God Bless Foxnews, the only network willing to do their jobs on this story.

Unfreakinbelievable.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/)

WHY ISN'T THIS A BIGGER STORY.

Stevens and others ask for more security, and they are denied. When it turns out thet were justified in asking for more security, their pleas for help go unanswered?

Unfreakinbelievable.

"A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli"

Spence?

How does this not impact the election? When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

Hillary did it!

"Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty...were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe..."

Spence?

Getting uglier by the hour.

WTF if it were my kid on the ground requesting support. Being destroyed by these militants. I would want criminal charges brought up. We have the most powerful military on the planet with the ability to put a missile in a bedroom window and we allow this to happen.

I understand there are ramifications to engaging in a foreign country. But Libya really? We have zero problem targeting locations in Syria with drones (killing plenty of innocents) yet when a target is painted that poses a threat to citizens in hostile territory light it up! If that mortar location had been blown to smithereens do you think that would have shown the militants we were serious about protecting out people. Instead we stand down and allow our people to die with out help. And they watched it happen. This is criminal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I've said multiple times, to think that the military wasn't calculating our options is pretty silly.

Here's more information on the SecDef discussion from yesterday's NYTimes. The Fox story only pasted one snippet.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

“There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here,” Mr. Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

As a result, Mr. Panetta said, he and two top commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” The commanders are Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter F. Ham of Africa Command, which oversees American military operations in Africa, including Libya.

Mr. Panetta was at the White House for a regular meeting on the afternoon of Sept. 11 as the first reports of the attack unfolded, an American official said. By that evening Mr. Panetta had consulted with General Dempsey and General Ham and had ordered a number of American military forces in the region to move closer to Libya.

Defense officials say they did not receive a request for military support from the State Department as the attack unfolded.

In response to Mr. Panetta’s decision, a small Special Operations “strike force” team moved from Central Europe to the Sigonella Air Base in Sicily while two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean were moved off the Libyan coast. A rapid-reaction team of elite Marines left Rota, Spain, and arrived to protect the American Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the next day.

But a senior military official said that uncertainty about what was happening on the ground in Libya delayed the decision about where to send the Special Operations forces until about 9 p.m. in Washington, or 3 a.m. on Sept. 12, in Libya.

Ultimately, the decision relayed from the military’s Joint Staff in Washington was “to get close but not into Libya,” the official said. The task force then deployed over the next 24 hours to Sigonella, which is about an hour by plane from Benghazi. But by that time the shooting was over and the Americans were eventually evacuated.

As Mr. Panetta told reporters on Thursday, “This happened within a few hours, and it was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Republicans, in the meantime, continue to question the Obama administration about its handling of an event that has become a source of sharp debate in the presidential campaign.

On Thursday, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio released a letter asking the president to answer a number of questions about Libya publicly, including what military options he had been offered or had considered during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Mr. Boehner also said in his letter that “information now in the public domain contradicts how you and senior administration officials consistently described the cause and nature of the terrorist attack in the day and weeks immediately following.”

Why, Mr. Boehner asked, “did the administration fail to account for facts that were known at the time?”

Mr. Boehner sent his letter after a series of three leaked e-mails sent by State Department officials shortly after the attack began — including one that alerted the White House Situation Room that a militant group had claimed responsibility for it — stirred new debate on Wednesday about the Obama administration’s shifting accounts.

The first e-mail, sent about a half-hour after the assault began, said the State Department’s regional security officer in Tripoli had reported that the mission in Benghazi was under attack, and that “20 armed people fired shots.” A second said the firing at the mission had stopped. In the third, the embassy in Tripoli reported that a local militant group, Ansar al-Shariah, had claimed responsibility through postings on Facebook and Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/africa/panetta-tells-of-monitoring-situation-in-benghazi.html

We're not sure if Obama even had to make a call here, but if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

Most of the information around the attack appears to have been very cloudy and the situation quite confusing. If anything has come to light recently it's that a lot of thinking and action was going on while the attack unfolded. Nobody was sitting on their hands.

-spence

When the f*ck is Obama going to explain his side of the story?

Won't be answered until after Nov 7th for sure.

Nothing holding him back from coming out today and explaining his role in
it, if he chose.

Spence, do you have to read farther than the first sentence?

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????

Christ, an embassy is our territory? These were our people!
Isnt it ALWAYS risky to deploy troops??????????????????????????????????
Jimmy, the attack didn't happen at the embassy (Tripoli) it was a Consulate (i.e. branch office) in Benghazi.

I also don't believe US Embassy's or Consulates are legally considered US soil unless specifically designated by a treaty.

