Benghazi - KG4WSS (sk) Uncle speaks out

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by David Kleber - KB3FXI, May 4, 2014.

  1. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Sean Smith, KG4WSS, was killed in Benghazi.

    His Uncle speaks out:

    For those of you who don't know or understand the Benghazi disaster, I would ask that you do some research. And please look beyond CNN, ABC, MSNBC. It was obvious nonsense when for at least a month after the attack, the White House, politicians and the parrots in the mainstream media were blaming the well coordinated attack involving mortar rounds and armed insurgents on riots as a result of a low budget anti-Islam video.

    Watergate lead to Impeachment hearings and ultimately the resignation of President Nixon over a burglary and subsequent cover-up. No one died, just a stupid political burglary crime and a cover-up.

    Contrast Watergate with Benghazi and the loss of 4 American lives and the lies and stonewalling of the current administration. And that's just what we know now.

    My suspicion of what we might one day learn... that the consulate there was set up as a go-around of the UN ban on arms sales to either side in the Libya conflict and that we were actually dealing to al Qaeda.

    I'll be interested in any thoughts on this subject.

    -Dave, KB3FXI

    And, BTW, I don't like FOX either. They just happen to be the first of the MSM to report on what should have been obvious in 2012.
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
    wedgar and W.T. Jones like this.
  2. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    The truth needs to come out - whatever it is.
  3. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Yep, but we're 40+ years beyond the JFK assassination and still getting redacted documents from that episode.

    It's really getting to the point that we need to take out the trash and restore a legitimate Constitutional Republic before we wind up as a banana republic.

    It would be nice to see the USA break the record of 300 years, which seems, unfortunately, to be a constant when it comes to the collapse of great nations and civilizations.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    -Dave, KB3FXI
    wedgar likes this.
  4. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    I have looked at myriads of news, information, press releases, and even some after-action reports from people on the ground.

    While the cause to me is clear, it was a planned attack and not a spontaneous demonstration gone wrong, I have to continue to wonder about the response during the run-up to the attack. There is still evidence on the table that a response from the U.S. Military could have assisted and modified the outcome. It may not have saved Ambassador Stevens or Mr. Smith but it may have stopped the 2nd attack. The fact that the "rescue team" had to commandeer a jet and pay the pilot $30K to get them there was nothing short of ridiculous. The first attack should have been the trigger to respond, in force, and rescue the remaining Americans in Libya. Why wasn't that done is the question that burns in my mind.

    Of course, the military is always in "reactive mode" because the government runs the show. That is how it should be in our country. The problem is that the government doesn't put anything ahead of its occupants' political agenda. It might have been a different situation if the State Department put the requests of Ambassador Stevens and other Ambassadors for beefed up security measures ahead of looking good in the press.

    And the question from the two talking heads in the video above regarding why there were so many armed CIA operatives in the compounds is just beyond belief in today's world. It is a fact of life. They really need to go and spend some time in these countries and learn that the corner police officer isn't your friend like he is in the continental U.S. You protect yourself. And obviously there were not enough armed men in the compounds. I take that back. There were too many armed men in the compounds. After the attacks started that is. They just weren't friendly ones.

    The premise that the attacks were based on an poorly done video is just "keeping with the story line." If you examine the actions of the attackers you can see it was coordinated and planned. It had the hallmarks of the capture of Noriega in Panama. Again, the CIA backs a horse and the horse turns around and bites the CIA. Where have we seen that before? They trained the militia, supplied the militia, and supported the militia in Libya. Now, its all over. Give us back the toys. Doesn't happen that way. The militias have the power now and they want to keep it. The U.S. Government and the CIA want to take back the toys and tell the militia that the fun is over. Now go home and act like responsible citizens. Hey, it worked after the American Revolution. Sorry, doesn't work that part of the world.

    So in order to keep the scandals at bay the administration goes with the CIA's assessment of the situation. After all, after 9/11 all those 3 letter agencies were supposed to play nice, share the intel, and make the world safe for Americans again. However, anyone who thinks and reasons can see too many holes in the carefully orchestrated news coming from the White House. Time for some answers. I don't think we'll ever get them but it is time for some answers.
    wedgar likes this.
  5. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    I am in agreement with you here!

    Anyone who knows me, knows that I don't keep my mouth shut when there is something wrong.
  6. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Exactly. Too much damned politics.

    Didn't like him, but Bill Clinton had a good comment after Monica-gate. "We need to get back to the business of running the country." I wish someone would run the country for the benefit of the American people.
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  7. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    Bill Clinton, well, I am a Republican and didn't vote for the man. He had his down sides but I have to give the man credit. He did keep the country going pretty well. I may not have been better off than before he was in office but I was no worse when he left.

    Politics? The problem with politics is two fold. First, it is about achieving power and not about doing anyone or anything any good. Second, politicians. I can't say that any person who has to run a popularity contest to get a job is any good.

