Another nail in the coffin

lsayre wrote:Do I smell impeachment here?

KLook wrote:The Bengazi cover up:



There is this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:

"Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (Ground Laser Designator) in several “garden spots” around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC 130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched, which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two officials could have called off the attack at that point: the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says), that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target, something lethal was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

This is HUGE.
It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth.

[--Or at least hiding something dispositive.]
As Blackfive says,

“This is bigger than Watergate! The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.

This is an email making the rounds and it came to my brother through several retired Navy people. Anyone in here know enough to dispute it or know anyone who can. Obama doesn't count.

Kevin

Imperial Beach, California 1954-55
Kami Seya, Japan 1955-57
USS BENNINGTON CVA-20 (TAD)
USS ORISKANY CVA-34 (TAD)
Sobe/Futenma, Okinawa 1957-58
Winter Harbor, ME 1958-1960
Karamursel, Turkey 1960-62
Nicosia, Cyprus 1962-64
Imperial Beach, California 1964-66
USS LIBERTY AGTR-5 1966-67
Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico 1967-70
Winter Harbor, ME 1970-1973
Retired 10/3/73

Member: Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association (NCVA)
Member: Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association New England Chapter (NCVANE)
Member: United States Navy Memorial
Member: Togethereweserved.com Inc.
Member: USS BENNINGTON CVA-20 Association.
Member: USS Liberty Veterans Association.
Member: National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS)
Member: Old Antarctic Explorers Assoc. Inc.
Member: National Purple Heart Hall of Fame
Elder: Restoration Church of Jesus Christ

I'm On Fire wrote:Two words come to my mind.

"WEAPONS INEFFECTIVE"

Yes, while I agree that something needed to be done before the loss of life and someone needs to be punished (I'm looking at you Mr. President Do Nothing) now for the inaction in the incident but, weapons ineffective seems to be the only reason why neither the drone nor the gunship were used.

Let's think about it.

The armament of the AC-130U Spooky II consists of (if this was the ship on station),

1x 25mm General Dynamics GAU-12/U
1x 40mm L/60 Bofors
1x 105mm M120 Howitzer (same gun on an Abrams Tank)

That seems to a reasonable synopsis!
And the MQ-1 Predator either had:

2x Hellfire missiles
4x Aim 90 Stingers
6x Griffin air to surface missiles.

Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.

What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.

Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.

Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.

What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.

Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.

KLook wrote:

Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.

What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.

Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.

Not true, I just read the Battle for Falujha (spelling) as my nieces husband was in the book, driving one of the Bradleys. In the book they detail repeatedly how the gunships that were ALWAYS overhead at night, could take out insurgents in the yard outside the house the marines were in. The accuracy is unprecedented in anything we have ever deployed. The Seals were killed by mortar rounds and that mortar was not close to the facility. The 130 also could "see" with its night vision system, the insurgents, and would know that anyone outside was not friendly. The Seals knew it was up there and I'll bet anything you like they were in communication with it.

Kevin

KLook wrote:Little more personal then that Davian, and if you have nothing constructive to add, don't add. Or detract. Some of us actually do know real military people, not just talk about it. I have contacted the original poster, more to follow I hope.

Kevin

This is an email making the rounds and it came to my brother through several retired Navy people.