say they are in the middle of a firefight, but that is not good enough for Panetta. He needs a full sitrep from a disinterested party to evaluate what is going on.

20 posted on 10/26/2012 4:57:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Compare what Panetta is saying with that Ollie North is saying, keeping in mind what Panetta said about not having enough information: Then and Now (North on Benghazi). Fair warning: you will get angry.
21 posted on 10/26/2012 5:00:04 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Why not eliminate the middle man and have whoever feeds Obama his lines debate Romney directly?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn

When it comes to the Congress, “Republican Leaders” is an oxymoron.


22 posted on 10/26/2012 5:03:57 AM PDT by motor_racer (Pete, do you ever get tired, of the driving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maggief
I am not privy to what is happening in the Community

Questions are whether the drone was a strategic or tactical asset, whose tasking was it operating under (there probably is enormous competition among US agencies for these assets so target priorities and operating parameters have to be established by a committee)

Who and where was monitoring its feed? My understanding is that these are CIA assets unless in direct tactical battle support- and maybe even then. It is plausible that Panetta was not involved. After all, Gates possibly was in on the cabal of agency planners that blindsided the WH back when osama was taken out, so keeping the DoD out of this operation, if directed by the WHY, would have been tit for tat.

We have no ongoing hostilities involving DoD battle support in Libya that I am aware of. DoD people were pulled out.

Presumably it was intel collecting - against who and for what?

The inexplicable lying and cover up suggests this operation was all directed from the WH itself. A strategic covert military operation being run by arrogant ardent islamists, such as John Brennan (just sayin’)

I know nothing, only speculating. Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently.

23 posted on 10/26/2012 5:08:23 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Two observations:

1. What is the purpose of our military, if we won’t use it if there is a risk?

2. Why would anyone ever agree to represent our country abroad in an embassy, if the US will not protect you.


24 posted on 10/26/2012 5:12:20 AM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Barrak has now won the contest. He is even worse than Jimmah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

The more I think about it this makes sense. Perhaps that’s the “bad intelligence” and why Petraeus is MIA.

“A CIA covert operation gone wrong, so-called militia “allies” gone over to the dark side in an al Qaeda directed revenge attack”


25 posted on 10/26/2012 5:13:33 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I remember that during my time in the service, I never wanted to be “put at risk”. I was willing, and from time to time it happened, but it wasn’t my first choice. However, given a choice of Americans being raped and murdered by foreign terrorists while I sit safe and far away, or being put at risk with my men, I’m with just about all of our military - ready to go. We’ve got a whole lot more Captain John Paul Jones, Admiral David Farragut, General George Patton, and Private Mike Clark in us than we have of that sissy, Panetta. Our military exists to protect the country and its citizens from this sort of situation, and if we’re just there to hold paperwork drills and uniform inspections safely at sea or in a well-protected base far from danger, there is no point in having a military at all.

“I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm’s way.”
- John Paul Jones

“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
- Admiral David Farragut

“Better to fight for something than live for nothing.”
- General George Patton

“We signed up knowing the risk. Those innocent people in New York didn’t go to work thinking there was any kind of risk.”
- Pvt. Mike Armendariz-Clark, USMC (in Afghanistan, September 20, 2001)


26 posted on 10/26/2012 5:13:49 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motor_racer

When it comes to the Congress, “Republican Leaders” is an oxymoron.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Absolutely....notice where the ‘question mark’ is.

Like them or not, Pelosi and crowd at least stick up for their own and each other.

We have people get their shorts in an uproar over Bidens ‘cue ball’ remark (Which, is actually a compliment, just not the right remark at the right time, then again Biden will be Biden).

This whole administration is a real life version of Capt Queeq.

“Steaming in circles, running over the tow line, while Queeg is berating a sailor over a shirt tail or lack of hat”.


27 posted on 10/26/2012 5:14:55 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "even a garden gnome casts a long shadow at sunset".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: maggief
But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.

What did you think it was, you dumb a**? A weenie roast???

28 posted on 10/26/2012 5:16:10 AM PDT by varon (The clouds are beginning to part........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

So he says he knew the security forces were in a firefight. That leaves only two possibilities. A. They’re losing the firefight and need reinforcements. B. They’re winning the firefight so whatever reinforcements are sent will be unnecessary and can return home upon arrival.

So where’s the excuse for not sending reinforcements?


29 posted on 10/26/2012 5:19:19 AM PDT by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
We armed Al Qaeda with such high-tech weapons that a rescue team would have been slaughtered upon arrival.

I'd say that all the calculated riske was political.

Obama sees Libya as his great accomplishment. In his mind it was better to have a few Americans killed (and explained away) than to go in and kill a dozen Libyans. Especially without asking pretty-please first.

30 posted on 10/26/2012 5:21:19 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

Anybody that steps off that bus at basic training, whether they realize it or not, are already marching toward the sound of gunfire. If you aren’t willing to put yourself in harm’s way, then stay home and get a job at the doily factory. This from a veteran who never saw combat.


31 posted on 10/26/2012 5:22:20 AM PDT by Ax ("Bring the Pipes together for the Risin' o' the Moon.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-to-expand-drone-fleet-officials-say/2012/10/18/01149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html?hpid=z1

(October 18, 2012)

The CIA is urging the White House to approve a significant expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots, officials said.

(snip)

The CIA’s proposal would have to be evaluated by a group led by President Obama’s counter­terrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, officials said.

(snip)

The administration has touted the collaboration between the CIA and the military in counterterrorism operations, contributing to a blurring of their traditional roles. In Yemen, the CIA routinely “borrows” the aircraft of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to carry out strikes. The JSOC is increasingly engaged in activities that resemble espionage.

