A week after the attack, Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talkshows, andsaid there was no evidence that this was anything other than a spontaneous protest to a movie.

We now know that hours after the attack, a known terroriet group claimed responsibility, and we know that the administration was aware of that claim.

Libya Attack Emails: White House Told Of Militant Claim 2 Hours After Benghazi attack (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/libya-attack-white-house-benghazi_n_2007497.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D224596)

Likely conclusion: the Obama administration knew they screwed up by denying Stevens the security he asked for (and provided lots of supporting evidence for why he needed it). Rather than admit their mistake (which Obama is not known for doing), they concocted a story to make it look like this was something other than what it was, in the hopes that it would make them look less incompetent.

Hope and change.

Ouch...like a Blue Dress.....:uhuh:....gotta feeling Clinton's responsible for this one too

He just kinda flip flopped a bit :)
First he called it a terrorist attack them he blamed the movie for 2 weeks and now he claims all along he called it a terrorist attack ( pay no mind to Joe, he's a dope)
I think I have this right ... Spence? Spence?...Spence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wow the CIA covered something up to save face instead of owning up to the truth. thats never happened before

Now, now, we can't jump to conclusions here even if there was a live
feed and e mails back to the White House during the attack. We need
to believe VP Joe telling the American people on live TV that he and
Obama were not aware of what was going on at the time.

They just need more time to investigate to be sure they weren't just
hearing or seeing things at the time, at least until Nov 7th.

oh oh....

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11 - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=fdleft;fdmodule)

There will be another shoe to drop on this if Huffington is reporting something unfavorable to the left. There has to be word coming that Romney paid the Libyan group with Chinese money to carry it out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There has to be word coming that Romney paid the Libyan group with Chinese money to carry it out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stanger things have happened. :hihi:
Don't ever loose your sens of huma. :D

So what's new here we didn't know about last week?

-spence

So what's new here we didn't know about last week?

-spence

I don't know is this e mail evidence the White House knew the attacks were not related to a video? They did say on multiple occasions. This "act of terror" was directly related to a protest of a video. Did any one have the e mail evidence? If the e mail is a recent thing doesnt that make the two weeks of lying about it a little more damning? I am asking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know is this e mail evidence the White House knew the attacks were not related to a video? They did say on multiple occasions. This "act of terror" was directly related to a protest of a video. Did any one have the e mail evidence? If the e mail is a recent thing doesnt that make the two weeks of lying about it a little more damning? I am asking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did any one have the e mail evidence?"

yes. everyone in the state department, in the white house, and in the intelligence community, received mutliple emails, within hours of the attack.

Spence, we now have physical, irreutable, undeniable proof strongly suggesting that we knew this was a terrorist attack right off the bat. Obama, Biden, Jat Carney, and Ambassador Rice said for days afterword, that there was no evidence there was a terrorist attack.

This probably costs him the election, and deservedly so.

Suck on that, Spence.

Spence, we now have physical, irreutable, undeniable proof strongly suggesting that we knew this was a terrorist attack right off the bat. Obama, Biden, Jat Carney, and Ambassador Rice said for days afterword, that there was no evidence there was a terrorist attack.
You keep asserting this but it's clearly not true.

I don't know how you get more specific than this:

Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)

So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/13/remarks-president-golden-co



All the emails seem to indicate is that an extremist group took credit for the attack, well duh? Everybody there appeared to know this and a few days later stormed their headquarters.

The narrative here isn't that hard to understand and I'm not quite sure why you're having such a hard time with it.

Oh, wait, I get it now.

-spence

You keep asserting this but it's clearly not true. I don't know how you get more specific than this: All the emails seem to indicate is that an extremist group took credit for the attack, well duh? Everybody there appeared to know this and a few days later stormed their headquarters. The narrative here isn't that hard to understand and I'm not quite sure why you're having such a hard time with it. Oh, wait, I get it now. -spence

"You keep asserting this but it's clearly not "

You keep focusing on what he said in trhe Rose Garden, and you conveniently ignore everything else that was said for the next 2 weeks. Unfortunately for you and your hero, he really stepped in it, and he did it at a most inconvenient time.