I'm sure there's always risk of deploying troops -- hell there's risk to run a drill -- but that doesn't mean there's an acceptable risk. Top military brass have the leadership experience of Fortune 100 CEO's, in fact probably better.

This event played out very fast and with little good information. Poor judgement could have cost many more US lives.

-spence

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?

Lack of information as to what was going on real time?
Military help unable to reach the area in time?
Not a clear picture as to the events transpiring?

What we now know:

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

This be gettin' messy.

We've come a loooooooooooooong way from a spontaneous reaction to a Muslim parody haven't we? What are some of the disqualifiers we have heard as the truth started to leak out?
Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

I wish our response could have been as organized
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants
If we can't send in a drone we don't go
We have an administration that can't think on its feet and has to way the personal political fallout in every move.
Obama first,,,,everything else after.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I guess under this administration we can't defend against 20 or so militants"

You said it before i could.

The drones over the compound showed approximately TWENTY attackers. Twenty. This was not the Battle Of Thermopayle.

Spence, if Obama's military advisors need 2 weeks to figure out how to defeat 20 barbarians, then I think they need to be replaced.

2 Navy SEALS survived the attack for 7 hours, for Christ's sakes. 15 or 20 more special forces soldiers, and it's a turkey shoot.

Spence, you don't put people in harm's way and refuse to help them. You just don't, not if you have any honor. Panetta says you don't send soldiers in until you know exactly what's going on? Bullsh*t. Tell that to the families of the heroic former SEALs who ignored orders to stand down, and instead ran one mile to the consulate that was being attacked.

The Obama administration stood their with their hands in their pockets, because of 20 barbarians who probably couldn't scratch their names in the dirt with a stick. Even Jimmy Carter wasn't that impotent. Obama was probably looking on the Harvard Law Review for the appropriate response, while those guys were literally fighting for their lives.

UNFREKINBELIEVABLE.

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

OK. Have you seen any evidence that it was in response to a video? Other than the word of your man-crush?

This event played out very fast and with little good information. -spence

8+ hours, with drones providing real-time info, and reports from our guys on the ground reporting real-time info.

Spence, 4 Americans were slaughtered.

Have you no shame, when it comes to defending Obama? Have you no shame? You're not better than that? Are you that infatuated?

Not really. I've still yet to see any reports of evidence this attack was planned in advance.

-spence

Ok so Ansar Al Sharia just happened to be driving by the Consulate saw a protest about a YouTube video and said hey " We have a bunch of Guns Mortars and stuff" lets blow the place up and kill the Americans inside. Cripes what the hell else do militant Jihadists do for fun on a Tuesday Night?

There is a ton of rationalizing going on trying to support Obamas position on this no matter how you slice it. Hiding the nature of the attack for two weeks is crap! Leaving those guys out there to die is crap!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if your Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman and head of Africa Command all think it's too risky based on available information what would you do?

-spence

The guys on the ground, the guys literally on the ground, asked for permission to go in and help, and were told to 'stand down'.

If Americans are under fire, and guys RIGHT THERE are asking to go help, and the SecDef (5 thousand miles away) says 'no', you want to know what I do? I fire Panetta, and look into bringing charges against him.

This was a group of 20 attackers. TWENTY.

This gets better and better...

Atthe funeral for one of the killed former SEALS...according to the kid's father, Biden came up to him and said "'did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"

Nice.

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons.

They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo. There still to my knowledge is no evidence the attack was planned in advance.

As for the CIA, we really don't know the full transcript of what went on. The CIA dispatcher could have felt there was significant risk and they were walking into a trap.

Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...

-spence

"They appear to have responded to the reports of violence over the video in Cairo."

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.

"Bring charges against Panetta? You're losing your mind now...'

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?

Based on WHAT? Please share this evidence.
The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim.

Kind of like Obama loking into charges against CIA officers for waterboarding, even though they had letters from the Justice Dept saying that waterboarding was legal?
Hey bizzaro world alternate history guy...

1) Obama stated clearly there would be no charges against CIA officers for torture and none have been brought

2) The authors of the letters from DOJ (advising the technique was legal) were found by the DOJ's own internal review board of professional misconduct in their actions.

-spence

The interviews with attackers saying they saw the protests in Cairo and decided to attack the consulate. Read up Jim

-spence

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.
No, I'm simply assessing the information available. There doesn't appear to be evidence of advance planning, I've read there was no intel an attack was imminent and it was certainly reported that the video was cited as a motivator. If the Cairo protests didn't trigger the attack, where was the advanced planning?

An attempt to conflate this with reports that violence was occurring just to insult me is pretty pathetic.

If you're going to be an ass at least please make some sense.

