This is direct quote from her after her '96 Balkans visit:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

We now know that the above statement was a complete and total LIE.

And we're supposed to except what she said during the Benghazi hearings as truth?That would be like handing a crack-head a 20 spot and he/she promises to spend the money on food.How can anything this woman says be trusted?

I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way. It would be more disconcerting if it was important...

We didn't really learn that much new in the Clinton testimony. It's been investigated to death...

-spence

I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way. It would be more disconcerting if it was important...

We didn't really learn that much new in the Clinton testimony. It's been investigated to death...

-spence

"I'm not sure that really matters"... Perfect !!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't a lie a lie anymore?

"What does it matter?" She says.

It matters to me.

Isn't it enough that it matters?If it matters to me it must surely matter to the families of those murdered?

Isn't a lie a lie anymore?

"What does it matter?" She says.

It matters to me.

Isn't it enough that it matters?If it matters to me it must surely matter to the families of those murdered?

you scream "what does it matter"....when you've run out of talking points and you are cornered and have no where left to go...last bastion of a congenital...well...you know:) .....it sure mattered when they were trying to convince everyone that a movie trailer that noone saw was responsible.....

you should read this...it's brilliant

"A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:

“Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hillary’s cocksure sneer to Senator Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the “difference” is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: No matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration.

Obama is the ultimate reality show, and real reality can’t compete. Stalin famously scoffed, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Secretary Clinton was more audacious: How many divisions has reality? Not enough."


http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338863

you scream "what does it matter"....when you've run out of talking points and you are cornered and have no where left to go...last bastion of a congenital...well...you know:) .....it sure mattered when they were trying to convince everyone that a movie trailer that noone saw was responsible.....
Scream? Scream? Sir, I'm not screaming.

Perhaps the scream is in your head. You have been really off today.

Hillary’s cocksure sneer to Senator Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the “difference” is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: No matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration.
Yes, Sen. Johnson the man who pandered for the camera to score talking point and then shamelessly claimed her emotion was staged to gain sympathy.

What a pathetic and shallow thing to even contemplate.

I'm curious if these Senators have even read the internal reports, as their questions would indicate no. At the least FOX and the National Review have their quotes to report against.

-spence

Scream? Scream? Sir, I'm not screaming. I wasn't talking about you

Perhaps the scream is in your head. You have been really off today.


Yes, Sen. Johnson the man who pandered for the camera to score talking point and then shamelessly claimed her emotion was staged to gain sympathy. not the first time, it works for her

What a pathetic and shallow thing to even contemplate. but accurate and it was probably expected from her...you forgot sexist and homophobic

I'm curious if these Senators have even read the internal reports, as their questions would indicate no. At the least FOX and the National Review have their quotes to report against.

-spence

you are such a fraud:rotf2:

Yup, if you can't be trusted in small things, you can't be trusted
in big things.
I saw her testify for about 2 hours, more than i could take, and she
knew more about rope a dope than Ali, and knows more about stone walling then a stone mason.
In her outburst about "what difference does it make","she doeth protest
too much."

No need to see more testimony, just show us the tape from the situation
room the night of the attack, only that will tell the truth.

Great interview on CBS with the bs'r and chief .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great interview on CBS with the bs'r and chief .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL, yeah Buck a real lovevest. First 20 mins they just kissed each
others butt. Sickening. Last 5 min they got a, can't even call it a softball,
more like a sponge ball question about Benghazy which they just
skipped over.
Not worth the electricity or time to watch the show.

Love is special.

It must really pain some that Hillary will likely be regarded as one of the top Secretaries of State and will be formidable in 2016.

-spence

It must really pain some that Hillary will likely be regarded as one of the top Secretaries of State and will be formidable in 2016.

-spence

Yes, the top Sec of State, infamous for feigning taking enemy fire, and doing nothing to prevent or save our Bengahzy Embassador from being murdered. Very impressive.

"What does it matter"?
Beside the ones that gave their lives over in Benghazi?

Because of her lies, there is a man sitting in jail right now and people threatening to take his and his families lives.

Love is special.

It must really pain some that Hillary will likely be regarded as one of the top Secretaries of State and will be formidable in 2016.

-spence
In what aspects is she one of the top Secretaries of State? What actions did she take that place her on that list?

It's easy to consistently make ridiculous statements when there never supported.
One thing that pains me is that gullible people believe every word that comes out of a politician's mouth.

What I don't get was that "she took full responsibility" (in her own words)
but where was the appropriate form of punishment ? I don't get it? all you have to do is "take responsibility" (whatever that means) and then move on with your daily life?

If your kid killed your neighbors dog and he said " I did it, I take full responsibility, I am sorry" There is normally some form of punishment or reparation he is forced to make. I don't see it in her case. Just claiming to take "responsibly" is not reparation for the act or non-act.

Love is special.

It must really pain some that Hillary will likely be regarded as one of the top Secretaries of State and will be formidable in 2016.

-spence

You should see a doctor I told you !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I don't get was that "she took full responsibility" (in her own words)
but where was the appropriate form of punishment ? I don't get it? all you have to do is "take responsibility" (whatever that means) and then move on with your daily life?

If your kid killed your neighbors dog and he said " I did it, I take full responsibility, I am sorry" There is normally some form of punishment or reparation he is forced to make. I don't see it in her case. Just claiming to take "responsibly" is not reparation for the act or non-act.
It's easy to take responsibility without consequences. She's awesome
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CBS had a great day Sunday beginning with Charles Osgood interviewing Spence's favorite anti-American, American Constitutional Law Professor...I think his name was Professor Forked Tongue-In-Cheek...probably native american or something...anyway, he, in a not so tongue-in-cheek manner proceeded to explain why current America should have little or no regard for and certainly should not be bound by the ideals and principles that the country was founded on and even less so to the tattered old rag Constitution thingy, no doubt to nodding approval of progressives across the nation....

then, of course, the shameless infomercial featuring the poster children for the destruction and remaking of America....smiling, and preening and convincingly reading the teleprompters behind what's his face's head...reminded me of the original Bill/Hillary 60 Minutes set up/puff piece interview where we learned that Bill had caused some pain in his marriage but that he'd never do it again....

strange times......:uhuh:

A little something on the lighter side.You do have to admit there's an uncanny resemblance.

A little something on the lighter side.You do have to admit there's an uncanny resemblance.



he he he he!

No need to see more testimony, from the situation
only that will tell the truth.

here's the only truth you'll get out of her Dave.....

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/hill.png

LOL, that's about it Rav.
Good to start the day with a laugh. :hihi:

Mission Accomplished :btu:

he he he he!


"I am the great CORNHOLEO!"

Liveshot is on the case now, it's only going to get worse

Benghazi is coming back to hang her and this administration. She perjured herself and there now documents with her signature on it proving it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazi is coming back to hang her and this administration. She perjured herself and there now documents with her signature on it proving it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Wrong again. i didn't hear it from Fox. Her signature is on some pretty relevant papers Spence. Perjury is ok with you I take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong again. i didn't hear it from Fox. Her signature is on some pretty relevant papers Spence. Perjury is ok with you I take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I understand it's typical for a lot of communications coming from the State department to be sent as they were from the Secretary...it's just a matter of business. I doubt you have any new information that indicates Hillary was personally aware of this...as previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

From what I understand it's typical for a lot of communications coming from the State department to be sent as they were from the Secretary...it's just a matter of business. I doubt you have any new information that indicates Hillary was personally aware of this...as previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

CBS no doubt :) Did I just hear a Jay Carney echo ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

previous non-partisan investigations have already concluded.

-spence

of course, because investigations always reach the right conclusion

From what I understand...
This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

Amazing how our President said the victims and their families
in Boston deserve answers and justice, and yet Tyrone Wood's Dad is still
fighting for, and waiting to get all the answers and justice for his son in Benghazi for how long now?

I just want to see the truth, without the spin from the left or right. I have not been believing convinced of what has been printed in the mainstream

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Sorry this comes from Fox. Not many other outlets are reporting on this, you see..

Darrell Issa: Hillary Clinton ?wrong? on Benghazi - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/darrell-issa-hillary-clinton-benghazi-90560.html)

4 people are dead Spence. Fair to say that the administration bungled this from start to finish (denied the extra security, blamed the attack on a youtibe video, now doing everything to avoid talkingbaout it.

They'll rake her over the coals a bit, but it won't hurt her approval ratings much, there are too many people like you out there who don't care when a liberal is guilty of incompetence (which at least contributed to the deaths of 4 superb Americans) and perjury.

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

LMAO, exactly correct. When he gets all of his "news" from The Huffington Post and The Daily Worker, his "understanding" is a tad askew.

Hillary is unaware of her underwear

This and similar other phrases always preface your replies that are full of spin or unsubstantiated opinions.

Do some homework, you'll see plenty of substantiation.

It's not clear who in the State Department sent the April 19 response. But as a general rule, "every single cable sent from Washington to the field is sent over the secretary of state's name," a former State Department official noted, adding, "Though they are trying to make this new, it's not. After 30+ hearings and briefings, thousands of pages, this has all been addressed."

http://ering.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/house_accuses_clinton_of_lying_approving_lax_bengh azi_security

GOP report faults State Department on Libya security | The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/56204961-68/report-attack-benghazi-department.html.csp)

House GOP report says Clinton rejected plea for more security in Libya - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-gop-report-says-clinton-rejected-plea-for-more-security-in-libya/2013/04/23/d2d03dfa-ac6b-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_story.html)

Same old story...let's rehash a sensitive subject just to create more confusion because it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016.

-spence

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.


Where's the proof?

-spence

Where's the proof?

-spence


I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

plea for more security in Libya - The Washington Post[/url]

Same old story...let's rehash a sensitive subject just to create more confusion because it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016.

-spence

I don't believe anyone previously claimed to have physical evidence that the Secretary of State lied under oath. So if this wasn't talked about before, that means this is a breaking story, and thus it's not a "re-hashing" of anything...