"Everybody there appeared to know this "

When, exactly, did 'everyone' in the administration say out loud that it was a terrorist group that carried out the attack, without subsequently conrtadicting that? Did you hear anything that Jay Carney or Ambassador Rice said, afetr Obama's speech in the Rose Garden?

"I'm not quite sure why you're having such a hard time with it"

As usual, you misunderstand. I'm not having a hard time with this, I am enjoying it thoroughly. You and Obama will be the ones having a hard time with it.

Don't forget when we were once again "not apologizing " to the world for the "disgusting video"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Evidence for a drone(s) tasked to that area starting to emerge.

There's somethig else that surfaced today...shortly aftre th eattack, the US head of counter-terrorism (I htink his name is Olsen) said it was clearly a terrorist attack. It is being reported that the White House told him to back off saying that.

Conclusion: Realizing this was a planned terrorist attack, Obama believed that his critics would conclude the deaths were his fault, since his administration rejected Ambassador Stevens' requests for extra security. So Obama desperately tried to portray this is something other than what it was, so that it wouldn't appear to be his fault.

Let's also remember that the day after the attack, knowing that 4 Americans had just been killed by terrorists, Obama flew to Vegas for a campaign event. Priorities.

There's somethig else that surfaced today...shortly aftre th eattack, the US head of counter-terrorism (I htink his name is Olsen) said it was clearly a terrorist attack. It is being reported that the White House told him to back off saying that.

Conclusion: Realizing this was a planned terrorist attack, Obama believed that his critics would conclude the deaths were his fault, since his administration rejected Ambassador Stevens' requests for extra security. So Obama desperately tried to portray this is something other than what it was, so that it wouldn't appear to be his fault.

Let's also remember that the day after the attack, knowing that 4 Americans had just been killed by terrorists, Obama flew to Vegas for a campaign event. Priorities.

Don't need this example to conclude that Obama has no sack.

Another thing...it is now being reported that the firefight within the embassy lasted for at least 7 hours. SEVEN HOURS. Why weren't US military assets immediately deployed? We knew the embassy was being attacked within minutes of teh start of the attack. They had 7 hours to get the cavalry to the embassy, and we did notihng? Stevens and 2 security officers made it to a 'safe room', which is designed as a place to hunker down and wait for help.

Some serious, serious questions need to be asked. Obama is willing to wait until after the election?

Priorities...

You keep focusing on what he said in trhe Rose Garden, and you conveniently ignore everything else that was said for the next 2 weeks.
The quote I just posted was from Colorado the next day, not the Rose Garden. The 7 hour timeline has been out for days, I'd encourage you to actually read about it.

I'm not sure you really understand much about the story to be honest.

The email story from today was that someone posted on the extremist groups Facebook page that they were taking credit for the attack. It was then denied by the actual group. The information isn't a clear as you'd like to believe. As Clinton said today, we don't base our intel off of social media.

You're chasing the spin and misinformation like a half-blind horny coon hound in a pen full of meth addicted rabbits.

What you don't like you don't refute, rather you just ignore.

Sad.

-spence

Spence, you're right. Nothing to see here. don't give it a second thought. I hope Obama doesn't think this is an issue, either...

Spence with all due respect. In the Reuters article it was stated (paraphrasing) the administration did not want to point fingers immediately regardless of the FB and Twitter posts by al Shari (sic) . Why then did they go and skewer a US citizen to the world for two weeks? semantics aside the whole thing stinks! Hiding that this was an act perpetrated by an Al Qaeda affiliate was done deliberately. Then once the truth began to trickle out they hang Hillary out to dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great simile by the way very creative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another thing...it is now being reported that the firefight within the embassy lasted for at least 7 hours. SEVEN HOURS. Why weren't US military assets immediately deployed? We knew the embassy was being attacked within minutes of teh start of the attack. They had 7 hours to get the cavalry to the embassy, and we did notihng? Stevens and 2 security officers made it to a 'safe room', which is designed as a place to hunker down and wait for help.

Some serious, serious questions need to be asked. Obama is willing to wait until after the election?

Priorities...

Exactly, seven hours to respond and NOTHING !
At the very least after extra security was asked for and denied there should have been a contingency plan put in place if needed.

