Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
softaire 27-Oct-12, 09:26	Benghazi: Petraeus Implicates Obama Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus’s denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist “would have been a presidential decision.” Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were “happening.” Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex. Read more: conservativebyte.com
dmaestro 27-Oct-12, 09:51	I no longer respond to the insane. You are on my ignore list. Goodbye.
orangemangood 27-Oct-12, 12:42	The National Media? We have a media? I thought that the national media was now officially called the Democratic Gazette. This president(and I use the term loosely) would've been impeached by now if he were anything but a half-black Democrat.
dmaestro 27-Oct-12, 13:13	BC is right About leaving this club. I too am quitting this club because the loonies have taken over. I tried to quit in August for the same reason. This time I am really through. I will pm anyone I am interested in talking to. The rest of you I will ignore. As I have always said, I have no interest in discussions with right wing nuts and attempts to dialogue with the insane simply make them more extreme than before. This thread is nuts. You all need to be locked up. Goodbye.
softaire 27-Oct-12, 13:26	It's not the thread that is insane. The thread simply references General David Petraeus who denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. If you don't have the information or the skill to discuss that, then simply don't answer and don't reply. But, it is not becoming to call somebody insane for posting it.
illinawek 27-Oct-12, 14:40	What does "refused assistance" mean?
anomalocaris 27-Oct-12, 17:54	..Obama did not deny requests for help in Benghazi: Aide . .By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News White House Correspondent .The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th. "Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email. Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground. The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey. "As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command. And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans. But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision." "He's wrong," said Vietor. On Friday, Obama himself forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the attack in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens. CORRECTION 3:26 p.m.: An earlier version of this post confused the timing of the Fox News Channel report and Defense Secretary Panetta's remarks. Panetta's remarks came before the Fox report, not afterwards. Looks like we have someone to blame??
chaz- 27-Oct-12, 21:24	... interesting update.
softaire 27-Oct-12, 22:30	So, basically we have NOBODY in the entire government denying assistance for help while four people where being killed right before their eyes, and were begging for help. NOBODY in the government went to help them except two Navy Seals who disobeyed orders to "stand down" (by somebody) and went to help them which ultimately cost them their lives. Now we have everybody involved denying everything. This sounds like a bunch of cowards, protecting their own asses. How can we have any respect for a government that is so dysfunctional that nobody can issue an order to launch help for Americans being killed? And, if it is determined that somebody actually denied that request for help, how can we not want impeachment?
softaire 27-Oct-12, 22:36	chaz I notice that your contribution is: "interesting update". (Powerful, insightful, stimulating commentary there.) You seem to be quite aligned with BO there, as he has often time voted "Present"... you quite often offer the same quality of contribution. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?
chaz- 27-Oct-12, 23:41	Softy ... ... why are you so suddenly 'interested' in my thoughts?
shamash 28-Oct-12, 06:39	Give me Genghis Khan The justification for this kind of attitude -- {{{ "Fox News Channel reported Friday that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of 'Monday-morning quarterbacking.' Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground. The 'basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place,' he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey. 'As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation,' Panetta said." }}} --- justification for this kind of attitude expired a century ago, we haven't seen the idea of embassies as self-sufficient fortresses, where the local ambassador additionally made on-the-spot political decisions, since just before World War I. The twin ideas of ambassadors having force on hand to protect their embassy, and authority in their own person to make diplomatic decisions, goes back to the Renaissance, back to the sixteenth century, with its weeks of delay in communication between embassy and the capital in the home country. The notion that 500 years later in the twenty-first century, the representative of a government is basically on his own to defend himself may be suitable to the role of secret agent or covert spy -- but it is an act of COWARDICE to extend this to one's ambassador. When the Afghans killed the first Ambassador that he sent them, Genghis Khan -- in an uncharacteristic gesture of extreme patience -- , sent a second ambassador to them. But when they killed his second ambassador, too, the Mongol ruler personally saddled up, mustered his Horde, whetted their appetite for conquest by first organizing a massive hunt for game, and then -- as if hunting Afghans were like hunting wild game -- conquered the offending ruler and his country. if I were an Ambassador, at this point I would feel safer being the ambassador of Genghis Khan's Mongolia than the Ambassador of Obama-Clinton-Panetta's America.
chaz- 28-Oct-12, 08:28	Shamash ... ... are you suggesting we take (or should have taken) a more Genghis Khan approach in this Libya situation? I don't want to miss your point.