-spence

No, I'm simply assessing the information available. There doesn't appear to be evidence of advance planning, I've read there was no intel an attack was imminent and it was certainly reported that the video was cited as a motivator. If the Cairo protests didn't trigger the attack, where was the advanced planning?

An attempt to conflate this with reports that violence was occurring just to insult me is pretty pathetic.

If you're going to be an ass at least please make some sense.

-spence

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.

after all these years in the forum you actually think he is better than that? :biglaugh:

My point is crystal clear. You just don't like what it infers. And it's telling how touchy this subject is. BTW after all the years in this forum you call me an ass. You are better than that.
Considering you inferred I'd take the word of a terrorist over that of dedicated Americans I could have chosen much more appropriate words than ass.

Out of respect for the years in this forum I was trying to be a gentleman.

You still didn't make any sense BTW.

-spence

Considering you inferred I'd take the word of a terrorist over that of dedicated Americans I could have chosen much more appropriate words than ass.

Out of respect for the years in this forum I was trying to be a gentleman.

You still didn't make any sense BTW.

-spence

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?
I'm citing what's been reported and what the CIA has referenced in their findings.

Were there emails as the attack was unfolding that reveal the motivation of the attackers? You guys are clinging to a simplistic narrative that assumes evidence which doesn't appear to exist.

-spence

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.

Bronko is making perfect sense. You are jumbling together concepts to try to tell a story that is not working. You are struggling to come to the administrations defense. More and more revelations are coming out that paint a pretty bad story for how this was handled. Its odd you dont see this. This event did not take place in some remote jungle. OUR people were on the ground. You are dismissing their view and you actually note the views of the attacker. You don think thats odd?

Thanks Jimmy. I thought I was being clear. But the facts aren't helping him cling to the "movie protest" so he got personal.

Spence, you saying this is 2nd degree terrorism? Come on dude!

Spence "It was terrorism just like Obama said right away, but it wasn't planned terrorism, it was spontaneous terrorism"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.

here are some excerpts from our "simplistic narrative"

Sept. 8:

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade that provides security at the U.S. consulate, and a battalion commander meet with U.S. diplomats in Benghazi to say the security situation there is "frightening," he recounts to CNN in an interview after the attack.

Sept. 10:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in Ju

Sept 12:

Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens is reported dead with three other Americans in the Benghazi attack.

U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.
Obama is interviewed on 60 Minutes and defends his Mideast policies as aligning the USA with democracy, saying, "There are going to be bumps in the road."

Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.

Sept. 14:

The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.

Sept. 16:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."

Sept. 18:

Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."

Sept. 19:

The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

A diary belonging to Stevens found in the burned-out Benghazi consulate by a reporter for CNN indicates Stevens was concerned about security threats.

Sept. 20:

Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. (WTF SPENCE?????) "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says (BULLSHEEET!!!!!!)
THE NEXT DAY!Sept. 21:

Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."

Oct. 10:

Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration against the anti-Islam video that got out of control outside the consulate.


jeez spence, it reads like a bad coverup movie!

I will at least give the attackers some credit they don't seem to have lied about the events as opposed to our administration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He gets his info, and bases his opinions upon, what the terrorists say. Because it never occurred to Spence that a terrorist might lie.

I think Spence has reached an all time low. Now he is taking the word of "interviews with attackers" over the words and emails of americans staring imminent death in the face as the savages surrounded the compound.

God damn right.

Amazing how with all the number of hours of real time information streaming into the situation room , a decision to do nothing was made
It took the Bush administration minutes to get planes in the air and the order to shoot down American airliners given.
Armature hour.....just like Hillary said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the estimate it around 40 attackers with heavy weapons...

-spence

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.

Spence, why don't you stick to things you know something about, like...like...well, not infantry tactics.

Panetta had 7 hours to put together a plan to defeat a couple dozen untrained barbarians. And he couldn't pull it off.

At an absolute minimum, you at least deploy some troops in choppers, and have them hold a few miles out, while you try to figure out if you can send them in. That way, once you getthje green light, they are 2 minutes out. If the forces are an hour away, it makes zero tactical sense to leave themthat far out. They could have been hovering the ocean (Benghazi is on the coast), it's not like they'd have to wait over enemy-occupied territory.

I don't get it.

You are better than that.

No, he's not.

I summarize pannetas commetns as - "we tried to assess the fighting but the people there were too busy fighting so we couldnt get our arms around the fighting to send in troops to help our people fighting...."

No, he's not.

C'mon, he may be a liberal but from what I hear he's a good guy. He can clearly be an ass, but a good guy nonetheless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.

Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located.

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.


