Eben...you should read this

National Review Online | Print

The Benghazi Lie
A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.
By Mark Steyn

" Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it."

What a bunch of well written malarkey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

coming from someone who has been complicit in all of the lies and incompetence to this point....an understandable position :uhuh:

He quotes the New York Times, but Marc Steyn is full of malarkey! Nor does he specify one thing that is demonstrably false...it's just malarkey cuz it paints the Messiah in an unfavorable light, and that can't possibly have any validity to it.

Steyn is clearly a racist...

That's one possibility.

It's malarky because he makes an extremely aggressive suggestion and never provides any evidence to back up the case. It's a classic case of circular logic run amok.

Don't let RIROCKHOUND see this, he'll have an aneurysm.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;99848

It's malarky because he makes an extremely aggressive suggestion and never provides any evidence to back up the case. .


-spence[/QUOTE]

pot......kettle:uhuh:

guess that makes you 95% malarkey

I would think you'd be very sympathetic to that tactic, ye of the "we didn't send in special forces because the Libyans wouldn't let us" fabrication...

You really don't see any irony in that statement?

Ha, keep making stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

-spence

Spence:
Gates is a known communist, obviously.

Worse, in the interview he actually DEFENDS Hillary Clinton's character!

That alone should get him on the no fly list.

-spence

You call it "very good perspective" , and you call Marc Steyn's perspective "malarkey". You don't offer one shred of support for why one guy's perspective is "very good", and the other guy's perspective is "malarkey", because you don't dig that deeply. If someone agrees with you, they are correct, if someone disagrees with you, they are incorrect.

I had always said, that if there were no special forces available, then, you can't send what you don't have. I still don't know if that's true. Gates says no one was available to send. Others have said forces wanted to go, but were told to stand down. I want to know the truth.

As to Gates' assertion that you can't send in a Delta Force team unless you have absolutely perfect intelligence? He's wrong. He's just wrong.

Spence, do some research on the publicly available data on what these guys do...they specialize in the impossible, and they are ridiculously good at it.

You think they had perfect intelligence about who, and what, was inside Bin Laden's compound? The Seals didn't know if people in there were wired with explosives, they didn't know if there were booby traps, they didn't know if Bin Laden was holding hostages. You could fill the oceans with what they didn't know. And yet they went in.

Lastly Spence, where in Gates' piece did he say that the Libyans rejected our request to send in troops, because you certainly mentioned that as a reason why no help was sent in...

Gates also could not comment on why the request for additional security, before the attack was rejected. Nor did he comment on the alleged cover-up in blaming the video.

Spence, I concede that you can't send in the cavalry if there isn't a cavalry to send. But if there was no cavalry to send (and some have said there was cavalry to send), it's valid to ask why the hell not.

Put that aside...most folks have said that the cover-up was the most scandalous part of this, and the "very good perspective" you posted, didn't mention that.

If you ask a lot of the recently retired military, especially those with recent last decade (AFG/IRAQ) service there should have been resources available. Part of the reason to find out, that and if there was a cover up.

This was watched in mil/security watch centers all over the world. Something should have been sent. You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. You do not know how things are going to be 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours later. But if you do nothing or order to do nothing by way of getting people to the area, then you forfeit the ability to influence events.

Another key point. You at least mobilize what you have, and move some kind of force toward Libya, so they are closer if you should decide to send in the cavalry.

If the closest help is on Mars, you get them moving towards Benghazi. Because if the firefight lasts that long, at least you now have the chance to send in help.

Were any assets moved one inch toward Benghazi? Or did we leave the whole thing for the Libyans? Did Obama do anything more than ask the Libyans to wait fo rthe shooting to stop (which took several hours), and then go collect the American corpses?

Great points.
Weren't there Carriers in the Mediteranean that can move at 30 plus knots with F-18s that have a ferry range of 1800 miles and a speed of 1200 mph, that could have landed in Tripoli for fuel if needed, and buzzed Benghazi with their 20mm cannons?
Oh that's right, probably not cost effective. :(

According to ABC Within hours of the attack multiple platoons of Marines trained to protect diplomatic missions were moved to Italy and Special Ops were moved into place in case there was a hostage situation. Some were sent to Tripoli but not Benghazi as the Americans had already been evacuated.

Pentagon on Benghazi Troop Movements: ‘Swift Action’ on Night of Attack - ABC News

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

And I'm glad to hear that troops were moved, at least...

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the Obama administration got to the reporter :)
Next ..... I feel bad for you Spence. this must be getting exhausting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

[QUOTE=spence;998691

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Information is only as good as it's depth and truth.

We still don't know what roll the Commander in Chief played in this debacle.
Where was he, in the situation room leading and making decisions, packing his suite case for the next days fund raiser or what? Why didn't Hilary askHicks, the second in command, in her telephone call during the attack, who the culprits were? Why was the President on David Letterman 2 weeks later still pushing the gathering movie crowd explanation along with Rice?

Those are some of the questions that need to be answered for the record.

Never said such a thing...keep whiffing.

-spence

Oh God the irony.

He was likely working on his golf swing obviously. Obama hates America.

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.

4 media outlets reported attackers claiming the video was the source of their outrage and from the investigation there certainly was CIA opinion that it was a factor. The question that's impossible to answer is if the video never happened would the attacks never have happened? I don't think anyone can prove that, but early evidence sure seemed to indicate there was a relationship.

-spence

Wow...

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

and more wow...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy

-spence

Love it. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.



-spence[/QUOTE]

Spence, don't put your reading glasses away yet, you'll have a 100 e-mails
to read now that they were released with prolly another couple of 1000 still held.

WOW....you are really scraping :uhuh:

he's Pinnocchio....if they put him on Mt Rushmore he should have a really long nose with a little twig and leaf at the end :uhuh:

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post