Do you disagree with any item below?

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

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

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

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

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

here are some excerpts from our "simplistic narrative"

Sept. 8:

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

Sept. 10:

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

Sept 12:

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

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

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

Sept. 14:

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

Sept. 16:

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

Sept. 18:

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

Sept. 19:

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

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

Sept. 20:

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

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

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

Oct. 10:

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


jeez spence, it reads like a bad coverup movie!

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

God damn right.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get it.

No, he's not.

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

Not all the requests for help were denied, the security team from Tripoli was sent to assist and didn't get there until near the end of the attack.

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

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

What doesn't it reconcile with? Even if there was a little confusion over a gathering protest or a most significant (and yet still evidence indicating spontaneous event) The Administration certainly admitted from the start this was a substantial attack.

-spence

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

-spence

Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack.

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

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

Hacks right :huh:

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

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

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

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

Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spence -

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

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

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

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

Tyrone Woods had zero intelligence information.

better

I got that tidbit from the United States Secretary of Defense, last I checked he wasn't on a watch list.

My assumption is that the military leadership has read page one of the manual.

They also would do a risk assessment.

The key words in your statement are "but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first."

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you just see what you want to see.

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

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

Totally different situations.


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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

Suck on them apples.

Jim, seriously...

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless Foxnews, the only station talking about this.

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

So much for we did all we could do.