You haven't been paying much attention have you? :huh:

-spence

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
Yes, by people under attack
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away
Not all the requests for help were denied, the security team from Tripoli was sent to assist and didn't get there until near the end of the attack.

I believe the C130 was at a Med airbase and not overhead.

Special forces were positioned in Italy under direction from the Sec Def while the attack was underway, they weren't already there.

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.
What doesn't it reconcile with? Even if there was a little confusion over a gathering protest or a most significant (and yet still evidence indicating spontaneous event) The Administration certainly admitted from the start this was a substantial attack.

-spence

He gets his info, and bases his opinions upon, what the terrorists say. Because it never occurred to Spence that a terrorist might lie.

Funny, a few days ago didn't you claim Obama knew this was a terrorist attack because of a terrorist Facebook post?

-spence

Foxnews is sayong 20. Let's assume it's 40. Two Nave SEALs held them off for 7 hours. Why? Because we are much better at this than they are. I was in the conventional forces, and we knew that in a toe-to-toe fight, 2-1 or 3-1 odds were no big deal. For Special Forces, like the guys that Obama's team refused to send in, odds of 5-1 or 6-2 are no sweat. These guys just are not human, especially in a chaotic situation.
Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack.

Also, watch the Fox special report on the timeline. It's got a ton of biased reporting but the timeline portion I think was pretty good.

Spence, why don't you stick to things you know something about, like...like...well, not infantry tactics.
Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then:

General Martin Dempsey

He received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[5]
In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[6]
It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."
On March 27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.
On March 11, 2008, Dempsey's commander, Admiral William J. Fallon, retired from active service. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accepted this as effective on March 31. Dempsey took over command as acting commander CENTCOM.
On March 13, 2008, Dempsey was confirmed by the United States Senate as Commander, Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe.[7]
On December 8, 2008, Dempsey took command of United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.[8]
On January 6, 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he would nominate General Dempsey to succeed General George Casey as the Army Chief of Staff.[9]
On February 8, 2011, Gates announced that President Barack Obama nominated Dempsey to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.[10]
On March 3, 2011, Dempsey testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services for reappointment to the grade of general and to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.[11]
On March 15, 2011, the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services affirmatively reported Dempsey's nomination to serve as the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the floor of the Senate.[12] On March 16, 2011, the Senate confirmed Dempsey's nomination by unanimous consent.[13]
On April 11, 2011, Dempsey was officially sworn in as 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army at a ceremony at Fort Myer.
With Admiral Mike Mullen set to retire as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2011, President Obama needed to select his replacement. The Vice-Chairman, Marine General James Cartwright, who was initially believed to be the front runner for the job, had fallen out of favor among senior officials in the Defense Department. Obama administration officials revealed on May 26, 2011, that the President would nominate Dempsey to the post of Chairman.[14] In August 2011 General Dempsey was confirmed by unanimous consent to succeed Admiral Mike Mullen as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He was officially sworn in as 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2011, succeeding Admiral Michael Mullen.