shamash 28-Oct-12, 12:50	you send in the Rangers, not excuses for delay Panetta's "you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on" as an excuse for not covering their back, is only justified if you arm the consulates and embassies as little fortresses from day one -- especially in a civil-war-torn Islamic country. So it's an excuse and not a reason -- an excuse without merit. Having armed Marines at the Embassy is what saved the Americans -- and probably other legations -- during the Boxer Rebellion in Peking in 1900 (enabling them to withstand a 2 month siege until armed forces arrived to rescue them). It would be termed more of a Texas Ranger than a Genghis Khan approach to simply assure your men that if the enemy attacks them, they can count on you to defend them, including riding in to their rescue.
ace-of-aces 28-Oct-12, 13:47	Believe in Murphy's law. en.wikipedia.org I believe and I agree that the administration is trying to cover up by giving a lot of excuses . Perhaps, they underestimated the real threat of terrorists before it happened. If they knew the real threat beforehand they should have shut down the embassy and moved the staff to safe place just like they did in Pakistan. During the assault on the embassy, the embassy staff including the ambassador was moved to the safer place but somehow the ambassador was caught on the way and was killed. It would be too late to send rescue troops during the attack because in order to send troops by helicopter will take time to fly there and there were no troops stationed close by from airport or from war ships close to Benghazi. Believe Murphy's law or not even the well armed marines were killed by a suicide terrorist bomber in 1983 when the marines went into Beirut. This is the name of the game in global war on terrorism and everbody is vlunerable to terrorist attack. The 4 Americans including the ambassador are no exceptions. Even if it is true that they are trying to cover up, I don't believe it wll have a big negative impact on Obama's re-election. What really matters for Americans is the economy and foreign policy plays a minor or secondary role. Even presidential candidate Romney did not say much on this Benghazi incident at the last presidential debate on foreign policy and I think that is the way to go. By doing so, people will pay more respect and credibility to Romney.
zorroloco 28-Oct-12, 16:45	??? so the way i have heard it is that the white house had 7 hours to act. the idea that they could have deployed a rescue team in that amount of time, in libya, is ludicrous in the extreme. look into how long it took governments to launch rescue attempts in entebbe in 75 or iran in 79. it is just not possible. if you try, it will surely be poorly planned and carried out with an extremely high risk of failure, more deaths, and a high probability of causing more international trouble. the contention that we could have flown a jet over and scared the attackers is childish and inane. landing a rescue party in that time frame is not feasible. if they had had 2 days, i would probably agree that a rescue attempt has to be made. but 7 hours? not a chance. stupid to even think that. this whole thing is idiotic. you people making these accusations are guilty of assuming you know stuff that you do not know. this is just another right wing nut case attack job on obama as a way to try to win the election. not worthy of serious attention. why security was not already beefed up before the attack is a valid question. but i think that failure lies with state, not the presidency. i agree with dm on this one. this thread and line of attack ore insane.
hennybogan1953 28-Oct-12, 16:56	No it's not.
zorroloco 28-Oct-12, 17:04	yes. it most certainly is.
anomalocaris 28-Oct-12, 18:26	Jeff You are confusing a rescue attempt where the enemy has already occupied the building and has hostages. This case was different. It was not as much a rescue attempt as it was just re-enforcing. This was a battle in progress not a hostage situation.
ace-of-aces 28-Oct-12, 19:19	Although I don't know the details of the embassy attack which was well planned by the terrorist and I believe within a short time in one to two hours of the attack, the embassy compound was broken. The terrorists used AK 47 assault rifles and RPGs ( rocket propelled grenades) and set the embassy on fire. The embassy staff had no weapons of any kind and the new Libyan government was not prepared to handle this kind of situation. The embassy staff tried to escape to a safer place according to the contingency plan. There was some confusion on where the Ambassador was during the attack. It was felt that he was safe until his corpse was found on the street. There is no way to send Apache attack helicopters within a short period of time similar to sending of Navy seals to kill Bill Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. It would be too late to send reinforcement during or after the attack. If the 4 Americans were captured and held as hostage by terrorists, it would be a different situation. Then the US should make some rescue attempts. On the other hand if the US troops were sent during or after the attack there would be more casualties on both sides. On 9/11 terrorist attack on twin towers, US lost 3000 people. US lost over 4000 in Iraq and 2000 servicemen/women in Afghanistan plus many more iraqis and Afghans died. We are sorry for the sacrifice of 4 American lives but by sending troops will have more negative impact on US. Simply put, the terrorists just dispersed and disappeared into the desert. I believe it was a right decision not to send the US troops.
