Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I think this is inevitable. Military personnel are trained to respond and make these decisions, going to the State Department who has hired contractors and is coordinating with local militia, these people are way out of their depth. The director of the CIA probably understands this yet is put in a very tough position of calling out his boss.
I think the proper chain of command is this: General is in charge and answers to the President. The president gives him the mission -- protect the embassy, and the general carries it out with full authority. If he fails the President deals with it, but the President does not micromanage. Let the general do his job that he has been trained to do. All the military personnel need to be marines who answer to this general, both in the compound and in the embassy. Get rid of Blackwater and get rid of local militia.
Blackhawk down is how the military would have responded, Benghazi is what happens when arrogant ignoramuses from State dept think anyone can give orders.
|
All the evidence I have seen points to an "elimination" of Ambassador Stevens the same way King David eliminated the husband of Bathsheba. Both falsely sent into danger, both left undefended, and in both cases signalling the enemy to attack.
Obviously General Petraeus, current CIA Director, was not part of the deep state because he did not bow to WH orders. Since he knew better, they had to destroy his reputation. Somebody forgot to vet his political loyalty before nominating him to replace Panetta.