General Ham

Ham served as an enlisted Infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division before attending John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. He was commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant through the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Army ROTC) in the Infantry as a Distinguished Military Graduate in 1976. He later received his master's degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island as well as graduating from several military schools including the Infantry Officer Basic Course, the Armor Officer Advanced Course, the College of Naval Command and Staff of the U.S. Naval War College and the U.S. Air Force Air War College. He is a member of the John Carroll University ROTC Hall of Fame. He and his wife, Christi, are both John Carroll University graduates.
Ham's early assignments included service at Fort Knox, Kentucky and tours of duty in Italy and Germany. After graduating from the Armor Officers Advanced Course, he was a Recruiting Area Commander in Lima, Ohio. In 1984, he served with a joint service unit in support of the Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
From 1984 until 1989, Ham served as Assistant Inspector General, then as Battalion S-3 and Executive Officer with the Opposing Force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. He attended the College of Naval Command and Staff, graduating with distinction in 1990, and was then assigned to the US Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia.
He served a tour as an advisor with a Saudi Arabian National Guard Brigade in Riyadh then returned to Fort Benning, where he was the executive officer for the Infantry School. Ham commanded the 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry in Vilseck, Germany including a six month tour with the United Nations Protection Forces in the Republic of Macedonia. Following battalion command, he was the Senior Observer/Controller of the Timberwolf Team at the Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany.
He graduated from the Air War College in 1997 then returned to Germany where he served as G-3, then Chief of Staff, 1st Infantry Division. From 1999 to 2001 he commanded the 29th Infantry Regiment at Fort Benning, then served as Deputy Director, J-8, United States Central Command in Tampa, Florida and Qatar. Ham was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General for Training and Readiness, I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash. in August 2003. In January 2004, he assumed command of Multinational Brigade (Task Force Olympia) – North in Mosul, Iraq serving there until February 2005. During his time in Iraq General Ham suffered Posttraumatic stress disorder, caused from attending the aftermath of a suicide bombing. He later sought treatment for his condition and publicly encouraged other soldiers to do the same.
Returning from Iraq, General Ham served as the Deputy Director for Regional Operations, J-3, on The Joint Staff. General Ham assumed command of the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas in August 2006 and served as the Commanding General until July 2007, returning to The Joint Staff as Director for Operations, J-3. On August 28, 2008, General Ham became the 34th Commander of the United States Army Europe headquartered at Campbell Barracks, Heidelberg, Germany.
The United States Senate, in November 2010, confirmed General Ham’s nomination to become the next Commander of U.S. Africa Command, headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany.[2] He assumed the post on March 8, 2011.
General Ham is in command of US forces enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone, along with Admiral Samuel J. Locklear.[citation needed] Described as "in charge of the coalition effort", General Ham on March 21, 2011 "said there would be coalition airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s mobile air defenses and that some 80 sorties – only half of them by the United States – had been flown on Monday."[3] Admiral Locklear, aboard the flagship Mount Whitney, has tactical command of the Operation Odyssey Dawn joint taskforce.[4] "General Ham also said he had “full authority” to attack the regime’s forces if they refused to comply with President Obama’s demands that they pull back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya," according to one report. Earlier, he said that the United States was not working with the Libyan rebels. “Our mission is not to support any opposition forces,” Ham said by video feed to the Pentagon from his headquarters in Stuttgart.[3]
General Ham has stated (in an online Washington Post article by Greg Miller and Craig Whitlock, posted on October 1, 2012) that, as a result of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb's overtaking and capturing more territory in Mali in Africa, and possessing arms from Libya after the Libyan civil war which overthrew Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, there is the possibility of the U.S. assisting (not leading) counterterror operations done by other countries. A more radical step would be the use of drones.[5]

Hacks right :huh:

At an absolute minimum, you at least deploy some troops in choppers, and have them hold a few miles out, while you try to figure out if you can send them in. That way, once you getthje green light, they are 2 minutes out. If the forces are an hour away, it makes zero tactical sense to leave themthat far out. They could have been hovering the ocean (Benghazi is on the coast), it's not like they'd have to wait over enemy-occupied territory.

I don't get it.

The timeline and official comments suggest they thought the attack was waning and support from Tripoli was arriving soon.

All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it. To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force. You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case.

Remember 30,000 Benghazi's are reported to have protested the attacks holding pictures of the dead Ambassador and then stormed the headquarters of the Islamist group!

Another under reported part of this story (I didn't even see it until today) is that after the attack the government has moved to disarm unofficial militia groups with broad public support.

Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/24/libya_disbands_illegitimate_militias)

As I've said, there's legitimate questions to be asked if we did enough to keep our people safe. Even Obama has admitted mistakes were made. This should be the focus of review and changes made to personnel or policy where appropriate, but not the petty election witch hunt you so dream of undermining the Commander and Chief.

-spence

So tell us Jim, how much time did you spend in the middle east? You're suddenly the expert on urban combat there.

Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located.

"how much time did you spend in the middle east? "

More than the bastards who told the special forces guys to stand down. I'm not Audie Murphy. But I spent time there with the USMC. Unlike Spence, i don't make stuff up as I go along, just to make my guy look good.

Even if I had never served, I know that you don't send a kid into harm's way, and then turn a deaf ear when he asks for help while fighting for his life. Anyone wih a soul knows that.

Why would anyone in his right mind take an embassy post in a dangerous place now? And how about the doctor who told us where Bin Laden is, we let the Pakistanis throw him in jail, for Christ's sake? Why would anyone in Pakistan risk his neck to help us now?

What's wrong with Obama? What the hell are we turning into? We betray those risking it all to help us. Guys like Spence are taking the terrorists' word that the video started this.

Sad. I sure as hell don't get it.

Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack. Also, watch the Fox special report on the timeline. It's got a ton of biased reporting but the timeline portion I think was pretty good. Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then: Hacks right :huh: The timeline and official comments suggest they thought the attack was waning and support from Tripoli was arriving soon. All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it. To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force. You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case. Remember 30,000 Benghazi's are reported to have protested the attacks holding pictures of the dead Ambassador and then stormed the headquarters of the Islamist group! Another under reported part of this story (I didn't even see it until today) is that after the attack the government has moved to disarm unofficial militia groups with broad public support. Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/24/libya_disbands_illegitimate_militias) As I've said, there's legitimate questions to be asked if we did enough to keep our people safe. Even Obama has admitted mistakes were made. This should be the focus of review and changes made to personnel or policy where appropriate, but not the petty election witch hunt you so dream of undermining the Commander and Chief. -spence

"You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case."