The fact that taking fire from mortars etc. for 7 hours with rifles the only defense had to be a harrowing experience waiting for help that never came.
That's how we treat our citizens in a known danger zone, defenseless?
There is NO defense for that. Pathetic failure. :af:

Spence ,
Phony twitter and fb claims don't happen as the attack is occurring!!!!
Use your head man
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly, seven hours to respond and NOTHING !
At the very least after extra security was asked for and denied there should have been a contingency plan put in place if needed.

The fact that taking fire from mortars etc. for 7 hours with rifles the only defense had to be a harrowing experience waiting for help that never came.
That's how we treat our citizens in a known danger zone, defenseless?
There is NO defense for that. Pathetic failure. :af:

Not only did we leave them essentially defenseless, Obama then spins the response in way that attempts to cover his ass. And 24 hours after the attack, he is in Vegas at a fundraiser.

It is reported that the 2 dead SEALs were found slumped over a machine gun position, and that evidence suggests they fought long aftr they had been wounded by mortar fire.

Unbelievable. There's a whole lot of soldiers that were within 7 hours of that embassy. Fly a helicopter over, announce that anyone who is still visible around the compound in 30 seconds will be strafed with machine gun fire.

Spence ,
Phony twitter and fb claims don't happen as the attack is occurring!!!!
Use your head man
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What he is saying is the group took credit for the attacks on twitter and FB that did happen post attack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Act of terror" is the forked tongue way fo not saying "Terrorist Act". The guy who blasted people in the movie theater commited an act of terror. Big difference though between an act of terror and a "Terrorist Act". You don't have to admit you got kicked in the butt by actual terrorists but you get to point at the "act of terror" statement later when you get caught.

Hiding that this was an act perpetrated by an Al Qaeda affiliate was done deliberately.

I've never seen any evidence that the act was perpetrated by an al Qaeda affiliate. Quite to the contrary, even the House testimony didn't reveal this.

-spence

There's a whole lot of soldiers that were within 7 hours of that embassy.
And able to respond in a timely way? Where? How do you know this?

Interesting, now that Romney is getting security briefs he seems to have abandoned his earlier attack.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14700441-libya-disappears-from-romneys-stump-speeches?lite

-spence

And able to respond in a timely way? Where? How do you know this?
-spence

If we can't respond anywhere in the world within 7 hours we
might as well just give up.

The real problem here is that with 2 previous attacks on the consulate
and the request for more security being denied, there should have been
a contigency plan in place if it was attacked. Complete failure.

A low flying F18 alone would have scattered them, let alone a few
well placed rockets obtaining targets from the overhead drone.

And able to respond in a timely way? Where? How do you know this?

Interesting, now that Romney is getting security briefs he seems to have abandoned his earlier attack.

Libya disappears from Romney's stump speeches - First Read (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/25/14700441-libya-disappears-from-romneys-stump-speeches?lite)

-spence

"And able to respond in a timely way? Where? How do you know this?"

I know this, because I don't rely solely on The Huffington Post to get my ifo.

There are special operations forces all over the place within 200 miles of the embassy. Even in Tripoli, it's been reported there were special forces soldiers who could have gotten there on bikes in less than 7 hours. There are ships in the Gulf that could have deployed helicopters.

If we can't respond anywhere in the world within 7 hours we might as well just give up.
Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.

The real problem here is that with 2 previous attacks on the consulate and the request for more security being denied, there should have been a contigency plan in place if it was attacked. Complete failure.
As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.

A low flying F18 alone would have scattered them, let alone a few well placed rockets obtaining targets from the overhead drone.
Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.


As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.


Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

No, not black and white but we have a right to defend our soverign embassy land in any country. Just wouldn't have been Politicaly Expedient but would
have been an attempt to save American lives.
So we shouldn't have tried something because we didn't know if they were still alive or not???

No, not black and white but we have a right to defend our soverign embassy land in any country. Just wouldn't have been Politicaly Expedient but would
have been an attempt to save American lives.
So we shouldn't have tried something because we didn't know if they were still alive or not???

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them?

The 7 hour timeline is misleading. It wasn't a sustained attack on a single location, but rather a confused situation across buildings spaced far apart.

While there certainly was growing concern about extremist influence in the area there doesn't appear to be much intel an attack was preplanned. The local people protested the attack and stormed the extremists HQ just days after.

