Skip to comments.Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 28 October 2012
Posted on 10/28/2012 5:15:50 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
click here to read article
>> Why in hell is David Gregory MTP asking Wisconsin Gov. Walker about domestic violence? ABB...anything but Behghazi ?
Cuz he’s a tool.
The Left is parsing the idiotic phrasing of 2 sentences by Akin and Mourdock in such a way to agitate women to benefit the jackass.
The Left won’t cover the Benghazi story that at least paints a picture of gross Admin negligence.
I disagree slightly.
Could we have inserted Seals in time to save Smith and Stevens? No.
Could we have had Seals there in time to better defend the Annex, take out the mortar position, etc.? Yes.
I would disagree only in that there can be circumstances where one is working for a corporation or even a small business where it also can take tremendous courage to stand up for the truth or what is right.
That is in no way intended to diminish Eric Nordstom's testimony. I stayed up late one, er, morning, and watched that entire hearing. My jaw was on the floor, during parts of it. And while I by no means want to take away from what others, especially Tyrone Woods father have been saying, Norstrom's words that he felt in being rebuffed in his requests for more security, "The Taliban was in the house" are devastating, and need to be repeated MANY times.
One other thing that I wish someone could have discussed more fully on the talk shows, or even as this progresses (on Fox?), is that there are possibly a large number of MANPAD missiles in AQ and affiliated groups hands. Even a diminished AQ could wreak utter havoc with them in coming months. And AQ is not looking so diminished, these days.
I realize McCain can’t touch this with a 10 mile pole, but others could.
the irony is that Obozo could have come out a Big Shot if he had saved those guys...now he has done himself in.
The reason I entertain the possibility that this was a kidnapping operation gone bad (that originated in the White House) is precisely BECAUSE Obama is pathologically political (like all Bolsheviks).
If it was all organic action hitting in realtime it would have been likely that Obama would have seen the political upside right away—since that’s all he EVER sees.
But if the political upside was already linked to a kidnapping, and Woods and Doherty were interfering, then you can follow the pathology of a stand down order, no air support, the eventual “video” coverup, etc.
I’m not saying it definitely WAS a plot, conspiracy, etc. I’m saying the misaligned lies told since point to something more going on in Banghazi on 9/11.
Yeah, it all doesn’t “fit” in their stories...and why do you need stories when you have live a feed?
The bottomline is that we could have intervened to protect our people and didn't. The means are not really the issue.
I can only give my own perspective having worked for the USG for 36 years and for the State Department for 28 of those years. What Nordstrom did is truly extraordinary in that world and he will no doubt suffer the consequences, which will be meted out very quietly and slowly. If Romney is elected, he could be given a position elsewhere. If Obama is reelected, someone in the Rep House leadership should help him find a spot in government or outside of it.
Would they create the Egyptian riots as cover and already have their video excuse in the bag waiting for this kidnapping? They would then have a reason to negotiate for the Blind sheik.
Or, the riot in Cairo could have been a “found object” that they jumped on.
In Cairo, the blind sheik was the object of the protest but lickety-split the Administration contrived the video explanation. Start there and ask why?
Maybe they were trying to set up Romney—??
But I don’t know why they did it, just that they did start lying about a video. It does look suspicious and begins to resemble the way the KGB used to run ops in Africa back in the day.
A lot of those were ineptly executed too. Almost laughable.
Yeah, it all doesnt fit in their stories...and why do you need stories when you have a live feed?
I finally have a chance to follow-up. Got sorta sidetracked:
Please don’t get me wrong; what Eric Nordstrom did and said really is / was extraordinary. But I’ve seen people destroyed in the private sector too, for standing up, and they did it knowing what the consequences would be. This in no way diminishes my admiration and respect for Mr. Nordstrom. :-)
I hope your suggestion regarding his future employment is heeded somewhere. (Maybe you have a few contacts still?)
If Romney is elected, and Nordstrom has the overall capability / experience, maybe he (Nordstrom) should be top dog in charge of day-to-day security for all our Embassies, answering directly to the Sec. of State? (I don’t actually know if such a position exists.)
BTW, thanks for your service to our country!
I understand your assessment, but is there not also considerable risk to air strikes if the terrorists / attackers have some of those MANPADs, and in fact have anticipated a response by air power, as that tends to be US SOP.(?)
In this situation, it seems to me that we at least have both ground and air power “on the move”, and decide on deployment as the situation evolves...
One thing I have not been able to determine is what kind of laser was on the roof of the annex. Was it just a pointer (useful to a machine gunner and also useful to an AC-130, but not useful, as I understand it, with laser-guided munitions that can be deployed from high altitude)?
There was risk to any form of intervention, but would that not be reduced somewhat with a powerful, flexible response? (Overwhelm the enemy.) Of course, that TOTALLY blows Obama’s AQ narrative. (We’d have to hide all the dead terrorists’ bodies, just for starters.)
As far as your bottom line goes, though, we are in 100% agreement. This was a political decision, or cowardice, or both, and it stinks, stinks, stinks.
We sell arms to the Turks directly all the time, and they can buy what they want from other countries too. Why go through the trouble of moving them from Libya to Turkey to Syria when the Turks could just give them what they already have and save all the time and trouble and shipping?
But Obama's 'rebel army' apparently is in Libya. Somebody has to be available to use all those weapons.
Unmaned armed drones would reduce the personnel risks and they are very accurate.
That is true, and we already had a drone, or perhaps two in succession, at the scene. That however leads to the maddening non-answer to the question of whether the drone was armed. Except of course that the media doesn’t ask that question, either. Pat Caddell is right...
Another consideration, though, is that while a drone could certainly have taken out that mortar, a drone by itself could not hold off a sustained attack, if the attackers were determined and well armed.
However, as you said, the question is less that of the means, and more that of the decision makers and their mindset.