Hillary

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Now!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

- we got caught with our pants down by not having more adequate security in place. That happens to all presidents at some point, hopefully we at least learn from that.

The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.

- I still cannot believe that we didn't send in the cavalry. The notion that we couldn't send them in because we didn't know what was going on, is flimsy at best. That's what the special forces guys train for, they routinely get sent into situations with less than perfect knowledge of what is happening. They do that all the time. We also had drones flying overhead, which would provide more than enough information for them to go in and take care of business.

There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.

- then, the cover-up. The only plausible explanation is that the attack came right on the feels of the Democratic convention, where Obama claimed that, thanks to him, AL Queda was on the run, with no real capabilities. In order to avoid looking like he made false claims, the administration did everything they could, to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, they blame a US citizen who made a dopey video, which everyone knew had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. That, right there, is the most inexcusable thing they did. In the process, they lied, they lied to all of us.

There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.

‘‘There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,’’ [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)] said after the hearing. ‘‘They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

‘‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’’ Schiff said. ‘‘He completely debunked that idea.’’

Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews ‘‘reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.’’

AP

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence
You've lost your mind

-spence

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

Spence, did you ever answer my former question as to what you would be saying if it were Rice and Bush ??????

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Come on, this entire House investigation has been a sham. They made a conclusion (i.e. massive cover up) and have been desperately looking for anything to back it up. The findings from their report contained obvious errors, they withheld information from Democratic oversight members, they hired top gun GOP lawyers to usher whistle blowers forward and coordinated the entire thing with FOX News.

-spence



-spence

Spence, your argument (that this is just a witch hunt) would be alot more compelling if multiple top Democrats in the House weren't calling for these hearings. I posted that, and asked you about that repeatedly. You didn't respond, and continue to call this a political witch hunt.

It must be very convenient when you spout these theories, and ignore any and all evidence that refutes your theories. Must make your life easier when you completely ignore any and all challenges...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.


There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.


There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.



-spence

"There was no cavalry to send"

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?

"It wasn't just the confusion"

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).

"the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready"

How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"...Didn't the firefight last for hours?

What you said, and there is more then one rub. The fighting could of gone on for days, no one could have known it would only last for 7 hours.
Since when does our military not respond immediatly to an attack that's killing Americans?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, did you ever answer my former question as to what you would be saying if it were Rice and Bush ??????

Hypothetical and not really relevant.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, your argument (that this is just a witch hunt) would be alot more compelling if multiple top Democrats in the House weren't calling for these hearings. I posted that, and asked you about that repeatedly. You didn't respond, and continue to call this a political witch hunt.

It's funny the link you posted. Even FOX News can't get (i.e. don't want to get) the story straight, they continue to push discredited information long past when it was debunked. They have a chronic problem with this you know...

It must be very convenient when you spout these theories, and ignore any and all evidence that refutes your theories. Must make your life easier when you completely ignore any and all challenges...

That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory...well, that's if you can even call it an investigation. They didn't investigate anything.

The entire point of this tirade was to drum up media coverage.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?

Show me a credible "report" that conflicts with the DoD.

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?

The ARB documented in great detail communication breakdowns that were systemic in nature.

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).

You just contradicted what you said earlier in this same thread.

How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.

Not ready for combat, those are a General's words and not mine.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's funny the link you posted. Even FOX News can't get (i.e. don't want to get) the story straight, they continue to push discredited information long past when it was debunked. They have a chronic problem with this you know...



That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory...well, that's if you can even call it an investigation. They didn't investigate anything.

The entire point of this tirade was to drum up media coverage.

-spence

"That a few Dems go along with the House investigation isn't refuting any theory"

The hell it doesn't. It refutes your theory that the hearings were a political witch hunt.

In your mind, if Fox lies, they have no credibility? So why do you hold Hilary in such regard, afetr she lied about being shot at? Have fun with that one! It seems that you are quite selective at being outraged by dishonesty? Or am I mistaken?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not ready for combat, those are a General's words and not mine.

-spence

You said the hearings were a political witch hunt. I said that can't be, since some top dems called for the hearings. You were not convinced by that. In other words, the fact that these Dems said they were lied to and that the hearings were necessary, was not enough to convince you.

Yet when a general says they weren't ready for combat, that's good enough for you.

As always...as soon as someone, somewhere, supports your agenda, they must be correct. If anyone questions or contradicts your agenda, they must be a lying political hack. No exceptions, ever.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Hypothetical and not really relevant.

-spence

True, and one question you do not want to answer knowing you
would have to admit you would also be trying to pursue the truth.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said the hearings were a political witch hunt. I said that can't be, since some top dems called for the hearings. You were not convinced by that. In other words, the fact that these Dems said they were lied to and that the hearings were necessary, was not enough to convince you.

Yet when a general says they weren't ready for combat, that's good enough for you.

As always...as soon as someone, somewhere, supports your agenda, they must be correct. If anyone questions or contradicts your agenda, they must be a lying political hack. No exceptions, ever.

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

Great summary Jim, and yes there were Special Forces in Tripoli who could have responded according to the testimony of Risk. There were 4 Special Forces troops, down from the original 14, who wanted to respond but were told to stand down.