changeling 28-Oct-12, 19:32	They should however be hunted down like mad dogs and destroyed!
anomalocaris 28-Oct-12, 19:44	In the big picture I wish we would just stay out of the middle east period. If they want to live in the 5th century then let them be seperated and cut off from the rest of the world. They can dig their own graves. Let the rest of the world progress and prosper while they rot. Let the rest of the world share ideas, technology, and move forward.
changeling 28-Oct-12, 19:59	It would need a helluva big high wall stinky.
chaz- 28-Oct-12, 20:01	... I like Stinky's idea ... I wish we didn't have this 'saviour nation' syndrome we seem to have. We simply cannot be the World's police or bank.
zorroloco 28-Oct-12, 20:01	stinky they could not possibly have know the details to the extent necessary to make that determination. you act like they knew all this information. they did not. ordering in troops on such short notice would have been a very iffy call. i imagine they talked about it, and made a determination that it was not feasible. you armchair presidents, acting like it was a simple thing to do, crack me up. ridiculous. they necessarily had incomplete info, were half a world away, and had mere hours to make a determination whether to commit forces. it is easy, in hindsight, to claim to know what should have been done. you have watched too many movies. anyway, what could possibly be the motivation for not acting? they wanted the ambassador to die? of course not. they were afraid it would look bad if they sent in troops? maybe, but how could it be worse than an ambassador getting killed? no. there is no logical or rational motivation. not any evidence that there was really any realistic opportunities to save anyone, and a butt load of chances to escalate the situation, provoke an international conflict, and/or have more americans die. pure political opportunism. disgusting.
anomalocaris 28-Oct-12, 20:06	Jeff To be honest I cant say what we should have done or not done. Things continue to come out. I was pointing out the difference in the other hostage situations compared to this one. So it remains to be seen if we should have helped or not. As I said in another thread, we may never know.
softaire 28-Oct-12, 20:45	z "...they could not possibly have know the details to the extent necessary to make that determination. you act like they knew all this information. they did not. ordering in troops on such short notice would have been a very iffy call. i imagine they talked about it, and made a determination that it was not feasible." ****************************************************************** John Kennedy once wrote a book called "Profiles in Courage". This president could write one call "Profiles in Dishonor". They watched it LIVE in real time, because of a drone overhead. Presumably the drone had missiles on it and it could have been fired. There was, at least, some help available immediately. NONE was delivered and none was dispatched... EVER. The two Seals who disobeyed orders and went anyway to help the Embassy personnel deserve to get the Medal of Honor as they gave their lives to save other Americans. THAT is the way true Americans operate... you do whatever you have to do, at the moment, to save and protect your fellow Americans. (Unless you are BO or one of his staff politicians). You don't stop to analyze the situation and the political advantages of doing or not doing something. You don't take a poll and see what you should do. YOU JUMP IN THERE and do whatever you can to save and protect your brothers. WHOEVER denied the help has dishonored themselves and this country.
changeling 28-Oct-12, 20:59	softy Has it actually been proven that help was denied? Not simply reported that way?
softaire 28-Oct-12, 21:29	change It is well documented that help was requested, several times. NO help was forthcoming... ever. It seems obvious that nobody approved the assistance... or somebody denied it. General Patreaus states that nobody in the Defense Department denied giving help. Leon Panetta has said that unless you know everything there is to know about a situation, then you shouldn't risk other "assets". The President is voting "present" on this and hasn't said a thing. He has held NO press Conferences. So, we do not know if Panetta or the President denied the help. We do not even know if the President was sleeping through this and nobody woke him up for it. If he was awake, he denied the assistance or simply wouldn't authorize any. That's what I know. What do you think?
ace-of-aces 28-Oct-12, 21:45	A drone could have fired and did the job! I am not against the use of drones. The US have killed many Al Qaeda leaders in middle east and Afghanistan by drones firing missiles but there are many collateral damage and casualties killing innocent people. There are many friendly fires during wars killing one own's troops. How can you sort out the terrorists from peaceful demonstrators especially at night? The terrorists will also not hesitate to use innocent people as human shields. Besides, the missiles are very strong. There is no guarantee that Americans will not be killed during this kind of drone attack. If the US use drones indiscriminately, it will be like in Syria, where the Assad government troops fire and bomb everything that moves on ground.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.