More relevations on Libya

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If we can't respond anywhere in the world within 7 hours we might as well just give up.

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.

The real problem here is that with 2 previous attacks on the consulate and the request for more security being denied, there should have been a contigency plan in place if it was attacked. Complete failure.

As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.

A low flying F18 alone would have scattered them, let alone a few well placed rockets obtaining targets from the overhead drone.

Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.


As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.


Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

No, not black and white but we have a right to defend our soverign embassy land in any country. Just wouldn't have been Politicaly Expedient but would
have been an attempt to save American lives.
So we shouldn't have tried something because we didn't know if they were still alive or not???

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No, not black and white but we have a right to defend our soverign embassy land in any country. Just wouldn't have been Politicaly Expedient but would
have been an attempt to save American lives.
So we shouldn't have tried something because we didn't know if they were still alive or not???

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them?

The 7 hour timeline is misleading. It wasn't a sustained attack on a single location, but rather a confused situation across buildings spaced far apart.

While there certainly was growing concern about extremist influence in the area there doesn't appear to be much intel an attack was preplanned. The local people protested the attack and stormed the extremists HQ just days after.

The most likely scenario appears to be that a problem was brewing, but the moment accelerated to conflict before our system had responded. i.e. it's not all about the video, but to some degree it is.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? The 7 hour timeline is misleading. It wasn't a sustained attack on a single location, but rather a confused situation across buildings spaced far apart. While there certainly was growing concern about extremist influence in the area there doesn't appear to be much intel an attack was preplanned. The local people protested the attack and stormed the extremists HQ just days after. The most likely scenario appears to be that a problem was brewing, but the moment accelerated to conflict before our system had responded. i.e. it's not all about the video, but to some degree it is. -spence

"do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them? "

We did have military in a position to defend, and we didn't send them.

"but rather a confused situation "

The Situation Room knew of the attack very early on. They didn't know every detail early on, but they knew there were 20 armed terrorists in the compound, they knew there was a viscous firefight, and they knew that Ambassador Stevens was locked in a safe room, waiting for help that would never come. The fact is, we could have sent rreinforcements before the attack ended (maybe not in time to save anyone). But we didn't. Obama will not discuss why, until after the election. We sent a drone over the embassy to take pictures. That drone came from an American base somewhere, and somewhere on that base, are soldiers with guns who could have gone in after the drone showed what was happening.

Priorities.

Spence, if you want to provide us with any other keen insights into military capabilities and infantry tactics, please share them with us. Don't hoard all that knowledge to yourself.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if you want to provide us with any other keen insights into military capabilities and infantry tactics, please share them with us. Don't hoard all that knowledge to yourself.

You seem to have all the specifics, I wonder why you won't share them.

Where were the troops? What was the process?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Considering how many people were aware this event was unfolding do you not seriously think if we had military positioned to defend we wouldn't have sent them?

.

-spence

Spence, just came over the TV Marines were 2 hours away.

You tell me why they weren't sent?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, just came over the TV Marines were 2 hours away.

You tell me why they weren't sent?

Where? Who?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Where? Who?

-spence

An anti-terrorism marine group from Rota Spain.
They were dispatced AFTER the fight was over.

Wonder if Obama,Joe or Hillary were visiting at the time if there
would have been a hesitancy to dispatch in real time??

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

An anti-terrorism marine group from Rota Spain. They were dispatced AFTER the fight was over.

Yes, immediately after it was over. This was public information the day after the attack.

Are you suggesting they were able to mobilize and deploy to Benghazi within hours?

A quick Google shows it's about 2000 miles line of site between Rota and Benghazi. Assuming they were on the ground and ready to go (which isn't likely) once word of attack came out you're still talking many hours of transport time and I'd assume several refueling stops. In other words they wouldn't have been there in time to do anything anyway.

Hence my earlier remark that had military troops been able to respond immediately they would have likely been sent. I still have not seen anything that indicates this was an option.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.


-spence

So Spence, now that you have the facts about the availability of troops,
time to answer the question before the thread changes pages and you think everyone will forget the question.

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

So Spence, now that you have the facts about the availability of troops,
time to answer the question before the thread changes pages and you think everyone will forget the question.

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

Spence is on The Huffington Post, asking those bloggers how he should respond.

There is no response.

• The administartion denied earlier requests for extra security
• The administration refused to send in the cavalry
• After it was over, the administration repeatedly lied about the details of what just took place, instead suggesting that the blame lies with an American citizen who made a video

How long, O' Lord?

[justplugit]

Bump.
Spence, wanted to be sure you got a chance to answer the question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Bump.
Spence, wanted to be sure you got a chance to answer the question.

