Rep Trey Gpwdy articulates unanswered questions

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that the FAST teams in Spain have to equip for the mission, that does take time. The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations.

Also, I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing. Without proper support the risk would be too high.

Ultimately though, I'll trust the opinion of our Military over a bunch of internet conspirators any day of the week.


I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards. There's a big difference between "we could have done more" and "I wish we could have done more."


All I know is that the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors. The CIA doesn't have to reveal everything they were doing in Benghazi to the open public, but if there's a Constitutional issue you can bet the House wouldn't let it slide.

Nothing happened.


The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. There were several people identified as key parts of the problem who were moved out of that role, I don't believe they were fired, but with systemic issues it can be difficult to assign blame to one person.

-spence

"The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations."

I don't know if that's true. I mean, they couldn't drop right in front of the annex, but they could have been really, really close by. Were they? I don't know. But they absolutely should have been. A quick reaction team (FAST team) is supopsed to go from where they are, to the trouble spot, very quickly.

"I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing"

I didn't say that. But if you don't have troops in the immediate vicinity (closest safe spot), you can't do anything. So I could just as easily say, "I can't believe Obama would leave those 4 Americans to die alone."

You don't necessarily go in guns blazing. But you don't always have hours to plan, either. You can't treat every operation as if it's the Normandy invasion.

Watch the movie, or read the book, Lone Survivor. 4 man seal team comes under attack, they radio for help, a helicopter is in the air within a few minutes. They didn't take days formulating a plan, going over maps, discussing logistics. Sometimes you have to react quickly. That's why we have special forces.

"I'll trust the opinion of our Military "

I'll also tryst them over an elected politician. Do you trust the guy who said we should have done more?

"I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards"

In other words, you don't like what he said, so you dismiss it. I thought you just said you trust him?

"the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors."

Watch the 3 minute video I posted here. Trey Gowdy specifically said he didn't have access to witnesses. If he's lying, impeach him. If he's telling the truth, then clearly we need the hearings. Fair enough?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. .

-spence

That's GREAT! And the person in charge of that system at the time, is your candidate fo President? Good lord...

If State Dept had a systemic problem with keeping people safe, how is the person in charge of that department fit to be promoted? Do we want the whole country to have those systemic problems? What if we all come under sniper fire like she did, due to the systemic problems she couldn't rectify?

Talk about backing yourself into a corner! Good luck responding to that...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't know if that's true. I mean, they couldn't drop right in front of the annex, but they could have been really, really close by. Were they? I don't know. But they absolutely should have been. A quick reaction team (FAST team) is supopsed to go from where they are, to the trouble spot, very quickly.

FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly...

I didn't say that. But if you don't have troops in the immediate vicinity (closest safe spot), you can't do anything. So I could just as easily say, "I can't believe Obama would leave those 4 Americans to die alone."

You don't necessarily go in guns blazing. But you don't always have hours to plan, either. You can't treat every operation as if it's the Normandy invasion.

Watch the movie, or read the book, Lone Survivor. 4 man seal team comes under attack, they radio for help, a helicopter is in the air within a few minutes. They didn't take days formulating a plan, going over maps, discussing logistics. Sometimes you have to react quickly. That's why we have special forces.

I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond to the Seal operation. It's a totally different scenario.

I'll also tryst them over an elected politician. Do you trust the guy who said we should have done more?

In other words, you don't like what he said, so you dismiss it. I thought you just said you trust him?

By his own words I think he believes we should have been able to do more. I think he also believes that this wasn't feasible given the situation.

Watch the 3 minute video I posted here. Trey Gowdy specifically said he didn't have access to witnesses. If he's lying, impeach him. If he's telling the truth, then clearly we need the hearings. Fair enough?

Gowdy has been such a champion of Benghazi myths I'm surprised he doesn't have a retainer from FOX.

He probably doesn't have access to witnesses…right now. They would have to be subpoenaed or if classified worked out behind closed doors. Just because he doesn't have access doesn't mean other investigations have. Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly...


I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond to the Seal operation. It's a totally different scenario.


By his own words I think he believes we should have been able to do more. I think he also believes that this wasn't feasible given the situation.


Gowdy has been such a champion of Benghazi myths I'm surprised he doesn't have a retainer from FOX.

He probably doesn't have access to witnesses…right now. They would have to be subpoenaed or if classified worked out behind closed doors. Just because he doesn't have access doesn't mean other investigations have. Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld.

-spence

"FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly"

How many ways do you need me to say it? Who said anything about instantly? We had, as it turns out, 12 hours. That's more than enough time.

"I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond "

Then you would be wrong. It was a SEAL base, but the SEALs weren't expecting to go out, so they were not nearly as ready as a quick reaction force team would be. They were not planning to go out in support of the 4-man SEAL team. But when they heard the call, they were in the air in short order. It must be very convenient when you always assume everything in a way that support your narrative. You never question anything that supports liberalism, you never give any consideration to anything else. It's incredible.

"Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld"

Fortunately for all of us, we'll soon know.

[spence]

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy, that's telling me.

Spence, you don't even need to post, ever. we'll just assume your position can be assumed thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

No exceptions, ever.

About right?

Just read the book Lone Survivor. It's all there. Those guys on the base were not expecting a rapid deployment, but when they heard a call for help, they grabbed their rifles and ran to a chopper.

