If this is true, Panetta should resign

[Liability]

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

A U.S. serviceman just committed (allegedly) a grisly set of murders over there.

Again, we don't know what info they had -- but we do know that some folks had the responsibility to protect Secretary Panetta in a very dangerous arena.

This suggests that no situation is ever entirely fool-proof or entirely secure.

Even professional efforts at vetting could have come up short.

I can't wait for the Obama Administration to come to its end, but I cannot say (at least based on all we know and all we so far don't know) that this particular decision demonstrates a failure of the Administration to do its job properly.

It in my mind demonstrates thier continued ineptness.

It might. But until (unless) we know more of the facts, I think the call is premature.

(Although it is usually a safe default answer, in their case, to assume ineptitude.)

 

[The T]

A U.S. serviceman just committed (allegedly) a grisly set of murders over there.

Again, we don't know what info they had -- but we do know that some folks had the responsibility to protect Secretary Panetta in a very dangerous arena.

This suggests that no situation is ever entirely fool-proof or entirely secure.

Even professional efforts at vetting could have come up short.

I can't wait for the Obama Administration to come to its end, but I cannot say (at least based on all we know and all we so far don't know) that this particular decision demonstrates a failure of the Administration to do its job properly.

It in my mind demonstrates thier continued ineptness.

It might. But until (unless) we know more of the facts, I think the call is premature.

(Although it is usually a safe default answer, in their case, to assume ineptitude.)

Mark my words...as we have seen with this regime? It will bear out.

 

[Peach]

A U.S. serviceman just committed (allegedly) a grisly set of murders over there.

Again, we don't know what info they had -- but we do know that some folks had the responsibility to protect Secretary Panetta in a very dangerous arena.

This suggests that no situation is ever entirely fool-proof or entirely secure.

Even professional efforts at vetting could have come up short.

I can't wait for the Obama Administration to come to its end, but I cannot say (at least based on all we know and all we so far don't know) that this particular decision demonstrates a failure of the Administration to do its job properly.

It in my mind demonstrates thier continued ineptness.

It might. But until (unless) we know more of the facts, I think the call is premature.

(Although it is usually a safe default answer, in their case, to assume ineptitude.)

The US military, or some members thereof, is/are terming the crash, an attempted attack. Who knows? VOA, FOX, and the "MSM" are all stating attempted "ATTACK". The Major General decided no weapons in the tent. I respect the forces on the ground, and would not second guess. IF Panetta ordered the NO GUNS rule, he had no authority to do so. Only Gurdanus should decide such mattters.

 

[Intense]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

Agreed. I may some Bias, Panetta was my Congress once upon a time, I do respect him, and feel that what is wrong with him could be fixed with an intervention and deprogramming. I believe him to be one of the few Competent's in the Obama Administration. He is of a very rare breed that has actually stood up to Obama. Consider that.

 

[The T]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

Agreed. I may some Bias, Panetta was my Congress once upon a time, I do respect him, and feel that what is wrong with him could be fixed with an intervention and deprogramming. I believe him to be one of the few Competent's in the Obama Administration. He is of a very rare breed that has actually stood up to Obama. Consider that.

He lost me when he was up in front of Congress in past week when he said they would 'Seek International approval' rather than the Congress...

Panetta: We'd Seek "International Approval," Not Congress', to Act in Syria

 

[Intense]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

Agreed. I may some Bias, Panetta was my Congress once upon a time, I do respect him, and feel that what is wrong with him could be fixed with an intervention and deprogramming. I believe him to be one of the few Competent's in the Obama Administration. He is of a very rare breed that has actually stood up to Obama. Consider that.

He lost me when he was up in front of Congress in past week when he said they would 'Seek International approval' rather than the Congress...

Panetta: We'd Seek "International Approval," Not Congress', to Act in Syria

Understood. The one thing I would question was whether those were his words or Obama's. This is one Fucking Strange Administration. I doubt there is much trust on Pennsylvania Avenue now a days. I'm still waiting for The Strawberry Issue to pop up.

 

[The T]

Agreed. I may some Bias, Panetta was my Congress once upon a time, I do respect him, and feel that what is wrong with him could be fixed with an intervention and deprogramming. I believe him to be one of the few Competent's in the Obama Administration. He is of a very rare breed that has actually stood up to Obama. Consider that.