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.

"All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it"

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

"To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force."

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.

You have no knowledge to back up anything you say. you make up liberal apologist jibberish as you go along, anything to avoid making Obama look culpable for his blunders.

Spence -

When the attack began (before the attack began), we know there was a quick reaction special forces team based in Italy, a 1-hour helicopter flight away from Benghazi. When the attack began, any half-brained morin would get that team in the air, and tell them to wait 5 minutes outside the embassy for further instructions. That way, if they are to be sent in, they are 5 minutes out instead of 60 minutes out. The fact that no wheels were set inmotion, to get anyone within 5 minutes of the embassy, is stupifying. Beyond stupifying. There is no earthly reason to get get those pieces in place, regardless of whether or not they are needed.

You (and Leon Panetta) suggest that not enough was known to send in the cavalry. Wrong. We had 7 hours, and several drone passes showing photos. That's more than enough for a team of tier-1 delta force commandos, and that's whp was 1 hour away. This is not a difficult situation, in terms of what these guys train for. They can handle much worse than this.

Proof? The ex-seal Tyrone Woods, was at the CIA annex, 1 mile from the consulate. When shots were fired at the consulate, Woods asked for permission to go help our diplomats. He was told to stand down. He and a couple others (whose names should go down in the history of our greatest heroes), ignored that order and made their way to the consulate. THEY are the ones who had no idea what they were getting into. Yet they made their way to the consulate (in the midst of the attack), got in , got everybody (except for Stevens, who was missing) out, and back to the CIA annex.

Tyrone Wods literally had zero intelligence, and immediately figured out what to do. The Delta Team had several hours of intelligence-gathering at their disposal. In terms of military problems, this is not advanced calculus. This is Algebra 1. I'm not being cavalier here. I'm saying this is easier than what these guys usually train for.

Tyrone Woods had zero intelligence information.

better

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.
I got that tidbit from the United States Secretary of Defense, last I checked he wasn't on a watch list.

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.
My assumption is that the military leadership has read page one of the manual.

They also would do a risk assessment.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.
The key words in your statement are "but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first."

By all accounts this was a very confused situation. You can "what if" it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that some pretty experienced people made the best call they could based on the information they had.

Interestingly enough, even John McCain has now attacked the Pentagon stating that the US Military was not in a position to respond. The Pentagon disputes this and says it was a risk based decision. Petraeus is reported to have denied CIA assets were told to stand down, although I've not seen this confirmed.

They need to complete the investigation and make adjustments where necessary, but this isn't something you litigate during an election. That's not fair to the families and people impacted by the attack.

-spence

Spence, our commanders knew that Tyrone Woods and 2 other guys were able to slip in and out of that mob without any difficulty. And they had zero intelligence.

You take at face value anything that anyone says, as long as it is favorable to Obama (including, incredibly, the words of the terrorists). You dismiss everythiing else. That's all you do.

2 or 3 guys who literally had no intelligence (and no heavy weapons) were able to fight through the mob to rescue the folks at the consulate, get them out of the consulate, and back to the CIA annex a mile away. If they could do that, then a team of tier-1 delta force operators could certainly do the same, especially if they had tons of intelligence to work with, heavy weapons, and air support. It would be an easy mission. Easy.

Spence, all you can say to that is "Panetta must know what he is doing." It doesn't appear so. We'll see how this plays out. Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying about Bush's response to the Katrina victims. I'm sure you said "well, if it took FEMA director Brown 7 days to get water to the Superdome, that must be how long it takes, because he must know what he is doing". Panetta woduln't be the first moron in a senior cabinet position.

"this isn't something you litigate during an election. That's not fair to the families and people impacted by the attack. "

As usual, you could not be more wrong. What's unfair to the families, is to tell them that the election is more important than finding out why there sons are dead, when it was within our ability to save them. Politics is more important than that? Obama believes so, and therefore so do you.

Spence, our commanders knew that Tyrone Woods and 2 other guys were able to slip in and out of that mob without any difficulty. And they had zero intelligence.
They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?

You take at face value anything that anyone says, as long as it is favorable to Obama (including, incredibly, the words of the terrorists). You dismiss everythiing else. That's all you do.
No, you just see what you want to see.

