Benghazi is begining to stink.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:38 pm

Obama to nominate Army Gen. Rodriguez to lead AFRICOM

Navy replaces admiral leading Mideast strike group

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:13 pm

palladin9479 wrote: If you think the world will keep going on without anyone being the dominate military power, and using it according to their own national policies / interests, then your even more ignorant and naive then you've already demonstrated.

We can be the dominant world power without being the world police and without 15 CVN's. You're not paying attention.

We currently have 11 CVN's. The Enterprise is due to be retired in the coming year, leaving us with 10 Nimitz class carriers. These have a 50 year lifespan and are scheduled to begin to be retired in 2025.

We are currently building the new Ford class carriers to add to the fleet we have. It takes about 5 years to build a single Ford, so by 2025 we will have 2 more carriers for a total of 12.

Instead of building Ford class carriers, we could be refitting the Nimitz class. For far less money and in much less time, we could turn a Nimitz into a Ford by replacing the reactors, catapults, some crew quarters, etc. the Ford class is essentially, an updated Nimitz class, and as the Nimitz's come in for RCOH they can be converted. In far less time and at far less expense than adding to the fleet, we can have a much more capable though smaller fleet, basically 9 CVN's active and one in ROCH.

Just to say it again--we do not need 15 CVN's and we do not need to be the world police. We do need to set our financial affairs in order.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:58 pm

TRR: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring

Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service.

Read more: TRR: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/rob ... z2AoXGOxRC

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:02 pm

A "fundamental threat to democracy"?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/193274563300 ... mp=related

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:48 pm

Diogenes wrote:TRR: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring

Per my sources this one doesn't hold up - his retirement was planned well before Benghazi.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:59 pm

djolds1 wrote:
Diogenes wrote:TRR: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring
Per my sources this one doesn't hold up - his retirement was planned well before Benghazi.

Sources in the know are hard to find right now. PJMedia is asking for sources with available information to contact them, and they are offering assurances of confidentiality. General Ham may have been planning to retire for some time, but to people who don't know this, the optics look bad. Apparently this is just a coincidence.

New theory being suggested over at Flopping Aces.

Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out that he had armed the jihadists with SAMs

So of course Panetta had to worry about the jihadists having man-portable SAMs. He had been supplying them, and a successful SAM attack on our military with these U.S. supplied weapons would be devastating for Obama’s election chances. From the start of the Libyan operation critics have been complaining about U.S. aid going to the jihadists. To have that treasonous strategy backfire in such spectacular fashion would be Fast and Furious times a thousand.

http://floppingaces.net/2012/10/30/why- ... ader-post/

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:02 pm

GIThruster wrote:A "fundamental threat to democracy"?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/193274563300 ... mp=related

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:52 pm

Boom! House Committee to White House: Show Proof You Ordered Military to Secure Benghazi Compound

There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11 ... -compound/

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:42 pm

If the OBama administration's current story about Benghazi is true, then there is obviously still plenty of fault to go around, and there is still the case of the horrific lies told the American people to cover the collective asses of those at fault. Part of the problem is no doubt having a Secretary of Defense who only served 2 years as a lawyer, and certainly is not trained to make the kinds of decisions necessary to run our defense.

We knew Libya is a hotbed. We knew islamo-fascism is growing there. The ambassador repeatedly asked for better security. Despite this Clinton had most of our security moved out. We knew there was a huge possibility of danger and yet, we had no military assets within striking distance? If the stories are true, the fact we had no Spectres, no Reapers, no MV-22's within range is criminal negligence on the part of all those who put our people in harm's way, including Panetta, Clinton and OBama, especially given the repeated calls for help over the weeks, months and days before the attack. And then taking such an armed assault on the 911 anniversary and calling it a spontaneous riot is just inexcusable. If the media weren't so in the tank with OBama, Congress would be looking at impeachment for such offenses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ory_1.html

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:57 pm

CIA agents confirm Obama told them not to Aid Ambassador Chris Stevens

CIA operatives have now confirmed that they were told by the Obama Administration to hold back and not come to the rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens or the other 3 USA officials butchered in Benghazi Sept 11,2012.rescue

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/10/ ... 45322.html

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:12 pm

Having heard Glenn Beck in the past, I'd like to see adequate sourcing for his statements. He's flinging accusations left and right and needs to say how he knows what we've been doing in secret. These are covert operations he's talking about. Where did he get this information?

Surely, if it came out and was able to be documented that OBama has been cooperating with al-Queda to get arms into Syria through Turkey, that is enough to see OBama impeached. al-Queda is on the national terror list. Collaborating with them is a criminal offense, is it not?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:49 pm

Who needs bread and circuses when you've got politicians?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:44 pm

Have to say I like Geraldo's analysis here: http://tinyurl.com/cuw83j5

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:27 pm

Betruger wrote:Who needs bread and circuses when you've got politicians?

and journalists like Geraldo, remember Al Capone's vault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myster ... %27s_Vault

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Not really sure if you're disagreeing as I have no interest to look at some past issue. Geraldo has done a lot of excellent reporting over a lot of years.

The important points are that is is necessary to break the Benghazi story down into 3 parts and deal with them separately. The ridiculous mess before the attack is squarely on the shoulders of Hillary. She screwed up big time. The aftermath or cover-up is squarely on the shoulders of OBama who deliberately deceived the nation. The charges concerning the actual events, that we had gunships in the air or in striking distance and could have made a difference, are mostly nonsense charges, according to the General Geraldo sourced his information from.

The current story, that we did not have the ability to respond with force when this was happening, seems to be true. It should not have been true given all the circumstances, but it appears it is. It's also key to note what he says, when he notes that we have never mounted a raid with no time to plan and prepare. No one has. So charges that we should have seem vacant. That we should have been able to, seems self evident.