He lost me when he was up in front of Congress in past week when he said they would 'Seek International approval' rather than the Congress...

Panetta: We'd Seek "International Approval," Not Congress', to Act in Syria

Understood. The one thing I would question was whether those were his words or Obama's. This is one Fucking Strange Administration. I doubt there is much trust on Pennsylvania Avenue now a days. I'm still waiting for The Strawberry Issue to pop up.

Granted. Good point...But WHY did he say it? I would have protested and told Obama to take the job and shove it.

 

[The Gadfly]

I am always more than pleased to bitch slap stupidity from the Obama Administration. But let's be honest.

Not one of us knows what motivated the request to have the Marines there disarmed during the Panetta appearance.

And we DO know that he had just been the possible (maybe even probable) target of an assassination attempt.

We don't know what intel they had.

Is it that out of line to suggest that maybe the decision wasn't just an insult to the Marines? Can we acknowledge that it is possible, at least, that there was a specific threat (or information suggesting such a threat) which made asking the Marines to temporarily disarm a reasonable option?

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...
__________________
Bush didn't "vet" well either, or the shoe throwing in Iraq would not have happened. Perhaps the VETTING was keeping guns out of the tent Panetta was in.

Peach, in all honesty, I am beginning to wonder whether either this administration or the previous one had any real idea what it needed to accomplish in Afghanistan much less how to do it. As someone who already fought one war (Vietnam) under the command of civilian authorities who couldn't decide what the hell they were trying to do, nor how they expected us to do it, I find that both disturbing and disheartening, no matter who is running the show. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we learned ANY lessons from Vietnam, much less the correct ones.

 

[MikeK]

Someone, an Afghan civilian, stole a vehicle and crashed it as Panetta was landing; I do not believe Marines are IMMUNE to danger. 23.3% of casualties in Afghanistan have been Marines, though the Marines make up only 10% of the US forces.

Peach,

Let's examine this situation logically rather than emotionally.

The Marines were told to leave their weapons outside so everyone would be uniformly unarmed. But was a pat search then performed on everyone? I doubt it.

So if there was an Afghan fanatic in the crowd who wanted to be a martyr and take Panetta out how did Gurganus know there wasn't a concealed weapon in the group -- a Baretta handgun or a fragmentation grenade or two?

Gurganus was grandstanding for Panetta's pleasure. He is a high-level brown-noser. What he did was strictly for points. And one way or another that move is going to bite him on the ass.

 

[The T]

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...

It would seem to me a continuation of the ineptness of the Obama regime to properly vet those allowed to be there...rules you know...
__________________
Bush didn't "vet" well either, or the shoe throwing in Iraq would not have happened. Perhaps the VETTING was keeping guns out of the tent Panetta was in.

Peach, in all honesty, I am beginning to wonder whether either this administration or the previous one had any real idea what it needed to accomplish in Afghanistan much less how to do it. As someone who already fought one war (Vietnam) under the command of civilian authorities who couldn't decide what the hell they were trying to do, nor how they expected us to do it, I find that both disturbing and disheartening, no matter who is running the show. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if we learned ANY lessons from Vietnam, much less the correct ones.

NO we didn't. That's the point.

But to some? there are 'Correct/Justifiable' Wars...and others? Not so much...but BOTH actions (Iraq, and ASTAN) BOTH paties signed onto...and now BOTH are blaming the other for stops/starts/and flubs...

Currently the flubs belong in entirety to the presnt occupant...and he can't escape it.

 

[Synthaholic]

marines,, won't like this.. none of them will. they probably will get their ballots late again this year.

Please capitalize Marines. Show some respect.

 

[Synthaholic]

Agreed that if Panetta made this request something needs to be done about it but your link suggests otherwise.

Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.

The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report.

Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend.

Well so much for the fauxrage.

Well, look who is here. Howdy, stranger!

 

[francoHFW]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Pub dupes/haters...idiocy.

