Charles Woods speaks

| October 27, 2012

Charles Woods tells Sean Hannity last night about the death of his son, former SEAL Ty Woods who died in Benghazi;

Whether or not you like Sean Hannity is not germane to this discussion. Most of the video is Charles Wood’s words. So if you trolls want to talk about Hannity, go somewhere else. If you want to talk about the content of the 11 minute video, write to you’re heart’s content. I’m growing tired of trolls derailing a legitimate conversation with irrelevant minutiae.

Woods also tells of his encounter with the President when the body of his son returned. Woods says the President sounded “whiny” and his hand shake was like a dead fish, and that he knew the President was lying about his son death from the encounter. From Fox News;

He claimed that at one point, Biden came over to him and said, “in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, ‘did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'”

Woods said in the Beck interview: “I will ask you the question, is that the voice of someone who is truly sorry?”

In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama’s hand was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Woods said: “He kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere.”

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (50)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. MAJ Mike says:

    I’ve been the OIC of a funeral Honor Guard. I’ve handed the folded U.S. flag to the family of the departed. What Biden said is beyond tastless and crude. Its a sign of mental illness. THE WON’s reaction just shows, again, how unfit he is for any leadership role.

    To those Dem-Cong asshats, the deaths at Benghazi and the funerals are truely “bumps in the road” to their political ambition. I tremble for the Republic.

  2. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    I can’t watch it just yet. I will, but not quite yet. My heart goes out to the Woods family and to those of the other men who who were killed. The Biden comment is nauseating.

  3. brat says:

    The White House (MIC) really IS guilty of these murders..and frankly? NO words – nothing – that any of those morons in the administration can come up, can change that fact.

  4. JP says:

    As usually Biden lives up to his reputation of being like that drunk obnoxious guy everyone avoids at parties.

  5. NHSparky says:

    Kudos to Mr. Woods for not succumbing to the temptation to knock that stupid fucker Biden on his worthless ass.

  6. If a true and honest investigation is done…I am pretty sure it would show that more than one person at the top failed to support the mission there and allowed it to end like this. I’ve known many who were put in leadership duties that had no idea what to do- so they did nothing.

  7. Smaj says:

    Criminal negligence by the “commander-in-chief” and abject moral cowardice from Panetta, Dempsey, Ham, Petraeus.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    I know you all think that Hillary is complicit in hiding and lying about stuff, but I’m not so sure.

    You forget that there is a wide rift between the Obamas and the Clintons and it is growing wider. At the service for the dead returning from Benghazi, she put a paper with the address on it in front of Bo and she had a serious frown on her face, and she quickly turned her back on him. She hasn’t said much of anything lately, which leads me to believe that she is either waiting until after the election to spill the beans, or has been busy with someone to whom she is now spilling the beans.

    As long as Biden is allowed to make a complete ass of himself in public, he does a great deal of harm to his boss by doing so and not being yanked back. So let him run his drunken mouth. The more he does so, the worse he looks.

  9. Ex-PH2 says:

    I smell smoke. Is there a fire being started somewhere?

  10. Instinct says:

    @NHSparky I think I would have gone ahead an hit him, damn the torpedoes.

  11. Former SSG says:

    Rumor going that Gen Ham relieved of duty, was sending relief against
    Orders. Antone know?

  12. Former SSG says:

    Anyone, I mean, darn iphone!

  13. Chuck W says:

    SSG, Its in Stars and Stripes. Says he is being replaced by Gen Rodriguez.

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    How many layers of cover-up will be uncovered when the cover-up is uncovered?

  15. Former SSG says:

    Right, thanks! But deep in the comments on B5 there is a link to tigerblood
    And it states that he was relieved, on the spot, by his second in command. I
    Can’t get the link to copy on my iphone.

  16. Ex-PH2 says:

    My anger knows no bounds.

  17. Former SSG says:

    I know exph2. In my experience, the guys ask for so little, but the minimum is that they be not abandoned. They are the best of us.

  18. Ex-PH2 says:

    I truly could not sit through the entire response given by that logger-headed flap-mouthed hedgepig to the reporter’s question.

    The fish always stinks from the head.

  19. Former SSG says:

    Announced, but had the handover happened yet? If so the tigerblood rumor could be true.

  20. Former SSG says:

    I said the wrong name fot the website on Ham; it was tigerdroppings.