Spence, this is not a closed case. The administration has done everything they can to thwart attempts to figure out what happened.

"it suits our purpose. Defeating Clinton in 2016."

That's one way of looking at it. Another (more accurate) way of looking at it, is that your side is desperately trying to make this go away, in order to elect Clinton in 2016.

Spence, please answer one simple question...If it turns out there are documents signed by her that reject requests for security, do you think that's worth discussing, given that she denied that under oath?

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.
You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/issas-absurd-claim-that-clintons-signature-means-she-personally-approved-it/2013/04/25/58c2f5b4-adf8-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html)

-spence

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/issas-absurd-claim-that-clintons-signature-means-she-personally-approved-it/2013/04/25/58c2f5b4-adf8-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html)

-spence

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

Also, Spence...when confronted with the irrefutable evidence that she lied about being shot at, your response was that it doesn't really matter. SO to you, it's OK when liberals lie.

Some of us hope that our elected officials could be held to a slightly higher standard. The families of the 4 dead Americans, are entitled to an jonest explanation of what happened, EVEN IF the truth is inconvenient for those in your party. Dont you agree?

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

Yup, and she loses either way. As Secretary of State the buck stops there.
If she didn't know Benghazi was a hot spot and taken action to beef up security, she loses. If she knew about it she loses.

What is it that "doesn't matter" Madam Secretary?

Again, show us the tape in the situation room in real time the night of the attack.
That will settle everything.

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.
You didn't read the link.

-spence

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY :humpty:

-spence

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY :humpty:

-spence

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

You didn't read the link.

-spence



Sure I did. The link said that just because her signature is on the cable, doesn't mean she signed it. Fine. So let's invetsigate and see. Because as I correctly pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) she has lied to our faces before, and she did it with a straight face.

The Post, a liberal rag, is willing to take her word. I'm not, as she is a liar.

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

How many investigations do you need? There's already been an exhaustive and non-partisan led by Admiral Mullen which was highly critical of the State Department.

I don't believe the House had any new information, yet they decided to present a report which came to a damning conclusion based off of incomplete and what appears to be incompetent analysis.

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

Enough with the Obama slogans :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this how we move forward?

-spence

The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.

I don't believe the House had any new information, -spence

How about the possibility (not a certainty) of a document signed by the SecState, which could show that she lied under oath?

You would sweep that under the rug, because she supports your agenda. It's as simple as that.

How many investigations do you need?



-spence
As many as it takes to get at the truth.

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you. :huh:

As many as it takes to get at the truth.

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you. :huh:

Yep. This is yet another new (Spence: that means it's not a re-hashing of anything) allegation of a cover-up. It's just an allegation, but it needs to be investigated. Spence would prefer that we stick our fingers deeper into our ears, and our heads deeper into the sand. When the president is hip, black, and uber-liberal, he's not supposed to be investigated I guess.

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cannot begin to imagine how the families of those 4 dead Americans must feel. They must love this administration.

My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...

My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...

Unfortunately, it's a safe bet that the GOP wouldn't be so passionate about this, if there were no politics involved. That doesn't mean there's isn't a cover-up here that needs to be investigated.

She is a very, very formidable candidate. How that lie she told about being under sniper fire, doesn't end her career, I can't figure out. Plus she was an absolute flop as Secstate, as shown by the disaster in Libya that no one wants to discuss.

Here is what you need to know about her tenure as SecState. The Pakistani doctor who told us where Bin Laden was, is rotting in a Pakistani prison. He is still there. The State Department has been absolutely impotent in terms of getting this man released. That's the thanks we give him? What message does that send to others who are thinking about sticking their necks out to help us?

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the hell does that have to do with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure they are devastated. And if President Bush did indeed lie about starting that war, he should be punished for the pain and suffering he caused. He hasn't been so punished, because no sane person believes that he lied about the war because his goal was to make money. He (and many liberal Democrats) were "wrong" about WMDs. That doesn't mean they lied.

However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are not charged with looking out for the welfare of families in Iraq. They are charged with protecting and representing American interests. Failing to provide available help to Americans under fire, and then blaming the attack on another American citizen who made a dopey video, are serious charges that need to be investigated. There's abundant evidence that suggests gross incompetence, as well as a possible cover-up.

Agreed. Your point is valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Completely off topic. Halliburton charges the us government $75 for a soldier's single load of laundry in Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...

LOL, still can't figure how Hillary went from one of the most criticized and unlikeable persons on this forum and in general 6 or 7 years ago, to now becoming a formidable candidate in 2016.

Must be because the disaster unfolding with the current administration suddenly makes her look good.

The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you. :huh:
If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Yes. I don't like it when anyone (regardless of party) sends people to harm's way, rejects requests for extra security, refuses to send them aid when under attack, and then lies about what happened to protect their political careers.

I cannot believe I have ever posted anything that would make anyone think I am so blinded by ideology, that I wouldn't be critical of something like this. Unlike someone else here, I have been critical of those in my party when they earn it. and justplugit is even more level-headed than I am.

Rockhound, have you ever seen me thoughtlessly defending a conservative, despite substantial evidence? I doubt it.

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Fair also, but I would like to see Spence's answer to my question before commenting.

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

I've never claimed Bush lied. I'd place Rice in the same boat as Powell, trying to do the right thing but surrounded by others who had an agenda. I'd note they've both been publicly ostracized by the Admin insiders.

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.
No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.
Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.
First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence

No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.


Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?


First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence

"just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time"

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.

Spence -

It gets a little tiring when I constantly respond to all of your questions, and when I ask a tough one, you choose not to answer. So here it is.

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

Good luck..

QUOTE NEBE

"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in careers that use their creative minds."



"liberals".....as I read this stuff and listen to the news of the day I just don't see any evidence of this....maybe the "creative" part of their minds allow them to delude themselves into believing things that help maintain their odd worldview.... I see no independent thought...mindless regurgitation.....little recognition of good and bad except as it pertains to political designation.....really bad judgment and there are plenty of "very educated" people who don't have a shred of common sense....most are elected "liberal" democrats elected by "liberals".....

we have the worst economy in terms of growth in 84 years...lowest home ownership....highest dependence on food stamps and disability benefits....Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster and the ripple effect is devastating.......our foreign policy is a disaster, we are apparently importing and funding terrorism through our generous social programs and we have "liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

I think "liberals" tell themselves....delude themselves into believing Eben's description in many cases....which ultimately makes them a danger to themselves and others.....


Jim, if you were arguing with a brainwashed cult member he'd tell you that you were, in fact, the one who is wrong, has everything upside down, and suggest that you have some nefarious reason for unfairly attacking his leader :uhuh:

Bengazi is just another unfair attack on Dear Leader...move along........

QUOTE NEBE

"liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

......

I ponder this often...why do so many (not all) liberals bend over backwards to deny the connection between Islam and Islamic extremists? Why is the Fort Hood attack referred to as "workplace violence", when we all know the shooter was yelling "Allah Hu Akhbar" (Allah is great) as he was killing our soldiers? The administration has dropped the phrase "war on terror"...We're not at war with Islamic jihadists? They seem to be under the impression that we are at war...

How do you begin to win a war, when you won't admit who the enemy is?

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.
I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence

I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence

You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?

because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.

because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.

Here's my take, which isn't that difefrent from your take...

Those former Navy SEALs fought for their lives, for several hours.

Now, I know we can't expect that every single person in a dangerous post, will have a division of Marines across the street waiting.

However, we know this particular fight lasted for hours. We know that some special forces folks have said that they could have been sent to Libya, and gotten there in time to help - that may or may not be true, but that's what some soldiers are saying.

If help is available...even if you don't send them rushing in, you at least get the pieces moving, so that if you decide to send help, they are standing by as closely as they can safely get to.

Jimmy Carter could not have possibly bungled this any more...

Also, I don't expect instant answers. But I don't expect a cover-up, nor do I expect to close the book until we have all the answers. Brett Baier (who is not a partisan hack) had a soldier on who says he was close enough to have been sent to the annex before it was over. Others are saying they were pressured to keep quiet. Those things need to be looked into.

It's been pointed out before and it's clear to this point that the administrations and The sec of states response was all about 4 more years and not about 4 human lives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?
From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?
I love it, now you're asking people to defend hypothetical situations.

Perhaps Obama was too stoned to even think about it...did you consider that?

-spence

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

Seriously, are you OK?

In the situation we are discussing, Hilary's claim was not that she travels under routine threat of sniper fire. If she said that, no one would deny that.

That's not what she said. Am I going too fast for you? That's not what she said, so there was no reason for you to bring it up.

Here is what she said...

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to you, she didn't lie. Rather, "she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened."

You should work in PR for people like Hilary and Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden. As long as someone agrees with you on political issues, you are physicalluy incapable of calling them out for egregious and immoral behavior.

"You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative"

Not a pathological liar...rather, pathologically immoral. I recall scandals involving FBI files, Whitewater, this bold-faced lie, travelgate. Then there is her loving husband...So I'm not "trying to establish" this pattern of moral bankruptcy - I'm just pointing out the irrefutable facts...facts for whicj you will do anything to deny or mitigate. You are the one bending over backwards to adjust the facts to fit your political narrative (that narrative being that it's wrong to kill convicted murderers, but it's OK to slaughter unborn babies), not I.

"She also had to deal with the fallout"

What fallout? Not from the likes of you. She got promoted to SecState. Maybe not the best position for someone who is so disconnected from reality that she think sse has been shot at when she hasn't. What if she is sitting across from the president of Mexico, and she falsely accuses him of trying to shoot her?

This lie, by the way, was a slap in the face to the security personnel at the arrival site (2 of whom were friends of mine) who risked their lives to secure the area surrounding her arrival site. They risk their lives to keep her safe, and she shows her gratitude by saying that they are incompetent. Classy.

