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

Skip to comments.

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
Weekly Standard ^ | 6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 | WILLIAM KRISTOL

Posted on 10/26/2012 3:20:35 PM PDT by Snuph

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazicia; benghazigate; benghazirescue; benghazistanddown; chrisstevens; cia; elections; justabumpintheroad; libya; obama; obamasfault; petraeus; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-353 next last
To: Girlene

We have plenty of evidence that shows the entire area around the mission was quiet...silent...up until the attach began.


201 posted on 10/26/2012 6:28:52 PM PDT by IrishPennant (Dr Erkel and Mr. Jive...lurking the streets of DC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
Two days after the attack, CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee. Petraeus told lawmakers the best intelligence showed it was a demonstration sparked by the video that got out of hand, according to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the panel’s ranking Democrat...

If this democrat isn't BSing then the general flat out lied to congress which I would assume can carry a jail sentence or should.

And also if true it says the general is a boob to think the truth wouldn't come out
202 posted on 10/26/2012 6:29:00 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Petraeus told lawmakers the best intelligence showed it was a demonstration

We know now he lied...a military man LIED...breaks my freakin Jarhead heart. Where is my core country??????

203 posted on 10/26/2012 6:31:05 PM PDT by IrishPennant (Dr Erkel and Mr. Jive...lurking the streets of DC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

A CIA spokesman made the statement, not Petreus himself. Once again, expect “clarification.” What I see is that the CIA is calling those who gave the story to Foxnews liars. They are not throwing obama under the bus. They are covering their, and obama’s, asses.


204 posted on 10/26/2012 6:33:31 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

Biden old us there would be a time when this president would be tested. He was right. He forgot to add that he would fail the test miserably......


205 posted on 10/26/2012 6:34:21 PM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Nickarama ‏@Nickarama1 Rep Jason Chaffetz said WH sist rm saw in real time, Emails in real time. Military had capability, told him yes, were not asked. #StandDown Expand
206 posted on 10/26/2012 6:34:52 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: uncbob; All
From Jennifer's original article, EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

........Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. ..........

Petraeus says "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So is there "no one at any level in the CIA" in the "CIA chain of command"?

These two assertions do not make sense otherwise.
207 posted on 10/26/2012 6:37:02 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: mcmuffin

Thats a keeper.


208 posted on 10/26/2012 6:39:05 PM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Fred Nerks; ntnychik; devolve; FARS; onyx; jazusamo; smoothsailing; DoughtyOne; ...

"Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny three times that you even know me."

209 posted on 10/26/2012 6:45:05 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Fakistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

Nobody told the CIA folks not to go to the ambassador’s aid? Did anyone tell them to go to the ambassador’s aid?


210 posted on 10/26/2012 6:50:59 PM PDT by popdonnelly (The first priority is get Obama out of the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snuph

The Hussein regime is praying that hurricane is another Katrina, even if gets people killed, to get Libya out of the news. What happened in Benghazi was criminal. Hussein knew people were murdered and went calmly to bed in preperation for his Vegas fundraiser. He then blamed the video and even made one of his own apologizing to the freaking Pakistanis of all people! Get that man out of the Oval Office!!


211 posted on 10/26/2012 6:51:05 PM PDT by cardinal4 (Barack Hussein Obama, what American would elect a guy with that name less than 10 years after 9-11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Wow.


212 posted on 10/26/2012 6:52:04 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

There’s still time for Petraeus to redeem his honor, if not by coming forward then by resigning.


213 posted on 10/26/2012 6:53:23 PM PDT by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

Bob Woodward on Hannity: President’s statement that Benghazi is not what the election is about sets of alarms. #Obama


214 posted on 10/26/2012 6:56:47 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

Somebody forgot to tell Petraeus.


215 posted on 10/26/2012 6:58:29 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
There isn’t time for impeachment. We need to get him and his ilk as far away from the WH as possible on Nov. 6th - then hold hearings and indict them for treason.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately I can see nobama handing out blanket pardons like Mickey Dee coupons.

The days between Nov 7 and Jan 21 will be treacherous indeed.