The most likely scenario appears to be that a problem was brewing, but the moment accelerated to conflict before our system had responded. i.e. it's not all about the video, but to some degree it is.

-spence

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? The 7 hour timeline is misleading. It wasn't a sustained attack on a single location, but rather a confused situation across buildings spaced far apart. While there certainly was growing concern about extremist influence in the area there doesn't appear to be much intel an attack was preplanned. The local people protested the attack and stormed the extremists HQ just days after. The most likely scenario appears to be that a problem was brewing, but the moment accelerated to conflict before our system had responded. i.e. it's not all about the video, but to some degree it is. -spence

"do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? "

We did have military in a position to defend, and we didn't send them.

"but rather a confused situation "

The Situation Room knew of the attack very early on. They didn't know every detail early on, but they knew there were 20 armed terrorists in the compound, they knew there was a viscous firefight, and they knew that Ambassador Stevens was locked in a safe room, waiting for help that would never come. The fact is, we could have sent rreinforcements before the attack ended (maybe not in time to save anyone). But we didn't. Obama will not discuss why, until after the election. We sent a drone over the embassy to take pictures. That drone came from an American base somewhere, and somewhere on that base, are soldiers with guns who could have gone in after the drone showed what was happening.

Priorities.

Spence, if you want to provide us with any other keen insights into military capabilities and infantry tactics, please share them with us. Don't hoard all that knowledge to yourself.

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them?

.

-spence

Spence, just came over the TV Marines were 2 hours away.

You tell me why they weren't sent?

Spence, if you want to provide us with any other keen insights into military capabilities and infantry tactics, please share them with us. Don't hoard all that knowledge to yourself.

You seem to have all the specifics, I wonder why you won't share them.

Where were the troops? What was the process?

-spence

Spence, just came over the TV Marines were 2 hours away.

You tell me why they weren't sent?

Where? Who?

-spence

Where? Who?

-spence

An anti-terrorism marine group from Rota Spain.
They were dispatced AFTER the fight was over.

Wonder if Obama,Joe or Hillary were visiting at the time if there
would have been a hesitancy to dispatch in real time??

An anti-terrorism marine group from Rota Spain. They were dispatced AFTER the fight was over.
Yes, immediately after it was over. This was public information the day after the attack.

Are you suggesting they were able to mobilize and deploy to Benghazi within hours?

A quick Google shows it's about 2000 miles line of site between Rota and Benghazi. Assuming they were on the ground and ready to go (which isn't likely) once word of attack came out you're still talking many hours of transport time and I'd assume several refueling stops. In other words they wouldn't have been there in time to do anything anyway.

Hence my earlier remark that had military troops been able to respond immediately they would have likely been sent. I still have not seen anything that indicates this was an option.

-spence

Yes, immediately after it was over. This was public information the day after the attack.

Are you suggesting they were able to mobilize and deploy to Benghazi within hours?

A quick Google shows it's about 2000 miles line of site between Rota and Benghazi. Assuming they were on the ground and ready to go (which isn't likely) once word of attack came out you're still talking many hours of transport time and I'd assume several refueling stops. In other words they wouldn't have been there in time to do anything anyway.

Hence my earlier remark that had military troops been able to respond immediately they would have likely been sent. I still have not seen anything that indicates this was an option.

-spence

Spence, are you denying that it was possible to get forces in there within 7 hours? Are are you assuming it wasn't possible, just because yuo don't know where are forces are. Did you try googling this?

Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack? - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/)

"A White House official told CBS News that a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived."

There. There were reinforcements in Triploi. Why weren'tthose forces ordered to assist?

"The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour's flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships"

And finally...

" the fact that the last two Americans didn't die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important."

Spence, you don't send people into harm's way, and then turn a deaf ear when they beg for their lives. I guarantee you, that if the order came to send in help, soldiers would get on the chopper without hesitation. The hesitation always, ALWAYS, is from politicians who care more about getting re-elected, than they care about saving lives.

I cannot fathom why this isn't a bigger story.

Go ahead Spence, let's hear your denial/spin.

Yes, immediately after it was over. This was public information the day after the attack.

Are you suggesting they were able to mobilize and deploy to Benghazi within hours?

