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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

Spence, whose fault is this?

• Send people into a known hotbed of terrorism.
• When the terrorists make threats, those people ask for more security.
• Not only is the request for more security denied, but the existing security is reduced.
• And according

to you, there is literally zero addiitonal help in the region to send.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

And how many were American? None.

"The GOP is in shambles."

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

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

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

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


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

So according to you...

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

Have you no shame? None at all?

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

-spence

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

haaaaaaaaa...good one! :rotf2:

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

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

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

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





.

Except I most certainly am not...

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

he was just extrapolating from your previous posts :rotf2:

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

-spence

Read the Wiki.

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I love all these fantasy hypotheticals "

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