Which one? I'm making some black beans

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Which one? I'm making some black beans

-spence

How's about all of the one's you haven't answered and the ones you use
the Spence Trick to answer a question with a question. :

One suggestion, Beano.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence," So we shouldn't have tried to send troops because we didn't know
if they were alive or not??????"

Yes spence, read the quote that WAS the question.

Am I really talking to Spence??? Who is this Frenchman,some image
of what you hope to look like after living under Odama Socialism.

Patiently waiting.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not until we perfect the Heisenberg compensator.


As we've discussed, there's certainly a decision here to investigate but the actual security requests that were made wouldn't have likely made a difference.


Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.

This isn't that black and white.

-spence

"The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country..."

The US Embassy is also sovereign territory...sovereign to the US. When an ebmassy is being attacked, you don't have to ask permission to defend it...it's just the same as if our shores had been attacked.

"those who may or may not even still be alive."

Read the other thread I started. We now know that the 2 former Navy SEALs were killed at least 7 hours after the attack started. We know that because they were on the radio, saying that they had a laser sight on the mortar position that was firing at them, asking that a gunship come in and destroy that mortar position. That help never came, even though it was close enough. And those 2 superb Americans were eventually killed by a mortar.

I hope this impacts the election by a couple of points.

God Bless Foxnews, the only station not actively burying this story to try and get that Maoist re-elected.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Think of what you're saying here. The US invades a sovereign and mostly friendly country and fires rockets that likely have a high chance of collateral damage and perhaps little impact on the safety of those who may or may not even still be alive.



-spence

So Spence,still waiting for your answer to my question,--- we shouldn't have sent troops because we didn't know if they were alve or not ??????

Maybe you and O could get together at a news conference someday and answer
questions together.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

So Spence,still waiting for your answer to my question,--- we shouldn't have sent troops because we didn't know if they were alve or not ??????

No, I don't think that was the question.

I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out and didn't offset the risks of sending in special forces from Italy. There was apparently a long lull in the fighting that resumed early morning with the quick mortar attack after the CIA reinforcements had arrived from Tripoli.

The Predator would have given them intel on movement around the consulate (or where ever it was looking) but they don't appear to have had good intel on the bigger situation.

I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict. Most of the security in Benghazi was contracted through militias and this could have easily pitted pro-government forces against Islamist.

Given the speed in which these two attacks played out I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I don't think that was the question.

I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out and didn't offset the risks of sending in special forces from Italy. There was apparently a long lull in the fighting that resumed early morning with the quick mortar attack after the CIA reinforcements had arrived from Tripoli.

The Predator would have given them intel on movement around the consulate (or where ever it was looking) but they don't appear to have had good intel on the bigger situation.

I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict. Most of the security in Benghazi was contracted through militias and this could have easily pitted pro-government forces against Islamist.

Given the speed in which these two attacks played out I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be.

-spence

"I think they didn't send troops because they thought the situation had played out"

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?

"I'd wager they were very concerned about a sudden US military presence sparking a substantial conflict"

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?

"I don't think it's as easy a command decision as you'd like it to be. "

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.

[Tagger]

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not sure what you mean by 'played out'. The former SEALs repeatedly asked for help, and there are reports that the predator drones have video of the hours-long firefight. Someone knew those guys were fighting for their lives. So can yuo please clarify?

The timeline has the initial attack before 10pm, the local security team responds after about 20 minutes, grab everybody but Stevens who they couldn't find and then retreat back to the CIA annex.

Around 1 am there's a lull in the fighting at the annex and civilians get into the compound and take Stevens to the hospital.

When the backup from Tripoli arrives just before 5am (with the other SEAL) the mortar rounds are fired into the annex at 5:15 and the second attack is over at 5:30.

Not to diminish the situation, just that it doesn't appear to have been a 7 hour firefight.

So you sacrifice a few superb Americans to avoid ruffling feathers? Sounds reasonable...Why wasn't Obama concerned about a 'sudden military presence' in Pakistan when he ordered the Bin Laden raid?

Starting a regional conflict might be considered a bit more serious than ruffling a few feathers.

As for Pakistan, I'd have to believe the politics of crossing the border -- especially considering the public sentiment towards drone strikes -- was taken into consideration.

That's why even though the mission might not have been hard by SEAL standards...it was such a big call.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and as usual, you automatically take a position that supports what your hero Obama did.

It's an easy command decision when your values aren't warped, and you aren't more concerned with getting re-elected than you are with keeping yuor people safe.

That's your opinion, but to state I have no idea what I'm talking about -- when I'm basically just echoing what I've read reported from the CIA and Pentagon -- just shows how desperate you are to cling to your Fox News inspired anti-Obama gotcha regardless of the facts placed in front of you.

-spence