  21. DaveO says:

    Man, sure glad we got rid of Bush and his henchpig Cheney. They sure knew how to piss in the mouths of grieving NOK, not like this respectful, honorable current POTUS and ShitUS.

    I read the tigerdroppings rumour courtesy of Instapundit. What doesn’t make sense to me: why relieve Ham AT THAT MOMENT? Someone in the WH, and/or the Pentagon, was shitting bricks so big that by comparison the Giza Pyramid is just a mouse turd and contacted AFRICOM’s 2IC ahead of time to relieve the COCOM CG between the time Ham is notified of the attack, and the time Ham decides to disregard orders?

    Now we’ll have to wait until Romney is POTUS for the NYT to spill all the secrets of Benghazi, or for Bob Woodward to write his next book.

  22. Ex-PH2 says:

    I found this on Yahoo:–politics.html

    and this on Twitchy:

    and this:

    and this:

    and this comment:

    A spokesperson for the Navy declined to give details on the allegation, but Stars and Stripes reports that ”it is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.”

    The news comes just two days after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the replacement for Gen. Carter Ham, who was serving as commander of U.S. Africa Command. Ham was one of two top military commanders Panetta mentioned during a news conference on Thursday at the Pentagon, during which Panetta said the commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk” in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11., “without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

    Details are scarce, but some can’t help wonder about the timing of these military shake-ups.

    Whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.

    Replacing two topline officers at the same time smells of something other than THEIR behavior.

  23. Former SSG says:

    It is all senseless, the losses, the coverup, all of it. I hope Petraus or someone with some integrity speaks out before the election. Waiting until after the election would be spineless.

  24. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here’s the article about replacing RADM Gaouette.

    Boy, would I like to talk to him.

  25. Chuck W says:

    SSG, I read it and it sounds to me that it is plausible but not confirmed. Only time will tell. If its true, someone will leak it to Fox.

  26. OWB says:

    @ #2, AC: Watched just a bit of the interview when it aired. It was so upsetting that I had to turn it off. Felt the BP elevating to dangerous levels.

    There are no words to describe the depth of depravity these idiots have foisted upon us. As much rage and betrayal that all of us feel, how much greater it is for the families of these 4 Americans. I cannot even imagine it except to magnify what I am myself feeling.

    The only small piece of comfort I can find is that we know there were dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of military and civilian personnel around the world monitoring the situation as it unfolded. Yes, some of those people can be successfully gagged, but they will not all willingly disgard the truth or their own anger.

  27. Former SSG says:

    What happens to great leaders when they hit a certain level? I would have sworn Petraus would do the right thing, but he (personally, so far) has said nothing. He is in a position to know what happened either way. What is holding him back? Someone, elections, what?

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    It has occurred to me, because I have an active imagination, that the way to get what you want out of the military is to replace senior/command officers who won’t go along with your agenda. Hitler did that. So did Stalin. So did Saddam Hussein. They got rid of the dissidents and replaced them with more pliable people. That’s the same thing that composes the Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards. They may have a political influence, but they are under the control of the Ayatollah Khameini.

    However, I have my doubts that the US military is loaded with brain-dead senior officers who will mindlessly obey an order that they see as wrong or inappropriate. I can only hope they have enough sense of self to refuse.

    The only senior officer I can think of who actually got fired was Douglas MacArthur, but that was because he and Pres. Truman disagreed on whether or not MacArthur should use a nuclear bomb on North Korea. MacArthur wanted to. Truman said no, and fired MacArthur after the general publicly pressed the matter. From the perspective of 60 years later, who was right?

  29. Ex-PH2 says:

    @28m Maybe GEN Petraeus is waiting to see who gets what in November. Or maybe he’s just biding his time until he can walk away and retire.

  30. Smaj says:

    I humbly stand corrected about General Ham.

  31. Ex-PH2 says:

    @24 — SSG — This is a link to something General Petraeus said on Oc7 27. I do not know how reliable the source is, but it’s an article in full and there may be more coming:

  32. Blue says:

    You people are despicable. This poor man loses his son and before the kid is even buried you
    Start the political trashing of the president. Disgusting., and that includes that sleaze Hannity as
    Well. Shame on all of you.

  33. OWB says:

    Idiot blue: There is absolutely nothing political about my disgust with the occupier in chief. That argument is so very lame. I object to his policies – you know, the things he does, or in this case does NOT do.

