Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"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.