2 or 3 guys who literally had no intelligence (and no heavy weapons) were able to fight through the mob to rescue the folks at the consulate, get them out of the consulate, and back to the CIA annex a mile away. If they could do that, then a team of tier-1 delta force operators could certainly do the same, especially if they had tons of intelligence to work with, heavy weapons, and air support. It would be an easy mission. Easy.
With hindsight, I have no doubt a special forces team couldn't have cleaned the place out in no time, but that's not the point.

The question isn't about what we know now, it's about they knew then.

Spence, all you can say to that is "Panetta must know what he is doing." It doesn't appear so. We'll see how this plays out. Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying about Bush's response to the Katrina victims. I'm sure you said "well, if it took FEMA director Brown 7 days to get water to the Superdome, that must be how long it takes, because he must know what he is doing". Panetta woduln't be the first moron in a senior cabinet position.

Totally different situations.


As usual, you could not be more wrong. What's unfair to the families, is to tell them that the election is more important than finding out why there sons are dead, when it was within our ability to save them. Politics is more important than that? Obama believes so, and therefore so do you.
Nobody is saying hold off until after the election, I'm sure there's a massive effort going on to assess and adjust. I said it's unfair to "litigate" during the election. This event was jumped on by Republicans for partisan gain without any regard to the families or those impacted.

Notice how Romney has dropped it? Wonder why...perhaps he now knows what really happened that he's getting his own security briefings.

-spence

Perhaps he understands that Obama will be his own worst enemy
Let him hang himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?


No, you just see what you want to see.


With hindsight, I have no doubt a special forces team couldn't have cleaned the place out in no time, but that's not the point.

The question isn't about what we know now, it's about they knew then.



Totally different situations.



Nobody is saying hold off until after the election, I'm sure there's a massive effort going on to assess and adjust. I said it's unfair to "litigate" during the election. This event was jumped on by Republicans for partisan gain without any regard to the families or those impacted.

Notice how Romney has dropped it? Wonder why...perhaps he now knows what really happened that he's getting his own security briefings.

-spence

"They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?"

Tyrone Woods was at the CIA annex, which os one mile away from the consulate. All he knew i sthat gunshots were reported. That was all he knew, an dthat was enough for him to ignore orders and risk his life to help the 30 people that were trapped.

When Tyrone Woods decided to run towards the consulate, he didn't know what he was heading into. Reports are there were a total of 2 or 3 guys that ran to help those in the consulate.

Nobody was radioing info to Woods, no one was giving him feeds from drones.

Suck on them apples.

Tyrone Woods was at the CIA annex, which os one mile away from the consulate. All he knew i sthat gunshots were reported. That was all he knew, an dthat was enough for him to ignore orders and risk his life to help the 30 people that were trapped.

When Tyrone Woods decided to run towards the consulate, he didn't know what he was heading into. Reports are there were a total of 2 or 3 guys that ran to help those in the consulate.

Nobody was radioing info to Woods, no one was giving him feeds from drones.
Jim, seriously...

He was in country to protect those people. He was one mile away. He's an ex Seal. I'd wager you would have done the exact same thing. I know would have done the exact same thing.

Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives. There's a difference between being selfless and being in a larger leadership position.

-spence

Jim, seriously...

He was in country to protect those people. He was one mile away. He's an ex Seal. I'd wager you would have done the exact same thing. I know would have done the exact same thing.

Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives. There's a difference between being selfless and being in a larger leadership position.

-spence

"Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission "

They had 7 hours, and lots of intelligence, to plan a mission. I know what I'm talking about from experience. You are saying things about which you have zero knowledge, just to suport the man you are infatuated with.

"an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives"

So instead we sat on our hands and did zilch. That aso impacted a lot of lives.

Spence, you don't send kids into harm's way, amd watch video of them beink killed, without moving heaven and earth to try to save them. If we go in there ike the wrath of God, we would have saved some of those who were ost, no question. Would Libyans on the ground have been kiled? Yes, no question.

Are you opposed to that? Whose side are you on? Ty Woods and the other SEAL were firing non-stop from a roof-top,with a heavy machine gun, for several hours. THis was a battle Spence. People get killed in battles. If an armed mob shoots at Americans, you kill them all, get your people out, and sort it out later. That's the pact we have with our armed forces, and for good reason. On that point, I know one hell of a lot more than you ever will. And I'm 100% right.

You cannot send kids into harm's way if political expedience trumps supporting them. We learned that in Vietnam. War is really ugly, and you either go all in,or you get out.

I keep coming back to the fact that Obama left these kids out to dry, and also let the Pakistanis put the guy in prison who told us where Bin Laden was. It almost (not quite, but almost) makes me wonder what the hell side Obama is on.

Plain as the nose on your face, either one of two things, complete and utter incompetency,or lack of courage to make the right decesion for whatever reason.

