More breaking news on Libya, about how help was denied

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack. Also, watch the Fox special report on the timeline. It's got a ton of biased reporting but the timeline portion I think was pretty good. Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then: Hacks right The timeline and official comments suggest they thought the attack was waning and support from Tripoli was arriving soon. All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it. To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force. You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case. Remember 30,000 Benghazi's are reported to have protested the attacks holding pictures of the dead Ambassador and then stormed the headquarters of the Islamist group! Another under reported part of this story (I didn't even see it until today) is that after the attack the government has moved to disarm unofficial militia groups with broad public support. Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel As I've said, there's legitimate questions to be asked if we did enough to keep our people safe. Even Obama has admitted mistakes were made. This should be the focus of review and changes made to personnel or policy where appropriate, but not the petty election witch hunt you so dream of undermining the Commander and Chief. -spence

"You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case."

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.

"All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it"

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

"To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force."

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.

You have no knowledge to back up anything you say. you make up liberal apologist jibberish as you go along, anything to avoid making Obama look culpable for his blunders.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.

I got that tidbit from the United States Secretary of Defense, last I checked he wasn't on a watch list.

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.

My assumption is that the military leadership has read page one of the manual.

They also would do a risk assessment.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.

The key words in your statement are "but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first."

By all accounts this was a very confused situation. You can "what if" it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that some pretty experienced people made the best call they could based on the information they had.

Interestingly enough, even John McCain has now attacked the Pentagon stating that the US Military was not in a position to respond. The Pentagon disputes this and says it was a risk based decision. Petraeus is reported to have denied CIA assets were told to stand down, although I've not seen this confirmed.

They need to complete the investigation and make adjustments where necessary, but this isn't something you litigate during an election. That's not fair to the families and people impacted by the attack.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then:



Hacks right


-spence

Spence, your disertation on General Ham, who as you say was "calling the shots",
was very interesting.
However, Rep Jason Chaffetz R Utah, spoke personally with General Ham
and he said he did not receive a call and was not given military orders.


So much for we did all we could do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, your disertation on General Ham, who as you say was "calling the shots",
was very interesting.
However, Rep Jason Chaffetz R Utah, spoke personally with General Ham
and he said he did not receive a call and was not given military orders.


So much for we did all we could do.

That's what was said by the Secretary of Defense. I read the rumor report and it's potentially very misleading...in fact as it sits it doesn't bring any new information that wasn't already reported.

This is the problem with this entire story. You have Fox making a report based on what someone said about what someone else said. You have information spun into something it isn't necessarily (like the 7 hours) to come to conculsions after the fact that aren't supported by available information.

Panetta's remark about Monday morning quarterbacking couldn't be more spot on.

Fox continues to beat the story without any new data or analysis, they just keep running the same stuff over and over. No bias there...

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.

here are some excerpts from our "simplistic narrative"

Sept. 8:

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade that provides security at the U.S. consulate, and a battalion commander meet with U.S. diplomats in Benghazi to say the security situation there is "frightening," he recounts to CNN in an interview after the attack.

Sept. 10:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in Ju

Sept 12:

Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens is reported dead with three other Americans in the Benghazi attack.

U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.
Obama is interviewed on 60 Minutes and defends his Mideast policies as aligning the USA with democracy, saying, "There are going to be bumps in the road."

Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.

Sept. 14:

The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.

Sept. 16:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."

Sept. 18:

Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."

Sept. 19:

The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

A diary belonging to Stevens found in the burned-out Benghazi consulate by a reporter for CNN indicates Stevens was concerned about security threats.

Sept. 20:

Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. (WTF SPENCE?????) "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says (BULLSHEEET!!!!!!)
THE NEXT DAY!Sept. 21:

Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."

Oct. 10:

Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration against the anti-Islam video that got out of control outside the consulate.


jeez spence, it reads like a bad coverup movie!

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Do you disagree with any item below?

1.) Drones tasked to circle and monitor the situation
2.) Constant email and telephone updates as to the events almost "real time" updates
Yes, by people under attack
3.) Multiple requests for help, all denied, rescue forces told to stand-down.
4.) Special forces c-130 Spooky circling the area
5.) CIA operatives on the roof laser painting the target for air support
6.) Troops including Delta Force and crack insertion and rescue units 450 miles away

Not all the requests for help were denied, the security team from Tripoli was sent to assist and didn't get there until near the end of the attack.

