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

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

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

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.

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

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

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

"but rather a confused situation "

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

Priorities.

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

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

You tell me why they weren't sent?

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

Where were the troops? What was the process?

-spence

Where? Who?

-spence

THEY WERE
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack? - CBS News

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

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

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

And finally...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no response.

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

How long, O' Lord?

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

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

-spence

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

One suggestion, Beano. :hihi:

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

Reporter Presses Obama On Libya Attack, "Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&ter" Comment - YouTube

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

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

Go figure.

-spence

This was on October 27th, one week ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

Back to Bush. :)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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