In Case You've Wondered

My blog is where my wandering thoughts are interspersed with stuff I made up. So, if while reading you find yourself confused about the context, don't feel alone. I get confused, too.

If you're here for the stories, I started another blog:

One other thing: sometimes I write words you refuse to use in front of children, or polite company, unless you have a flat tire, or hit your thumb with a hammer.

I don't use them to offend; I use them to embellish.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Strategy and Deception

Panetta reported his Generals felt it was too risky to send troops to rescue those under attack in Libya. Maybe, so let's examine everything to this point:

The initial, and subsequent statements from the White House and the State Department said it was a "mob" pissed about a video trailer.

Mobs don't have a chance against even a small platoon of trained soldiers. The firepower alone is enough to disperse the mob within seconds. So, there must be more.

The generals, who I can only assume were also watching the real time video from the drone, surmised the attack was organized by some military force and placing troops on the ground would lead to more troop losses than those already there. Giving the generals the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume they're qualified to make this assessment and did what was necessary to protect more soldiers from harm.

So, within the 7 hour time period of the attack, the ground action was too dangerous for U.S. troops, which prevented more losses and those that were there were collateral damage.

Now, we have an organized military action against a U.S Ambassador on foreign soil, who only had hired security on an anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against the United States. This makes me ask: Who was in charge of protection? Why was the military watching this area with a drone? What was the ambassador doing in an area he knew was dangerous? Why did the President continue to say it was a mob reaction to a video; he even made this part of a U.N. speech. Why hasn't the Pentagon done the right thing and remove these generals from their post pending an investigation?

Most of all, since this area was so dangerous, how did CNN reporters manage to safely enter the consulate and retrieve the ambassador's diary?

This all stinks. Nobody makes this much of an effort to hide facts unless there's a political motivation or illegal actions were underway before the attack. From what I can surmise, in a 7 hour time period, a well organized foreign military group attacked United States positions in a successful effort to retrieve something they felt was important. Time will tell if we ever find out what it was, but I have a feeling those involved were very high in the food chain; maybe all the way to the top of the White House.


  1. The one thing that comes to mind is at least one of the SEALs killed was there on a quasi secret mission regarding locating and recovering or destroying shoulder launched missiles, "Stingers" and such, so that they wouldn't fall into the 'wrong hands'. Recently it's been reported the Jihadi's fighting the Syrian government have in there possession "Stinger" missiles.

    Seems to me that if we have to go recover left over weapons we've given these savages then perhaps we shouldn't be arming them in the first place. They seem to be quite adept at killing each other without our help, and handing them these types of weapons only puts ourselves at greater risk.

  2. The newest reports state that that those in the annex heard the shots, requested to go and help, but were told two stand down two time. Former Seal Woods ignored the instructions, with at least two others and went to help.

    After the group went to the consulate, helped where they could and attempted to find the ambassador, they returned to the annex under heavy fire and asked for military help, which they were denied.

    Somebody coordinated all of the inaction and, as far as I'm concerned, have blood on their hands.

    If you consider high ranking Generals were involved, the explanations aren't nearly as important as removing these generals from their command, an immediate court martial and time in Leavenworth if they're found guilty.

  3. Yeah, I saw that coming across the Drudge report after I commented. I'm not sure how to work it out, but if team Romney wins my feeling are that they should quietly start preparing affidavits for arrest warrants to be served at 12:00 on January 21, 2013 for accessories to murder and negligent homicide. Icing on the cake is according what's posted at weaslezippers there was a spectre airborne over Libya while this was happening.

    I don't care who you are or what your job title and description is, you're never above the law. It's time a precedent is set and after 4 years of this administration the time to set it looks to be as good if not better than ever.