(snip)


32 posted on 10/26/2012 5:23:19 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Just why is there a drone floating around over Libya for no apparent reason? Aren’t drones at a premium and take maybe a week or so to be assigned to a particular area?


33 posted on 10/26/2012 5:23:37 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (the mature Christian is almost impossible to offend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

This may provide some insight into Panetta.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/leon-panettas-communist-ties/


34 posted on 10/26/2012 5:24:25 AM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: maggief
and why so many agency heads can claim they never got the intelligence confirming this being a terror attack

Either they didn't get it and could therefore be used as spin doctors using what was provided them through the WH(Susan Rice)

or it was washed to all the analysts privy to the initial message traffic as coming from an unreliable or unproven or extremely sensitive source, not authorized by the WH to be used or rebroadcast in their agency analysis
pending further source confirmation (ha)

Or in the case of Hillary, she didn't want to hear it..... hear no evil see no evil....again, plausible deniability for her role in letting Stevens be actively involved and jeopardize diplomatic immunity of this and other ambassadors

35 posted on 10/26/2012 5:25:47 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Hey Panetta was Obama informed while all this was taking place so he could act like he did for Bin Laden


36 posted on 10/26/2012 5:26:24 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I wish the whole Obama admin is a satire.

Lookie here: Obama: "When Four Americans Are Killed, You Have To Do Some Soul-Searching" WTF?

37 posted on 10/26/2012 5:27:44 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: maggief
(......*.......*.......*.......)

That's cricket noise. I'm absolutely speechless.

38 posted on 10/26/2012 5:30:07 AM PDT by LoveUSA (God employs Man's strength; Satan exploits Man's weakness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

well well well, there ya go

Looks like I don’t need to book a room at the Holiday Inn Express after all ...

John Brennan, passport raider and possible cleaner, is one of the most dangerous men serving obama (if that is who he really serves)

Mitt needs to get rid of him asap


39 posted on 10/26/2012 5:30:40 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Yeh, that’s right Panetta—let the Ambassador and team fend for themselves. Jerkwad.
Where was their beefed-up protection on anniversary of 9/11? In a terrorist hotbed like Benghazi no less? And the stupid lie about the video? Got some ‘splaining to do Mr.sourpuss face.


40 posted on 10/26/2012 5:31:18 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-veteran-john-brennan-has-transformed-us-counterterrorism-policy/2012/10/24/318b8eec-1c7c-11e2-ad90-ba5920e56eb3_story.html

(October 24, 2012)

A CIA veteran transforms U.S. counterterrorism policy

EXCERPT

Four years ago, Brennan felt compelled to withdraw from consideration as President Obama’s first CIA director because of what he regarded as unfair criticism of his role in counterterrorism practices as an intelligence official during the George W. Bush administration. Instead, he stepped into a job in the Obama administration with greater responsibility and influence.

Brennan is leading efforts to curtail the CIA’s primary responsibility for targeted killings. Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency. Still, during Brennan’s tenure, the CIA has carried out hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan and opened a new base for armed drones in the Arabian Peninsula.

Although he insists that all agencies have the opportunity to weigh in on decisions, making differing perspectives available to the Oval Office, Brennan wields enormous power in shaping decisions on “kill” lists and the allocation of armed drones, the war’s signature weapon.


41 posted on 10/26/2012 5:38:39 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Let me interpret for you...

* My boss can't make a decision to save his behind, ergo he couldn't give the go signal for "OBL" without being dragged into it.
* It is an election year, and my boss doesn't want a Carter Rescue mess on his hands.
* So let's try to ride this out and hope it turns out ok...

42 posted on 10/26/2012 5:39:08 AM PDT by taildragger (( Fubarward Obama 2012, think about it :-) ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Panetta is a Democrat. That means he lies.


43 posted on 10/26/2012 5:40:32 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

You can tell that they’re already scrubbed a lot of real time data. Don’t tell me they weren’t getting communications live talk from Stevens and the CIA.


44 posted on 10/26/2012 5:40:51 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

And the US Senate confirmed Commie Panetta 100 to 0! It is time!


45 posted on 10/26/2012 5:45:18 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Sending in helicopters and jets would make them easy targets for the anti-aircraft weapons we gave to Al Qaeda.

The rescue mission could have resulted in many more American deaths.

Making the YouTube video lie a moot point and thereby non operable.


46 posted on 10/26/2012 5:55:34 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

They have ALL lied so much, none of them will let out what the truth is. When our embassy was lost, and it was known that our people were either out or killed, there should have been a concentrated strike to obliterate what was left and the insurgents/terrorists on our sovereign soil. Having our flag captured and theirs flying at our embassy was a disgrace.


47 posted on 10/26/2012 5:59:09 AM PDT by toolman1401
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Is Panetta serious? He doesn’t want to put American servicemen at risk? What the hell do we have a military for then? Did Eisenhower cancel the invasion of France because of the danger involved?????? This is insanity.

I wish Panetta was SecDef when my submarine had it’s nose up a Russian sub’s a$s! That was pretty dangerous, (but it was fun)!

Anyway, when American lives are at stake we have a history of rescuing them, not leaving them high and dry. Even Carter did it (however ineptly) and he was the second worst president of all time.

This administration has to go - but I’m preaching to the choir here.


48 posted on 10/26/2012 5:59:38 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
“”You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,” Panetta said”

But sometimes you need to do “something” in order to take control of a situation overall... show backbone and will (as opposed to fear and trepidation).

“It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” John Paul Jones

“I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way” John Paul Jones

49 posted on 10/26/2012 6:02:53 AM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I’d bet a week’s pay this is a lie. We always have a P-3C/EP-3E nearby, monitoring things. NAS SIG is just a 90-minute P-3 dash from Benghazi.


50 posted on 10/26/2012 6:09:09 AM PDT by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson