I read the book, I will see the movie. I have seen the 3 security operators (3 of the 5 who are going out in public).

Almost 12 hours had passed from the time the first shots were fired, to the time that the 2 former SEALs were killed back at the CIA annex. 12 hours. In that time, they couldn't get any air assets to Benghazi, other than an unarmed drone?

Not buying it. we had assets in southern Europe and Africa. Christ, an F-16 from Massachusetts could probably get there in 12 hours.

The families of th efallen (families of at least 3 of the 4) say that at the airport, Hilary told them that the filmmaker (an American citizen) was responsible for the attack, and that she was going to have him arrested. She denies saying this. The families insist she is saying it.

She is a serial liar. We know this. We know she lied about coming under sniper fire. we know she lied when she said that the GOP wa sframing Bill to make it look like he was cheating on her. So who do we believe?

I don't claim to be objective, as I truly believe that she is one of the most revolting, self-serving, slimy people in the country. But I hope this film re-opens those wounds for her, because she has it coming.

If she did truly tell the families it was because of the video, and now she's claiming that THEY are lying...there's a special place in hell fo rher.

she was a liar 30 years ago and she is still a liar

God help us all

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It just shows how the military is covering up for her bc they want her to be President. You would think someone would do an investigation and get to the bottom of this.

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason
Would you please stop littering this forum with reasoned posts :lama:

she was a liar 30 years ago and she is still a liar

God help us all

PolitiFact ranks ALL of the Repub. candidates as being more untruthful than her.

she was a liar 30 years ago and she is still a liar

God help us all


Yes, we should believe the liar in chief rather than those heroes in the action
and the parents of the slain heroes. Pfft-

Yes, we should believe the liar in chief rather than those heroes in the action
and the parents of the slain heroes. Pfft-
Yes, because the chain of command and military who investigated the entire event know nothing compared to the parents of those killed.

Really?

Yes, because the chain of command and military who investigated the entire event know nothing compared to the parents of those killed.

Really?

So you're saying what happened on the ground by those that were there,
and the slain Heroes parents who heard Hillary's video explanation have
something to gain by lying?
Common sense says the only one to gain by
lies is Hillary and past behavior is a good indication of present behavior.
She has lied many times before, and imho lied here trying to blame a video.

I guess when she left the White House broke, she took the furniture
and art work so she could have a yard sale in order to survive. LOL

Yes, because the chain of command and military who investigated the entire event know nothing compared to the parents of those killed.

Really?
The parents don't have an agenda . The "chain of command's " boss did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying what happened on the ground by those that were there, and the slain Heroes parents who heard Hillary's video explanation have
something to gain by lying?
We've covered this about 100 times already.

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.

When the bodies arrived back in the US the video was still being flagged by the CIA as a primary motivation.

But hey, if it's on the big screen it must be true right?

The parents don't have an agenda . The "chain of command's " boss did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think some of the parents have been shameless exploited by elements of the media.

As for agendas, usually when something stinks you'll figure it out pretty quickly. There still is to my knowledge, other than a few guys frustrated they weren't allowed to rush into an unknown firefight, evidence of any stand down order that would have helped save American lives.

But if a movie studio can make millions exploiting the situation I'm sure you're all for it.

But if a movie studio can make millions exploiting the situation I'm sure you're all for it.

Spence, the only thing I'm for is the truth and I know we'll never get it
from Hillary. :doh: She is a serial liar and I'm sure your Not all for it.

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.\

(1) Spence, what did I say that is factually incorrect? I'm all ears.

(2) The movie isn't out yet. My facts are from the book, what the surviving operators have said, and what the families of the fallen have said.

.. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

"sure how Air support would have changed the outcome "

Due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a reason why those there were asking for air support. Air support easily could have prevented the rebels from setting up mortars, which is what killed the last two.

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.

The folks on the ground were telling outside channels what was happening...estimates of enemy strength, what weapons they had, etc. We would not have been going in blind.

"whos talking to the planes "

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that.

"do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ?"

Again, the guys on the ground had strobes and lasers and radios.

This was well within the capabilities of the US military. This is not an overly complicated scenario.

If an air asset sees armed Muslims aiming a mortar at a US compound which is under attack, you don 't need to be Steven Hawking to figure out what's going on.

My hindsight is 20/20, for sure. But this was very do-able.
Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. The book goes into his many requests, and the specific reasons he made them.


"

When the bodies arrived back in the US the video was still being flagged by the CIA as a primary motivation.

?

Oh really? Then WHY IS HILARY DENYING THAT SHE BLAMED THE VIDEO?! Please answer that? Hilary isn't defending her blaming the video. She is denying blaming the video.

It's possible the parents have an agenda, maybe they don't want her to be President. But we know Hilary is a serial liar, especially when her career is at stake, so why believe her?

Spence, why did she keep flip-flopping between blaming the video, and declaring that it was a terrorist attack? If it's fog of war, why not say "we are getting conflicting intel, we are looking into it"?

You cannot win this one. It doesn't pass the common sense smell test.

And instead of making fun of my Hollywood sources (even though the movie isn't out yet), can't you just tell me one thing I said that's wrong?

"sure how Air support would have changed the outcome "

Due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a reason why those there were asking for air support. Air support easily could have prevented the rebels from setting up mortars, which is what killed the last two.

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.

The folks on the ground were telling outside channels what was happening...estimates of enemy strength, what weapons they had, etc. We would not have been going in blind.

"whos talking to the planes "

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that.

"do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ?"

Again, the guys on the ground had strobes and lasers and radios.

This was well within the capabilities of the US military. This is not an overly complicated scenario.

If an air asset sees armed Muslims aiming a mortar at a US compound which is under attack, you don 't need to be Steven Hawking to figure out what's going on.

My hindsight is 20/20, for sure. But this was very do-able.
Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. The book goes into his many requests, and the specific reasons he made them.


"


As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

This is a pathetic comment . You clearly only respect the left half of the country , as you are ready to take any cheap shot you can at conservatives.
If you think Hillary will make a good President , than you are one of a very few in the military that thinks so , Why do you think that is ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

An F-16 would have a tough time target a mortar crew. But what it can do, is make the enemy too scared to set up a mortar crew. And there are other planes that can easily target a mortar crew, and I promise you that we had some within a 12 hour flight of Benghazi. If not, then Obama should be impeached.

"we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target "

I'll wager that sh*tkicking bandits aren't as well trained.

You're missing the point. We didn't even try. They fought for 12 hours, and they got exactly zip in terms of support from us. That doesn't anger you? Not at all? When we send people into harm's way, we don't owe them better than that?

We sat on our hands while these guys fought for their lives, for 12 hours. If large numbers of Americans aren't bothered by that, then what in God's name have we become?

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan..

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.

People die in war. These deaths were likely preventable.

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.


12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer :gu:

We've covered this about 100 times already.

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.


Perhaps, perhaps not

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.


Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.

?

The conversation in question invoilved the CIA station chief, and the 4 security officers who were present. All 4 security officers claim that the station chief ordered them not to go to the State Dept compound. All 4. They have testified to that. The CIA station chief denies it.

Spence, in all sincerity (I'm not being sarcastic), what proof is there, that the 4 security guys are lying? For sure, we know they didn't leave the CIA annex right away, we know that for a fact. Some time had passed before they left. Was there a tape recording or something?

The local militia that we relied on there? They ignored repeated calls to help. Hopefully we learned the lesson that we cannot rely on them.

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.



Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.




"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer :gu:



Perhaps, perhaps not



Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.

But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.

When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.

In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.

I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

That was a reasoned post, with some good points. Sorry for saying you don't know what you're talking about, obviously you do, and I had no business saying that.

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not much logic or reason in that statement...I thought this was about Hillary?

maybe it's my conservative lack of logic and reason and probably other things but I don't think I see O mentioned anywhere in the thread...oh wait...here's one "Hilary or Obama do"

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nice....correct again...you're on a roll buddy....she can blame the vast right wing conspiracy for this one :cool:

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.






"

This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It's all about Obama I get it"

No, it's mostly about fairness and facts and common sense. Isn't it POSSIBLE that the facts might point to errors made by Obama or Hilary? Are they infallible? Why do you assume that all criticism of Obama is nohting more than political b.s.?

"Answer this where was support going to land to engage?"

Good question. First, depending on the type of aircraft, it doesn't need to land, in order to engage the enemy in this type of fight, correct? Some types of aircraft are designed to support ground troops, from the air, in close-combat situations. Were any of those aircraft within 12 hours of Benghazi? I don't know. But if there weren't any, that points to horrific planning at the top. If there were any, why the hell weren't they deployed?

Second, there is an airport in Benghazi where aircraft carrying troops could have landed. I know this for certain, because Glen Doherty, one of the 2 former SEALs killed in Benghazi, was not in Benghazi at the start of the attack. He was in Tripoli. When the fight stared, he got himself on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi, then got himself to the annex, in time to join the fight. Therefore, we know for an absolute certainty, that a plane carrying troops could have landed in Benghazi, and that those troops could get to the annex to engage. Because it happened.

"if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight"

Absolutely correct. You can't stop every soldier from getting killed in every situation. But it's less reasonable that guys are fighting for 12 hours, repeatedly asking for help, and none comes. You see no difference, in terms of what's preventable, between the first guy who gets killed in the first second of a surprise attack, and someone who gets killed 12 hours later? Twelve hours? It's hard for me to fathom, in a time of war in a known danger zone, why a small number of Americans are badly out-numbered for 12 hours, unless they have no way of calling for help. That's not what happened here. People in Benghazi were in direct contact with the White House situation room, all throughout those 12 hours. It's in the book.

"Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss"

I don't think I said that. What I said is, we have an obligation to try. We did nothing, as far as I can tell. In 12 hours, notihng got there, except for 1 heroic SEAL from Tripoli.

Seems like you are the one for whom it's all about Obama, meaning, you won't allow any criticism whatsoever.

Poor strategic planning and poor judgement

and apparently not ready for that 3am call...which is quite ironic :rolleyes:

This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".

Correct. It was no surprise that it was very dangerous in Benghazi. Other nations (like Britain) evacuated their embassies in Benghazi, because they knew it was too dangerous. Same with the Red Cross. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security.

So how did we get caught with our pants around our ankles for 12 hours?

12 hours. I don't get it. I genuinely don't know what's indicative or greater incompetence - not having anything within 12 hours of a known danger spot where you know you have peopple, or if we had assets but chose not to send them. Those are the only two choices, there is no third option, and in either case, someone screwqed up, and superb Americans are dead because of it.

That doesn't mena it was Hilary's fault, she doesn't make every decision.

Also, it's awfully convenienet that in every public statement, she claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video (therefore no one can blame her). Yet in every proivate communication, she said she knew it had nothing to do with the video.

Spence will say that every time she flip-flopped, she was merely reacting to the latest intelligence, which said "forget what we told you an hour ago, now we know it was because..."

It could be that. Or it could be she's lying. We know she's a serial liar. Has she ever offered evidence to support her claim that she wa salways relying on the latest intelligence, instead of saying whatever was politically expedient at the time?

Now she's claiming that th efamilies of the dead are lying, when they claim she blamed the video.

At what point does she start to lose credibility? After how many lies, exactly?

I knew that Jim vs. Wayne would be great fun :jump:

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any polls outside of Iowa or NH, that show Bernie anywhere near her?

I would love nothing more than to see Bernie as the candidate. I see no indication that it's mathematically possible.

Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going for fringe candidates (both parties) who quickly flame out.

And if NH goes for Bernie,m they need a new motto for their license plates, because "live free or die" doesn't describe a state that voted twice for Weird Harold and then went for a socialist.

Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you are being dishonest. I'm not angry that aircraft missed. I'm angry that no aircraft were there to try.

Try to respond to what I am saying, not nonsecial jibberish that you claim I'm saying, which isn't even close to anything I said.

Do you have any polls outside of Iowa or NH, that show Bernie anywhere near her?

I would love nothing more than to see Bernie as the candidate. I see no indication that it's mathematically possible.

Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going for fringe candidates (both parties) who quickly flame out.

And if NH goes for Bernie,m they need a new motto for their license plates, because "live free or die" doesn't describe a state that voted twice for Weird Harold and then went for a socialist.

If there's one thing I have learned on my short time on this planet is that there are 2 types of people. People who think in black and white and people who think in grey. Black and white rely on solid facts and never deviate. People who think in the grey use facts and also connect the dots.

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already
And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

If there's one thing I have learned on my short time on this planet is that there are 2 types of people. People who think in black and white and people who think in grey. Black and white rely on solid facts and never deviate. People who think in the grey use facts and also connect the dots.

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie is no corporate shill. I agree it's not good if a candidate has been bought by big business. Where you and I disagree, is that I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to be declaring war against business, either. In this country, lots of people derive lots of benefits from big business.

I worked at Travelers, Aetna, and The Hartford. Huge businesses. Tens of thousands of good jobs. On top o fthat, they were good corporate citizens who donated big $$ to local communities, gave employees time off to donate time to charities like Habitat For Humanity, and encouraged charitable giving by matching contributions taht we made to charities. These companies will pay for employees to get additional college degrees. Evil? Hardly.

Are Cruz and Rubio known liars?

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

feel the Bern baby!!!

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Spence, who was committed to protecting those 4 lives? And what, exactly, did those committed people do, during the 12 hours that they were begging for help? Please be specific. The people at State who denied Stevens' requests for extra security, they were "committe dto trying to protect lives"?

When Bush was president, Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism. Funny how the liberal view on dissent changed in January of 2009.

As I have said, just because people at State died, doesn't necessarily mean Hilary did anytihng wrong.

Her flip-flopping on th evideo? How naive do you have to be, to believe that every time she switched, she was reacting to the latest intel?

Spence, I asked you multiple times, to provide some evidence that every time she changed her mind, it was in response to the latest intel, rather than covering her azz. You never posted anything. Not once. Ever.

Siure, it's possible that every time she changed her tune, she was merely directed to do so by the last intelligence report she received. But boy, it sure worked out conveniently for her, that every time she made a public statement, the laste intel wa sthat it was the video (and therefore not her fault), and every time she made a private statement (to her daughter, the king of Egypt, etc) she said it was a terrorist attack.

Finally, she is clainming that teh families of the dead are lying aboiut hwat they were told. All of them.

Exactly how many lies does she have to tell, before you stop believing her every word?

Are Cruz and Rubio known liars?

Nope. But are they Corperate shills?? Look at their donors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope. But are they Corperate shills?? Look at their donors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

His top sponsors are all labor unions. I guess no one ever got in trouble because politicians were beholden to labor unions...public union pensions and healthcare benefits, rewarded to unions by the same democrats the unions got elected, are not putting any strain on cities and states, nope...

The true story of 3 surviors of Benghazi


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIyCVEjv_Q

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Donald Trump ... And he's got FU money . I'm thinking he isn't going to be bought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You guys should really just take some time and read the bi-partisan findings from numerous government investigations. It's all there...

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

Ok. He has what... One? Do you think Bernie is going to be beholden to an ice cream company?
Last I heard there was no issue with an ice cream company being too big to fail, being a huge polluter of the environment, a threat to people's retirement funds, able to profit from a foreign war, etc...

It might make you fat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available.
"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

I also see that you aren't addressing Hilary's flip-flopping on the video.

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

If Gates really said this (and I don't doubt you), I'd like to know in what scenario, exactly, would he send in a quick reaction force? If it means you need to have 2 aircraft, fine. But whatever the protocol is, why didn't we have that functionality, within 12 hours of a well-known hotspot, on the anniversary or 09/11? And whose fault is it, that we didn't? Sarah Palin's?

Ok. He has what... One?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't get me wrong...I like ice cream

A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.

But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.

When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.

In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.

I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.

I can go back and sadly find instances where that may have been the case - not using maximum firepower and ignoring collateral damage when American forces may be overrun. Yes, both AFG and Iraq were full of instances where institutionally the decision was made to not use the most firepower available, even when it was the correct tool for the job. My point, not properly fleshed out, was that there was no real attempt made, when the fit hit the shan. Assets were available, that even on 1 hour alert, could have been on station in time to make a difference, at least in half the Americans killed. If those assets were not available then someone dropped the ball. If those assets were available but not put on high alert or dispatched to the area, then someone dropped the ball or they decided not to. The military does respond to issues with diplomatic personnel, maybe not contractors, but certainly diplomatic personnel. I really don't care who dropped the ball, other than to identify them, publicly if necessary, to see that it does not happen again. Commanders of all types get canned for doing minuscule crap but rarely do the higher Civ / Mil leaders get canned when they eff up.



It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.
Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.
That's not what he said at all.

Do you think Bernie is going to be beholden to an ice cream company?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if he announced free government supplied Ben & Jerry's he'd lock up the nomination today....


maybe get his own flavors...Bernie Brickle and Sanders Swirl

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/13-hours-benghazi-movie-being-855720

Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.


That's not what he said at all.

Good points.

I read his comments in a news article, exactly as you posted them. He seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a quick reaction force that he would ever agree to send in.

We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't.

If Gates' hangup is that he wouldn't send in a single aircraft, then fine, send two. Who said it had to be one?

Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius.

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/ar-BBofmTK?li=BBnbcA1

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/ar-BBofmTK?li=BBnbcA1

"Bob"...that article is hilarious

We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't.
The drone was already in the area performing surveillance.

Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius.
The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped. It's not just flight time, for instance the F-16's in Aviano that JohnR mentioned were configured for training and not combat. There were no C130's nearby.

There are also logistical considerations like tankers to refuel, AWACS, search and rescue etc...

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had a lot of very smart and dedicated American's trying like hell to sort this out.

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had Bob trying like hell to sort this out.



fixed it

The drone was already in the area performing surveillance.


The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped. It's not just flight time, for instance the F-16's in Aviano that JohnR mentioned were configured for training and not combat. There were no C130's nearby.

There are also logistical considerations like tankers to refuel, AWACS, search and rescue etc...

I just think it's pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest people would discount we had a lot of very smart and dedicated American's trying like hell to sort this out.

"The drone was already in the area performing surveillance."

according to the book, a drone showed up ove rth ebattle, after the former SEALs asked for it. We have sent assets to the rescue with less than that.

"The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped"

Which means what, exactly? If there were 8 guys that could have been flown in (like Glen Doherty did), that could have made ALL the difference.

"pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest "

When she keeps flip-flopping about the video, she deserves an avalance of criticism.


If there were no assets within a 12-hour flight time, that generates a new line of very fair criticism...why the hell wasn't there anything within a 12 hour flight radius of a well-known hotspot? Has anyone asked that? Whose job is it, to make sure that we don't send people into harm's way with no possible means of support, and why hasn't that person been publicly fired for this?

A 12 hour flight time represents a huge chunk of the planet. If ther ewa snothing in that radius to help these people, that's almost as bad as if there were assets that were never sent.

I can't fathom the reluctance to be outraged. That has zip to do with politics.

And again, her behavior in the aftermath, was revolting.

"The drone was already in the area performing surveillance."

according to the book, a drone showed up ove rth ebattle, after the former SEALs asked for it. We have sent assets to the rescue with less than that.

"The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped"

Which means what, exactly? If there were 8 guys that could have been flown in (like Glen Doherty did), that could have made ALL the difference.

"pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest "

When she keeps flip-flopping about the video, she deserves an avalance of criticism.


If there were no assets within a 12-hour flight time, that generates a new line of very fair criticism...why the hell wasn't there anything within a 12 hour flight radius of a well-known hotspot? Has anyone asked that? Whose job is it, to make sure that we don't send people into harm's way with no possible means of support, and why hasn't that person been publicly fired for this?

A 12 hour flight time represents a huge chunk of the planet. If ther ewa snothing in that radius to help these people, that's almost as bad as if there were assets that were never sent.

I can't fathom the reluctance to be outraged. That has zip to do with politics.

And again, her behavior in the aftermath, was revolting.

Jim, you're not going to get answers to your questions because Spence, and others, are answering different questions. They continue to point out that a bunch of "investigations" claimed that it was not strategically possible to get help to Benghazi in time.

We are told to get over it, that it has been covered over and over, that it just wasn't possible to get help there. Spence, and others, are not interested in the possibility that help could have gotten there in time, as did Doherty as you point out, or as the guys in the movie did, even though they didn't leave to help as soon as they could have or as they would have liked because some superior told them not to go.

Such arguments are of no interest to Spence, and others. The bunch of "investigations" supposedly tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them Big Bang.

Also of no interest to Spence, and others, is the question of, ultimately, why (as you ask over and over and get no answer) were there no resources available for a situation like Benghazi. Spence, and others, are not interested in that question. They are only focused like a laser on the bunch of "investigations" which say that the resources were not available.

Or, I should say, they are focused on THAT PART of the bunch of "investigations" which say that resources were not available. But, strangely, the bunch of investigations did reveal a great deal of incompetence in all facets of the Benghazi situation. And much of the answer to your questions is revealed in that part of the bunch of "investigations." But the answer to your questions, as revealed by that part of the bunch of "investigations," could be, if explored too closely, very embarrassing to the beloved Hillary.

And so there is this myopic insistence on the end conditions, not the preliminary planning. Even though it was the preliminary planning which set in unanswerable stone the "fact" that no resources were available.

Of course, that part of the bunch of investigations is easily dismissed as some impersonal "systemic" failure. Actual names and people are not identified, and, somehow, the beloved Hillary is not involved in the system snafu. Ambassador Stephens is an exception to the anonymity as he is heavily implicated in the systemic snafu. As wdmso points out, "He repeatedly asked for more security . . . but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss" By this assertion, it is clear that the Ambassador suffered from a sort of schizophrenia. He repeatedly asked for more security even though he felt it was safe.

Now, the beloved Hillary, had ultimate trust in this schizoid person, and gave him the Ambassadorship not because she is a poor judge of such things . . . after all, she was secstate and is about to be POTUS. Her obvious, apparent, and well documented accomplishments qualify her for the high and highest callings in our nation. After all, she WAS the wife of the most popular President in the past half century. And she IS a woman. Her impeccable qualifications would argue against her being a poor judge of such things. And there was no reason whatsoever for her not to sign off on his idea of a low, actually nonexistent, profile of American power stationed in his compound. (Maybe not even having resources available to get there in time.) There is absolutely no doubt that she knew how dangerous the situation was in Libya. But she just knew that it was a good plan. It would show the Libyan people that we trusted them and that they should trust us. It was, actually, a brilliant plan. It came from the highest ideals in human nature. It was that kind of motherly, nurturing love that only women are capable of.

That she didn't consider that there were these brutish men roaming about with the basest, most cruel, instincts, should not be an indication of poor judgment. Or maybe she actually did consider it, but the good people of Libya, after all, would protect our people because we showed them our trust and love. And we must understand that it was systemic failure, not her judgment, that led to the death of our people.

And we must be pointed to folks under Hillary within the "system" as being the source of systemic failure. After all, as wdmso points out, Stephens was "the Boss."

Well, actually, Hillary was the Boss.

Spangdahlem in Germany has a squadron of F16C/Ds - 1500 miles away

Aviano in Italy has 2 squadrons of F16C/Ds - 850 miles away
Both of those locations, if they had anything approaching alert, might have A2A loaded and not A2G

Lakenheath UK - has 2 squadrons of F15E Strike Eagles which are probably the ideal kit in central/western Europe for something like this. (2 F15Es made the round trip from Lakenheath in June 2015 to early retire some bad guys in Libya so yes it can be done)

Pro: with the right loadups they could have been effective (or really overkill) and the guys on the ground did have laser designation devices.

Ideal would have been an AC130 or even Reaper UAVs with Hellfire (better for small targets) but a Reaper would have been at extreme range limits with little to no loiter time if out of Sigonella. Just doesn't have the legs. There have been discussions on whether or not AC130s were in Italy or not.

Onsite was (reportedly) an RQ4 Global Hawk which I do not believe can be armed. So I believe reports of an armed drone onsite are false.

Other US assets in range:

Navy - nothing really in range, nearest CSG was 3,000 miles away.

Air Force has B1Bs in Qatar and looks like some AC130 (GoogleMaps that date window) but they would not have the speed to get on station for hours (The B1s could). Might have something at Al Dahra, UAE (F15Es).

Nothing is available without heavy tanking support.

Interestingly, SOEUR with US ARMY SOF and Navy Seal units are stationed at Panzer Kaserne (worked there when well wet behind the ears) which is just down the street from Patch Barracks EUCOM and Kelly Barracks HQ AFRICOM - both which would have been heavily interested and listening into what was going on in Benghazi. And they would want to get down there quick but would not have been down in time.

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?
Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya
Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you mean like the people that blamed a movie

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?

If the 12 hour attack is what is meant when alluding to "how it all went down", isn't that only a part of the picture, the effect, the final part? Wouldn't the "big picture" include all the causes which led to the final effect? Wasn't the poor planning, the inadequate security, the misperception of al Qaeda and its affiliates being defeated and on the run, the overall poor judgment in how the consulate was established part of the "big picture"? And didn't "all the investigations" support that version of the "big picture"?

Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya

Is it part of the failure in the big picture that there was no help within a reasonable time/distance to cover an attack on the consulate?

Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse

I couldn't clearly follow your description of the real world example, but it seems that it is an example of having options for help in an emergency. If options for help at Benghazi were available, rather than it could have been worse, couldn't it have been better?

Of course, the narrative of the "left" only focuses on the effect, that there was no way that help could have arrived in time. So that's that. That's the only picture that counts. That's as big as the picture needs to be. Shut up and get over it.

Wasn't the poor planning, the inadequate security, the misperception of al Qaeda and its affiliates being defeated and on the run, the overall poor judgment in how the consulate was established part of the "big picture"? And didn't "all the investigations" support that version of the "big picture"?



bingo....and of course the lies that followed that were political in nature....followed by the condescension of collectivist narcissism aimed at anyone asking obvious questions

what does it matter?...shut up and get over it!

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?
Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya

F16s are periodically at Bagram over the past 13 years and they came from Hill, Shaw, and 10 other mostly CONUS bases, yes, including the 2 squadrons from Aviano. So you know what unit was providing cover out of Bagram in September 2012? F16s from Aviano? Or A10s and F15Es from all over the world?

F16s were at Aviano.



Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, perspective, and a different animal. Medevac with Marine escorts from Al Asad are a different animal than Strike or CAS from air force fighter/bomber/attack. Just saying. To be clear, I am just saying what was available in the possible area. From semi available to barely available.

bingo....and of course the lies that followed that were political in nature....followed by the condescension of collectivist narcissism aimed at anyone asking obvious questions

what does it matter?...shut up and get over it!

That is part of the problem. For a country that had been at war for 10 years at that point it was not acting like a country at war. Politics and Lawfare getting in the way of and not doing the best to support the people - like WDMSO - in the field. This is an institutional problem that is not just under Obama's watch, happened under Bush as well. Though it can be argued it has gone from bad to worse under Obama.

Again just saying if it took me 3 hrs to get a medvac from a base 2 hour drive and 30 min flight.time In an active combat zone Not sure why some find 12 hrs to respond someplace not in an active combat zone. With cia assets on the ground which I am sure only a few higher officers even knew they were there .. With 2 spontaneous attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again just saying if it took me 3 hrs to get a medvac from a base 2 hour drive and 30 min flight.time In an active combat zone Not sure why some find 12 hrs to respond someplace not in an active combat zone. With cia assets on the ground which I am sure only a few higher officers even knew they were there .. With 2 spontaneous attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I believe it was in the House Armed Services report that even the head of USAFRICOM had no idea the CIA annex existed.

Jim, you're not going to get answers to your questions because Spence, and others, are answering different questions. They continue to point out that a bunch of "investigations" claimed that it was not strategically possible to get help to Benghazi in time.
Yes, let's discount the millions poured into bi-partisan investigations that have for the most part reached similar conclusions.

Instead we should fixate on long-since discredited conspiracy theories.

So, just saw the movie, good considering it is based on a horrible situation. Authentic mostly and pretty true to the book.

Seemed fair with established facts and did tread a bit into the unestablished.

Yes, let's discount the millions poured into bi-partisan investigations that have for the most part reached similar conclusions.

I didn't discount the investigations. I referred to them as backing up the "big picture" of incompetent support policy for the consulate.

Instead we should fixate on long-since discredited conspiracy theories.

What discredited conspiracy theory was I fixated on?

Maybe Clinton had an affair with him and he threatened to go public ;)
Maybe there was a video to blame....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if he announced free government supplied Ben & Jerry's he'd lock up the nomination today....


maybe get his own flavors...Bernie Brickle and Sanders Swirl

BOOM!

my flavor names were much better though:uhuh: I don't think I'd eat it based on the name...ick#@!$

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/266886-ben-jerrys-co-founder-creates-sanders-ice-cream

What happened to the movie? Oh yes, it's supposed to not be very good.

FOX News of course is blaming liberal movie critics...because conservatives take accountability for their actions.

What happened to the movie? Oh yes, it's supposed to not be very good.

FOX News of course is blaming liberal movie critics...because conservatives take accountability for their actions.

So because some critics don't like the movie...what, exactly? That means she didn't do anyhting wrong? And if the movie was universally hailed as a masterpiece, you would conclude that she's unfit to be POTUS? Right, right...

It was pretty good, as John said, fairly true to the book. But not a documentary.

Spence is clearly losing what is left of his mind

Spence is clearly losing what is left of his mind

Nothing is (to the) left of his mind? Ha! See what I did there?

He is devoted, that's for sure. When Nixon left in disgrace, I think his approval rating was around 25%. Spence is at least that devoted.

Spence is clearly losing what is left of his mind

I think he hit his head when the weld on his office chair broke ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So because some critics don't like the movie...what, exactly? That means she didn't do anyhting wrong? And if the movie was universally hailed as a masterpiece, you would conclude that she's unfit to be POTUS? Right, right...
No, I'm saying that FOX is blaming liberal movie reporters for the movies poor performance. Which is a shame because they hoped to use the movie to kill Clinton's campaign.

I think he hit his head when the weld on his office chair broke ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't hit my head but it was an epic spill.

What happened to the movie? Oh yes, it's supposed to not be very good.

FOX News of course is blaming liberal movie critics...because conservatives take accountability for their actions.


Actually, if this were a fiction movie not based on the death of 4 people it would be excellent. The fact that four people did lose their lives and many others suffered varying levels of injury prevents (me at least) from rating the movie with stars. Is it worth seeing? Abosultely. Is it worth seeing just as a movie and forgetting its association with RL? Yes.

To be clear, I am just saying what was available in the possible area. From semi available to .

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????
Can't remember which report but yes they did evaluate assistance from regional allies.

If your recollection allows, did they call Turkey, where we have bases,
and at 1300 miles from Libya would be less than an hour for a jet fighter ?
Can't believe there wasn't one plane , if not readied, could be readied in
short time.

If your recollection allows, did they call Turkey, where we have bases,
and at 1300 miles from Libya would be less than an hour for a jet fighter ?
Can't believe there wasn't one plane , if not readied, could be readied in
short time.

Anything at 1300MPH has just a few minutes of fuel. Reasonable cruise speeds are 440-520 knots for F15/16/18 type aircraft NOT loaded down with ordinance (F18 probably has to start flying backwards due to canted tanks and racks but I digress). A10s and AC130s are in the high 200/ low 300 kts range. In my earlier examples F15s from UK and Incirlik, B1s from PG area are the extreme ranges of what is remotely possible assuming early notification, some reasonable alert status, and a State department on the ball. The just mentioned three are not very likely.

And forget about drones - Predators are around 100kts (and don't have the range. The rumored Predator must have already been on station for other purposes - unless it was another drone (Reaper or GH) which had longer range and could have been further out.

From a realistic view only Aviano and Spangdelham (an extra hour in just flight time) were practical and it would need to have some level of alert status, available tanking, host nation permission, and some luck - oh and a properly operating State department. The guys on the ground would move heaven and earth for these people if the information was known.

Thanks John. Plausible explanation.

I remember Bush saying we were at war with a new kind of enemy after
9/11 and would need to fight differently. That was 15 years ago, and the talk
of small highly trained, quick response groups to respond to terror attacks is evidently not complete.
Of course cutting the military budget has not helped.

How much has Pres. Obama cut the military budget?

How did he cut the military w/o the Repub. agreeing to those cuts?

How much has Pres. Obama cut the military budget?

How did he cut the military w/o the Repub. agreeing to those cuts?
Obama actually didn't get the military spending increase he requested in the last budget.

Obama actually didn't get the military spending increase he requested in the last budget.

No, he got 6% instead of 6. 5%
Sometimes is not how much you get it's how you spend it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder how many ships got built bc Sen. Lott got $ put into the budget so they would be built in Miss. even though the navy didn't want them or bc some Sen. wanted planes built in his district or some Congressman didn't want a base closed the Army wanted to close.

Give the $ to the Military and let them decide how to spend it.

I wonder how many ships got built bc Sen. Lott got $ put into the budget so they would be built in Miss. even though the navy didn't want them or bc some Sen. wanted planes built in his district or some Congressman didn't want a base closed the Army wanted to close.

Give the $ to the Military and let them decide how to spend it.

I think the number of active US naval ships is at an all-time low.
At least they're getting a product for that money , they could be giving it away to illegal aliens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, a product that the military says they don't want or need.

Wasn't it Romney who made that same statement and it was proven false? You do know comparing an aircraft carrier to a ship from 1890 might not be the best comparison.

Do you have a link to show that the number of ships is at an all time low?

Yes, a product that the military says they don't want or need.

Wasn't it Romney who made that same statement and it was proven false? You do know comparing an aircraft carrier to a ship from 1890 might not be the best comparison.

Do you have a link to show that the number of ships is at an all time low?

I guess al time low was a stretch , since 1911 is more accurate . I think the number of air craft carriers is lower also . There are a number of good articles on it , use Google
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Considering a modern ship can project the firepower of multiple older ships I render this talking point lame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That .5% cut on the Military Budget amounts to $5 BILLION less.
You can support a lot of special anti terrorist strike forces with that,
small and large.

Large ships do have the fire power, but having enough to strategically deploy
is another story. The more the better, if we had a carrier deployed in the Mediteranian
at the time, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Benghazi.

That .5% cut on the Military Budget amounts to $5 BILLION less.
You can support a lot of special anti terrorist strike forces with that,
small and large.

Large ships do have the fire power, but having enough to strategically deploy
is another story. The more the better, if we had a carrier deployed in the Mediteranian
at the time, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Benghazi.

Do you know how many kids could receive Pell grants with $5 billion dollars ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know how many kids could receive Pell grants with $5 billion dollars ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are qualified applicants being denied Pell grants? Can't we do both military and Pell grants. Must it be either or?

Do you know how many kids could receive Pell grants with $5 billion dollars ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now that's putting your Bernie Thinking Cap on....funny, when you go to the WIKI page for Pell Grants this appears on the first line... "It is an entitlement"....you can replace Pell Grants with just about any entitlement and make the argument that someone would be better off somewhere if they got free something rather than the government spending that money on something else

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/billions-pell-grants-go-students-never-graduate/

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/what-happens-to-pell-grant-recipients-after-they-enroll/407311/

Do you know how many kids could receive Pell grants with $5 billion dollars ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes another entitlement. How about increasing Soc Sec benefits for seniors who have paid in all there lives ? It all depends as to where you are in life as to what you want
Kids can always find a way to go through college by working, scholarships,
loans, community college etc.

However unless you have a strong military to defend
the country and be in a strong position to negotiate and fight terrorism everything else is mute.

It all depends as to where you are in life as to what you want
Kids can always find a way to go through college by working, scholarships,
loans, community college etc.

And don't forget doing service in the military .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess al time low was a stretch , since 1911 is more accurate . I think the number of air craft carriers is lower also . There are a number of good articles on it , use Google
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I did a search and everything i read said that the lowest amount was during the Bush admin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????

I never knew that there was any types of coalition re Libya.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never knew that there was any types of coalition re Libya.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure, Libya was a UN action really driven by the French and British.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And don't forget doing service in the military .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree Buck, you can get one of the best educations in the world at West Point,
Annapolis and the Air force academy. Won't cost you a dime, just a 4 year
service stint for your country after graduation.
There is always a way if you really want it.

I agree Buck, you can get one of the best educations in the world at West Point,
Annapolis and the Air force academy. Won't cost you a dime, just a 4 year
service stint for your country after graduation.
There is always a way if you really want it.
LOL. As long as you don't consider an education in independent thinking and building a sense of individualism. 😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL. As long as you don't consider an education in independent thinking and building a sense of individualism. 😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have one Niece and 2 Nephews that are working for Fortune 500 companies
since finishing service after Annapolis. We should all be making their salaries
and holding their positions. :hihi:

LOL. As long as you don't consider an education in independent thinking and building a sense of individualism. 😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've noticed that the more someone declares themselves an "independent thinker" and criticizes those deemed non...the less likely you are to get an independent or original thought out of them...you usually get oft recited talking points and tired platitudes which I guess is somehow better than non-independent thinking or "dependent" thinking? :rollem:

I agree Buck, you can get one of the best educations in the world at West Point,
Annapolis and the Air force academy. Won't cost you a dime, just a 4 year
service stint for your country after graduation.
There is always a way if you really want it.

I think buckman is referring to kids earning college money through enlisting..

Very very VERY few kids are going to get into academies.

I know a kid that was Top 5 in class, national honor society, class president, and an Eagle Scout.......had his recommendation from his senator....still didn't get into the Air Force Academy.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have one Niece and 2 Nephews that are working for Fortune 500 companies
since finishing service after Annapolis. We should all be making their salaries
and holding their positions. :hihi:

Key words here are "working for".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've noticed that the more someone declares themselves an "independent thinker" and criticizes those deemed non...the less likely you are to get an independent or original thought out of them...you usually get oft recited talking points and tired platitudes which I guess is somehow better than non-independent thinking or "dependent" thinking? :rollem:
Benghaaazziiiiiiiii
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very very VERY few kids are going to get into academies.

I know a kid that was Top 5 in class, national honor society, class president, and an Eagle Scout.......had his recommendation from his senator....still didn't get into the Air Force Academy.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That young man will be a great success no matter what because
he has worked very hard to obtain it. Compare his record
to the kids who want A's with D efforts.
Somebody did a good job bringing him up. :hihi:

That young man will be a great success no matter what because
he has worked very hard to obtain it. Compare his record
to the kids who want A's with D efforts.
Somebody did a good job bringing him up. :hihi:

I expect to see him running for office someday. And I'm not just saying......he will be.

....and I would have no problem voting for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I expect to see him running for office someday. And I'm not just saying......he will be.

....and I would have no problem voting for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would too, as long as he kept honoring the Boy Scout Oath.
I wish we had a candidate now who would do just that. :hihi:

Not in this current roster.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess al time low was a stretch , since 1911 is more accurate . I think the number of air craft carriers is lower also . There are a number of good articles on it , use Google
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

EB just reported they will be hiring a ton. Maybe not carriers, but they are still cranking out ships...

EB just reported they will be hiring a ton. Maybe not carriers, but they are still cranking out ships...

I heard that too. That's great news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think buckman is referring to kids earning college money through enlisting..

Very very VERY few kids are going to get into academies.

I know a kid that was Top 5 in class, national honor society, class president, and an Eagle Scout.......had his recommendation from his senator....still didn't get into the Air Force Academy.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't know they were that competitive? Harder to get into than, say, Holy Cross or Tufts?

I would have thought that since 09/11, applications would be down.

LOL. As long as you don't consider an education in independent thinking and building a sense of individualism. ��������
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not your best posting there, Nebe. So, so wrong. I'm not saying West Point is the same as Berkley or Wesleyan (because if it were the same, we couldn't win a war against Holland). But they sure aren't churning out robots. Have you ever spoken with anyone who ever graduated from one of the academies? Ever?

When I worked at Travelers, the Humen Resources Department concluded that service academy graduates were the very best candidates for the most intellectually grueling positions.

That is not your best posting there, Nebe. So, so wrong. I'm not saying West Point is the same as Berkley or Wesleyan (because if it were the same, we couldn't win a war against Holland). But they sure aren't churning out robots. Have you ever spoken with anyone who ever graduated from one of the academies? Ever?



I have been honored and had the pleasure to have spent a lot of time with
my Niece and Nephews and their many Annapolis friends in private and social events.
These people are very special and share a bond between them that I would
like to have with so many people. All of them served in Afghanistan and Iraq
on the ground and air and many of them extended their service and volunteered extra time in the fighting zones.
These people are respectful, very knowable about what's going on in the world,
and a blast to party with. Closed minds, never. They have great values, true intelligence and a sense of service to others.
Most people couldn't hold a candle to them.

LOL. As long as you don't consider an education in independent thinking and building a sense of individualism. 😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have served with grads from USMA as well as Annapolis and have the pleasure of having a wife who is a USMA grad and a son who is currently at USMA. I am blessed to be exposed to a significant amount of grads and cadets and they are all very independent thinkers. I would put our Service Academy Grads up against ANYONE IN THE WORLD when it comes to looking at a situation independently and choosing the best course of action. As for individualism, these young people make a decision very early in life to set themselves apart from the crowd so they know better than anyone about individualism but understand that success is the result of TEAMWORK.

Are there any other institutions of higher learning out there who's primary mission is to train leaders of character?

I have served with grads from USMA as well as Annapolis and have the pleasure of having a wife who is a USMA grad and a son who is currently at USMA. I am blessed to be exposed to a significant amount of grads and cadets and they are all very independent thinkers. I would put our Service Academy Grads up against ANYONE IN THE WORLD when it comes to looking at a situation independently and choosing the best course of action. As for individualism, these young people make a decision very early in life to set themselves apart from the crowd so they know better than anyone about individualism but understand that success is the result of TEAMWORK.

Are there any other institutions of higher learning out there who's primary mission is to train leaders of character?

Great post FP. In thinking about it, having known more than a few "Libertine Thinkers", I have found many of them to be full of themselves, self centered. boring and a lot more closed minded than they think they are.

Considering a modern ship can project the firepower of multiple older ships I render this talking point lame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the opposition modern ship (and aircraft) can project more power (though only ships can persist) but the government is trimming the amount of ships yet conducting more global missions. This is causing periods at sea to go over 8-9-10 months. Is that fair? For .001 percent of the nation to spend 9 months at sea because there are too many missions or not enough ships? Plus the type of ships we have been getting suck, are overpriced, undermanned, and undercapable.




EB just reported they will be hiring a ton. Maybe not carriers, but they are still cranking out ships...

Virginia class subs are a 2/year now (though we are seeing more than 2/yr LAs retire)

I have served with grads from USMA as well as Annapolis and have the pleasure of having a wife who is a USMA grad and a son who is currently at USMA. I am blessed to be exposed to a significant amount of grads and cadets and they are all very independent thinkers. I would put our Service Academy Grads up against ANYONE IN THE WORLD when it comes to looking at a situation independently and choosing the best course of action. As for individualism, these young people make a decision very early in life to set themselves apart from the crowd so they know better than anyone about individualism but understand that success is the result of TEAMWORK.

Are there any other institutions of higher learning out there who's primary mission is to train leaders of character?

:cheers:

I think the Marine Corporal that served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan is more capable than the Wesleyan grad of independent and critical thinking.

I have seen a few kids out of college recently and a few young adults post military (enlisted or commisioned) and I think, they are far better adjusted and realistic than the My Little Pony crew.

Just saw the movie . Not the least bit political . Very well done . As has been said before ... You could hear a pin drop at the end .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the opposition modern ship (and aircraft) can project more power (though only ships can persist) but the government is trimming the amount of ships yet conducting more global missions. This is causing periods at sea to go over 8-9-10 months. Is that fair? For .001 percent of the nation to spend 9 months at sea because there are too many missions or not enough ships? Plus the type of ships we have been getting suck, are overpriced, undermanned, and undercapable.
You just reinforced point, given the real-world complexities, comparing simple numbers of ships is irrelevant.

Just saw the movie . Not the least bit political . Very well done . As has been said before ... You could hear a pin drop at the end .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Would that be the pin from the Hillary voodoo doll you were clinging to the entire movie?

Would that be the pin from the Hillary voodoo doll you were clinging to the entire movie?

I think you would find it an honest movie , you might like it . No talking animals, magic or rainbows so it might be a refreshing change .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd pay to watch Spence watch the movie...:hihi:

I'd pay to watch Spence watch the movie...:hihi:

Just offer to take him to Marahalls for a 15 minute Italian leather men's dress shoes shopping spree. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just offer to take him to Marahalls for a 15 minute Italian leather men's dress shoes shopping spree. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Marshall's rarely has decent shoes any more. I think my top Marshall's shoe score was a pair of $900 made in Switzerland Bally Scribe monkstraps in british tan for 90 bucks years ago in the mall by the old Silverdome in Detroit.

Very good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you would find it an honest movie , you might like it . No talking animals, magic or rainbows so it might be a refreshing change .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

There is a scene of men mobilizing and waiting for the go order . Not sure if that happened for real or not . Still waiting for the results of the investigation :)
It's a pretty good movie. You really should go see it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a scene of men mobilizing and waiting for the go order . Not sure if that happened for real or not . Still waiting for the results of the investigation :)
It's a pretty good movie. You really should go see it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm taking Spence this weekend...

I heard that in the movie there was a stand down order. Is that correct?

The movie showed the stand-down order. The book mentioned the stand-down order. Everyone that participated in the conversation, minus one, claims that there was a stand-down order. The one person who denies it, is the man accused of giving it, who therefore has a fairly significant reason to deny it.

Only those 6 guys know whether or not the stand-down order was given. I'm curious to know why the committees ignored the group and believed the one guy.

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this


From the Washington post:
Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Feb. 21, 2014: During a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New Hampshire, Issa said he had “suspicions” that Clinton told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “stand down.” He also asked why “there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset.” But both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders. One could argue that the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But we determined that Issa crossed a line when he claimed there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. Issa earned Four Pinocchios.

And from Factcheck.org

House Speaker John Boehner says there are “unanswered questions” about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. He specifically asks “why didn’t we attempt to rescue” Americans under siege and why were some U.S. personnel “told not to get involved” in rescue attempts?

But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report.

I'm sure we'll continue to hear how people where told to stand down until after the election.

There is a scene of men mobilizing and waiting for the go order . Not sure if that happened for real or not . Still waiting for the results of the investigation :)
It's a pretty good movie. You really should go see it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was planning on it but it left the theater pretty quick. There were like 4 movies we wanted to see recently. Will def. watch it when it comes to cable.

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

.

I'm just curious, how did the committees (some of which were controlled by the GOP, so it' snot pure partisan crap) determine that the special forces guys in Benghazi, were lying when they said they were ordered to stand down?

Does anyone know how congress determined these guys are lying? Because these guys are still claiming they were ordered to stand down, so if the contradictory evidence was as clear as an audiotape, common sense suggests they'd change their tune.

And yet another thing that Polifact finds the right is less than truthful on:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."

By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this


From the Washington post:
Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi

Feb. 21, 2014: During a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New Hampshire, Issa said he had “suspicions” that Clinton told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “stand down.” He also asked why “there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset.” But both a report by Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence report had found that no allegations of a “stand down” order could be substantiated. Moreover, DOD assets were certainly moved per Panetta’s orders. One could argue that the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But we determined that Issa crossed a line when he claimed there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. Issa earned Four Pinocchios.

And from Factcheck.org

House Speaker John Boehner says there are “unanswered questions” about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. He specifically asks “why didn’t we attempt to rescue” Americans under siege and why were some U.S. personnel “told not to get involved” in rescue attempts?

But those questions have been answered at length in several investigative reports, including two by Republican-controlled House committees. Congressional committees and an independent board detail the rescue attempts that night, carried out despite U.S. military assets not being in position to defend the Benghazi facility. Those reports say there were no undue delays in responding to the attacks, and they pointedly rejected unfounded allegations that the U.S. response was deliberately thwarted by a “stand down” order.

“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response,” the independent Accountability Review Board concluded in its Dec. 18, 2012, report.

I'm sure we'll continue to hear how people where told to stand down until after the election.

If this is true , what I would like to see answered is why there were no assets available . I have never heard a truthful,intellectual response to that question . "Mistakes were made" isn't a good enough answer . Well it isn't good enough for me anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If this is true , what I would like to see answered is why there were no assets available . I have never heard a truthful,intellectual response to that question . "Mistakes were made" isn't a good enough answer . Well it isn't good enough for me anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

true. Libya was a well-known hot spot (other countries had evacuated from benghazi because of threats, so it wasn't a secret). So if we had notign that could have gotten there within 12 hours, that's almost as bad as if we had assets that just sat there.

Not every country left. We are supposed to lead, not follow.

true. Libya was a well-known hot spot (other countries had evacuated from benghazi because of threats, so it wasn't a secret). So if we had notign that could have gotten there within 12 hours, that's almost as bad as if we had assets that just sat there.

I couldn't agree more and those that did not do their job should be held accountable. Just like in real life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not every country left. We are supposed to lead, not follow.

So leadership, even if it involves leading your people into an ambush, is good? The people who followed England out of Benghazi, are still alive.

Come on, Paul. Multiple countries and the Red Cross got their people the hell out of Benghazi. Not only did we leave Stevens there, but we denied his repeated requests for extra security. Hindsight is always 20-20, I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the furure every time. But are you going to tell me that this wasn't badly bungled? Really?


- Multiple countries leave Benghazi, because they realize they can't keep their people safe.

- We leave our people there.

- Stevens asks for more security, his bosses decline.

- during a 13 hour attack, no outside assets were brought to help in the fight, except for 4 guys who drove themselves to the Tripoli airport and arranged for a plane to fly to Benghazi, then arranged for a car to take them to the CIA station.

- after the attack, every statement Hilary made in private, claimed it was a terrorist attack. Every statement she made in public, blamed a spontaneous reation to an offensive video (and therefore, not something she could have foreseen or prevented).

That's effective leadership?

Come on. If you think there's no cause for concern there, that's as bad as my saying that Bush responed well to Hurricane Katrina.

As I said, were supposed to lead, not follow.

As I said, were supposed to lead, not follow.

So your idea of leadership was leaving your embassy , on 9/11 , in a virtual war zone , with no security and no plan A,,B or C ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your idea of leadership was leaving your embassy , on 9/11 , in a virtual war zone , with no security and no plan A,,B or C ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck, the posts by PaulS and Spence should confirm for you the circle jerk of denial that they keep spinning. And the last one by Spence perfectly describes their own effort: "God that's pathetic." At least he occasionally uses the word "God." "Heaven" only knows why.

I mean, really? Paul says "They thought they had adequate security." Is that supposed to be an excuse for being wrong? the so-called "security" plan was a departure from the norm. And it was seriously stupid. (Not to mention Stevens' repeated requests for more protection).

Then he asks "Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security?" As if they could get past Obama's veto. Maybe the Dems should have provided more security with the proper funding? They have no compunction about spending money we don't have whenever they want to do something. Funding adequate security would have been a financial drip in a bathtub compared to all the "investments" in their sacred Great Society programs which have bankrupted the nation. Let us just overlook the fact that they intentionally provided a lack of normal security in order to show the Libyans that we weren't somehow trying to invade their turf, or bullying our way into it. Lack of funding was not the problem. Lack of proper security provided by an intentional and foolish plan was the problem.

Then he says "There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq." I didn't know that time was spent on trying to find out how we ended up there. Didn't think that was even a mystery. And so what? Must there be some equivalence in time spent? What does his sentence have to do with anything other than trying to make something important look ridiculous.

Then he says "Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people." Which makes one ask why we had such inadequate security. :hs:

Finally he asks "Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"
Many think we should. But, if we don't, shouldn't we have better protection than was provided at Benghazi?

But the circle jerk of denial insists that we should not be wasting time on such things because lots of "investigations" supposedly didn't find that Clinton did anything wrong . . . wink wink.

Its all "old news" except when they come across some article in the NY Times or Salon that makes their circle jerk look good. Then it's worth talking about. (Unless we keep bringing up time-wasting discussions about the incompetent management of Benghazi.)

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oops, almost started reading that boring post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There it is, Buck. They just keep deflecting by piling on the nonsense.

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We prob. need another committee to look into it.

We prob. need another committee to look into it.

long weekend coming up...probably get a big document dump:scream:

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.


We are all involved in circle jerks. It's just that my circle jerk is better than yours. :cheers2:

A mistake, incompetence, poor judgment, are not examples of "wrong doing." The "investigations" explicitly noted that Benghazi was avoidable and happened because of mistakes, incompetence and poor judgment. The most egregious being the lack of proper security. And that was not just the usual "systemic" failure, or normal human fallibility. It was poor judgment in administrative planning to leave the responsibility for security to a substandard, unarmed, Libyan contingent. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-gun-control-policies-left-guards-unarmed-us-compound-benghazi Even more so if there was no timely available assistance in close enough air bases for support. There was an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans at the expense of security for Americans.

I realize that there are a number of Americans who approve of that type of appeasement. But I don't think most Americans do. And it is proper to point out that appeasement mindset in a candidate for POTUS. Or for any other government post.

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

They thought they had adequate security. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In which "no air assets within a 13 hour flight radius" = adequate security.

Atta boy, Columbo!

That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

Good catch. That was a sloppy use of the word "appeasement" on my part. Should have used a more accurate description. Something more suggesting concession or compromise. As in compromising the security of Americans in order to get along or in order to not appear to be humiliating or bullying or insulting (to the Libyans).

Didn't occur to me appeasement was a conservative buzz word. Do only non-conservatives use appeasement to mean appeasement?

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't either of those two things, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

What is for sure is that it was a bungle. As was found to be the case in the lots of "investigations." Not a feather in the cap of one who is running for President.

Wait a minute. I rechecked my use of appeasement. I said "an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans". "Appease the sensitivities" was used as a personally concocted term of art. And it was in that manner that I said " that type of appeasement." It's OK to do that if we're not strictly using legal terminology.

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?
No.

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads :doh:)...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads :doh:)...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

I haven't seen the video but perhaps they were just out for a walk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads :doh:)...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

Ahh . . . now I get it. Part of the security planning for the diplomatic mission--have 30,000 Libyan locals protest Stevens' death if he were, unfortunately, to be killed. Brilliant. Now THAT is what success looks like. This is the kind of stuff that great Presidents are made of.

Too bad the 30,000 Libyan locals couldn't, actually, have prevented Stevens' death. But that would have effed up the plan.

No.

Bill didn't cheat on me, we are the victims of a vast right wing conspiracy.

These girls claiming that Bill assaulted them, are just looking for publicity.

We were broke when we left the White Houses (they found the tens of thousands to re-pay the National Park Service for everything they pillaged from the White House on their way out)

I came under sniper attack, and had to dive - DIVE! - into the Humvee

All the deleted emails were personal - yoga classes, Chelsea's wedding plans, things like that.

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.And where did she get that info?

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?Based on info. from whom? Was the intel that Pres. Bush shared a lie or was it the biggest intelligence failure in our history?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

So you must be in the camp w/Trump and blame Pres. Bush for 9/11, right? Someone has to be blamed!

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who should be held accountable for 9/11? I guess you're another one who blames Pres. Bush.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1093544]Who should be held accountable for 9/11? I guess you're another one who blames Pres. Bush.[/QUOTE

I think justice was served to those that were accountable . I even give President Obama his due in this respect .
If you're looking for an American that could have stopped 9/11 you would have to go back to the prior administration before Bush
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

I don't need to clarify my sentences.
I was just stating the fact that the people ultimately responsible for 9/11 have been served justice . Can you say the same about Benghazi ?
I don't think you would ever hear President Bush deny that it happened on his watch or try to blame another president or anyone else for what happened .
Can you say the same about Benghazi or President Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you don't want to answer bc you know you will sound like a hypocrite. You can't blame Pres. Obama for Bengazi w/o putting the blame for 9/11 firmly on Pres. Bush's shoulders.

The person ultimately responsible for 9/11 served justice bc they had a seal team put a bullet in them.

Has Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton denied that Bengazi happened when they were in office?

I think you don't want to answer bc you know you will sound like a hypocrite. You can't blame Pres. Obama for Bengazi w/o putting the blame for 9/11 firmly on Pres. Bush's shoulders.

The person ultimately responsible for 9/11 served justice bc they had a seal team put a bullet in them.

Has Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton denied that Bengazi happened when they were in office?


Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignored, several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied.

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.

Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignored, several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied.

The 9/11 commission had some minor items in the IC that indicated something was afoot but it was low and not very clear. Hindsight allowed people to put is all together after the fact and see what clues were there - among thousands of bits of disjointed and contradictory intel.

Blame lives with Clinton and Bush. Both had opportunities to shape things, both had opportunities missed. But the enemy gets a vote too. You can feign ingnorance or indifference all you want but when your enemy is interested in you, you better be interested in him (see current GeoPol situations).

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.

Still preventable. Warning signs were ignored because: politics. Question is was the truth manipulated because: politics.


Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

He led his men over the objections of his his boss to his boss's boss. Thank god.

Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.I agree we don't have resources for that and that is why I don't hold him responsible for 9/11. However, he clearly was given briefings about OBL and we also warned airlines about OBL's desire to hijack planes. And that is the same reason I don't hold Pres. Obama or SOS Clinton responsible for Benghazi. Pres. Bush's reports had 000s of pieces of data to sort through just as Pres. Obama's reports had prob. 000s of requests for $.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignoredI have not ignored and have repeatedly stated that just bc some other country (and the Red Cross isn't even a country) leaves somewhere, doesn't mean we should. I have said multiple times, I wouldn't want our policies dictated by what the French or Italy (or the Red Cross) does. , several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied. And Pres. Obama and SOS Clinton where not informed of this. As you yourself said, "you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that"

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton. Yet we warned the transportation dept. - see below.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.:laugha:

Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1


U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1


U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks

I can't disagree with much of what you said, except this...you are placing zero weight, NONE, on the fact that other nations evacuated Benghazi, and that Stevens asked for more security. Clearly the state department knew that other nations fled Benghazi, they knew why, and they knew that Stevens asked for more security.

And knowing all that, not only did we leave Stevens there, but we had no help to send him within a 13 hour flight radius. Hilary was in charge of that organization, and if she sucked that bad, she's not fit to be promoted.

I am deeply critical of Bush, in that it took the feds so long to respond to Katrina. I could have filled my car with water, and driven to New Orleans before the feds got there, and there is zero excuse for that. I also blame New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, because we all knew a week ahead of time that the storm was coming, and he failed to evacuate. THAT, to me, is comparable to how badly Benghazi was bungled. Right before Benghazi, we knew a lot more, than Bush knew on 09/10/01. I don't see how you can compare the two.

I admit it looks hypocritical on my end, because I am more critical of Obama/Clinton than I am of Bush...but the fact is, the Red Cross has no sophisticated intelligence mechanisms, and they knew they needed to evacuate. If the State Dept is less informed than the Red Cross (which they were in this case, that's not debateable), then whoever is in charge of the State Dept, is failing miserably.

you are placing zero weight, NONE, on the fact that other nations evacuated Benghazi, and that Stevens asked for more security. Clearly the state department knew that other nations fled Benghazi, they knew why, and they knew that Stevens asked for more security.



I'm not ignoring that at all. I just think as the most powerful nation on earth, our actions, interests, etc. are different from other entities.

I'm not ignoring that at all. I just think as the most powerful nation on earth, our actions, interests, etc. are different from other entities.

As usual, that's a valid point. But if our unique interests mandate that we leave people in a region so dangerous that everyone else is fleeing...is it not a sign of dismal management, that (1) his requests for extra security were denied, and (2) we had no help to send within a 13 hour flight radius?

You raised good, tough, challenging points Paul.

As usual, that's a valid point. But if our unique interests mandate that we leave people in a region so dangerous that everyone else is fleeing...is it not a sign of dismal management, that (1) his requests for extra security were denied, and (2) we had no help to send within a 13 hour flight radius?

You raised good, tough, challenging points Paul.

Knowing that #1 and #2, Stevens also chose to still go to Benghazi, so while he asked for more security, he deemed it acceptable risk to go there. That isn't pissing on his grave, but hindsight is 20/20 for sure

Knowing that #1 and #2, Stevens also chose to still go to Benghazi, so while he asked for more security, he deemed it acceptable risk to go there. That isn't pissing on his grave, but hindsight is 20/20 for sure

Bryan, whose job is it to protect our ambassadors, when they agree to put themselves in risky situations? A 13 hour flight radius includes a significant portion of our planet, and there was NOTHING to help him within that radius?

Other than party loyalty, I don't see how anyone can defend that. If you can't criticize Obama/Clinton for leaving him out to dry like that, I guess you'd never criticize them for anything, ever. It's like me defending how long it took Bush to send water to the Superdome after Katrina. I couldn't ever do that with a straight face.

Bryan, whose job is it to protect our ambassadors, when they agree to put themselves in risky situations? A 13 hour flight radius includes a significant portion of our planet, and there was NOTHING to help him within that radius?

Other than party loyalty, I don't see how anyone can defend that. If you can't criticize Obama/Clinton for leaving him out to dry like that, I guess you'd never criticize them for anything, ever. It's like me defending how long it took Bush to send water to the Superdome after Katrina. I couldn't ever do that with a straight face.

I think not having a plan 'B' in place was a mistake. period. A mistake is different than doing something maliciously wrong. I would hope that that has been a painful lesson for this and other administrations. Has it been worth X different Benghazi hearings? probably not.

So let's plat devils advocate. Could Stevens have requested they leave? Did he and was ordered they stay? He likely know the conditions on ground better than anyone in DC State, right?

I think not having a plan 'B' in place was a mistake. period. A mistake is different than doing something maliciously wrong. I would hope that that has been a painful lesson for this and other administrations. Has it been worth X different Benghazi hearings? probably not.

So let's plat devils advocate. Could Stevens have requested they leave? Did he and was ordered they stay? He likely know the conditions on ground better than anyone in DC State, right?

I don't think Obama/Clinton did anything out of maliciousness, either. Just incompetence.

"Has it been worth X different Benghazi hearings? probably not."

The families might give you a different answer.

"Could Stevens have requested they leave? Did he and was ordered they stay? He likely know the conditions on ground better than anyone in DC State, right?"

if you want to say he contributed to his own death, maybe that's valid. But if he didn't go to benghazi, we had other personnel there.

I follow these things pretty closely (as do you). I have never, in any forum, seen anyone, anywhere, suggest that Stevens is more at fault than his bosses. But maybe it's valid.

Stevens didn't have the authority to increase security, which is why he asked for it. Nor did he have the authority to put military assets within 7,000 miles of where he was.

Those who had such authority, are also largely responsible. To the extent that Stevens was responsible, he paid for that with his life. As of very recently, no one at state who was responsible for the intelligence failure, nor for the refusal to increase his seccurity, nor for the fact that we had no help to offer within a 13 hour flight radius.

They got caught with their pants down, Bryan (the Red Cross knew to get out, and we didn't), and 4 superb Americans paid for that with their lives. Not every American death implies incompetence somewhere. In my opinion, a very compelling case can be made that in this case, there was mind-bogling incompetence. Which, also in my opinion, is what you get when we elect an inexperienced neophyte who spent his life in an Ivy League faculty room, and who therefore has zero understanding of how the world actually works.

Other nations saw the danger. We left him there, denied his requests for extra security, and with zero support within a 13 hour flight radius.

"He likely know the conditions on ground better than anyone in DC State, right"

That's likely true, which is likely why he asked for more security. Which was denied by someone who clearly thought they had a better understanding of the situation, than he did. If, as you say, he ha dth ebest view of the situation, then he shouldn't have to ask someone else for extra security, that should be his call.

Jim, you're an actuary. Actuarial pricing is known as being as much an art as a science. No actuary can price something perfectly - there are too many unknowns. You look at risk and the potential payout for different scenarios. You don't have perfect information and there are things you know are so remote they are unlikely to happen - however, occasionally they do. When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers and many Insurance Companies went out of business bc their reserves were not adequate – they did not anticipate a hurricane of that magnitude and thus didn’t reserve for that many claims. Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society. They are going to always be vulnerable to a mortar being shot into them. As much as we like, we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them.

Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society.
Take a look at the US embassy in Iraq, it looks like a fortress.

I think the situation in Libya was exacerbated by the fact that they wanted to keep a low profile, but also this was likely for security reasons.

As you said, it's a complex calculation.

Jim, you're an actuary. Actuarial pricing is known as being as much an art as a science. No actuary can price something perfectly - there are too many unknowns. You look at risk and the potential payout for different scenarios. You don't have perfect information and there are things you know are so remote they are unlikely to happen - however, occasionally they do. When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers and many Insurance Companies went out of business bc their reserves were not adequate – they did not anticipate a hurricane of that magnitude and thus didn’t reserve for that many claims. Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society. They are going to always be vulnerable to a mortar being shot into them. As much as we like, we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them.

Paul, as usual, you sound like you know what you are talking about. As an actuary, I also know that I need to allow for the unknown, for contingencies. I learned that my first month of my first semester at UCONN. If I told my boss that all our claims were paid and closed and told him we could therefore give ourselves huge bonuses...and then another $25 million claim comes in and now there's no money to pay for it, I'd get fired on the spot, no questions. Similarly, when you send peole to the few places on the planet that are legitimately dangerous, you cannot have the cavalry more than a 13 hour flight time away. You just can't. When you ask people to go into harm's way, you owe them more than that. You don't need a PhD in international relations to know that. If Hilary doesn't know that, she needs to stay on the lecture circuit. Just my $0.02.

"When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers "

true. Which is why you need to have money set aside to pay for those outliers. You know they will occur, you just can't know when. So you set up a rainy day fund. Which is precisely what Obama/Clinton did NOT do here. We can't predict when and where the jihadists will strike. What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.

I get that you can't predict every possible event. But you don't need to be Nostradamus (spelling?) to know that when you send Americans to the Middle East in a public capacity, that they are potential targets.

I think you are every bit as upset as I am over what happened. I don't claim that my side has a monopoly on empathy for the families. I just think there was evidence to suggest that teh threat was there.

"we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them."

No one suggested that. But the closest help cannot be half a world away either, it just can't.

I don't want my kids dealing with this, and they will be. Pisses me off.

As you said, it's a complex calculation.

No,it's not. Your hero is just too dense to see the simplicity of it. There are a few places in the world, where there are a fair number of people who are dedicated to killing Americans, for no reason other than we happily encourage our wives to pursue their dreams, we don't force them to dress like ninjas, and we don't all wear ZZ Top beards. For that and other similarly stupid reasons, they want to exterminate us, and there's nothing we can do about it except either (1) appease them, or (2) kill them.

The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, thought he could diffuse the situation because his skin is darker than his predecessor, he thought he was more charming than his predecessor, and because he thinks he can wave his hand and stop the oceans from rising. Unfortunately for us, he was only 1 for 3.

He has no stomach for this. He wants to deal with issues that are intellectually stimulating to him. He should've stayed in a university faculty room. I think Hilary will be more effective in dealing with terrorists, I don't think she's as aloof and clueless as Obama is, she just needs to regurgitate all his talking points to get the nomination of her party.

What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.
To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

Spence saw the movie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence saw the movie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

Well in this particular case most people would've been .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well in this particular case most people would've been .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Peas in a pod.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

The same Dep of defense that warned Obama not to withdraw from Iraq, that it would be a disaster? Spence, were they correct then? I mean, it seems you think pretty highly of them?

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.
Is he going to answer these in order or???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device