 

[MikeK]

Colin Powell advised AGAINST the invasion of Iraq and was not listened to by Bush/Cheney.
Powell offered the JCS report and guidelines along with the intelligence communities analysis of the entire region and all of those also advised against any invasion.
And then after toppling Hussein what did George do then also against the advise of all the military and Powell? He let go of the entire Iraq police force against the advice of senior military in the field commanders, 85,000 armed to the teeth Iraqis.
The military stated that this blunder would immediately put the troops in harms way. The next day the first IED went off killing 6 Americans.
You are a complete dumb ass. Everyone in the Bush administration admitted it was Bush's call alone and that Powell was against it.
"You break it, you own it" Colin Powell on his analysis of any invasion of Iraq.
And you claim that was wanting to invade?
You are as stupid as a box of rocks.

I don't care what Powell did or said prior to the day he went on national television with a prop vial of white powder, which could have been talcum, and a cartoon drawing of something that didn't even exist, and represented those fabricated items as evidence of the kind of danger facing America if Saddam Hussein wasn't stopped. That is what moved the Congress to approve the invasion. And Powell, himself, has all but admitted as much.

Everything Powell ever said in advance of committing that act of egregious betrayal of the troops he once commanded serves only as condemning evidence that he was acutely aware of what he was doing. And he's been poking his slimy head up from obscurity every now and then attempting to redeem himself with a pitiful mea culpa about what was in fact one of the most craven acts of self-promotion ever committed by a respected military officer.

And your resort to personal insults to support your weak argument affirms your status as the kind of simple-minded redneck whom people like Colin Powell rely on to keep their heads above water.

 

[MikeK]

Colin Powell advised AGAINST the invasion of Iraq and was not listened to by Bush/Cheney.

That is my recollection also.

Yes, he did. And he held that position until Bush promised him Secretary of State if he would reverse himself, which he promptly did on national television. And the fact that he had spoken out against it before reversing himself only proves he knew exactly what he was doing.

Didn't you watch his television performance? It was covered by all the channels for days and the pundits unanimously agree, along with many in the Congress, that Powell's melodramatic presentation is what convinced the Congress to approve the invasion. He prostituted himself!

Don't allow that man's prior reputation blind you to what he did and what he is. He is more responsible than Bush for the Iraq invasion. Because he sealed the deal.

 

[tinydancer]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Pub dupes/haters...idiocy.

You mother fucking asshole. you've pushed my last button you bottom in the basement swilling gatorade asswipe.

What does "pubes" have anything to do with the biggest shame on the planet? A Defense Secretary has to disarm his troops?

Bazooka barf. Panetta has to disarm his troops let alone mother fucking Marines?

Do you even grasp what an insult this is to the Marines? I guess you don't. We got these guys called Van Doos up here.

Whole province ( state in your mind) wanted to stop them from going to Afghanistan.

Awesome dudes. I hang with their women on line. They went. They are brave soldiers.

Whoever made the call to disarm troops that were coming to listen to Panetta pulled the worst move ever.

What an insult. How do you do that to your troops?

Pig left. Get Jodie the job for Defense Secretary.

 

[bodecea]

We have concrete evidence that when you disarm Marines in tense situations where they are likely to get targeted, people die.

So this is proof that it was a good idea to disarm Marines? Is that what you're going with?

That was a tense situation?

 

[bodecea]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Pub dupes/haters...idiocy.

You mother fucking asshole. you've pushed my last button you bottom in the basement swilling gatorade asswipe.

What does "pubes" have anything to do with the biggest shame on the planet? A Defense Secretary has to disarm his troops?

Bazooka barf. Panetta has to disarm his troops let alone mother fucking Marines?

Do you even grasp what an insult this is to the Marines? I guess you don't. We got these guys called Van Doos up here.

Whole province ( state in your mind) wanted to stop them from going to Afghanistan.

Awesome dudes. I hang with their women on line. They went. They are brave soldiers.

Whoever made the call to disarm troops that were coming to listen to Panetta pulled the worst move ever.

What an insult. How do you do that to your troops?

Pig left. Get Jodie the job for Defense Secretary.

 

[francoHFW]

More Prozac for YOU LOL! Keep pissing off the Afghans...works GREAT!!

 

[tinydancer]

We have concrete evidence that when you disarm Marines in tense situations where they are likely to get targeted, people die.

So this is proof that it was a good idea to disarm Marines? Is that what you're going with?

That was a tense situation?

Bod have you ever seen anything like this. Not playing politics here. Serious, you ever seen a moment where troops were disarmed before their Secretary of Defense spoke to them?

Please give me an honest answer.