great source ... two unnamed "government officials"..."said".... hope they got the right draft of the memo

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"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."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

(1) Stevens may have declined military help weeks before the attack. But he asked the State Department for extra security before the attack. Not only was this request denied, his security force was reduced.

(2) During the firefight, the former Seals repeatedly asked that the cavalry be sent in to destroy the mortar positioned that they had lit up with a laser sight.

Therefore, I can't see mich relevence in your post, in which it is alleged that Stevens declined extra military security. Perhaps he assumed he'd get the security he needed from his superiors at the State Department.

no one can know, and I can't see how it matters.

You post something that's off topic, and offer no explanation on how it ties to incompetence and a cover-up at the State Dept and the White House, all you can say is "wow".

Wow.

Were there Marines at the embassy in Tripoli? If so, I wonder what they wanted to do, and what they were told...

This is what should have destroyed" the movie mob cause" reason for the attack from the getgo.
Like crowds of movie goers are carrying mortars around with them to or after the show. :smash: What a farce.

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

The idea that armed extremists were involved in the attack has been present in every narrative I've heard.

I'd wager that militants do indeed drive around with RPG's mortars at their disposal. How long does a mortar take to set up if you're in a hurry and don't care as much about accuracy? I'm sure Jim can give us a good estimate.

-spence

"I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya..."

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""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."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

When the Allies stormed Normandy Beach in June 1944, you could call it an i'nvasion', but not in the sense that I gather you mean... i'm confident that you are likening Bush to Gengis Kahn. The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

It's certainly possible that if this started out as an anti-video protest, that hours later, it morphed into a military asault.

So the use of mortars, hours later, doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have started as a protest. However, from the testimony I have seen, it appears that there was very little reason to assume it started as a protest, and overwhelming reason to assume it was an assault.

In the Rose Garden the next morning, Obaba said terrorist acts would not be tolerated. Stands to reason he was talking about the Benghazi assault. That's why I van't understand why someone very high up, told Rice to go on TV day slater, and play the anti-video protest card.

If Obama called it what it clearly was, there is no way Republicans can allege cover-up. But the feds changed their story, Rice's comments on TV were baffling, as was Hilary's disgraceful performance at the hearings, when she claimed it didn't matter how it started. What she is saying is, don't hold this administration for the validity of what they say.

This was easily avoidable, but Obama/Hilary brought this onm themselves.

Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.

The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.

I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.

Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.

The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.

There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.

Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.

Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"

Keep making things up.

-spence

Seriously, if the Administration has nothing to hide, release all the unclassified
e-mails, have Rice testify as to who sent her out with the talking points and interview the wounded that were there in real time.
The e mails have already shown the State Dept made the majority of the CIA
report changes and Carney lied that there was only 1 change made when there
were 12 changes.

You should really read the actual emails released. Interestingly enough they seem to pretty much back what Gen. Petraeus testified to before Congress...i.e. that the process wasn't politicized.

-spence

Which dated e mail was that?

Spence -

Now, you're saying that since there wasn't an armed garrison in Libya, there was no cavalry to send.

Spence, in these situations, you don't need an entire airborne division. A few special-forces types make all the difference. And for some reason, we didn't move any of those assets, full steaam, towards Benghazi. It's my understanding that there was some kind of force in Tripoli that was ordered not to go to Benghazi. If that's true, I want to know who gave that order, and why.

You also said that the fighting was over before the Libyans could have flown some forces in. Here's what you don't get...when the fight was going on, no one knew when it was going to be over. The commanders aren't supposed to say "well, this guy is fighting for his life and begging for help, but he'll probably be dead before we get there, so I'll stay put".

The fact that the fight ended before some assets could have gone there, is not a valid excuse for not sending in those assets.

"The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded."

I agree. And in any rational perspective, we helped the people in Iraq, we did not conquer them. Spence, is Saddam not gone? Did the US military confiscate the oil fields? Did we rape all the women, and murder all the men?

"There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country."

And we didn't routinely do anything to cross that line. They have free elections, which we don't try to influence.

"Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings"

Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.

We know all this. The order to stay put was given by the head of Special Ops Command Africa because they weren't armed for combat and they were concerned about threats to the embassy in Tripoli.

The Military stated this just recently and it was also confirmed by Hick's testimony.

-spence

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

Not to mention the common sense aspects. Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

Radicalization? From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?

Can you show me support for that? you said before that they weren't sent in due to the fact that they weren't armed (after you said they weren't sent in because they didn't exist).

How is an active-duty, forward-serving special forces team, not prepared for combat? Hard to believe that could be the case. Their body armor and light weapons are never far away, their very mission ststement is to go off on little notice. They couldn't be ready within an hour? I don't think so...was all of Delta Force and all of the Seals having a costume party at the time? All of them?

"You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people."

And from where does your keen insight into the feelings of the Libyan people come from?

"I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further "

Who would agree with that? Not me. Again, you're inventing stuff to suit your agenda. You're saying that a heavy presence of US troops will only fuel the fire, not put out the flame? If that's true ( and it's not), please explain why the Iraq Surge was such an overwhelming success? One of us was there, one was not.

Spence, if a spot becomes volatile, the very best thing you can do to preserve the peace, is to have Marines everywhere. Despite what you believe, our presence keeps out the rif-raf,it does not embolden them.

Have you been reading Fox in Sox?

We have diplomats all over the world in dangerous situations, it's part of their job. The ARB has already determined mistakes were made and issued a pretty scathing report, anything more is just Monday morning quarterbacking or worse...


So?

That assumes the partnership in place hasn't already been rationalized which I believe it has.

-spence

Wrong again. The "partnership" is not rational. It has no solid, meaningful basis, nor predictable outcome. It's a roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up Muslim Brotherhood or Al qaeda.

Been awhile I've since been here and now I know why.261 responses later and I'm dumbfounded into what this thread has become.

My initial post:
Next post by Spence:
The woman is a complete and total liar,of course it matters.And yes we've actually learned much.How do you "sensationalize" a combat experience?

"Its been investigated to death".Really,has it?So why is it still under investigation to this day?Don't answer its a rhetorical question...SHE LIED!!!!!

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

I'll speak for Spence because he's busy making the rich. richer in the market right now.

" We have been through this over and over... Obama told the truth about everything. "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Politics.

-spence

Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?

I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.

Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?

You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

-spence

I find it absolutely amazing that you discredit somebody because you believe they might have lied .
LMFAO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way, apparently, according to this story, Benghazi WAS a hotbed of terrorism--among other things, the Al Qaeda flags flying around the city and atop government buildings . . .

And yes, as Buckman pointed out, it's amazing you try to discredit Hicks because you accept his semantic misstatement as a lie, when the ones you defend lied from the beginning of the Benghazi episode, and about so many other things including the ACA.