216 posted on 10/26/2012 6:59:01 PM PDT by upchuck (Barack Obama has become a joke. The only problem is that it's not funny. ~ William L. Gensert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: petitfour; All
MANPAD missiles...

I've been looking for a good point to bring those back up. Now, I'm probably not very good at conspiracy theories. But I can't help but think that those thousands of missing MANPADs figure into this. I'm just not sure how.

What if the CIA knows that large numbers of the MANPADs are in AQ / terrorist hands, in Libya? Might not that make close-in air support highly risky? Is that what Petraeus and Panetta can't say? Maybe if they say, it is considered too politically explosive to admit? Or it might blow an ongoing CIA operation?

217 posted on 10/26/2012 7:02:17 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

You are right
Something is screwy
Hope the reporter knows who and what and has it straight


218 posted on 10/26/2012 7:05:28 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

I agree with you, Hinck. Petraeus has been caught in a nasty spot for 6 weeks. We may well see him in the future testifying to Congress or some other finder-of-fact.


219 posted on 10/26/2012 7:06:44 PM PDT by irgbar-man (had to sell my good tagline for food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

The ongoing operation was already blown.

There are a lot of posts on the subject on FReerepublic. Maybe some of the knowledgeable posters will elaborate.


220 posted on 10/26/2012 7:09:28 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

POTUS is in the CIA’s chain of command but is not in the CIA.

This points directly to 0bama.

You can just imagine this cold-hearted ass, saying, “Not this close to the election. They’re ‘collateral damage,’” and just walk out the door, go upstairs, do a line and go to the executive f* chamber with Reggie.


221 posted on 10/26/2012 7:09:34 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.; All

A little more far out speculation: As the attack unfolded, the CIA or other intelligence discovered or reasoned that the attack was in fact bait, designed to bring in U.S. support aircraft. An AC-130 shot down in Libya would sure blow Obama’s foreign policy narrative!!!

(By no means do I accept that this excuses the lack of action. But I do think that this bunch at the top is likely to be too incompetent and / or locked into their own view of things to respond to such a situation.)


222 posted on 10/26/2012 7:11:42 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Snuph
In 31 years we've gone from a Secretary of State who when seeing a national crisis happening manned up to the task, assumed the needed leadership and the responsibility, and said ""I am in control here" too a response of "No not me I didn't know" we see today.

General Haig no doubt knew and well understood the Constitutional order of who was next in line. Haig said this in relation to White House Crisis Management while VP GHW bush was entroute to The White House.

How one responds to crisis and accepts the responsibility determines ones leadership abilities and shows their character. No one in the White House or Pentagon today is anywhere close to having the character and good judgment of General Haig in time of crisis. Right or wrong the man was a leader and that's what he did.

223 posted on 10/26/2012 7:12:22 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob; Snuph
Sorry, but I can't agree. The technology and rules of engagement are different. A consulate, diplomatic mission, or American embassy is US soil -- not downtown Mogadishu, and a US Ambassador isn't a grunt (sorry grunts, but you know where you stand) who you can sacrifice in order to avoid an international embarrassment.

Furthermore, if the administration was worried about downside risk, they could have deployed armed drones or airstrikes and have at least made some effort. This last especially since by all accounts the "official" Libyan authorities and most of the indigenous populace were on our side.

The truth is that Zero and his political advisers did a cynical calculation and decided that a collaborationist press would give them a complete pass on one of the flimsiest provocations concocted by a deceitful government since the Gleiwitz Incident. So far, it's not clear that they were mistaken.

224 posted on 10/26/2012 7:12:57 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Can he even count to zero?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Spot on.


225 posted on 10/26/2012 7:15:18 PM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

So the CIA chain of command skips eveyone in the CIA and goes directly to the CIC?

The article specifically says the CIA chain of command told the CIA operators to stand down when they wanted to rescue Stevens et al, and also denied them military backup. Something is not adding up between Jennifer Rubin’s reporting of sources on the ground in Benghazi and the CIA denial, now, that they ever told them not to help.


226 posted on 10/26/2012 7:21:30 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I totally agree.

This is the biggest shell game in our country’s history.