[Jim in CT]

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

And therein lies the problems. It was the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
The Embassy had repeatedly asked for more security as they felt under threat
well before.
The resources should have been sent but they weren't. So who's
fault is that, the buck stops with the Secretary of State.

There was only ONE drone in the hot bed that made it within 2 hours
and NO armed drones in all of Libya ???? and no help sent however
far away it was????? That was the best decision they could make?? BS.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

"the drones weren't armed"
"there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft"

Spence, whose fault is this?

• Send people into a known hotbed of terrorism.
• When the terrorists make threats, those people ask for more security.
• Not only is the request for more security denied, but the existing security is reduced.
• And according

to you, there is literally zero addiitonal help in the region to send.

Does that sound like the SecState is supporting her people in the field, Spence?

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?

Spence, which is it? Were there no special forces to send, or were they available but told to stand down?

There are no consistent answers to this, which is why we should keep digging. I keep hearing conflicting things, I don't know what to believe. I'm not like you, I don't accept one side and reject the other side, in every scenario.

[Nebe]

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?

No not according to me, according to Hick's testimony at the hearings Wednesday.

[spence]

Special Ops that aren't equipped or might have another priority doesn't mean the answers given are inconsistent. It simply means for a variety of reasons there wasn't a simple solution and the leadership had to make hard decisions. The guys in Tripoli according to the DoD weren't prepared for combat and were needed in case the threats against the actual embassy became real.

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this equipment the military has to make effective use of what they have. Did the government expect to be sending forces into Libya? They obviously didn't think do. The ARB has already found issues and solutions are in place.

I'm sure you didn't read about this on FOX but after the attack 30,000 Benghazi people protested the attacks and thousands sent condolences to Stevens's family.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money.

-spence

The failure was the leadership decision not to send the proper protection
when the embassy asked for it from the State Dept. a month before.

What number of American's have to die before it is cost effective?

[Nebe]

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

according to mediamatters...yes......I read through them quickly,,,,,from what I can see "no Americans killed" is a repeating theme.....does George Bush get points for doing a better job protecting Americans ?

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:


Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.

Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:


Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.

The prosecutor general's office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.

The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.

The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:


A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.

Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.

Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:


Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.

Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling " Allahu akbar " -- "God is great" -- opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus's Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:


An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:


Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building's balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:


Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.

No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.

It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]





I love ya Eben but the "everybody does it" or "they all do it"......rationale is something that I don't even accept from my children...it's what you say when you've no defense left and it resolves and improves nothing...it does however, empower and enable the manipulative and the opportunists

you do reinforce the obvious need to better protect and to have better protected our embassies and staff given the history and one has to wonder how these folks were left so vulnerable and unable to get help in a timely fashion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not only, as ScottW has pointed out, were no Americans killed, there was no need to cover up what happened. There was no need to call for investigations since what really happened was not hidden or lied about. No concocted stories were necessary to cover the butt of the Administration.

[JohnR]

One thing I am pretty confident of is that under Bush's watch, there would have been better security and should a reaction be needed, a faster response.

The need to protect diplomatic officials / dependents is WAY HIGH of importance. Otherwise these people (this.hat really bust thier asses sometimes - not all are political donors in cushy locales) will be very reluctant to stick their necks out.

Now the administration is throwing the CIA under the bus. Methinks the career types are going to have a pushback on this

Originally Posted by Nebe

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And how many were American? None.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The GOP is in shambles."

Yes, that's why they control the House of Representatives, and a large majority of governorships. We did get roughed up in November 2012, no doubt...

"Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president?? "

Nebe, not every death that takes place, means the president is an incompetent liar. Did Bush change the facts to blame an innocent American citizen for those deaths?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Special Ops that aren't equipped or might have another priority doesn't mean the answers given are inconsistent. It simply means for a variety of reasons there wasn't a simple solution and the leadership had to make hard decisions. The guys in Tripoli according to the DoD weren't prepared for combat and were needed in case the threats against the actual embassy became real.

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this equipment the military has to make effective use of what they have. Did the government expect to be sending forces into Libya? They obviously didn't think do. The ARB has already found issues and solutions are in place.

I'm sure you didn't read about this on FOX but after the attack 30,000 Benghazi people protested the attacks and thousands sent condolences to Stevens's family.

-spence

"Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this... "


Pardon me? According to you, the lives of all those Americans aren't necessarily worth the cost of fueling a jet? Brave Americans holed up in an embassy annex, under attack by terrorists, fighting for their lives in a foreign land. But to you, we can't splurge for the jet fuel to send in the cavalry, unless the Congressional Budget Office does a cost-benefit-analysis first?

So according to you...

- there were no special forces available
- no wait, they were available, but inadequately armed (as if you'd have any clue about that)
- no wait, they were busy working on "another priority", which is something they only told you about, I guess, because no one else is using that as an excuse
- no wait, they were available, but the US government doesn't have the liquidity to splurge on jet fuel (I notice you have no quarrel with spending money on jet fuel so Obama can fly around the world to vacation with the swells). Spence, by the time your Messiah is through with his second term, we might not have enough cash to fuel up a jet, but as of today, I think we can swing it.

Have you no shame? None at all?