A quick Google shows it's about 2000 miles line of site between Rota and Benghazi. Assuming they were on the ground and ready to go (which isn't likely) once word of attack came out you're still talking many hours of transport time and I'd assume several refueling stops. In other words they wouldn't have been there in time to do anything anyway.

Hence my earlier remark that had military troops been able to respond immediately they would have likely been sent. I still have not seen anything that indicates this was an option.

-spence

"had military troops been able to respond immediately they would have likely been sent. I still have not seen anything that indicates this was an option."

Spence, I just showed you that there were soldiers in Triploi. And there were soldiers in Italy, a ONE HOUR FLIGHT FROM BENGHAZI.

"Assuming they were on the ground and ready to go (which isn't likely) "

Spence, remind me, what's your area of expertise here? The troops mobved to Italy were "rapid response" marines. Which words in the phrase "rapid response" are you struggling with.

Now, the burden is on you. Please tell me why it wasn't possible to get forces in there before the 7+ hour battle was over.

Have fun with that.

Finally Spence, we know that am American recon drone was flying over the embassy in teh early stages of the attack. That drone came from somewhere. Wherever that was, that place has Americans with guns. If the drone could get there, then the cavalry could get there.

What will it take, exactly, for you to temporarily cast aside your infatuation with Obama, and just be honest for a few moments?

The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.


-spence

So Spence, now that you have the facts about the availability of troops,
time to answer the question before the thread changes pages and you think everyone will forget the question. :)

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.


As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.


Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

"The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country..."

The US Embassy is also sovereign territory...sovereign to the US. When an ebmassy is being attacked, you don't have to ask permission to defend it...it's just the same as if our shores had been attacked.

"those who may or may not even still be alive."

Read the other thread I started. We now know that the 2 former Navy SEALs were killed at least 7 hours after the attack started. We know that because they were on the radio, saying that they had a laser sight on the mortar position that was firing at them, asking that a gunship come in and destroy that mortar position. That help never came, even though it was close enough. And those 2 superb Americans were eventually killed by a mortar.

I hope this impacts the election by a couple of points.

God Bless Foxnews, the only station not actively burying this story to try and get that Maoist re-elected.

So Spence, now that you have the facts about the availability of troops,
time to answer the question before the thread changes pages and you think everyone will forget the question. :)

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

Spence is on The Huffington Post, asking those bloggers how he should respond.

There is no response.


The administartion denied earlier requests for extra security
The administration refused to send in the cavalry
After it was over, the administration repeatedly lied about the details of what just took place, instead suggesting that the blame lies with an American citizen who made a video


How long, O' Lord?

Bump.
Spence, wanted to be sure you got a chance to answer the question. :hihi:

Bump.
Spence, wanted to be sure you got a chance to answer the question. :hihi:

Which one? I'm making some black beans :drool:

-spence

Which one? I'm making some black beans :drool:

-spence

How's about all of the one's you haven't answered and the ones you use
the Spence Trick to answer a question with a question. : :huh: :D

One suggestion, Beano. :hihi:

First couple minutes, he can't answer the question about Libya

Reporter Presses Obama On Libya Attack, "Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&ter" Comment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC31krZK-nI)

First couple minutes, he can't answer the question about Libya
He is answering the question, at the time of the interview he doesn't freaking know.

Amazing, all the Benghazi hype here and with the recent reporting from the CIA dismissing the majority of FOX News reporting on the incident we haven't heard a peep from the haters.

Go figure.

-spence

He is answering the question, at the time of the interview he doesn't freaking know.

Amazing, all the Benghazi hype here and with the recent reporting from the CIA dismissing the majority of FOX News reporting on the incident we haven't heard a peep from the haters.

Go figure.

-spence

This was on October 27th, one week ago.

The President of the United States the Commander and Chief claims he still doesn’t know if the Americans under attack at that Embassy were denied requests for help? I find that very hard to believe.

I think he knows the answer, if he doesn’t there is a major malfunction.

is it true that about 50 Americans were killed by around 10 or 11 attacks on different American embassies durring Bush's watch??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is it true that about 50 Americans were killed by around 10 or 11 attacks on different American embassies durring Bush's watch??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it was actually 12 attacks. It's a valid point but I'm not sure anyone here is defending Bush either. I would bet to say that Bush came right out and called it a terrorist attack vs trying to walk a tight rope.