I just can't figure out how you can support her so blindly, and not feel like you need to take a shower. She's repugnant.

Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.

I said she lied, which she clearly did.

Spence siad she "mischaracterized" what happened.

And I am the one who is biased. Got it.

My wife likes blown glass, is that what you do? Do you have a website?

I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.



Yes she did, but her lying isn't important to liberals. They will give her a
pass because maybe something traumatic happened in her past and she could
be rehabilitated. Like Spence says, credibility can be rebuilt.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.

Well, in that case it was political. The Senate Dems couldn't get the Repubs to do anything unless they agrees to push off the Admin use of intel into a future phase. And then, the Repubs dragged their heels until the Dems took the Senate.

I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.
That's a presumption of guilt.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.
The Mullen investigation was pretty substantial and from everything I've read they had good cooperation by the Administration. They interviewed over 100 people and apparently made public attempts to solicit information. Why didn't these people come forth earlier? Because they were intimidated? Come on...

I'd also note (as I assume nobody here has taken a second to bother and read up about it) it lays plenty of blame on the State Department for not having better contingency plans on the table or responding to escalating threats.

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it
And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).

And all this after killing Vince Foster.

-spence

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).



-spence

YET 100% DISHONEST.......America is a wonderful place.....pretty sure Hill had her highest approval ratings when she was being seen or viewed as victim of Bill's transgressions.....odd world

GALLUP

The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.

Clinton's popularity may be partly due to the nature of the secretary of state position, which is somewhat above the fray of partisan politics and focused on defending U.S. interests globally.

Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

aren't we told that all of the time?

both probably enjoy a helpful tailwind thanks to the fact that they've been media darlings since hitting the national scene...through good and bad the MSM has propped them both up....should probably add that "contex" when comparing those #'s to others who didn't enjoy the mediagasm to the same degree.......

credibility can be rebuilt.

At Present, see Mark Sanford.

At Present, see Mark Sanford.

Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whatever, you me and eben are on one-side of this song, Jim, Scott and Justplugit are on the other...

Todd Snider "Conservative Christian..." Live on Soundcheck - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6okzwGWM8)

Whatever, you me and eben are on one-side of this song, Jim, Scott and Justplugit are on the other...

Todd Snider "Conservative Christian..." Live on Soundcheck - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6okzwGWM8)



LOL, good one RRH, a bit extreme when it comes to me, but good try any way. :btu:

God bless Todd Snider. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL, good one RRH, a bit extreme when it comes to me, but good try any way. :btu:

I think the "brilliance" is in his ability to write and sing a song that sucks strewn with mindless stereotypes and still get applause.....
and an AMEN from Eben....:biglaugh:

kinda like poetry and art these days...you can get federal funding to assemble a pile of twigs and take a dump on it and exhibit it in an art museum and the critics will rave!.....:uhuh:


hey Eben....can liberals be hippies?...or hippies be liberals?....pot smoking, porn watching people in desperate need of a bath doesn't quite align with your definition....just wondering......

Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I didn't estabish any demographics or refer to anyone as idiots...except for you in the Ayers thread
:):)

so....what is your point?

I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "

Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.

My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said it, not me...

I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.

My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.

"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "

Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.

My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hey Eben....can liberals be hippies?...or hippies be liberals?....pot smoking, porn watching people in desperate need of a bath doesn't quite align with your definition....just wondering......
Anyone can be anything in the country. Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... That's the beautiful thing about America. Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear you. The vast majority of career politicians are flawed. Similarly, if I had a sister, I'd tell her nnot to believe everything a guy tells her in a singles bar.

But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.

Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?

Anyone can be anything in the country. Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... That's the beautiful thing about America. Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So anyone can be anything and be American, except Christian right wing republicans can't be anything because that would be anti American.

Perhaps history is being re-written, but I seem to recall reading about very "right wing" Christians being instrumental in founding this country that allows anyone to be anything . . . except right wing Christian republicans, of course.

Very "creative liberal" thinking.

But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.

Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?

Yes, the worst kind of liars in my mind, egocentric liars who try to build themselves up and fool others into thinking they are more than they are,insecure and not to be trusted.
Phonies.

Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't want to end any of these....particularly Spence in womens panties :biglaugh: I would fall into the right-wing Christian republican category....is there a vast conspiracy that I'm unaware of that is seeking to ban these things that you hold so dear ?

There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.



Spence- [/Quote] "that is an assumption of guilt."

No Spence ,it's just a red flag going up in an inquiring mind.

You said it, not me...
I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.

I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.
I assume you're exempting FOX News which is #1 on TV, Rush and Hannity who are #1 and #2 on talk radio, the WSJ which is the largest newspaper in the country (followed by USA Today which isn't exactly a liberal rag).

We don't even need to go into the conservative personalities like Will, Krauthamer, Brooks, Doutha, Parker etc... etc... etc... that contribute regularly to the largest newspapers you've accused of being liberal.

I'd say your 99% number is off by about a billion.

My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.
He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.

I highly doubt your father with a PhD in EE has been brainwashed by the 99%.

-spence

My wife is excited to browse.
You should take her shopping, he has plenty of warez that make great statement pieces in the house. Bring plenty of money :hihi:

I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...
Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici :bshake:

-spence

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici :bshake:

-spence

LMFAO!!! :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.



-spence

more like interpolating....you made the idiot statement..actually, several now..I acknowledged that this is in fact what we are told essentially by the elitists and why their guidance administered through heaping helpings of government bureaucracy is deemed necessary to help us through our daily lives apparently.....idiots?...no....apathetic?...probab ly...:uhuh:

Nope, no new evidence of anything, nohting to see here...

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/)

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici :bshake:

-spence

This from the guy who will not concede that Hilary lied about getting shot at...

I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.


He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.

-spence

Here's is what my father, and you, don't get.

Yes, he paid into SS and Medicare.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM...

What they have paid into these programs, combined with interest income, is nowhere near enough to pay for the promised benefits. The ony way to pay for those benefits, is to borrow, meaning future generations will be burdened with that much more debt. Please tell me if I'm wrong anywhere?

Spence, when those programs were founded, there were more workers-per-retiree, retirees lived only a few years in retirement, medical costs were low, and interest rates were high. That made it feasible. Now, the math has turned upside down.

Do you deny that? Or are you just unable to grasp the mathematical reality? Those programs are underfunded by, according to some estimates, $100 trillion.

I conclude that if those programs are underfunded by $100 trillion, then the promised benefits are too rich. What other conclusion is there?

"He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract."

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that he was duped by Democrats who promised that if he voted for them, he would never let those mean Republicans take away his social security. That political tactic has been around for 70 years, because it works. It worked on my Dad. And sure as hell it worked on you.

Spence, I have asked you this many times, and I can't recall that you have ever answered. Let's try again. Since your side are the self-appointed guardians of all that is noble...how are you going to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars that are needed? Flower power? Electric cars? If you can propose a way to do that, which doesn't involve tax increases that even you would have to admit are crippling, I will support it. I truly will.

In summary, it doesn't matter what my Dad, or anyone else, feels they are entitled to. What matters is, we cannot begin to pay for the promised benefits.

This is why George Will says that liberals are actively hostile to arithmetic. You talk about how mean it is to propose cutting these popular programs (all Ponzi schemes are popular with those who cash out before it implodes), but you don't offer fixes to the problem.

Spence, exactly how much pay are you willing to confiscate from future generations, to pay for current benefits? Should our kids be levied 25 federal income tax points to pay for benefits for their grandparents' generation? That's not immoral, in your opinion?

It's a lot easier to criticize from the sidelines, than it is to offer solutions to the problem. For proof of that, see what happened when Paul Ryan proposed changes to Medicare. The reaction from your side speaks for itself.

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

Really? Just some ticked-off insiders on a political witch hunt?

Spence, tell that to Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Ruppersberger probably knows almost as much about this story as you do, and he sees the need for further investigation, in light of recent revelations. He welcomes the upcoming House Oversight hearings on what happened in Libya, saying "That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”

Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/)

I have no doubt that to you, these new revelations appear to be insignificant. Fortunately, for the sake of the families of the dead, that's not how it appears to some honest Democrats in the House.

I await your snappy comeback...

It's going to be mind blowing to those with a mind of their own. The second in charge of security in Benghazi is going to testify. You're going to also hear testimony that a flight of special ops was in the air enroute and was called off!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're going to also hear testimony that a flight of special ops was in the air enroute and was called off!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you know what? That's often the right call, especially in an emerging situation where you don't know everything.

I'm sure that making those decisions on the fly, is very difficult. And I don't expect Obama to be perfect, because Bush certainly was flawed. However, what I do expect (because this is what Obama promised) is to be told the truth. That's not what happened in this case. The administration clearly lied when they were still blaming the youtube video several days later. Worse, that video was made by a US citizen! How would you like to be that guy? Obama is blaming him for the attack, which he had nothing to do with?

I guess that's hope and change. When Obama gets caught with his pants down, instead of admitting it like an adult, he throws an innocent American citizen under the bus. Obama took an oath to serve all of us, even that guy who made the video.

Unfreakinbelievable.

All we need is the Transparency he promised the American people.

Nope, no new evidence of anything, nohting to see here...

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/)

Interesting how the man who led the counterterrorism bureau at the time says the assertion is bogus. He must have been out of the loop in the conspiracy.

-spence

It's going to be mind blowing to those with a mind of their own. The second in charge of security in Benghazi is going to testify. You're going to also hear testimony that a flight of special ops was in the air enroute and was called off!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't sound like that was the case. The testimony was that a group of 4 special ops were trying to head over and the military told them not to go...According to the DoD they were there to evaluate Tripoli security and only had 9mm hand guns.

-spence

The administration clearly lied when they were still blaming the youtube video several days later.
Well, thanks to the hard work at the Weekly Standard they've done some investigation on that.

The released information from the CIA's Office of Counter Terrorism shows that the connection to the video came from the CIA and not from the Administration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/hayestp.img_assist_custom-497x1400.jpg

-spence

The released information from the CIA's Office of Counter Terrorism shows that the connection to the video came from the CIA and not from the Administration.


-spence

Well, in the link that I provided, several democrats on the house intelligence committee, said that the administration was playing the youtube video card, long after there was overwhelming evidence that the attack had nothing to do with a video.

Well, thanks to the hard work at the Weekly Standard they've done some investigation on that.

The released information from the CIA's Office of Counter Terrorism shows that the connection to the video came from the CIA and not from the Administration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/hayestp.img_assist_custom-497x1400.jpg

-spence

Oh, and your hero Bill Ayers gave a speech at some violent lefty gathering, where he called John McCain a murderer. I'm glad he is molding the minds of our future teachers, that's just awesome.

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/06/william-ayers-says-weather-underground-bombings-not-same-as-boston-marathon/)

I am shocked that anyone is nieve enough to put any credibility in the ARB report . Such a thorough investigation that they didn't even interview Hicks, the second-in-command to Stevens or Hillary Clinton.
Clinton had the gall to tell the parents, as thier son's body was coming home, that it was the film makers fault. She is a despicable human being.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton had the gall to tell the parents, as thier son's body was coming home, that it was the film makers fault. She is a despicable human being.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What makes that even more morally bankrupt, is that the video was made by an American citizen. This is part of the American citizenry whom this wretched witch is supposed to be serving, this guy pays her salary, and she/Obama throw him under the bus (and invite God-knows what kind of retaliation) so they can shield themselves until after an election.

And as you said, what a thorough investigation. No one talked to the #2 in command...

And you are right, she is as disgusting as it gets, and like the Kennedys and her husband, most on her side won't hold her accountable for anything she does. I mean, there are plenty of very decent liberals, and plenty of reprehensible conservatives. But her lack of decency really stands out, there are no depths to which she won't descend, to get what she wants.

I saw video of her original testimony before Congress, banging on her desk, shrieking "4 Americans are dead! What does it matter if it was a video or a terrorist attack!" (then more indignant banging of her fists on the desk). According to her, there's no reason for us to ascertain what happened. After all, her last name is 'Clinton', so who the heck are we, to question her?

I saw video of her original testimony before Congress, banging on her desk, shrieking "4 Americans are dead! What does it matter if it was a video or a terrorist attack!" (then more indignant banging of her fists on the desk).

I saw her do and say that during the live hearing, turned to my wife and said,
She doeth protest too much. The best defense, or shrieking, is the best offense and she played it to the hilt. I can still picture her in those black rimmed glasses acting so self righteous.
I wonder if it would have mattered if Bill were the Benghazi Ambassador?

Oh, and your hero Bill Ayers gave a speech at some violent lefty gathering, where he called John McCain a murderer. I'm glad he is molding the minds of our future teachers, that's just awesome.

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/06/william-ayers-says-weather-underground-bombings-not-same-as-boston-marathon/)
For the viewers here the "violent lefty gathering" was the commemoration of the Kent State shootings. His remark about McCain should be taken in context, McCain tried to exploit the reporting of an Obama/Ayers relationship for political advantage during the 2008 election. Given Ayers known beliefs about the War you can't think this wasn't a targeted jab.

I'd also note that Ayers doesn't sound much like a Mao worshiping socialist as much as an anti-Vietnam activist given previous discussions. Just sayin...

-spence

I am shocked that anyone is nieve enough to put any credibility in the ARB report . Such a thorough investigation that they didn't even interview Hicks, the second-in-command to Stevens or Hillary Clinton.
Clinton had the gall to tell the parents, as thier son's body was coming home, that it was the film makers fault. She is a despicable human being.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm shocked that your ramp up hasn't let to any real insight on the attacks or their response. For all the hype there doesn't appear to be any new information of substance.

Not to mention the timed leaks with Fox News to promote the hearings...this is such a hit job to promote the idea of a cover up without offering ANY new evidence to support it.

I'm sure Hicks is a good public servant, but the idea that he "thought" air cover would have intimidated the insurgents isn't news...the military says they couldn't have got there in time and wouldn't have been able to refuel.

The other guy Bret Bair showcased last week appears to have credibility issues...Bret has put forth a false timeline of events and here's the opinion of US Marine Corps Officer and Special Team Leader Billy Birdzell...



On April 30, 2013, Fox News aired an interview with a supposed member of U.S. Special Operations Command who said that members of "C-110," who were training in Croatia on September 11, 2012, could have both arrived at the Benghazi consulate in 4-6 hours and arrived before the second attack on the annex during which Tyronne Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. The mystery man critiques the Obama administration's decision-making, yet offers no information as to how C-110 would have influenced the battle in such a way that the outcome would have been different. Perhaps because it was actually impossible for C-110 to arrive before the attack, and if they did, they would not have been able to do anything that would have prevented our heroes, Woods and Doherty, from being killed.

[...]

Assuming magical planes were waiting for the CIF and they were somehow able to physically get to the annex before 0515, mystery man failed to mention that Doherty and Woods were killed by mortar fire. Forty operators armed with rifles and light-machine guns can neither stop mortar rounds nor determine from where the mortar is being fired. The only thing the CIF would have done had they gotten to the annex before 0515 is created more targets and overcrowded the consulate.

Even if the CIF was on ready 5 (fully armed, sitting in the aircraft with pilots at the controls) in Sigonella (the closest European base to Benghazi) with advanced warning of an attack but unsure of the time, and they launched at 2232 on only-in-Hollywood orders from someone other than the president, they would not have been able to do anything about Stevens and Smith's deaths, nor stopped the mortar rounds. Strike three.

The person in the interview is a clown and I am incredibly disappointed in the news for not using Google.

And you guys are foaming at the mouth...You say you want the truth...I call BS. I say you just want a controversy.

Jim, is that doing service to the families of the dead?

-spence

Whoa Jeff,feeling dramatic?

I'm shocked that your ramp up hasn't let to any real insight on the attacks or their response. For all the hype there doesn't appear to be any new information of substance.

Not to mention the timed leaks with Fox News to promote the hearings...this is such a hit job to promote the idea of a cover up without offering ANY new evidence to support it.

I'm sure Hicks is a good public servant, but the idea that he "thought" air cover would have intimidated the insurgents isn't news...the military says they couldn't have got there in time and wouldn't have been able to refuel.

The other guy Bret Bair showcased last week appears to have credibility issues...Bret has put forth a false timeline of events and here's the opinion of US Marine Corps Officer and Special Team Leader Billy Birdzell...



And you guys are foaming at the mouth...You say you want the truth...I call BS. I say you just want a controversy.

Jim, is that doing service to the families of the dead?

-spence

"without offering ANY new evidence to support it. "

How about the whistleblowers' testimony? Is that not new evidence? Have they testified before?

"Jim, is that doing service to the families of the dead?"

A political witch hunt offers nothing to the family. A search for the truth offers much to the family. Lindsay Graham is not a right-wing attack dog. I also posted a link, quoting muliple high-ranking democrats as saying that these hearings are necessary.

Spence, are those Democrats on a political witch hunt?

Once again, you cannot allow for even the possibility, that Obama and Clinton were involved in a cover-up to save the election. Maybe that didn't happen, but there is evidence to suggest that took place. Let's get the facts.

Spence...(1) what about the fact that high ranking Democrats are suggesting these hearings are necessary? And (2) what do you think of Hilary saying that it doesn't matter whether it was a video protest or a terrorist attack?

I'm not foaming at the mouth. I simply want to get to the truth. Not Hilary's version of the truth, because she has lied before (that whole sniper fire thing, which you predictably sweep under the rug). I want the actual facts. To you, asking Democrats what happened, is a witch hunt.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;997847I'm not foaming at the mouth. I simply want to get to the truth. Not Hilary's version of the truth, because she has lied before (that whole sniper fire thing, which you predictably sweep under the rug). I want the actual facts. To you, asking Democrats what happened, is a witch hunt.[/QUOTE]

Bill Ayers is a great guy and doesn't lie....Hillary is a great gal and doesn't lie...but if they did it would probably be understandable and justifiable.....Bengazi and the WU activity over three decades is a figment of your imagination that you've concocted out of your deep hatred for both of them and our president....move long....


see how it works ? :uhuh:

one of the best radio shows in my opinion is the John Batchelor Show...he has a guest on periodically who posts a blog called No Quarter....he had some interesting comments about the folks that Spence mentioned, their qualifications etc...and the quote that he provided from the Birdzell opinion piee...Johnson is "colorful"...and "has a great resume"....which should be more than enough for Spence in terms of qualifications

"The ignorant and inexperience von Richter continues quoting what he thinks, mistakenly, is a dandy source:

In a separate article, U.S. Marine Corps officer and special operations team leader Billy Birdzell called Fox’s source “a clown” and criticized news outlets for “not using Google” before promoting him."

"Birdzell served as a team leader in MARSOC. Wow. Well, MARSOC’s Deputy Commander back then, Colonel Stephen Davis is an old friend and former colleague. I will endeavor to be charitable to Billy. Despite his limited experience in the Marine Corps, he has not been exposed to the full range of the Spec Ops community and certainly has never served with or trained with C-110.

"Having worked directly for a former commander of the Fifth Marines, I know a thing or two about the Marines and their role (or lack thereof) in the Special Ops community. Birdzell and Ricks simply are not correctly informed and do not know what they are talking about."


"I suspect that the shallow, erroneous thought displayed in this piece by our own troll, von Richter, is illustrative of the incompetence and inexperience that surrounded Obama on that fateful night last September. The ignorance and indecision of Obama and Hillary Clinton cost lives. Something could have been done and was not done"

The Flawed Accountability Review Board : NO QUARTER USA NET (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/75872/the-flawed-accountability-review-board/)

I suspect that if Birdzell had written the article critical of the administration and it's actors he'd be dismissed as a low level mal content looking for publicity and attacked as a hater :uhuh:


I guess we'll know more very soon...:uhuh:

Will we? I'm still waiting for the bombshell. We learned nothing material today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Will we? I'm still waiting for the bombshell. We learned nothing material today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain your definition if a "bombshell "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain your definition if a "bombshell "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By your expectation I was expecting "mind blowing" but instead we got a slightly different perspective on the same events with nothing that really challenges previous assertions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By your expectation I was expecting "mind blowing" but instead we got a slightly different perspective on the same events with nothing that really challenges previous assertions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please cite the evidence of that. I think you have an incomplete understanding of available facts.

I am happy to help you though...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
But you were ok when republicans lied??

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please cite the evidence of that. I think you have an incomplete understanding of available facts.

I am happy to help you though...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain to me please, how they could have thought , five days later, it was a protest? Incompetence ? Do you really believe that they are this stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and soooooo..........

But you were ok when republicans lied??

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't suppose you can imagine yourself in the position these four were in?
I'm not ok with lies period!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would say mind numbing on how ill prepared we were to respond to an attack on our embassy after repeated requests from Hicks, second in command to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens himself for more security in
a hot bed of terrorism before the anniversary of 9/11. Complete failure
on Clinton's part.
That Tripoli was down to 4 special forces troops from an original 14.
That a Drone was over the embassy taking pictures 2 hours into the attack but
an armed drone wasn't around in Libyia ?????
That the FEST ( Foreign Embassy Support Team) formed for just such attacks
was told to stand down. Kennedy said no, the FBI should handle it.
The 4 Special Forces troops in Tripoli were told to stand down during the attack.
There were 2 waves of attacks on the Embassy and no one knew how long the attacks would last so the fact they couldn't get troops there within 7 hours is a moot point. Maybe they had a crystal ball.
There were up to 60 terrorists inside the embassy.
The FBI didn't show up until 18 days after the attack, yet the Administration didn't want to release their classified??? reports.
Hicks was told by the Libiya Govt. it was a terrorist attack on 11/12 yet the administration blamed it on a movie hating crowd, and sent Rice out to talk it up a week later.
The CIA original talking points on the attack were cleansed more then twice by the State Dept. before being released.
The fact that Pickering/Mullen wouldn't show up for todays hearing and didn't interview either Hicks or Clinton for their Accountability Review Report.
Yes, Clinton was on the top of her game.

No smoking gun unfortunately, but it was a validation of what any rational person would conclude...

- we got caught with our pants down by not having more adequate security in place. That happens to all presidents at some point, hopefully we at least learn from that.

- I still cannot believe that we didn't send in the cavalry. The notion that we couldn't send them in because we didn't know what was going on, is flimsy at best. That's what the special forces guys train for, they routinely get sent into situations with less than perfect knowledge of what is happening. They do that all the time. We also had drones flying overhead, which would provide more than enough information for them to go in and take care of business.

- then, the cover-up. The only plausible explanation is that the attack came right on the feels of the Democratic convention, where Obama claimed that, thanks to him, AL Queda was on the run, with no real capabilities. In order to avoid looking like he made false claims, the administration did everything they could, to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, they blame a US citizen who made a dopey video, which everyone knew had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. That, right there, is the most inexcusable thing they did. In the process, they lied, they lied to all of us.

The TV stations, except one, will ignore the story, and Obama will emerge unscathed. The people (like me) who disliked him already, will dislike him more. His worshippers will continue to kiss his ring. And it will resurface when Hilary runs in 2016, but nothing seems to stick to her either, after all, her last name is Clinton.

Explain to me please, how they could have thought , five days later, it was a protest? Incompetence ? Do you really believe that they are this stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They didn't say 5 days later it was just a protest. They said that current information indicated it started as a protest which was joined by extremists.

The militant group reportedly claimed the video as motivation after the attack then recanted. The NYTimes reported attackers claiming video as the motivation after the attack. The initial and final drafts of CIA talking points included the line that suggested the video ignited the attack.

The CIA also did believe the militant group was involved early on and was investigating any links to alQaeda. Gen. Petraus is on record stating the terror references were intentionally removed by the CIA so as not to tip off any terror links that could be of value.

And what was left is what was given to Susan Rice. It's all out there...

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;99799 . It's all out there...

-spence[/QUOTE]

Now!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly evidence that We The People have no expectation of protection from our government. If we knowingly put people in harms way and don't adequately prepare to protect them how can we expect the same government to respond to us in time of need?

Now!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

- we got caught with our pants down by not having more adequate security in place. That happens to all presidents at some point, hopefully we at least learn from that.
The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.

- I still cannot believe that we didn't send in the cavalry. The notion that we couldn't send them in because we didn't know what was going on, is flimsy at best. That's what the special forces guys train for, they routinely get sent into situations with less than perfect knowledge of what is happening. They do that all the time. We also had drones flying overhead, which would provide more than enough information for them to go in and take care of business.
There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.

- then, the cover-up. The only plausible explanation is that the attack came right on the feels of the Democratic convention, where Obama claimed that, thanks to him, AL Queda was on the run, with no real capabilities. In order to avoid looking like he made false claims, the administration did everything they could, to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, they blame a US citizen who made a dopey video, which everyone knew had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. That, right there, is the most inexcusable thing they did. In the process, they lied, they lied to all of us.
There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.

‘‘There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,’’ [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)] said after the hearing. ‘‘They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

‘‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’’ Schiff said. ‘‘He completely debunked that idea.’’

Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews ‘‘reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.’’

AP


-spence

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence
You've lost your mind:(

-spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

Spence, did you ever answer my former question as to what you would be saying if it were Rice and Bush ??????

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

Spence, your argument (that this is just a witch hunt) would be alot more compelling if multiple top Democrats in the House weren't calling for these hearings. I posted that, and asked you about that repeatedly. You didn't respond, and continue to call this a political witch hunt.

It must be very convenient when you spout these theories, and ignore any and all evidence that refutes your theories. Must make your life easier when you completely ignore any and all challenges...

The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.


There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.


There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.



-spence

"There was no cavalry to send"

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?

"It wasn't just the confusion"

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).

"the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready"

How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.

"...Didn't the firefight last for hours?

What you said, and there is more then one rub. The fighting could of gone on for days, no one could have known it would only last for 7 hours.
Since when does our military not respond immediatly to an attack that's killing Americans?

Spence, did you ever answer my former question as to what you would be saying if it were Rice and Bush ??????
Hypothetical and not really relevant.

-spence

Spence, your argument (that this is just a witch hunt) would be alot more compelling if multiple top Democrats in the House weren't calling for these hearings. I posted that, and asked you about that repeatedly. You didn't respond, and continue to call this a political witch hunt.
It's funny the link you posted. Even FOX News can't get (i.e. don't want to get) the story straight, they continue to push discredited information long past when it was debunked. They have a chronic problem with this you know...

It must be very convenient when you spout these theories, and ignore any and all evidence that refutes your theories. Must make your life easier when you completely ignore any and all challenges...

That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory...well, that's if you can even call it an investigation. They didn't investigate anything.

The entire point of this tirade was to drum up media coverage.

-spence

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?
Show me a credible "report" that conflicts with the DoD.

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?
The ARB documented in great detail communication breakdowns that were systemic in nature.

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).
You just contradicted what you said earlier in this same thread.


How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.
Not ready for combat, those are a General's words and not mine.

-spence

It's funny the link you posted. Even FOX News can't get (i.e. don't want to get) the story straight, they continue to push discredited information long past when it was debunked. They have a chronic problem with this you know...



That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory...well, that's if you can even call it an investigation. They didn't investigate anything.

The entire point of this tirade was to drum up media coverage.

-spence

"That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory"

The hell it doesn't. It refutes your theory that the hearings were a political witch hunt.

In your mind, if Fox lies, they have no credibility? So why do you hold Hilary in such regard, afetr she lied about being shot at? Have fun with that one! It seems that you are quite selective at being outraged by dishonesty? Or am I mistaken?

Not ready for combat, those are a General's words and not mine.

-spence

You said the hearings were a political witch hunt. I said that can't be, since some top dems called for the hearings. You were not convinced by that. In other words, the fact that these Dems said they were lied to and that the hearings were necessary, was not enough to convince you.

Yet when a general says they weren't ready for combat, that's good enough for you.

As always...as soon as someone, somewhere, supports your agenda, they must be correct. If anyone questions or contradicts your agenda, they must be a lying political hack. No exceptions, ever.

Hypothetical and not really relevant.

-spence

True, and one question you do not want to answer knowing you
would have to admit you would also be trying to pursue the truth. :D

You said the hearings were a political witch hunt. I said that can't be, since some top dems called for the hearings. You were not convinced by that. In other words, the fact that these Dems said they were lied to and that the hearings were necessary, was not enough to convince you.

Yet when a general says they weren't ready for combat, that's good enough for you.

As always...as soon as someone, somewhere, supports your agenda, they must be correct. If anyone questions or contradicts your agenda, they must be a lying political hack. No exceptions, ever.

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

Great summary Jim, and yes there were Special Forces in Tripoli who could have responded according to the testimony of Risk. There were 4 Special Forces troops, down from the original 14, who wanted to respond but were told to stand down.

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.
Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

And therein lies the problems. It was the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
The Embassy had repeatedly asked for more security as they felt under threat
well before.
The resources should have been sent but they weren't. So who's
fault is that, the buck stops with the Secretary of State.

There was only ONE drone in the hot bed that made it within 2 hours
and NO armed drones in all of Libya ???? and no help sent however
far away it was????? That was the best decision they could make?? BS.

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

"the drones weren't armed"
"there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft"

Spence, whose fault is this?


Send people into a known hotbed of terrorism.
When the terrorists make threats, those people ask for more security.
Not only is the request for more security denied, but the existing security is reduced.
And according
to you, there is literally zero addiitonal help in the region to send.

Does that sound like the SecState is supporting her people in the field, Spence?

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?

Spence, which is it? Were there no special forces to send, or were they available but told to stand down?

There are no consistent answers to this, which is why we should keep digging. I keep hearing conflicting things, I don't know what to believe. I'm not like you, I don't accept one side and reject the other side, in every scenario.

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?



No not according to me, according to Hick's testimony at the hearings Wednesday.

Special Ops that aren't equipped or might have another priority doesn't mean the answers given are inconsistent. It simply means for a variety of reasons there wasn't a simple solution and the leadership had to make hard decisions. The guys in Tripoli according to the DoD weren't prepared for combat and were needed in case the threats against the actual embassy became real.

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this equipment the military has to make effective use of what they have. Did the government expect to be sending forces into Libya? They obviously didn't think do. The ARB has already found issues and solutions are in place.

I'm sure you didn't read about this on FOX but after the attack 30,000 Benghazi people protested the attacks and thousands sent condolences to Stevens's family.

-spence

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money.

-spence

The failure was the leadership decision not to send the proper protection
when the embassy asked for it from the State Dept. a month before.

What number of American's have to die before it is cost effective? :(

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

according to mediamatters...yes......I read through them quickly,,,,,from what I can see "no Americans killed" is a repeating theme.....does George Bush get points for doing a better job protecting Americans ?

:uhuh:2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:


Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.

Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:


Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.

The prosecutor general's office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.

The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.

The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:


A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.

Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.

Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:


Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.

Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling " Allahu akbar " -- "God is great" -- opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus's Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:


An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:


Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building's balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:


Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.

No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.

It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]





I love ya Eben but the "everybody does it" or "they all do it"......rationale is something that I don't even accept from my children...it's what you say when you've no defense left and it resolves and improves nothing...it does however, empower and enable the manipulative and the opportunists :uhuh:

you do reinforce the obvious need to better protect and to have better protected our embassies and staff given the history and one has to wonder how these folks were left so vulnerable and unable to get help in a timely fashion

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not only, as ScottW has pointed out, were no Americans killed, there was no need to cover up what happened. There was no need to call for investigations since what really happened was not hidden or lied about. No concocted stories were necessary to cover the butt of the Administration.

One thing I am pretty confident of is that under Bush's watch, there would have been better security and should a reaction be needed, a faster response.

The need to protect diplomatic officials / dependents is WAY HIGH of importance. Otherwise these people (this.hat really bust thier asses sometimes - not all are political donors in cushy locales) will be very reluctant to stick their necks out.

Now the administration is throwing the CIA under the bus. Methinks the career types are going to have a pushback on this

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And how many were American? None.

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The GOP is in shambles."

Yes, that's why they control the House of Representatives, and a large majority of governorships. We did get roughed up in November 2012, no doubt...

"Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president?? "

Nebe, not every death that takes place, means the president is an incompetent liar. Did Bush change the facts to blame an innocent American citizen for those deaths?

Special Ops that aren't equipped or might have another priority doesn't mean the answers given are inconsistent. It simply means for a variety of reasons there wasn't a simple solution and the leadership had to make hard decisions. The guys in Tripoli according to the DoD weren't prepared for combat and were needed in case the threats against the actual embassy became real.

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this equipment the military has to make effective use of what they have. Did the government expect to be sending forces into Libya? They obviously didn't think do. The ARB has already found issues and solutions are in place.

I'm sure you didn't read about this on FOX but after the attack 30,000 Benghazi people protested the attacks and thousands sent condolences to Stevens's family.

-spence



"Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this... "


Pardon me? According to you, the lives of all those Americans aren't necessarily worth the cost of fueling a jet? Brave Americans holed up in an embassy annex, under attack by terrorists, fighting for their lives in a foreign land. But to you, we can't splurge for the jet fuel to send in the cavalry, unless the Congressional Budget Office does a cost-benefit-analysis first?

So according to you...

- there were no special forces available
- no wait, they were available, but inadequately armed (as if you'd have any clue about that)
- no wait, they were busy working on "another priority", which is something they only told you about, I guess, because no one else is using that as an excuse
- no wait, they were available, but the US government doesn't have the liquidity to splurge on jet fuel (I notice you have no quarrel with spending money on jet fuel so Obama can fly around the world to vacation with the swells). Spence, by the time your Messiah is through with his second term, we might not have enough cash to fuel up a jet, but as of today, I think we can swing it.

Have you no shame? None at all?

"Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this... "


Pardon me? According to you, the lives of all those Americans aren't necessarily worth the cost of fueling a jet? Brave Americans holed up in an embassy annex, under attack by terrorists, fighting for their lives in a foreign land. But to you, we can't splurge for the jet fuel to send in the cavalry, unless the Congressional Budget Office does a cost-benefit-analysis first?

So according to you...

- there were no special forces available
- no wait, they were available, but inadequately armed (as if you'd have any clue about that)
- no wait, they were busy working on "another priority", which is something they only told you about, I guess, because no one else is using that as an excuse
- no wait, they were available, but the US government doesn't have the liquidity to splurge on jet fuel (I notice you have no quarrel with spending money on jet fuel so Obama can fly around the world to vacation with the swells). Spence, by the time your Messiah is through with his second term, we might not have enough cash to fuel up a jet, but as of today, I think we can swing it.

Have you no shame? None at all?
So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

translation: " I know you are but what am I ? "

haaaaaaaaa...good one! :rotf2:

So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

No, it's not my m.o., it's yours. Did you read my last post, where I listed a half-dozen lame excuses you have posted in this thread, as to why help was not available, or not sent?

You are the one who speculated that we didn't have a credit card handy to pay for the gas in the jet (I picture a 5-star general at a Shell station with his pockets turned inside-out), and you are the one who suggested that spec-ops teams had other priorities at the time. I haven't heard anyone else make those excuses, but that didn't stop you. You are the one who said that Hilary didn't lie about getting shot at.

Please don't include me in your world where it's OK to make stuff up as you go along. I don't do that...

You want to discuss? Let's discuss! Where did you get the idea, that the reason that special forces weren't sent in, is because they were doing off doing other things? From what I saw, those forces were available to be sent it, and wanted to go in, but were told to stand down.





.

translation: " I know you are but what am I ? "

:

Except I most certainly am not...

You want to discuss? Let's discuss! Where did you get the idea, that the reason that special forces weren't sent in, is because they were doing off doing other things? From what I saw, those forces were available to be sent it, and wanted to go in, but were told to stand down.
I got the crazy notion from the US Department of Defense.

They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat and there was concern about additional threats at the actual embassy. I've only said this about 5 times now...

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said. Also, as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting.

For all the beotching you guys do about manipulation by the media it's astounding how eagerly you lap it up.

-spence

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops.

To have such an agreement with a place that is a hot bed of terrorist and anti-American activity and then insert American personnel without even a backup plan in case of an emergency is purely god-awful, lame-brain, incompetent diplomacy.

Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0.

I hope we learned from Mogadishu and would not repeat the mistake. Drones, fighter jets, special ops, etc. would do a better job.

Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we should accept the excuses and move on? That grants the politicians license to do whatever they wish and cover it with lies if they feel the public will disagree. That is pretty much what has been happening for the past seventy or eighty years, and has brought about the continuing "fundamental transformation" of responsible citizens into dependent sheep.

If all politicians lie, and, probably, "all" humans lie, what is the point of law and order? What is the point of contracts and agreements of all sort? What is the point of "diplomacy" if it is potentially a pack of lies? Does truth ever enter the equation? Are truth, "transparency," honor, justice, government by of and for the people nice sounding phrases used by cynical politicians to hoodwink us into their peculiar vision of freedom?

So is lying the "safest thing to do"? Are we really safer if how we govern, how we relate to the rest of the world, how we as individuals act, depends on how well we lie? And how readily we accept those lies?

I think we need to get rid of all of them. Term limits for congress and the senate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops.
You bring up a good point that's often overlooked.

I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.

When we moved the drones in over Benghazi we asked for permission first so we wouldn't interfere with their airspace.

And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

I got the crazy notion from the US Department of Defense.

They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat and there was concern about additional threats at the actual embassy. I've only said this about 5 times now...

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said. Also, as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting.

For all the beotching you guys do about manipulation by the media it's astounding how eagerly you lap it up.

-spence

Spence, I asked you for proof of your position, that the special forces troops were involved with other priorities at th etime (something more vital than the lives of the Americans at the annex. Nowhere in this rant, do you support the notion that they were too busy.

"You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said."

You didn't provide a link to, or identify, who said they were inadequately armed, so I assumed that was your desperate attempt at explaining what took place.

If the troops weren't within reach, that's one thing. That's not what you said. You said they were off doing something more important, or that we didn't have the cash to fuel a jet, etc...

"They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat "

I have never heard of active-duty special forces troops not equipped for combat. I don't know who said that, nor do I know what their status was at the time of th eattack, so I could be wrong. But that's incomprehensible to me. By definition, these are extremely light-infantry assault troops. They don't need howitzers and battleships to support them.

"as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting:

I wager I know more about it then you, given that your political heroes won't make any fixes to SS or Medicare.

I get budgeting. And if you are the President, one of the first things you budget for, is safety measures for your folks in harm's way. If that was indeed the cause of this, budgeting (and I haven't heard anyone suggest that except you, that doesn't speak well of Obama's prioritization skills, does it? He has the $$ for a $25 million Hawaiin vacation, but no finds to protect diplomats in terrorist zones? Does that speak well of Obama's abilities to you?

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? "

You drop them a mile from the mob, and they are there in 10 minutes. Infantry tactics 101. We had unarme ddrones flying overhead, that told us all we needed to know about where to drop those guys.

Also, if you can't risk an RPG attack, you may as well get rid of helicopters, becauae that risk is always present. Those guys train gfor hot insertions all the time, it's well within the capabilities. That's just fact, they get inserted into hot zones all the time...

I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please.

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.

The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?

And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


probably.....what would have happened if?.......probably.......

maybe......you are so convinced that every bleepin' one lies.... that you are probably desperately reaching to avoid the truth:uhuh:....which is tough to accept....


"If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools."

if you can produce a fool who thinks this I'll give you a hundred bucks:uhuh:

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said.
-spence

he was just extrapolating from your previous posts :rotf2:

wait...when did Jim attack your lack of combat experience?....are you making things up?

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.
People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?
We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much., conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."
Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism :hihi:

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic. One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.


-spence

If I'm not mistaken, a country owns the Embassy property in the host country.
If the host country can't defend it we have the right to do it ourselves and is why we have defending troops in our Embassies.

We wouldn't have been acting with impunity in Libya, just defending the lives of our citizen personnel and the property we rightfully own.

You drop them a mile from the mob, and they are there in 10 minutes. Infantry tactics 101. We had unarme ddrones flying overhead, that told us all we needed to know about where to drop those guys.
I love all these fantasy hypotheticals that ignore what our own military leadership say about the situation.

They're probably all in on it as well. Jesus, this conspiracy is going to take down thousands of top officials.

-spence

If I'm not mistaken, a country owns the Embassy property in the host country.
If the host country can't defend it we have the right to do it ourselves and is why we have defending troops in our Embassies.

We wouldn't have been acting with impunity in Libya, just defending the lives of our citizen personnel and the property we rightfully own.
Read the Wiki.

An Embassy is not sovereign territory, but the diplomats are usually afforded special privileges. The attack on Benghazi wasn't even on the "Embassy" but a consulate office.

So if you were to station Marines at the Embassy they could defend it, but that doesn't mean they could fly in air support and bomb attackers.

-spence

You bring up a good point that's often overlooked.

I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.

When we moved the drones in over Benghazi we asked for permission first so we wouldn't interfere with their airspace.

And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

"The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil"

Did you just make that up? What's that, reason #8 why no soldiers went in (there were none, there were some but they weren't armed correctly, there were some but they were too busy, there were some but we couldn't afford to gas up the plane, there were some but Libya wouldn't let them in."

"And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism""

There were terrorist threats to the embassy in Libya (valid threats, it would seem". Terrorism is the reason that the diplomats asked for more security...they weren't afraid of flashers...

"in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up."

I don't play that card, you do. Spence, put down "Audacity Of Hope", and google "Al Qaeda Libya",and see what you get. Let's see if you are honest enough to admit that prior to the attack in Benghazi, the whol intelligence world knew Al Queda was active in Libya.

"Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?""

It wasn't always lightly protected. revently, the state department drastically reduced the number of security personnel. Very perceptive move, no?

Spence, there are patriots in this country who will gladly worl in areas that we know are dangerous. We owe it to such patriots to support them. I guess you disagree.

I love all these fantasy hypotheticals that ignore what our own military leadership say about the situation.

They're probably all in on it as well. Jesus, this conspiracy is going to take down thousands of top officials.

-spence

"I love all these fantasy hypotheticals "

It's not a fantasy hypothetical. Going back to at least Vietnam, helicopters have been used thousands of times to rescue Americans that are pinned down or surrounded, or out-numbered, in hot zones. Do you deny that? Do you seriously deny that?

I'd consider giving you a mulligan on that post.

-spence

I'd consider giving you a mulligan on that post.

-spence

I'm not sure what you mean, and it's doubtful I care.

Spence, you said I fabricated the notion that Al Qaeda was known to be active in Libya. You said I fabricated the notion that military helicopters are quite capable of extracting soldiers who are pinned down.

You're wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. Maybe you should ask yourself, why is it that you have to lie so blatantly and so regularly, in order to support that which you believe? That should indicate that there might be something flawed about what you believe.

I'm not sure what you mean, and it's doubtful I care.

Spence, you said I fabricated the notion that Al Qaeda was known to be active in Libya. You said I fabricated the notion that military helicopters are quite capable of extracting soldiers who are pinned down.

You're wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. Maybe you should ask yourself, why is it that you have to lie so blatantly and so regularly, in order to support that which you believe? That should indicate that there might be something flawed about what you believe.
I didn't say any of those things.

What universe do you live in?

-spence

I didn't say any of those things.

What universe do you live in?

-spence

OK, so now Spence is denying that he claimed in made up that Al Qaeda was n Libya. Here is what you posted, an exact quote...

"I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up."

Spence, you also deny that you said I was inventing fantastic hypotheticals about using helicopters to rescue americans...here is what you posted, an exact quote...

"I love all these fantasy hypotheticals"

Read the Wiki.

An Embassy is not sovereign territory, but the diplomats are usually afforded special privileges. The attack on Benghazi wasn't even on the "Embassy" but a consulate office.

So if you were to station Marines at the Embassy they could defend it, but that doesn't mean they could fly in air support and bomb attackers.

-spence

Read your Wiki source and found nothing about Embassy land ownership.

However, a Yahoo Search turned up that Embassys are either OWNED or Leased from a country and therefore it's property.

Please show me the law that says we can't protect our citizens under attack
with air support. Come on Spence, Wiki and your statement about no air support to save American lives doesn't cut it.

So you're saying that if I buy property in France the US Govt can send in the military to protect me?

Wow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil"

Did you just make that up? What's that, reason #8 why no soldiers went in (there were none, there were some but they weren't armed correctly, there were some but they were too busy, there were some but we couldn't afford to gas up the plane, there were some but Libya wouldn't let them in."

.

I love ya Spence, but you have to admit, that is funny. :hihi:

So you're saying that if I buy property in France the US Govt can send in the military to protect me?

Wow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No not you as an individual owner, but I hope so if you were living under a US Flagged/owned property.

People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

You said that "people have become so used to acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do whatever we please. Now, by "people" you mean the citizenry. A whole lot of the citizenry that I'm familiar with and whose opinions I've read or heard in various media have a different view. We did not act with impunity. Many "people" (citizenry) feel that we were too restrained and too bound by restrictive rules of engagement. And we did not act alone, but with others and with a great deal of worldwide and U.N. approval as well as with congressional consent. We paid a tremendous price for those incursions. That was not impunity. And many paid a political price as well. That was not impunity.

That some "people" got the notion that we acted with impunity may be the result of anti-American, anti-war, anti-capitalistic, and academic propaganda. Maybe even from books like bacehvich's The New American Militarism.

We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

We have diplomatic personnel in nations that are not dangerous and can't freely operate our military their either. But they are allowed to defend themselves and their diplomats if attacked. Or will even if they are not "allowed." If there is no plan or method to protect diplomats in dangerous countries, we should not send them there. That invites exactly what happened. That is not competent.

Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism :hihi:

It may be a hotbed of crime, but terrorism--I don't think so. At least not yet.

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.

The administration's version is that Al Qaeda was on the run and ineffective, that the administration had pretty much secured our safety, especially after the killing of bin Laden. That it was not a "big topic" was negligent, incompetent, and unrealistic. It unnecesarily left the diplomats vulnerable

One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

Apparently, the administration was wrong.

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.
-spence

didn't they ban that phrase?....no wonder it wasn't a big topic:uhuh:

the only thing worth noting is that the security situation was deteriorating, help was requested, was not given and Americans ended up dead and the administration and it's surrogates lied repeatedly about it and continue to...there were a number of incidents leading up to this

"The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June"


..you can continue to split hairs and regurgitate the talking points....the effect of which reinforces the fact that we have people who aren't nearly as smart as they pretend to be and who are too caught up in their I'm smarter than you posture and ideology to see or acknowledge what is actually going on and who will say and do just about anything to maintain that posture and promote their ideology which makes them a danger to the rest of us .....

Spence...if you deal in facts and truth you don't have to engage in all of the word games and obfuscation.....what happened is very clear...this game that you play serves no purpose but to make you look like a fool....as in the Ayers thread......


btw....Jim posted an article with remarks from a recent speech by Ayers where he made this comparison....



Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical who went on to become a college professor and associate of President Obama, said Saturday the bombings he helped the Weather Underground carry out to protest the Vietnam War bear no resemblance to the deadly Boston Marathon attack.

“How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers told a reporter who asked him to compare the incidents . “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.”


I'm sure that you can find some logic in this stupidity Spence but I'm pretty sure that of the four examples...three are illegal and can or could have deadly consequences and shooting at a hunting range is a most absurd comparison....but some are so impressed with their pretend brilliance that they don't realize or care that they look like fools....:uhuh:

"no relationship at all" :yak5:

Eben...you should read this

National Review Online | Print (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/347980/print)

The Benghazi Lie
A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.
By Mark Steyn

" Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it."

Eben...you should read this

National Review Online | Print (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/347980/print)

The Benghazi Lie
A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.
By Mark Steyn

" Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it."
What a bunch of well written malarkey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a bunch of well written malarkey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

coming from someone who has been complicit in all of the lies and incompetence to this point....an understandable position :uhuh:

coming from someone who has been complicit in all of the lies and incompetence to this point....an understandable position :uhuh:

He quotes the New York Times, but Marc Steyn is full of malarkey! Nor does he specify one thing that is demonstrably false...it's just malarkey cuz it paints the Messiah in an unfavorable light, and that can't possibly have any validity to it.

Steyn is clearly a racist...

He quotes the New York Times, but Marc Steyn is full of malarkey! Nor does he specify one thing that is demonstrably false...it's just malarkey cuz it paints the Messiah in an unfavorable light, and that can't possibly have any validity to it.

Steyn is clearly a racist...

That's one possibility.

It's malarky because he makes an extremely aggressive suggestion and never provides any evidence to back up the case. It's a classic case of circular logic run amok.

Don't let RIROCKHOUND see this, he'll have an aneurysm.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;99848

It's malarky because he makes an extremely aggressive suggestion and never provides any evidence to back up the case. .


-spence[/QUOTE]

pot......kettle:uhuh:

guess that makes you 95% malarkey

.

It's malarky because he makes an extremely aggressive suggestion and never provides any evidence to back up the case.

-spence

I would think you'd be very sympathetic to that tactic, ye of the "we didn't send in special forces because the Libyans wouldn't let us" fabrication...

You really don't see any irony in that statement?

Ha, keep making stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/)

-spence

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/)

-spence

Spence:
Gates is a known communist, obviously.

Spence:
Gates is a known communist, obviously.
Worse, in the interview he actually DEFENDS Hillary Clinton's character!

That alone should get him on the no fly list.

-spence

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/)

-spence

You call it "very good perspective" , and you call Marc Steyn's perspective "malarkey". You don't offer one shred of support for why one guy's perspective is "very good", and the other guy's perspective is "malarkey", because you don't dig that deeply. If someone agrees with you, they are correct, if someone disagrees with you, they are incorrect.

I had always said, that if there were no special forces available, then, you can't send what you don't have. I still don't know if that's true. Gates says no one was available to send. Others have said forces wanted to go, but were told to stand down. I want to know the truth.

As to Gates' assertion that you can't send in a Delta Force team unless you have absolutely perfect intelligence? He's wrong. He's just wrong.

Spence, do some research on the publicly available data on what these guys do...they specialize in the impossible, and they are ridiculously good at it.

You think they had perfect intelligence about who, and what, was inside Bin Laden's compound? The Seals didn't know if people in there were wired with explosives, they didn't know if there were booby traps, they didn't know if Bin Laden was holding hostages. You could fill the oceans with what they didn't know. And yet they went in.

Lastly Spence, where in Gates' piece did he say that the Libyans rejected our request to send in troops, because you certainly mentioned that as a reason why no help was sent in...

Gates also could not comment on why the request for additional security, before the attack was rejected. Nor did he comment on the alleged cover-up in blaming the video.

Spence, I concede that you can't send in the cavalry if there isn't a cavalry to send. But if there was no cavalry to send (and some have said there was cavalry to send), it's valid to ask why the hell not.

Put that aside...most folks have said that the cover-up was the most scandalous part of this, and the "very good perspective" you posted, didn't mention that.

If you ask a lot of the recently retired military, especially those with recent last decade (AFG/IRAQ) service there should have been resources available. Part of the reason to find out, that and if there was a cover up.

This was watched in mil/security watch centers all over the world. Something should have been sent. You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. You do not know how things are going to be 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours later. But if you do nothing or order to do nothing by way of getting people to the area, then you forfeit the ability to influence events.

You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. .

Another key point. You at least mobilize what you have, and move some kind of force toward Libya, so they are closer if you should decide to send in the cavalry.

If the closest help is on Mars, you get them moving towards Benghazi. Because if the firefight lasts that long, at least you now have the chance to send in help.

Were any assets moved one inch toward Benghazi? Or did we leave the whole thing for the Libyans? Did Obama do anything more than ask the Libyans to wait fo rthe shooting to stop (which took several hours), and then go collect the American corpses?

Another key point. You at least mobilize what you have, and move some kind of force toward Libya, so they are closer if you should decide to send in the cavalry.

If the closest help is on Mars, you get them moving towards Benghazi. Because if the firefight lasts that long, at least you now have the chance to send in help.

Were any assets moved one inch toward Benghazi?

Great points.
Weren't there Carriers in the Mediteranean that can move at 30 plus knots with F-18s that have a ferry range of 1800 miles and a speed of 1200 mph, that could have landed in Tripoli for fuel if needed, and buzzed Benghazi with their 20mm cannons?
Oh that's right, probably not cost effective. :(

You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. You do not know how things are going to be 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours later. But if you do nothing or order to do nothing by way of getting people to the area, then you forfeit the ability to influence events.
According to ABC Within hours of the attack multiple platoons of Marines trained to protect diplomatic missions were moved to Italy and Special Ops were moved into place in case there was a hostage situation. Some were sent to Tripoli but not Benghazi as the Americans had already been evacuated.

Pentagon on Benghazi Troop Movements: ‘Swift Action’ on Night of Attack - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/pentagon-on-benghazi-troop-movements-swift-action-on-night-of-attack/)

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information -spence

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information -spence

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

And I'm glad to hear that troops were moved, at least...

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the Obama administration got to the reporter :)
Next ..... I feel bad for you Spence. this must be getting exhausting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

[QUOTE=spence;998691

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Information is only as good as it's depth and truth.

We still don't know what roll the Commander in Chief played in this debacle.
Where was he, in the situation room leading and making decisions, packing his suite case for the next days fund raiser or what? Why didn't Hilary askHicks, the second in command, in her telephone call during the attack, who the culprits were? Why was the President on David Letterman 2 weeks later still pushing the gathering movie crowd explanation along with Rice?

Those are some of the questions that need to be answered for the record.

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

Never said such a thing...keep whiffing.

-spence

Information is only as good as it's depth and truth.
Oh God the irony.

We still don't know what roll the Commander in Chief played in this debacle.
He was likely working on his golf swing obviously. Obama hates America.

Why was the President on David Letterman 2 weeks later still pushing the gathering movie crowd explanation along with Rice?

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.

4 media outlets reported attackers claiming the video was the source of their outrage and from the investigation there certainly was CIA opinion that it was a factor. The question that's impossible to answer is if the video never happened would the attacks never have happened? I don't think anyone can prove that, but early evidence sure seemed to indicate there was a relationship.

-spence

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/)

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F)

-spence

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/)

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F)

-spence

Love it. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.



-spence[/QUOTE]

Spence, don't put your reading glasses away yet, you'll have a 100 e-mails
to read now that they were released with prolly another couple of 1000 still held.

The question that's impossible to answer is if the video never happened would the attacks never have happened? I don't think anyone can prove that, but early evidence sure seemed to indicate there was a relationship.

-spence

WOW....you are really scraping :uhuh:

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.


-spence

he's Pinnocchio....if they put him on Mt Rushmore he should have a really long nose with a little twig and leaf at the end :uhuh:

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html)

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/)

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F)

-spence


great source ... two unnamed "government officials"..."said".... hope they got the right draft of the memo

Never said such a thing....

-spence

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/)

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F)

-spence

(1) Stevens may have declined military help weeks before the attack. But he asked the State Department for extra security before the attack. Not only was this request denied, his security force was reduced.

(2) During the firefight, the former Seals repeatedly asked that the cavalry be sent in to destroy the mortar positioned that they had lit up with a laser sight.

Therefore, I can't see mich relevence in your post, in which it is alleged that Stevens declined extra military security. Perhaps he assumed he'd get the security he needed from his superiors at the State Department.

no one can know, and I can't see how it matters.

You post something that's off topic, and offer no explanation on how it ties to incompetence and a cover-up at the State Dept and the White House, all you can say is "wow".

Wow.

Were there Marines at the embassy in Tripoli? If so, I wonder what they wanted to do, and what they were told...

(2) During the firefight, the former Seals repeatedly asked that the cavalry be sent in to destroy the mortar positioned that they had lit up with a laser sight.

.

This is what should have destroyed" the movie mob cause" reason for the attack from the getgo.
Like crowds of movie goers are carrying mortars around with them to or after the show. :smash: What a farce.

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

This is what should have destroyed" the movie mob cause" reason for the attack from the getgo.
Like crowds of movie goers are carrying mortars around with them to or after the show. :smash: What a farce.
The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.

I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.

-spence

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

"I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya..."

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

When the Allies stormed Normandy Beach in June 1944, you could call it an i'nvasion', but not in the sense that I gather you mean... i'm confident that you are likening Bush to Gengis Kahn. The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.

I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.

-spence

It's certainly possible that if this started out as an anti-video protest, that hours later, it morphed into a military asault.

So the use of mortars, hours later, doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have started as a protest. However, from the testimony I have seen, it appears that there was very little reason to assume it started as a protest, and overwhelming reason to assume it was an assault.

In the Rose Garden the next morning, Obaba said terrorist acts would not be tolerated. Stands to reason he was talking about the Benghazi assault. That's why I van't understand why someone very high up, told Rice to go on TV day slater, and play the anti-video protest card.

If Obama called it what it clearly was, there is no way Republicans can allege cover-up. But the feds changed their story, Rice's comments on TV were baffling, as was Hilary's disgraceful performance at the hearings, when she claimed it didn't matter how it started. What she is saying is, don't hold this administration for the validity of what they say.

This was easily avoidable, but Obama/Hilary brought this onm themselves.

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.
Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.

The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.

I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.
Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.
The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.

in·va·sion: Noun

entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.

There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.
Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.

The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"


Directly after the invasion, polling suggested that a slight majority supported the US invasion.[9] The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US presence and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war and that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction.[10] Other polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 showed 31–37% of Iraqi's wanted US and other Coalition forces to withdraw once security was restored and that 26–35% wanted immediate withdrawal instead.[11][12][13] Another poll conducted on September 27, 2006, found that seven out of ten Iraqis want US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq within one year. Overall, 78% of those polled said they believed that the presence of US forces is "provoking more conflict than it's preventing." 53% of those polled believed the Iraqi government would be strengthened if US forces left Iraq (versus 23% who believed it would be weakened), and 71% wanted this to happen in 1 year or less. All of these positions were more prevalent amongst Sunni and Shia respondents than among Kurds. 61% of respondents said that they approve of attacks on US-led forces, although 94% still had an unfavorable opinion of al-Qaeda.[14] Despite a majority having previously been opposed to the US presence, 60% of Iraqis opposed American troops leaving directly prior to withdrawal, with 51% saying withdrawal would have a negative effect.[15][16]
A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces was making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.
Keep making things up.

-spence