MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, October 24, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 49.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:37 pm

RT @jaketapper CIA"No one at any level in CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are inaccurate. -Gen Petraus

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? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pet ... 57896.html
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Huckleby » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:05 pm

what "claims to the contrary"?

What evidence, or even plausible logic, is there to the speculation that Obama had assets available to help the besieged embassy, and took a decision to let them fry?

Conservatives are lost on Benghazi. They accept no information that contradicts their swirling conspiratorial passions.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:29 pm

Huckleby wrote:swirling conspiratorial passions.

What conspiracy? One president; one decision; four Americans dead.

Well, two decisions. 1. stand down. 2. go to bed.

Oh and 3. go to Las Vegas fundraiser when he got up the next day.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Huckleby » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:44 pm

The Las Vegas charge has the advantage of being true.

An investigation is going to figure out exactly what happened. Check that, many investigations. There is no way to hide any of this.

I doubt there will be much interest after the elections.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Sandi » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:45 pm

Huckleby wrote:Conservatives are lost on Benghazi. They accept no information that contradicts their swirling conspiratorial passions.


Except for the "Conservatives" part you just described yourself and the left to a T.

Was backup denied? Let me google that for you.

Did Petraus take the fall? Let me google this for you too.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1617
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:47 pm

Huckleby wrote:what "claims to the contrary"?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military did not quickly intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because military leaders did not have adequate intelligence information and felt they should not put American forces at risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday.

In his most extensive comments to date on the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Panetta said U.S. forces were on heightened alert because of the anniversary of 9/11 and prepared to respond. But, he said, the attack happened over a few hours and was over before the U.S. had the chance to know what was really occurring.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:55 pm

Huckleby wrote:I doubt there will be much interest after the elections.

What else do you doubt? Ever doubt Obama is telling you the truth? No doubt you don't.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Stu Levitan » Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:08 pm

Bush ignored a CIA report that said Bin Laden determined to strike in USA soon, probably using planes. Then he started a war in Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist.

Obama got Bin Laden and has decimated al Qaeda, ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan.

Obviously, something went tragically wrong in Benghazi. But do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?
Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:53 am

Stu Levitan wrote:Bush ignored a CIA report that said Bin Laden determined to strike in USA soon, probably using planes. Then he started a war in Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist.

Stu is still outraged over Bush (who, by the way, "got" Saddam Hussein) having "started a war" in Libya (or rather, Iraq) that was authorized by Congress and the U.N. unlike Obama who led us from behind into war in Libya only to order forces to stand down when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists.

Stu Levitan wrote:Obama got Bin Laden and has decimated al Qaeda, ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan.

You sure about that? War in Iraq is over? War in Afghanistan is ending?

Stu Levitan wrote:Obviously, something went tragically wrong in Benghazi. But do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?

Why? Would asking difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities be, what... unpatriotic? Do you know who said this, Stu?:
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Huckleby » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:05 am

Sandi wrote:Except for the "Conservatives" part you just described yourself and the left to a T.

Was backup denied? Let me google that for you.

Did Petraus take the fall? Let me google this for you too.

I watch FOX new, I'm not living in a bubble. If you have something to say, just say it.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby kurt_w » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:21 am

Meade wrote:
Stu Levitan wrote:Obviously, something went tragically wrong in Benghazi. But do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?

Why? Would asking difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities be, what... unpatriotic? Do you know who said this, Stu?:
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"


Meade, don't be disingenuous.

You know perfectly well that:

"do you really want to debate national security and intelligence activities? Seriously?"

does not translate to:

"it's unpatriotic to ask difficult questions about national security and intelligence activities"


but rather to:

"you right-wingers have screwed up so badly on national security and intelligence activities during the 2000s that, if you had a modicum of self-awareness, you'd be embarrassed to be criticizing anyone else on those topics"

Now, you may or may not agree with that premise. But pretending you don't understand Stu's point just makes you look dumb.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5244
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:25 am

kurt_w wrote:Now, you may or may not agree with that premise. But pretending you don't understand Stu's point just makes you look dumb.

Perhaps, kurt_. And even tomorrow I may look dumb.

But you and Stu will still be dumb.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby kurt_w » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:33 am

That's OK. I'd rather be dumb and honest than be a clever but amoral propagandist.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5244
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Meade » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:50 am

Same here.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Petraus not taking fall for Obama

Postby Radical Cheerleader » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:10 pm

Meade wrote:Same here.

Translation: I know you are, but what am I.
His lack of maturity never ceases to dumbfound me.
Radical Cheerleader
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:14 am

Next

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar