Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
0007/07/24 17:34:41
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Under questioning from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why President Barack Obama spoke with him only once on Sept. 11, 2012 during the Benghazi terrorist attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours.
Here’s the exchange between Graham, Gen. Martin Dempsey and Sec. Panetta at a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Thursday:
SEN. GRAHAM: Your testimony, as I understand it, Secretary Panetta, that you talked to the president of the United States one time.
SEC. PANETTA: I talked to him on Sept. 11 with regards to the fact that we were aware this attack was taking place.
SEN. GRAHAM: One time.
SEC. PANETTA: Right.
SEN. GRAHAM: What time did you tell him that?
SEC. PANETTA: I think that was approximately about 5 o’clock?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, about 5 o’clock.
SEC. PANETTA: About 5 o’clock.
SEN. GRAHAM: General Dempsey, did you ever talk to the president of the United States at all?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I was with the secretary when — at that same time.
SEN. GRAHAM: Did you talk to the president?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yes.
SEN. GRAHAM: You talked to him how many times.
GEN. DEMPSEY: The same — one time.
SEN. GRAHAM: How long did the conversation last?
GEN. DEMPSEY: We were there in the office for probably 30 minutes.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you talked to him for 30 minutes, one time, and you never talked to him again, either one of you.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Until afterwards.
SEN. GRAHAM: Until after the attack was over.
GEN. DEMPSEY: That’s right.
SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you.
Were there any AC-130 gunships within a thousand miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: No, sir.
SEN. GRAHAM: Were there any AC-130 gunships within 2,000 miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I have to go back and look at a map and figure out the distance.
Later in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he thought it was “typical” for a commander in chief to make no follow-up phone calls.
SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.
SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president of the United States to make one phone call, do what you can and never call you back again and ask you, how’s it going, by the way, showing your frustration we don’t have any assets in there to help these people for over seven hours?
SEC. PANETTA: The president is well-informed about what is going on. Make no mistake about it.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that is interesting to hear.
So... according to their testimonies:
-Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack
-Not one boot left the ground outside of Libya
-As far as the 281 concurrent threat reports that Panetta and Dempsey claimed kept them from considering Benghazi a special threat, Graham asks how many of those cables came from US Ambassadors stating specifically (as Stevens’ did) that an American installation was incapable of defending itself against a sustained attack and that government buildings nearby were flying al-Qaeda flags — “because I want to know about them, if they do,” Graham adds. Dempsey tries to push that off to State, at which time Graham informs Dempsey that Hillary Clinton claimed never to have seen that cable, even though Dempsey clearly had, which he admits is “surprising.”
But not much media attention... nope... move along, this was a nothingburger.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/08 17:45:01
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/08 21:31:12
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
whembly wrote: No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
(took week off babysitting doggies while everyone else is skiiing) and happened to have that on when it came up.
Wo, say what?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/02/08 21:44:54
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
whembly wrote: Don't worry Frazz... no one wants to hold anyone accountable anymore...
Is this a change from how things have been for the past...all of human history?
Look... point is that there is a difference of great importance between wanting to understand what happened in Benghazi and wanting to turn Benghazi into a massive scandal towards the administration.
We know there were feth ups along the way...
I want to be assured that this doesn't happen AGAIN.
Instead, everyone doesn't want to "look bad" and does everything they can to deflect/bury this issue. The aftermath of this was just absolutely perplexing.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/08 22:53:10
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/02/08 23:03:42
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Quite well put Ahtman.
Whembly where was your worrying during the 11 (I think) embassy attacks that happened during the Bush administration?
Face it, its a thinly veiled attempt to go after Obama for something. Completely missing all of his glaring faults and instead to trying to drum up fake patriotism because American's died.
2013/02/08 23:32:55
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Why do the Republicans want to go after Obama so badly on this non-issue, when it would be very, very easy to go after him for the "kill you with a drone strike because you didn't prove you weren't a terrorist" policy.
The Republicans want to use Benghazi, because it is a way to lash out at Obama without collapsing a very bad policy (drone strikes) that they also want to have the power to use.
You do see that these hearings have nothing to do with protecting Americans overseas and everything to do with very petty partisanship, right?
2013/02/08 23:49:06
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the screw up that happened. One wrong doesn't mean you should excuse another.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Maybe an admission that the whole thing got botched and that he's really sorry for screwing up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 23:56:13
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the screw up that happened. One wrong doesn't mean you should excuse another.
What does that even mean? What do you think should happen here honestly? Impeach Obama?
If it's found that he committed an impeachable offense, then yes. But it's hard to find out the facts with all of this dancing around the issue his administration is doing.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/02/08 23:57:47
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Grey Templar wrote: That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the screw up that happened. One wrong doesn't mean you should excuse another.
What does that even mean? What do you think should happen here honestly? Impeach Obama?
If it's found that he committed an impeachable offense, then yes. But it's hard to find out the facts with all of this dancing around the issue his administration is doing.
And you honestly think that this of all things this President and all before him have done is really impeachment worthy? Or are you just anti-Obama?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 23:58:56
2013/02/09 00:00:06
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
You're the one getting worked up here, putting words in people's mouths.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
I beg to differ...
Do you think there's any accountability to this? I honestly wanna know what you think.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/09 00:06:20
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Quite well put Ahtman.
He does write really, really well...
Whembly where was your worrying during the 11 (I think) embassy attacks that happened during the Bush administration?
Of course! (and it was more than 11 attacks).
Face it, its a thinly veiled attempt to go after Obama for something. Completely missing all of his glaring faults and instead to trying to drum up fake patriotism because American's died.
I'm sure there are those who are using this an opportunity to ding Obama as much as they can... but, that still doesn't excuse the Administration's handling of this.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/09 00:09:04
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
2013/02/09 00:12:17
Subject: Re:Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
Why do the Republicans want to go after Obama so badly on this non-issue,
Wow... that's the problem here... 4 Americans died is a "non-issue". Those are you words man.
when it would be very, very easy to go after him for the "kill you with a drone strike because you didn't prove you weren't a terrorist" policy.
Um... have you not been following the news? This Drone policy HAS been getting attention from BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans want to use Benghazi, because it is a way to lash out at Obama without collapsing a very bad policy (drone strikes) that they also want to have the power to use.
Okay, I can see where it appears to be... (shoot, John Bolten applauded Obama's Drone Policy )
You do see that these hearings have nothing to do with protecting Americans overseas and everything to do with very petty partisanship, right?
Let me ask YOU something... how else do Congress hold the administration accountable (on anything for matter)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
Because they didn't flub the aftermath in such a way like the current adminstration did.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
You have any evidence that the Bush administration tried to cover those up? No, they rightfully called it for what it was, didn't go on weekend morning talkshows saying it wasn't what it obviously was, and then spend the next several months trying everything they could to not answer questions.
Your attempt at deflecting the issue is failing.
Yeah, I don't like Obama, but that has nothing to do with this issue. And apparently simply lying under oath was an impeachable offense. So IF the investigation finds something more serious, then yes he should be. I'm not saying there is, I just want to know all of the facts, and have this "most open administration ever" stop trying to hide as much as they can.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/02/09 00:27:56
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
d-usa wrote: Obama: We screwed up.
Hillary: We screwed up.
GOP: We will not rest until somebody admits that they screwed up. There will be hearings, there will be tribunals, there will be justice!!!!!11!!!1!!!
Everybody else: WTF?
When did Obama say "We screwed up"? Source?
Hillary was actually the only one who said she's accountable, but she said that when she was in Chile (or somewhere in South America).
It's probably impossible at this point, but I just wish someone would relay what REALLY happened... WHY it happenend... and most importantly HOW things will be different from this point forward. I'm not looking for Obama's head on a platter.... I'm looking for an honest appraisal (not just lip service) and honest attempt to learn from whatever mistakes.
Realize that this can be an ugly/nasty business... but lives are at stake and it looked like the reactions were politically driven (remember, this was during the election).
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/09 01:19:25
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
So... according to their testimonies:
-Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack
-Not one boot left the ground outside of Libya
What do you think mobilization would have accomplished?
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/02/09 01:36:34
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/02/09 01:42:34
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
Well had a mobilization occured, I would have been involved that night, since I was on shift and the KC-135's launched from the UK or Azorres would have been involved, and their flight control would have been from my unit.
But, military mobilization would have shown that the Obama administration was attempting to do something about the situation. F-16's were no more then 30 minutes away from Benghazi, they could have flown the 340 miles as quickly as 20 minutes. They could have had aircrews alerted and in the air in maybe an hour, possibly quicker given that the US military was on a slightly higher alert given the fact that it was 9/11. The attack took place over 8 hours, there is no reason we could not have had F-16's over Benghazi well before we reached the halfway mark. Maybe not in time to save the Ambassador, but definitely in time to save the others who died at the annex complex.
That being said, everyone sat on their hands about it, from what I've read. Every team that attempted to respond was met with red tape, or no support at all from higher levels. The general sense of antipathy that this hearing shows seems to indicate why. Had the administration simply utilized the tools that they had, it is highly likely that Americans who died that day may not have. And then we wouldn't be doing this dance today. That is what mobilization could have done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/09 01:43:44
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/02/09 01:48:09
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
Secondly, they had resources within the hour... the fire-fight lasted at least for 8 hours....
Do the math.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/09 01:50:10
Subject: Graham demolished the entire WH's defense on Benghazi
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...
I'll be the first to argue that being in the military doesn't automatically qualify you to talk about this stuff. I just happen to have a job in the military that is intricately tied into nearly every aspect of our aircrafts missions, and I'm also stationed at the largest Air Operations Center in the US Military (possibly the world, not 100% on that one).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/09 01:50:40
)