I am so sorry that fact spit in the face of your fairy tale. Spence, if you need to ignore a large number of facts in order to cling to your position, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see you'd rather hide under your bed than explain why the person in charge at State who presided over what you called a "systemic" inability to keep her employees alive, deserves a promotion? You have fun with that one. Good night.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

And it should be . Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Boy, that's telling me.

Spence, you don't even need to post, ever. we'll just assume your position can be assumed thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

No exceptions, ever.

About right?

No, you just usually post things that you've misinterpreted hence you think you're always wrong.

Just read the book Lone Survivor. It's all there. Those guys on the base were not expecting a rapid deployment, but when they heard a call for help, they grabbed their rifles and ran to a chopper.

I am so sorry that fact spit in the face of your fairy tale. Spence, if you need to ignore a large number of facts in order to cling to your position, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

Everything I've read says that the response was a QRF made of US Army Special Ops and Navy Seals. Including a book written about the entire operation by a Marine.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, if he didn't we wouldn't even be talking about it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.

Do security issues persist at other US missions? Have internal escalation issues been addressed?

This is the most important stuff and something you don't hear from the GOP…because that's not their real concern…gotchya politics at it's best and at taxpayer expense.

That's why this issue is now driven by conspiracies desperate for evidence...

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.



-spence

It would be possible to have all the info if the people involved were honest, had integrity and were truly doing their job in serving the people. If there was nothing untoward, wouldn't The Commander in Chief want to address the American people and follow up on his promise of "justice would be done"?

Check out Gowdy's questions in the first post and tell me we should be satisfied with the info we have been given so far. Latest polls show 61% aren't satisfied.

[spence]

This is great...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ghazi-24507933

The more the House investigates the more they undermine their own baseless accusations. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is great...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ghazi-24507933

The more the House investigates the more they undermine their own baseless accusations. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

-spence

This rehash of the "news" is so old it is rancid.

[Fishpart]

Obamawan "These aren't the Droids you are looking for"

Insert major media news organization name here "These are not the Droids we are looking for, Move Along...."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This rehash of the "news" is so old it is rancid.

This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

All those news which you have in the past dismissed as "old news" were "technically new news". As you've liked to say, it cuts both ways.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter." Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which,when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Couldn't be summed up better than that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

Actually it does support the administrations narrative, that's why the conspiracies haven't held. The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

You still riding that tired train?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence:

Actually it does support the administrations narrative,

No, the current picture in the Middle East does not support the Administration's "narrative." It is a narrative without basis.

spence:
that's why the conspiracies haven't held.

That's correct. The administration's conspiracies haven't held.

spence:
The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Important "legitimate" criticism has been deceitfully addressed, or evaded, by the administration. Of course, if Spence doesn't consider it "legitimate," it must not be. Not.

spence:
If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Democrat (progressive) spin has absolutely been the most influential. It has "transformed America," and continues to fundamentally do so. I don't know if that makes it the best. I don't care for either.

You obviously are a sucker for one "side" and are so stuck in the "center" and its fleeting moment that you are oblivious of history.

spence:
By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Could you be, at least once in this post, specific? Anyway, the disingenuous, dishonest, manipulation of the perception of Hillary's leadership potential or political accomplishments as being great stuff is a wasteful bunch of crap. Well . . . not so wasteful for her or the Dems if she gets elected. But that's the nature of influential spin . . . turning turds to gold.

As for wasting taxpayer's money, you must either be joking or are somehow blinded to how trivial a "waste" of spending that money on a search for answers is compared to what has actually been and is continuing to be and will further be the waste of our nation's wealth to the tune of unsustainable national debt. Until you address that and comment on how it can be reversed (other than the pitiful notion of politicians acting "responsibly") your perception of what is wasteful is not only disingenuous, dishonest, but just more caca.

spence:
You still riding that tired train?

-spence[/QUOTE]

You were tired of it the moment it left the station. But, amazingly, you're not tired of this undisciplined, unprincipled, dishonest, disingenuous, corrupt, ad hoc, imposture of democratic government which determines for us, and against us, what is allowed, and spends our money in any way and amount it deems necessary to bend our will and mold our minds to accept its edicts as more beneficial and wise than our own desires.

And, amazingly, you cannot see that what you consider new, up to date, this so-called "progressive" rule, is as old as the tyrannical top down rule of men over men. IT is the tired old train, not that of our founding government. The train I "still ride" is still the newest concept of government . . . bottom up, consent of the governed.

It was getting off that founding train that has led us to your preferred top down soft despotism (which is progressively getting less soft and becoming harder and harsher). And has led us into the massive waste of profligate government spending. Your notion that it only requires "responsible" leaders (benevolent dictators?) to make us whole, efficient, and "moving in the right direction" (whatever that is), ignores human nature. It is that very nature which is the basis for our founding government.

That is why that original train works and why our current "tired train" of fake democracy doesn't.

[buckman]

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was it illegal?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Was it illegal?

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

How about this from 2012 in the State Departments own words as a reason for firing Ambassador Gration.

Gration violated State Department policy by using a private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business. In its executive summary listing its key judgments against the U.S. ambassador to Kenya who served under Hillary Clinton, the inspector general stated that Gration’s decision to willfully violate departmental information security policies highlighted Gration’s “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.” The report claimed that this reluctance to obey governmental security policies was the former ambassador’s “greatest weakness.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would she do it ?pops into my mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device