It's a yes or no question and sad if Obama still doesn't know the details.

is it true that about 50 Americans were killed by around 10 or 11 attacks on different American embassies durring Bush's watch??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not the point!! All he had to do (Obama) was tell the damn truth about the attacks instead of blaming it on a US citizen and going around and apologizing for a damn YouTube video! WTF the apologist stance has got to end we are circling the frigging drain here!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This was on October 27th, one week ago.

The President of the United States the Commander and Chief claims he still doesn’t know if the Americans under attack at that Embassy were denied requests for help? I find that very hard to believe.

I think he knows the answer, if he doesn’t there is a major malfunction.

If the interview was that recent then he probably just doesn't want to say as there's an ongoing investigation. It was only just last week that the CIA started to release information disputing much of the earlier reporting...this is about the same time as the interview.

Considering how this event has been twisted and manipulated, it would be irresponsible of Obama to start citing specifics before a formal report is complete.

-spence

is it true that about 50 Americans were killed by around 10 or 11 attacks on different American embassies durring Bush's watch??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back to Bush. :)


The point here is Obama, for the sake of getting re-elected, claimed he had the terorists on their heels. ;)
Bush never said anything like that and, while I didn't agree with him on everything, he called it as it is ,a War on Terror.
He revamped the military with special ops to fight against them.
He was nobodies lunch meat in fighting them. No way would he have left 4 Americans out to dry without trying to help them.

Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.



-spence

So Spence,still waiting for your answer to my question,--- we shouldn't have sent troops because we didn't know if they were alve or not ??????

Maybe you and O could get together at a news conference someday and answer
questions together. :hihi:

So Spence,still waiting for your answer to my question,--- we shouldn't have sent troops because we didn't know if they were alve or not ??????
No, I don't think that was the question.

I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out and didn't offset the risks of sending in special forces from Italy. There was apparently a long lull in the fighting that resumed early morning with the quick mortar attack after the CIA reinforcements had arrived from Tripoli.

The Predator would have given them intel on movement around the consulate (or where ever it was looking) but they don't appear to have had good intel on the bigger situation.

I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict. Most of the security in Benghazi was contracted through militias and this could have easily pitted pro-government forces against Islamist.

Given the speed in which these two attacks played out I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be.

-spence

No, I don't think that was the question.

I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out and didn't offset the risks of sending in special forces from Italy. There was apparently a long lull in the fighting that resumed early morning with the quick mortar attack after the CIA reinforcements had arrived from Tripoli.

The Predator would have given them intel on movement around the consulate (or where ever it was looking) but they don't appear to have had good intel on the bigger situation.

I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict. Most of the security in Benghazi was contracted through militias and this could have easily pitted pro-government forces against Islamist.

Given the speed in which these two attacks played out I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be.

-spence

"I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out"

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?

"I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict"

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?

"I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be. "

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.

:smash:

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?
The timeline has the initial attack before 10pm, the local security team responds after about 20 minutes, grab everybody but Stevens who they couldn't find and then retreat back to the CIA annex.

Around 1 am there's a lull in the fighting at the annex and civilians get into the compound and take Stevens to the hospital.

When the backup from Tripoli arrives just before 5am (with the other SEAL) the mortar rounds are fired into the annex at 5:15 and the second attack is over at 5:30.

Not to diminish the situation, just that it doesn't appear to have been a 7 hour firefight.

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?
Starting a regional conflict might be considered a bit more serious than ruffling a few feathers.

As for Pakistan, I'd have to believe the politics of crossing the border -- especially considering the public sentiment towards drone strikes -- was taken into consideration.

That's why even though the mission might not have been hard by SEAL standards...it was such a big call.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.
That's your opinion, but to state I have no idea what I'm talking about -- when I'm basically just echoing what I've read reported from the CIA and Pentagon -- just shows how desperate you are to cling to your Fox News inspired anti-Obama gotcha regardless of the facts placed in front of you.

-spence

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

Yes spence, read the quote that WAS the question.

Am I really talking to Spence??? Who is this Frenchman,some image
of what you hope to look like after living under Odama Socialism. :huh: :hihi:

Patiently waiting.