Come on Mr President, tell us why four of our American citizens weren't given
the help they asked for and needed.

Plain as the nose on your face, either one of two things, complete and utter incompetency,or lack of courage to make the right decesion for whatever reason.

Come on Mr President, tell us why four of our American citizens weren't given
the help they asked for and needed.

I'll say one more thing justplugit. Those delta guys in Italy must be some pissed that they were told to stand by and play cards while Ty Woods was fighting for his life (and for the lives of the diplomats he was protecting).

People like Spence seem to think that if we sent in the special forces, that it would have been some huge epic bloodbath. This was not the battle of Iwo Jima. I read that the drone photos showed 20 or so militants, Spence says 40. Let's assume it was 40. Ty Woods and 1 other guy fought them off for 7 hours. I'll say that again. Two Navy SEALs fought off this mob for 7 hours.

A half-dozen tier-1 Delta Force operators (which is what we had standind idly by in Italy, 1 hour away) would have made this a turkey shoot. You didn't need to send in the entire 82nd Airborne here. This is precisely what these Delta guys train for, and if we didn't use them in this case, there is no reason for them to exist. None. You might as well get rid of them.

The Defense Dept and White House had 7 hours to put the wheels in motion. That's not what you call 'the fog of war'. A response to 20 untrained barbarians does not take 30 minutes to plan for, let alone 7 hours.

God Bless Foxnews, the only station talking about this.

Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then:



Hacks right :huh:


-spence

Spence, your disertation on General Ham, who as you say was "calling the shots",
was very interesting.
However, Rep Jason Chaffetz R Utah, spoke personally with General Ham
and he said he did not receive a call and was not given military orders.
:huh:

So much for we did all we could do.

Spence, your disertation on General Ham, who as you say was "calling the shots",
was very interesting.
However, Rep Jason Chaffetz R Utah, spoke personally with General Ham
and he said he did not receive a call and was not given military orders.
:huh:

So much for we did all we could do.
That's what was said by the Secretary of Defense. I read the rumor report and it's potentially very misleading...in fact as it sits it doesn't bring any new information that wasn't already reported.

This is the problem with this entire story. You have Fox making a report based on what someone said about what someone else said. You have information spun into something it isn't necessarily (like the 7 hours) to come to conculsions after the fact that aren't supported by available information.

Panetta's remark about Monday morning quarterbacking couldn't be more spot on.

Fox continues to beat the story without any new data or analysis, they just keep running the same stuff over and over. No bias there...

-spence

You know what the biggest deal about this whole thing is? We should barely know it even happened. If this had happened twenty five years or thirty years ago the attack might have taken place. But we would have been in there in two hours blown the place to hell gotten our guys out and handled it. We are the USA we are not France the UK or Switzerland sitting back saying what are you guys going to do.

The attack occurred and now we look like a joke to the terrorists. Seems to me Qaddafi made a couple of veiled threats about thirty years ago. What happened. We sent a missile into one of his tents and you never heard about him being a threat any more. The fact is we are carrying the worlds water with Chinese money and they hate us for it. So get the hell out or carry the big stick. This shouldn't be a controversy it should just be a done issue. If Obamas administration's intent was to claim the YouTube video caused the attack then why the hell did any other info get out. The man doesn't even command enough respect in his own staff to keep this stuff out of the press. What else is getting put out there through this administration. We look like a joke and rightfully so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the problem with this entire story. You have Fox making a report based on what someone said about what someone else said. You have information spun into something it isn't necessarily (like the 7 hours) to come to conculsions after the fact that aren't supported by available information.


-spence

Spence, you were touting the great qualifications of General Ham as if he was
consulted on the situation and he wasn't. Don't you think all stops should
have been pulled and he should have,at the very least,been consulted about
the siuation? Doesn't leave much room for confidence in the leadership.

The person, Congressman Jason Chaffetz who was interviewed on national TV,
stated he personally spoke with General Ham, and told he was neither consulted
or was asked for military asissstance. I'll take HIS word on it.
Looks like all that could have been done wasn't.

In Spenceworld, if you repeat what has been reported, and it's not favorable to Obama, you are irresponsibly jumping the gun. But the second anyone says anything that deflects blame away from Obama, as far as Spence is concerned, it's the Word of God. And that's good enough for him.

Anything that makes Obama look like an idiot must be questioned, anything that makes him look good is above reproach.

That is how most of the left operates these days. Because I think Obama has done a piss poor job and he has. People treat me like I hate women hate the poor animals etc etc. for the most part I think the division lines are being drawn by the left. I truly think I am moderate. I just want a president who is accountable understands a budget and a senate house that passes one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device