227 posted on 10/26/2012 7:25:30 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
The article specifically says the CIA chain of command told the CIA operators to stand down when they wanted to rescue Stevens et al, and also denied them military backup. Something is not adding up between Jennifer Rubin’s reporting of sources on the ground in Benghazi and the CIA denial, now, that they ever told them not to help.

The article source that contradicts Petraeus is unnamed.

228 posted on 10/26/2012 7:29:05 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

I so agree!

Petreus is now “ BETRAY US”...looks like that old ad was right.How ironic!


229 posted on 10/26/2012 7:29:05 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The CIA doesn’t comment on these things. EVER. No spokesperson for the Company would have made a statement without the direction of the President, the DNI, or the DCI. Since the statement puts the military chain of command all the way to the top in the spotlight, you can bet the DNI and President did not approve it. This is as close to a statement made by the DCI as you’re going to get.


230 posted on 10/26/2012 7:30:54 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Can he even count to zero?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
Petreus is now “ BETRAY US”...looks like that old ad was right.How ironic!

I'd be more careful before coming to that opinion.

We have an administration that is desperate to create a scapegoat, we have some unnamed sources, we have a named Rat source and we have the tradition in the CIA where the CIA doesn't comment on news reports.

All of that says to me, be careful before I start blaming Petraeus.

231 posted on 10/26/2012 7:36:00 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
The article source that contradicts Petraeus is unnamed.

You mean the sources who were on the ground in Benghazi"? Do you doubt them?

I gave you a named source, earlier, that verified Petraeus claims to COngress about the video protests, etc. Comments?

As far as Rubin's sources, sorry, she didn't give out their names....but she indicates more than one source. Of any of the folks involved in this whole mess, the people on the ground are likely to know the truth of what they experienced.

Do you doubt them?
232 posted on 10/26/2012 7:41:13 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Exactly. Too many generals these days are politicians instead of warriors.


233 posted on 10/26/2012 7:47:28 PM PDT by Henry Hnyellar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign; DoughtyOne
First of all, I do consider FNC a reliable news source [unless it's Geraldo.] Second, this was leaked from the Intel Committee; if from the party in opposition (the Dems) then I would, and do, certainly distrust it. But even though the CIA itself would not normally clarify that the ranking member lied, I would certainly expect a member of the majority Party would step forward and say "Petraeus didn't say that." We have identified the source as being a Democrat. We also have Republicans who have said they questioned the presentations. No Republican has repudiated the claim made on 9/27 that Petraeus did indeed blame the video.

I'm not one to rush to judgment against General Petraeus. As I said, I was surprised by the story. Unfortunately from what we know about where this story started and what Republicans on the Committee have subsequently said, it sounds to me like Petaeus was parroting the Party line at that point.

I don't want to believe that, but I think, sadly, that it's true.

234 posted on 10/26/2012 7:48:41 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Can he even count to zero?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Yeah, Petreus behavior is just not making snese if he were a patriot.


235 posted on 10/26/2012 7:50:37 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

Yeah Panneta said as much
After BSing that they didn’t respond because they trying get a picture of what was happening he said the terrorists had missiles that could bring down rescue flights
I think that is the real reason
They didn’t want a military loss added to the mixture
Wonder how he knew they had the missiles when they were only protesting a movie


236 posted on 10/26/2012 7:50:43 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Oh, so now it’s Romney’s fault? Fu*k Off!


237 posted on 10/26/2012 7:51:49 PM PDT by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
article source

Our Boys face missiles stolen from Gaddafi Surface to air weapons sold to al-Qaeda and Taliban after Libyan regime collapsed

NATO made it possible. Now they are afraid of being targeted by the same weapons in Afghanistan that they made available to the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda on the ground in Libya.

238 posted on 10/26/2012 7:53:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

Possibly true, but there might be people still “inside” the terrorists’ organization(s). Even if not, the Administration itself can’t admit a blown op at this point. (See 3rd paragraph below.)

However, I was thinking more that there might be a follow up or parallel operation to get back or destroy some of those missiles. Come to think of it, I highly doubt that one operation, even if successful, would account for more than a decent fraction of them. So, there might be an op or ops we don’t know about, that can’t be exposed now (or at least not for the last few weeks.) Heck, if you want to get really devious, the blown operation that people have been posting about could be a decoy, and Stevens and the others just pawns, who weren’t supposed to get killed. But, I’ll admit, that’s “really out there” as an idea.