I believe the C130 was at a Med airbase and not overhead.

Special forces were positioned in Italy under direction from the Sec Def while the attack was underway, they weren't already there.

If not, reconcile this with what Obama and Co have been saying from day one. It doesnt reconcile. This was goign down and they tried to minimize it, it wasnt a lack of data, it was purposely manipulative.

What doesn't it reconcile with? Even if there was a little confusion over a gathering protest or a most significant (and yet still evidence indicating spontaneous event) The Administration certainly admitted from the start this was a substantial attack.

-spence

[Piscator]

Spence, you saying this is 2nd degree terrorism? Come on dude!

Spence "It was terrorism just like Obama said right away, but it wasn't planned terrorism, it was spontaneous terrorism"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Amazing how with all the number of hours of real time information streaming into the situation room , a decision to do nothing was made
It took the Bush administration minutes to get planes in the air and the order to shoot down American airliners given.
Armature hour.....just like Hillary said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

I summarize pannetas commetns as - "we tried to assess the fighting but the people there were too busy fighting so we couldnt get our arms around the fighting to send in troops to help our people fighting...."

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

When the attack began (before the attack began), we know there was a quick reaction special forces team based in Italy, a 1-hour helicopter flight away from Benghazi. When the attack began, any half-brained morin would get that team in the air, and tell them to wait 5 minutes outside the embassy for further instructions. That way, if they are to be sent in, they are 5 minutes out instead of 60 minutes out. The fact that no wheels were set inmotion, to get anyone within 5 minutes of the embassy, is stupifying. Beyond stupifying. There is no earthly reason to get get those pieces in place, regardless of whether or not they are needed.

You (and Leon Panetta) suggest that not enough was known to send in the cavalry. Wrong. We had 7 hours, and several drone passes showing photos. That's more than enough for a team of tier-1 delta force commandos, and that's whp was 1 hour away. This is not a difficult situation, in terms of what these guys train for. They can handle much worse than this.

Proof? The ex-seal Tyrone Woods, was at the CIA annex, 1 mile from the consulate. When shots were fired at the consulate, Woods asked for permission to go help our diplomats. He was told to stand down. He and a couple others (whose names should go down in the history of our greatest heroes), ignored that order and made their way to the consulate. THEY are the ones who had no idea what they were getting into. Yet they made their way to the consulate (in the midst of the attack), got in , got everybody (except for Stevens, who was missing) out, and back to the CIA annex.

Tyrone Wods literally had zero intelligence, and immediately figured out what to do. The Delta Team had several hours of intelligence-gathering at their disposal. In terms of military problems, this is not advanced calculus. This is Algebra 1. I'm not being cavalier here. I'm saying this is easier than what these guys usually train for.

[Sea Dangles]

Tyrone Woods had zero intelligence information.

better

[buckman]

Perhaps he understands that Obama will be his own worst enemy
Let him hang himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

You know what the biggest deal about this whole thing is? We should barely know it even happened. If this had happened twenty five years or thirty years ago the attack might have taken place. But we would have been in there in two hours blown the place to hell gotten our guys out and handled it. We are the USA we are not France the UK or Switzerland sitting back saying what are you guys going to do.

The attack occurred and now we look like a joke to the terrorists. Seems to me Qaddafi made a couple of veiled threats about thirty years ago. What happened. We sent a missile into one of his tents and you never heard about him being a threat any more. The fact is we are carrying the worlds water with Chinese money and they hate us for it. So get the hell out or carry the big stick. This shouldn't be a controversy it should just be a done issue. If Obamas administration's intent was to claim the YouTube video caused the attack then why the hell did any other info get out. The man doesn't even command enough respect in his own staff to keep this stuff out of the press. What else is getting put out there through this administration. We look like a joke and rightfully so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

That is how most of the left operates these days. Because I think Obama has done a piss poor job and he has. People treat me like I hate women hate the poor animals etc etc. for the most part I think the division lines are being drawn by the left. I truly think I am moderate. I just want a president who is accountable understands a budget and a senate house that passes one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device