    BTW, I am not too keen on attorneys either. Sorry K3RF.
    wedgar likes this.
  8. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Bob K3RF, has done a wonderful job in my book. Talked with him this past Friday and in my opinion, he's doing a wonderful job as the EPA Section Manager.

    Bob is very much aware he serves at the pleasure of the ARRL members in Eastern PA. He also bring some good talents to the Section Manager position.
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  9. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    I agree and his current efforts in the tower case are nothing short of "beyond the call of duty."

    He is a good Section Manager and I, for one, don't want to see him ever leave the position.

    But he is still an attorney.

    I was told by a very good attorney once that I should be very careful about how I treat that profession.

    He said I should always remember that someday an attorney may be working very hard to save my little white behind. He used another word with less letters but this is a family show so I cleaned it up.

    And then he followed up with a wry smile; "or put it away."
    wedgar likes this.
  10. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    I had an interesting conversation at our IDPA match today. One of our new shooters was a recently retired officer who enjoys competitive shooting. It was his first time trying an action pistol type competition and as a new shooter I had the honor of shepherding him through the match. The rules say that a new shooter always gets an experienced shooter as a mentor and since this match had more than its share of new shooters I was asked by the match director to take this fellow under my wing. It was a real pleasure in that Jim was more than a safe shooter, he was a cautious shooter. No problems with him at all.

    We had time to chat about many things during the course of the match and he joined my friend and me for lunch after the match. Turns out that he when he was a very young officer he and my Father had crossed paths. So that cemented the bond a bit farther.

    During our conversation about shooting I told him that he shot like he was the only man out there and that the targets were shooting back. That really slows down a competitive shooter. His response was that old habits die very hard and that he would get the hang of it since he thinks that no matter what the battle you have to learn the rules of engagement before you can be effective. That is so true and sometimes forgotten or misunderstood by the civilian. I know at one time I was frustrated by the ROEs when I couldn't shoot at the Water Buffalo even though someone was there shooting at me.

    At that point my friend piped about things that were sticking in his craw about Rules of Engagement and that brought up the topic of this thread. My friend was extremely upset that the military didn't rush to the aid of the embattled embassy and CIA personnel.

    I could see Jim bristle at that comment so I held my tongue and figured I'd let him have his go before I joined my friend in this argument.

    He pointed out that committing any kind of military support to that mess would have been a mistake on a grand scale. First, air support would not have made a difference even if it could have arrived on scene because there were no defined targets and it would have been indiscriminate strafing of the crowd around the embassy. He added that the bigger problem with the decision makers was the fact that the CIA was their own worst enemy in this situation because they had provided so much shoulder mounted antiair defense weapons that it would have made it untenable for anything but fast movers to survive in that environment. And he said that fast moving air assets are not accurate in close support. From personal experience I had to agree with that.

    He then added that moving anything would have required at 8 to 12 hours to put any asset on the ground in sufficient strength to do the job right. He was quite adamant that picking up anything short of a company would have needed logistical support, air transport, sufficient blocking forces to secure the airport, and he pointed out that you don't send a company to do what a ranger battalion would be needed to do. A company he said could be 80-220 men and a battalion could be up to 1,200 men. And they would need armor support. Moving that just doesn't happen in an hour. A C-17 can hold about 100 troops. That means you are consider multiple C-17s to carry even one full company. You have to get the air transport to where the men are. You have to refuel it. Load it. Get the air cover to protect it. Just couldn't happen in the time that it was needed.

    And you don't send more men to die when you are not sure what they going up against. Remember, the information was so sketchy that it took the FBI and the CIA months to finally figure out who did what and when. So even though we knew the CIA compound was under attack there was very little that the Military could do.

    I could detect a little bitterness in Jim's conversation at this point. He said that the civilians think that we have soldiers armed and ready to go at 5 minutes notice. "I wish we could do that but maintaining any kind of high ready state like that takes it toll on the soldiers and it costs a lot of money to do it. And it ties up assets that are needed elsewhere. Those big airplanes don't just sit around idle. They are moving things like food and medical supplies to disaster areas. To get them back in position for an assault like Benghazi would have taken days. It just wouldn't have worked."

    "It would have been better if those people were in one spot, had sufficient security to protect themselves, and had a military force in place in sufficient size to take on all comers. We couldn't react to what was happening because the government didn't let us do what was needed before it happened."

    After listening to his reasoning I have to agree that a military response could not have happened even if they wanted to do it. There is a rule of war that has 2 parts. The first is that young men die. The second is unless there is a good reason for it then rule 1 should not happen. I really think that the as far as the military is concerned they had no response to make in the time they were given.

    As far as the double talk out of Washington I am still sceptical that our illustrious leaders did all they could before hand to protect the American Citizens in Benghazi. There are apparent sound military reasons why it couldn't have been done. You can't overcome the Laws of Physics. Moving mass takes time. But if our politicians weren't so concerned about covering their behinds and conserving dollars for their own pet projects the outcome of Benghazi might have been different.