I think the main point is that the Obama Administration can’t admit to thousands of MANPADs in AQ hands, before the election, and they sure as heck politically can’t afford to have a MANPAD take down something like an AC-130 or an airliner. It’s just as they probably felt they could not politically afford to send in the cavalry. Better to say the Consulate attack was a riot caused by a video, and CYA...

I know, it’s a twisted mentality, but we’ve known that a long time. :-(


239 posted on 10/26/2012 7:56:05 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

C’mon, Girlene,

It was the CIA guy, wounded, who got himself to the roof and painted the target.

DoD would have to attack.

And yes, from the Director of the CIA, POTUS—and VPOTUS—are in the CIA chain of command. So, the chain of command could deny all day long and lie their asses off.

To go after Petraeus now is not the place to go. All this. ALL OF IT. Is 0bama. All of it.

0bama, Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, etc., would ALL have been in the Situation Room getting a sitrep at 5:05. That would have been 11:05 pm in Benghazi, after the 1st attack. This means that their security people would have told them of the first one and that they would have gotten themselves to the Situation Room for the meeting in the 1st place. That’s why they were there.


240 posted on 10/26/2012 8:01:09 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

more likely he said “it’s just another bump in the road” in reference to this horrible preventable loss of life.


241 posted on 10/26/2012 8:04:21 PM PDT by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
"...I think the main point is that the Obama Administration can’t admit to thousands of MANPADs in AQ hands...

SEE LINK HERE

THOUSANDS of missiles stolen from Colonel Gaddafi’s arms stash are being smuggled into Afghanistan to target Brit chopper pilots.

242 posted on 10/26/2012 8:12:23 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

That is probably the reason
As I posted Panneta admitted the terrorists had the resources to take down any rescue attempts
Just the thoughts of all so missiles in their hands is scary as hell
Not an airliner in the world is safe

All because We Came We Saw He died
and the Arab Spring

Things just get worse and worse


243 posted on 10/26/2012 8:15:27 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Yeah Panneta said as much

After BSing that they didn’t respond because they trying get a picture of what was happening he said the terrorists had missiles that could bring down rescue flights.

I think that is the real reason.

They didn’t want a military loss added to the mixture

Wow, I didn't catch that part (in bold, above).

Still, maybe one of our other members who's more up on the military side of things can comment: Tactics in such a situation? I have a couple guesses, but would rather hear from someone knowledgeable.

Wonder how he knew they had the missiles when they were only protesting a movie

Pretty darn good question. This really shows how one lie begets another, and another. In this case, it looks like the whole thing may fall apart, even for the MSM friends of the liars. We can hope so, anyway.

244 posted on 10/26/2012 8:18:21 PM PDT by Paul R. (We are in a break in an Ice Age. A brief break at that...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Well NATO might as well get the hell out
It is just a crap sandwich now especially since AQ is all over the ME now


245 posted on 10/26/2012 8:19:15 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: karnage

“I’m gonna have someone’s ass in my briefcase.”

Is that you Bawney Frwank?


246 posted on 10/26/2012 8:25:56 PM PDT by Batman11 (We came for the chicken sandwiches and a Sweet Tea Party broke out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.
They (Al Qaeda) may have 20,000 such missiles.

Obama’s/Clinton’s foray into Libyan politics has really made us so much more unsafe. They made military/commercial air travel dangerous. Why? Because Woods was part of a CIA team whose mission “was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft.” Well done Obama! It’s the usual Obama FUBAR.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

247 posted on 10/26/2012 8:26:46 PM PDT by Chgogal (Obama helped murder US Navy SEALs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: All

Thank you everyone for the great comments. This was indeed a very good discussion.


248 posted on 10/26/2012 8:30:58 PM PDT by Snuph ("give me Liberty...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

yeah, I think about it, too, since the tribal era was just last week in AFghanistan.


249 posted on 10/26/2012 8:32:10 PM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

Denying support has been part of his policy in afghanistan. I guess it’s like a personal petraeus signature. Just gets me mad.


250 posted on 10/26/2012 8:35:47 PM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-353 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