Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[Fly Rod]

I agree with Nebe...Bush was to busy squeezing utters on the ranch to care...

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

News? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

-spence

Spence, you laughed!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Spence, you laughed!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

The NYT article doesn't preclude a larger conspiracy but tries to minimize the blame, or the conspiracy it admits existed, on merely local militias.

You're using the old "it hasn't been proven" argument, even though a mass of evidence suggests otherwise.

And about the 2016 election--let's just stop looking until then. As you like to say, it cuts both ways.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

The article that inspired this thread claimed the NYT article found no evidence of an al Qaeda involvement. To which you replied that it helped to confirm the obvious. Now you have evolved to saying that you don't think it was dismissive of al Qaeda links at all. That's progress.

And, yes, by various definitions the sharing of common viewpoints among "extremists" or "jihadists" does involve an "affiliation."

Wiki definition of al Qaeda includes:

"Al Qaeda's operations have devolved from actions that were controlled from top down to actions by franchise associated groups, to actions of lone wolfs.

"Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement . . . or the much more numerous al Qaeda linked individuals . . . it has emerged as a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al Qaeda "brand."

". . . experts argue that al Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another."

Osama Bin Laden himself said al Qaeda is not what the west portrays it to be. He claims that all Muslims are "the children of an Islamic Nation" and that his group of leaders/teachers are part of that Nation and inseparable from all the public "demonstrations" occurring throughout the world.

He issued various Fatwahs calling for jihad worldwide against those who were enemies of Islam, such as Americans and their allies--to be carried out by all Muslims, not just "all Qaeda." In essence, those calls were a unifying element of most terrorist, jihadist groups.

Wiki says the 2012 Benghazi attack ". . . is suspected of having been carried out by various jihadist networks, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al Sharia and several other AFFILIATED groups." And that large groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad cooperate with al Qaeda.

Even non-Muslims can be inspired by Bin Laden's rhetoric, as was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks who was inspired by al Qaeda calling it "the most successful revolutionary movement in the world."

"Core al Qaeda" as you refer to it, is comprised of a relatively few members. But they infiltrate and inspire as well as create various apparently disconnected groups to act with the "al Qaeda brand."

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

It has become so because of its success in influencing disparate "terrorist" groups to preach the same jihadist rhetoric it espouses. And because they are all part of the same "Nation" that Bin Laden claims. And to act up in similar types of rallies or "protests" with all too similar results.

As well, "core al Qaeda" has specifically stated that it does not always wish to attach its name to various groups that it is affiliated with and is perfectly willing to let them take full credit, it they wish, for whatever they do. It has increasingly become more prone to do this for security reasons.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

The NYT article as well as this one don't actually bolster the Administration's claims, they try to deflect from the incompetence of the Administrations handling of the affair. Like the magician who actively uses one hand to create "magic" and all the while distracts the viewer from focusing on the other hand which is manipulating the "slight of hand." Both articles focus, on the one hand, on the rather bogus issue of al Qaeda participation rather than, on the other hand, the actual security issues and disregard for calls to help. As Hillary would say "what does it matter" if it was al Qaeda or unconnected local militias? The results are the same. Handling the situation would not have to differ in either case.

But, though focusing on al Qaeda or no al Qaeda distracts from the handling, focusing on your author's assertion that "turning al Qaeda into a radically loose term is different from observing, correctly, that al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates" does something other than bolster the Administrations "narrative." It shows its incompetence in another, more dangerous way. The author of your article makes the statement as if it were a new, profound, revelation.

The fact is, what he describes has been known for quite a while. Witness Wiki's definitions. There have been many articles, interviews, radio talk shows with Middle East "experts" and Jihadist "experts" who have specifically pointed out that al Qaeda is comprised not only of a small "core," but is disseminated through many diverse affiliated groups, many of which, as they did in Benghazi, fly the black flag. It has been known that "core" al Qaeda has long since disguised itself through infiltrated or created groups with other names. And though your author's assertion that the Administration not being aware of the diversity should allow "in a rational political environment, the President's opponents" to "see this as damning", the contrary fact that they don't see the connection, the similarities of the diverse elements, is even more incompetent.

Both your article and the NYT article actually condemn the Administration in their attempt to exonerate it.