    I am sorry to say that I really don't trust our political leadership.
    wedgar likes this.
  11. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    That is the first comment I've heard that was reasonable on why we couldn't have mounted a counter-attack to protect the embassy staff.

    I don't like it, but I do understand it.

    I do believe our government could have better proactively protected our embassy personnel.
  12. David Kleber - KB3FXI

    David Kleber - KB3FXI Moderator Staff Member

    Well, I'm not a military expert but I can't imagine that a rescue mission in a situation like this would have required the numbers this guy reports.

    If it were the President under fire, would they have just called off a rescue mission based on the same reasoning, or would they have said we have to do whatever we can, no matter what the risk? Thousands of our troops have died for this country over far less legitimate actions and circumstances.

    But the big question still remains.... and I submit that the question will never be answered or even asked... just what operations were being conducted at that Consulate/Safe House in the months leading to the death of four Americans. Let's see if Gowdy, in the Select Committee proves me wrong.

    From one of our last great Presidents....

    And that's coming from a fellow that lived and knew the cost of war and the dangers of "foreign entanglements".
    W.T. Jones and wedgar like this.
  13. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    Good points...
  14. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    So true Dave! Eisenhower was one who lived inside both "complexes" and knew the dangers of both.

    The only problem with your analogy of the President being in the same situation is that the security for the President's visits outside the country is "ready to go" security, carefully orchestrated, and his security details out number the total number of people that were in Benghazi. There is always an assumption that the President will be a subject of a hostile intent and even a visit to a little town like Allentown, PA, results in weeks of preplanning, route checks, interviews on a grand scale, orchestration that makes the Macy's Day Parade look like a walk in the park, and allowing nothing random to happen. And that is in a friendly location with masses of Law Enforcement available to augment the Secret Service. The President just would not be allowed, no matter how he complained that he wanted to be there, to be in a situation like Benghazi. Even the Secretary of State would have a security detail approaching the president. And consider the government that was being visited. In Benghazi, the government was more than likely in cahoots with the "rioters" but for a high level State visit the government would have more to lose by having something happen to a high level dignitary. So I understand your sentiment Dave and it is so frustrating that nothing was done.

    It is just a matter of what can the President do for me if I keep him safe vs. an Ambassador and a handful of CIA agents. They just didn't want to spend the money and banked on being able to handle the fallout from it. They are failing miserably on both accounts as far as I am concerned.

    As far as the military options that Jim listed I have to agree with him. I lived with a Dad that was career military and he often commented that the biggest problem in the military was friction. The friction of politicians, the friction of moving men, the friction of moving equipment and anything else. Nothing ever moved fast. And I was an officer who experienced this same friction. There were times when we wanted to be somewhere in a hurry because our fellow soldiers needed us and we couldn't get there. That is one of the most frustrating and aggravating experiences that you can imagine. No, make that an angry experience. You want to lash out at anyone who you think is responsible for keeping you from getting where you think you should be. And since we're all "communicators" here and are used to listening in to conversations on the air. Imagine the feeling of listening to a soldier screaming into the mic for help and us being ordered to "hold in place" by command elements. I'll just say that they had more intel than we had and had we gone we would have just been grist of the mill.

    It is easy to second guess the uniforms but I'd sooner go with them than the politicians. Benghazi is a perfect example of the screw-ups that politicians make of anything they touch. It could have been prevented but I am of the firm opinion that it could not have been rescued.

    This post has caused me to do more reading and searching than many political issues. I like most citizens of the country just swept it under the rug and forgot about it. I apologize for that. I have called my Senator and my Congressman since I read this post but unfortunately most of them are Democrats. I still voiced my opinion that this needs to be brought out in the open and the truth be told. As one aide told me "you people are like a dog with a bone. Just bury it and forget it. Its over." I don't think so. Time for answers and someone should be on the carpet as being responsible. Ya, like that will ever happen in this day and age.
    wedgar likes this.
  15. wedgar

    wedgar Administrator Staff Member Gold Member

    I hope this action stains Hilary's efforts if she decides to run for President. May not be the "blue dress", but the stain is dark red and that's a bigger sin than her husband's years ago.
    W.T. Jones likes this.
  16. W.T. Jones

    W.T. Jones Moderator Staff Member Silver Member Golden GPS Recipient AtlDiv EPA Leader AtlDiv ARES Member

    And if we can keep the public from doing what I originally did (sweeping it under the carpet) so they don't forget it then there is a chance. It is too bad that we as humans have such short memories when it comes to things like that. The main thought will be "its time for a woman to be president." I have no problem with that as long as it is a woman that will lead with conviction and moral attitudes. I am afraid I would be looking for a Margaret Thatcher but won't find one.

    Hat's off to Dave for bringing it back to the front where it belongs.
    wedgar likes this.

Share This Page