Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It's all about Obama I get it"

No, it's mostly about fairness and facts and common sense. Isn't it POSSIBLE that the facts might point to errors made by Obama or Hilary? Are they infallible? Why do you assume that all criticism of Obama is nohting more than political b.s.?

"Answer this where was support going to land to engage?"

Good question. First, depending on the type of aircraft, it doesn't need to land, in order to engage the enemy in this type of fight, correct? Some types of aircraft are designed to support ground troops, from the air, in close-combat situations. Were any of those aircraft within 12 hours of Benghazi? I don't know. But if there weren't any, that points to horrific planning at the top. If there were any, why the hell weren't they deployed?

Second, there is an airport in Benghazi where aircraft carrying troops could have landed. I know this for certain, because Glen Doherty, one of the 2 former SEALs killed in Benghazi, was not in Benghazi at the start of the attack. He was in Tripoli. When the fight stared, he got himself on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi, then got himself to the annex, in time to join the fight. Therefore, we know for an absolute certainty, that a plane carrying troops could have landed in Benghazi, and that those troops could get to the annex to engage. Because it happened.

"if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight"

Absolutely correct. You can't stop every soldier from getting killed in every situation. But it's less reasonable that guys are fighting for 12 hours, repeatedly asking for help, and none comes. You see no difference, in terms of what's preventable, between the first guy who gets killed in the first second of a surprise attack, and someone who gets killed 12 hours later? Twelve hours? It's hard for me to fathom, in a time of war in a known danger zone, why a small number of Americans are badly out-numbered for 12 hours, unless they have no way of calling for help. That's not what happened here. People in Benghazi were in direct contact with the White House situation room, all throughout those 12 hours. It's in the book.

"Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss"

I don't think I said that. What I said is, we have an obligation to try. We did nothing, as far as I can tell. In 12 hours, notihng got there, except for 1 heroic SEAL from Tripoli.

Seems like you are the one for whom it's all about Obama, meaning, you won't allow any criticism whatsoever.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Poor strategic planning and poor judgement

and apparently not ready for that 3am call...which is quite ironic

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".

Correct. It was no surprise that it was very dangerous in Benghazi. Other nations (like Britain) evacuated their embassies in Benghazi, because they knew it was too dangerous. Same with the Red Cross. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security.

So how did we get caught with our pants around our ankles for 12 hours?

12 hours. I don't get it. I genuinely don't know what's indicative or greater incompetence - not having anything within 12 hours of a known danger spot where you know you have peopple, or if we had assets but chose not to send them. Those are the only two choices, there is no third option, and in either case, someone screwqed up, and superb Americans are dead because of it.

That doesn't mena it was Hilary's fault, she doesn't make every decision.

Also, it's awfully convenienet that in every public statement, she claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video (therefore no one can blame her). Yet in every proivate communication, she said she knew it had nothing to do with the video.

Spence will say that every time she flip-flopped, she was merely reacting to the latest intelligence, which said "forget what we told you an hour ago, now we know it was because..."

It could be that. Or it could be she's lying. We know she's a serial liar. Has she ever offered evidence to support her claim that she wa salways relying on the latest intelligence, instead of saying whatever was politically expedient at the time?

Now she's claiming that th efamilies of the dead are lying, when they claim she blamed the video.

At what point does she start to lose credibility? After how many lies, exactly?

[scottw]

I knew that Jim vs. Wayne would be great fun

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any polls outside of Iowa or NH, that show Bernie anywhere near her?

I would love nothing more than to see Bernie as the candidate. I see no indication that it's mathematically possible.

Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going for fringe candidates (both parties) who quickly flame out.

And if NH goes for Bernie,m they need a new motto for their license plates, because "live free or die" doesn't describe a state that voted twice for Weird Harold and then went for a socialist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you are being dishonest. I'm not angry that aircraft missed. I'm angry that no aircraft were there to try.

Try to respond to what I am saying, not nonsecial jibberish that you claim I'm saying, which isn't even close to anything I said.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you have any polls outside of Iowa or NH, that show Bernie anywhere near her?

I would love nothing more than to see Bernie as the candidate. I see no indication that it's mathematically possible.

Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going for fringe candidates (both parties) who quickly flame out.

And if NH goes for Bernie,m they need a new motto for their license plates, because "live free or die" doesn't describe a state that voted twice for Weird Harold and then went for a socialist.

If there's one thing I have learned on my short time on this planet is that there are 2 types of people. People who think in black and white and people who think in grey. Black and white rely on solid facts and never deviate. People who think in the grey use facts and also connect the dots.

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If there's one thing I have learned on my short time on this planet is that there are 2 types of people. People who think in black and white and people who think in grey. Black and white rely on solid facts and never deviate. People who think in the grey use facts and also connect the dots.

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie is no corporate shill. I agree it's not good if a candidate has been bought by big business. Where you and I disagree, is that I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to be declaring war against business, either. In this country, lots of people derive lots of benefits from big business.

I worked at Travelers, Aetna, and The Hartford. Huge businesses. Tens of thousands of good jobs. On top o fthat, they were good corporate citizens who donated big $$ to local communities, gave employees time off to donate time to charities like Habitat For Humanity, and encouraged charitable giving by matching contributions taht we made to charities. These companies will pay for employees to get additional college degrees. Evil? Hardly.

Are Cruz and Rubio known liars?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

feel the Bern baby!!!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Spence, who was committed to protecting those 4 lives? And what, exactly, did those committed people do, during the 12 hours that they were begging for help? Please be specific. The people at State who denied Stevens' requests for extra security, they were "committe dto trying to protect lives"?

When Bush was president, Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism. Funny how the liberal view on dissent changed in January of 2009.

As I have said, just because people at State died, doesn't necessarily mean Hilary did anytihng wrong.

Her flip-flopping on th evideo? How naive do you have to be, to believe that every time she switched, she was reacting to the latest intel?

Spence, I asked you multiple times, to provide some evidence that every time she changed her mind, it was in response to the latest intel, rather than covering her azz. You never posted anything. Not once. Ever.

Siure, it's possible that every time she changed her tune, she was merely directed to do so by the last intelligence report she received. But boy, it sure worked out conveniently for her, that every time she made a public statement, the laste intel wa sthat it was the video (and therefore not her fault), and every time she made a private statement (to her daughter, the king of Egypt, etc) she said it was a terrorist attack.

Finally, she is clainming that teh families of the dead are lying aboiut hwat they were told. All of them.

Exactly how many lies does she have to tell, before you stop believing her every word?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Are Cruz and Rubio known liars?

Nope. But are they Corperate shills?? Look at their donors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Nope. But are they Corperate shills?? Look at their donors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

His top sponsors are all labor unions. I guess no one ever got in trouble because politicians were beholden to labor unions...public union pensions and healthcare benefits, rewarded to unions by the same democrats the unions got elected, are not putting any strain on cities and states, nope...

[Fly Rod]

The true story of 3 surviors of Benghazi

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe;1091189

Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Donald Trump ... And he's got FU money . I'm thinking he isn't going to be bought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys should really just take some time and read the bi-partisan findings from numerous government investigations. It's all there...

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

isn't Ben & Jerry's Bernie's corporate sponsor?

Ok. He has what... One? Do you think Bernie is going to be beholden to an ice cream company?
Last I heard there was no issue with an ice cream company being too big to fail, being a huge polluter of the environment, a threat to people's retirement funds, able to profit from a foreign war, etc...

It might make you fat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available.

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

I also see that you aren't addressing Hilary's flip-flopping on the video.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

If Gates really said this (and I don't doubt you), I'd like to know in what scenario, exactly, would he send in a quick reaction force? If it means you need to have 2 aircraft, fine. But whatever the protocol is, why didn't we have that functionality, within 12 hours of a well-known hotspot, on the anniversary or 09/11? And whose fault is it, that we didn't? Sarah Palin's?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Ok. He has what... One?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't get me wrong...I like ice cream

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.

But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.

When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.

In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.

I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.

I can go back and sadly find instances where that may have been the case - not using maximum firepower and ignoring collateral damage when American forces may be overrun. Yes, both AFG and Iraq were full of instances where institutionally the decision was made to not use the most firepower available, even when it was the correct tool for the job. My point, not properly fleshed out, was that there was no real attempt made, when the fit hit the shan. Assets were available, that even on 1 hour alert, could have been on station in time to make a difference, at least in half the Americans killed. If those assets were not available then someone dropped the ball. If those assets were available but not put on high alert or dispatched to the area, then someone dropped the ball or they decided not to. The military does respond to issues with diplomatic personnel, maybe not contractors, but certainly diplomatic personnel. I really don't care who dropped the ball, other than to identify them, publicly if necessary, to see that it does not happen again. Commanders of all types get canned for doing minuscule crap but rarely do the higher Civ / Mil leaders get canned when they eff up.

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

That's not what he said at all.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Do you think Bernie is going to be beholden to an ice cream company?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if he announced free government supplied Ben & Jerry's he'd lock up the nomination today....


maybe get his own flavors...Bernie Brickle and Sanders Swirl

[spence]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...e-being-855720

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Doherty and crew didn't fly in on a military aircraft, they commandeered a private plane. The flight to Germany didn't leave from Benghazi and by that time there were more eyes on the ground.


That's not what he said at all.

Good points.

I read his comments in a news article, exactly as you posted them. He seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a quick reaction force that he would ever agree to send in.

We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't.

If Gates' hangup is that he wouldn't send in a single aircraft, then fine, send two. Who said it had to be one?

Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius.

[PaulS]

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1

"Bob"...that article is hilarious