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?

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?

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

Donald Trump ... And he's got FU money . I'm thinking he isn't going to be bought
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...

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" 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.

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?

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

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.



Nope

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.

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

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/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1

"Bob"...that article is hilarious

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.

fixed it

"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

you mean like the people that blamed a movie

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.

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!

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.


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.

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

I believe it was in the House Armed Services report that even the head of USAFRICOM had no idea the CIA annex existed.

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.

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

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...ders-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.

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