For further explanation of al Qaeda involvement see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/rya...ltrated-libya/

See also:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...te_772398.html

And see also a more lengthy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf

[detbuch]

Even the attack on the Cairo embassy was not inspired by the video.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy

[Raven]

one politician was talkin junk about rebuilding syria
with what? our looks?

if we don't take a step backwards we'll have
good samaritaned ourselves to death monitarilly

meanwhile CHINA is gonna Spank jAPAN

[detbuch]

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

Both her and her husband lie. It's who they are & what they do.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious. The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations. Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion

Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? Yours seem to be consistently biased in a direction guided by mostly "liberal" media opinion and the avoidance of what you consider biased "extremist" opinions.

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious.

Your sense of humor is rather dark, sardonic, and biased.

The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations.

Appearance is that slanted view of the biased observer.

Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second bullet point:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

And the first bullet point:

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.

[Raven]

shifty = Clinton defines Shifty
and none of them LIE
they just bend the truth

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second

At the time there were protests in response to the video, some violent, in around a half dozen countries swept up in the Arab Spring...this was a big story.

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

The entire purpose for a document such as this is to prepare someone for hypothetical questions they *could* be asked by a media attempting to challenge the Administration's policy...

The context for the email seems to be the regional situation which was largely a response to the video, and the investigations clearly show it was the CIA who ultimately influenced the talking points.

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

Again, they were trying to prepare Rice to be ready for potential lines of questioning. The embassy staff in Egypt clearly were feeling threatened by the video protest and this is something that they felt deserved being addressed.

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

Well, that's an aspect of process. I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi. Reading the full email rather than the snippets seems to indicate this is partially accurate. Perhaps it should have been, but I don't see anything that would indicate something substantial was withheld.

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.

Given at the time they didn't know the truth -- as Rice indicated -- I'm not sure how you could accuse them of straying from it.

Is any of the Benghazi conspiracy theory backed by evidence? Most of the systemic mistakes that were made have been long since called out.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi.

-spence

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence;1040983

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

And that is the plan isnt it. Let the people who care talk all they want, have the national media totally ignore the story and lie as often as you can ,until the people trying to reach the truth look like the bad guys.
To anybody with a shred of common sense, the lying is incredibly in-your-face. Maybe in the end, karma will bring down the Democratic Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

One more rant about this because it bothers me to the core.
They lied about the video. The protest in Egypt might've been about the video but the further violence that escalated in regards to the video, was a direct result of the Obama administration lying and continually pushing the video story. Susan Rice did not have to get on every show she could Z,and push that story ,especially knowing that they knew nothing about it. Obama and Hillary did not have to rent time on a middle east TV and apologize for the video . Hillary Clinton told the parents of those dead heroes that the Obama administration would get the guy who made that video. That is despicable!!
And for people to defend that action is totally disgusting.
This is not going away in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

One more rant about this because it bothers me to the core.
They lied about the video. The protest in Egypt might've been about the video but the further violence that escalated in regards to the video, was a direct result of the Obama administration lying and continually pushing the video story. Susan Rice did not have to get on every show she could Z,and push that story ,especially knowing that they knew nothing about it. Obama and Hillary did not have to rent time on a middle east TV and apologize for the video . Hillary Clinton told the parents of those dead heroes that the Obama administration would get the guy who made that video. That is despicable!!
And for people to defend that action is totally disgusting.
This is not going away in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

.

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Likely" and "Assume" are some pretty wishy wash words. That e mail was only released after Judicial Watch ,the non partisan watch dog group , sued over the Freedom of Information Act.

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

"Likely" and "Assume" are some pretty wishy wash words. That e mail was only released after Judicial Watch ,the non partisan watch dog group , sued over the Freedom of Information Act.

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

Let's put aside the cover-up, which, I can "assume", was "likely" orchestrated to prevent an adverse impact on the election.

Spence, the top military general in that region said he was never ordered to move any of his assets into Libya in the immediate moments after the attack started. Why the f*ck not?

Hilary promised the families o fthe fallen that the murderers would be brought to justice. How many have been arrested?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

September 9
Egyptian television airs an Arabic-language scene from the Bacile film.

September 11
Protesters in Cairo climb over the walls of the US Embassy and tear down an American flag, replacing it with a black flag inscribed with Islamic emblems. Egyptian police have surrounded the compound to block further incursions.

Protestors in Cairo condemn this film promoted by controversial American pastor Terry Jones as a "humiliation of Muhammad under the pretext of freedom of speech".

September 12

U.S. president Barack Obama says that the United States rejects denigration of religious beliefs.