    Leaving Americans unprotected and abandoned is behavior so outrageous as to cause a reaction of abject revulsion.

    As much as I hated what Nixon did, it is not on the same planet with this. Nixon did not cause people to die, and he resigned. When shall we expect the resignation from the occupier who sacrificed American citizens for whatever excuse he is using this week?

  34. Blue says:

    Lets see how this plays out and at the end of the day I may end up agreeing with you. But this hatred an animas toward O, regardless of what the facts are, needs to end. It is repulsive an unamerican. Did you know the republicans voted to cut$300 million from the budget for embassy security? Wonder if that makes sense in hindsight. I simply can’t stand a chickenhawk like hannity and and a chickenhawk like Romney doing everything they can to use this poor kids death as a political opportunity. Despicable. It dishonors our military, probably many guys on this board, and guys like my dad that fought in Normandy in WWII. They/we/you all deserve better, plus they/you EARNED it also.

  35. Hack Stone says:

    Blue, we have the photo of the President in the situation room watching the Bin laden raid. Will they be releasing a photograph of him watching the Benghazi attack unfold on the Predator feed? To paraphrase Jimmy Buffet, it is always 3:00 AM somewhere.

  36. NHSparky says:

    Did you know the republicans voted to cut$300 million from the budget for embassy security?

    Which budget might that be? Wouldn’t happen to be any of the budgets that have been passed in the last 3 1/2 years, would it?

    Oh wait a second–there haven’t been ANY budgets passed in 3 1/2 years. Silly me.

  37. Anonymous says:

    A better explanation of the security cuts is provided below.

    And NH Sparky,thank you for proving my point. Instead of inquiring as to how those cuts may have impacted the Benghazi situation in a negative manner, your knee jerk response is to ignore any evidence that the problem may lie elsewhere than O (and perhaps with the R’s)and take an indirect crack at O and the lack of a formal budget (a separate issue worth talking about for sure). Again, the hatred must stop.

    If Saint Reagan (the guy who cut and run from Beirut Lebanon by the way) were the President when Behngazi occured, I suspect you would be praising the budget cuts as “needed fiscal discipline”. Look at the FACTS (not rumor or innuendo) on both sides of the argument, then decide where you come down on it. Just dont let hate alone be the driver., hate which I see more and more driving opinion on O…..


    “In the 2011 continuing resolution, Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts.

    Sequestration required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 will take more than $100 million more out of the program in 2013 if the current Congress does not overcome the impasse over budget cuts and tax revenues by yearend. Those cuts are largely the result of the draconian and unrealistically low budget caps placed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) on all discretionary spending, falling particularly hard on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee with responsibility for embassy security.”

  38. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Hey Blue. Did I understand you correctly, that those of us who abhor obama are unamerican? Are you serious? You say your father fought in WW II. That means you are well beyond the age of reason, probably by half a century. It is precisely because we love our country that we want obama out. And to suggest that our voicing our low opinion of him is unamerican is, on the contrary, wonderfully American. As for our turning personal matters political, it is exactly politics that many of us believe resulted in the loss of four solid Americans. So, take your smug, morally superior self and go occupy something.

  39. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @38. Here’s some news for you. Many of us who will vote for Romney or who have all ready voted for him, are more than a bit leery of the guy. I used to call him the Ken Doll before he became the nominee and I find him to be too left leaning for my bland. conservative taste. But obama is damaging the country at home and around the world to the extent that I would vote for YOU before him. So, Romney it is to ensure obama it ain’t!

  40. Twist says:

    In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

    So according to the office of the Secretary of State the budget cuts did not effect the security of the embasy, Blue.

  41. NHSparky says:

    And budget cuts notwithstading, it’s kind of hard for ANY assets to be brought to bear when the soon-to-be-ex-president won’t commit them when they’re over Benghazi but denied permissikn to engage.


  42. NHSparky says:

    And Anon…Blue…whoever…cutting and pasting without attribution is a big no-no. Now most folks frown on plagiarism, unless you’re a liberal, in which you can become a grinning, buffonish, inappropriate remark spewing Vice-President who makes Dan Quayle look like a brain surgeon.

  43. Twist says:

    Oops, I accidently plagiarized my first paragraph by not posting my link. It is from ABC. So now I’m off to join 2-17 Air Cav in the “Inbox” thread gulag.

  44. Hondo says:

    The quote “Anonymous” posted is one from an article by Scott Lilly at the Center for American Progress. Their motto is “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just, and Free America”.

    Unbiased analysis is not part of their mission in life. Pushing a “progressive” agenda is.

  45. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just, and Free America”.

    Okay, so my vote for Anonymous would be like voting for obama. I take it back.

  46. Ex-PH2 says:

    Under its original definition, progressive meant freedom and progress.

    Somehow, it’s been corrupted to mean something entirely different and distasteful, like anarchy, chaos, okay-for-me-but-not-for-you.

  47. Anonymous says:

    My, my , my, the hatred continues. My only remark was it is despicable to politicize the death of our soldiers for one’s own political agenda, whether it is Hannity rolling this grieving father on TV, or Jack Murtha and his BS about the marines in Haditha. Totally garbage and despicable in both case.

    And it particularly infuriates me to see Chickenhawks like Hannity and Romney (or Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh for that matter as well, all of whom by the way are supporters/surrogates for Mitt) promote war and want to send our sons and daughters to war for political reasons, yet they chicken out when they could have served, or get a religious deferment to proselytize their religion in France while our sons and daughters do the dying. (probably need to control myself better on this point, too hateful for sure).

    However, guess I must have struck a bit of a nerve with some of you so let me elaborate a bit. All I was trying to say was that If the facts support ones argument, so be it, AND PLEASE SHARE THE FACTS, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE FACTS TO GET OUT THERE, but please, and I truly mean this, don’t base the argument purely on hate, at least that is what I was seeing.

    My position was and always has been if there are facts, let the chips fall where they may. To do otherwise is unamerican. So interestingly, and in a way proving my point again, a wide variety of responses came back from you folks, attacking me personally, using words like “idiot” …”well beyond the age of reason”…. “smug”,…. morally superior “…. “go occupy something”…. “grinning, buffoonish , inappropriate” etc. etc.

    Then another of you totally flipped it around to ask “Hey Blue. Did I understand you correctly, that those of us who abhor Obama are unamerican?” Absolutely not! Heck, if it turns out at the end of the day the administration was complicit in acts/omissions that lead directly to this debacle, then they should be crucified for it, although I suspect that if the new Moderate Mitt wins the election, this will all magically disappear, never to be raised again.

    One may have a bunch of reasons, factually, to disagree with the President, and disagree with him strongly enough to abhor him, though I haven’t seen much evidence on this site other than hate based comments, which makes me think it is all based upon hate or some other, unsaid reason…………hmm….

    And further, other than “Twist”, not a one of you refuted the blurb I quickly pasted in about the $300 million cut in embassy security, you just chose to personally attack me. Or you tried to slander me with the most hateful term you could lay on someone, the term “progressive”…ugh…yuck………( though you may find it surprising I actually voted for George H.W Bush, twice, but Saint Reagan only once! ;–) )

    Twist, by the way thank you for this evidence. As I said in my first post as this thing develops I may end up agreeing with folks. This definitely gives me something to look into and think about, thank you.

    So in summary, I am not trying to change anybody’s opinion, just offering up my opinion that we would all be better off if we debate based on facts, not rumor, innuendo or above all, hate. Otherwise, no one ever learns anything, its just trashing each other, which does no one any good. But above all please don’t dishonor our dead or support others that do so, by making them pawns in pushing ones political agenda. They deserve better. Appreciate your listening to and possibly considering a different opinion and perspective and I won’t disturb you any more with my opinions ………..Blue (very)

  48. Hondo says:

    Anonymous/”Blue”: if my pointing the actual source of your half-story disturbed you – that’s too bad.

    My intent in comment 45 was not to counter the opinion you offered as if it were indisputable fact. Rather, my intent was to highlight the fact that you were withholding the source in order to give one man’s biased opinion the appearance of unbiased and authoritative fact.

    The source of a statement is often indicative of both veracity and intent. In this case, I think we all now know that the opinion you posted as fact was neither (1) the full story nor (2) unbiased. It was a half-truth, “spun” to serve a preconceived agenda. All too often that’s all we ever see: biased, “spun” half-truths offered as fact by those with an agenda.

    It’s your call to cut and run rather than stay and defend your position. Suit yourself.

    If you decide to go, don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.

  49. Have any republicans or right wingers ever made critisisms or commentary about the many attacks on American embassies and the subsequent deaths that happened during the Bush Administration. I would like to examine these. Is there anyone out there that could direct me to them?