Sam Bacile, supposed writer and director of the allegedly privately produced film that motivated the attacks, has gone into hiding, while a second person, apparently separately, claims production of the video.

Afghanistan blocks access to YouTube until the video is taken down.

Syrian rebels express outrage that the alleged privately produced video belittling Muhammad is generating more anger among Arabs than the rising death toll within Syria.

September 13

Protestors breach the walls of the U.S. embassy compound in Sana'a, Yemen.

U.S. officials say they are investigating whether the protests over Innocence of Muslims denigrating Muhammad were used as a cover by the Benghazi consulate attackers, rather than being spurred by them.

The US consulate in the suburbs of Berlin, Germany, is briefly evacuated due to suspicions over the contents of an envelope.

Yemeni police fire warning shots in the air and four people are killed. The Egyptian ministry of health says 224 people are injured in demonstrations around the embassy in Cairo. In Kuwait, 500 people gathered and chanted near the embassy.

More details emerge about the "privately" produced anti-Islam film that sparks unrest in the world. Sam Bacile is also the name a Washington-based activist assumed to initiate forwarding the link last week. One reporter points to the suspected real name of "Abano(u)b Basseley".

September 14

Protesters attacked the German and British embassies in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

At least seven people were killed during protests in Khartoum, Tunis and Cairo.

The United States Consulate in Chennai, India was targeted by Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham resulting in minor damage to the consulate and Injuries to 25 protesters after Police resort to Riot Control methods.

Protesters in Tripoli, Lebanon, set fire to a KFC and a Hardees restaurant, sparking clashes with local security forces. One protester has been killed and 25 people have been wounded, including 18 police officers.

Clashes occurred in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

In the Sinai, an international observer base near El Gorah is shot at. Two observers are injured.

At least two American Marines and 16 Taliban fighters were killed in a Taliban attack on Camp Bastion airbase in Afghanistan's Helmand province, according to a spokesman at nearby Camp Leatherneck. The attack was a complex and coordinated assault using several types of weapons. The Taliban claimed that it was in response to the film, and have also stated that Prince Harry, who is currently stationed at the base, was the target of the attack. A hangar within the facility suffered considerable damage, with five aircraft destroyed and three others being damaged.

Hundreds of Muslims protesting the film riot in Jerusalem and the Damascus Gate, and hurl stones at police officers.

September 15

At least 4 were killed and 46 injured during protests near the American embassy in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. The U.S. government pulled out all non-essential personnel and urged its citizens to leave the city.

Egyptian riot police stormed Tahrir Square and arrested at least 220 protesters after four days of clashes in Cairo. A 35-year old man died of birdshot wounds after clashes near the US embassy overnight. Authorities announced the number of injured since the beginning of protests had risen to more than 250.

In Yemen, a statement from AQAP called for Muslims everywhere to attack American embassy personnel.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, denounced the attacks and urged governments and international bodies to criminalise insults against prophets.

Violent protests occurred in Sydney, Australia, where up to six hundred people marched. Several scuffles broke out between security forces and protesters, with rocks and bottles being thrown.

Over 80 people were arrested during a protest near the US embassy on Champs Elysees in Paris, France.

Sudan refused a US government request to station a Marine platoon at its embassy in Khartoum, forcing authorities to pull out all non-essential personnel and advise American citizens to avoid travelling to the country.

September 16
Susan Rice goes on TV

Amazing how Obama started this entire thing. Latest word is the Administration used tax revenue from abortions to secretly fund the video to distract from a much larger conspiracy. *Hint* It's made from people

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:



-spence

"the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. "

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time.


-spence

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

Read your own article...

A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.

The general "did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon said.

And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

The funeral was two days after the attack. At that point they were still investigating. Hell, three days after the funeral Rice's talking points from the CIA indicated the evidence pointing towards the video.

But props to FOX News for using a grieving parent to bump their ratings.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

Sorry Spence, it was YOU, not me, who quoted Lovell as if he was an authoritative source. Your source, the man you quoted, said we should have done more. I'm sorry if that pokes holes in your theory, but that's your fault for bringing Lovell into this. You did that, not me.

"Make a little effort to try and understand"

I understand you perfectly. All you do is find some source, any source, anywhere, to applaud Obama, no matter what he has done. When, as in this case, that source seems to be critical of Obama, you cast your original source aside and find another source.

Spence, on any issue, you can post sources that praise Obama, I can post sources that attack him. How come you won't post what you think for yourself? Hint: I already know the answer, we all do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Read your own article...



And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.