Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion
 

I read the book, I will see the movie. I have seen the 3 security operators (3 of the 5 who are going out in public).

Almost 12 hours had passed from the time the first shots were fired, to the time that the 2 former SEALs were killed back at the CIA annex. 12 hours. In that time, they couldn't get any air assets to Benghazi, other than an unarmed drone?

Not buying it. we had assets in southern Europe and Africa. Christ, an F-16 from Massachusetts could probably get there in 12 hours.

The families of th efallen (families of at least 3 of the 4) say that at the airport, Hilary told them that the filmmaker (an American citizen) was responsible for the attack, and that she was going to have him arrested. She denies saying this. The families insist she is saying it.

She is a serial liar. We know this. We know she lied about coming under sniper fire. we know she lied when she said that the GOP wa sframing Bill to make it look like he was cheating on her. So who do we believe?

I don't claim to be objective, as I truly believe that she is one of the most revolting, self-serving, slimy people in the country. But I hope this film re-opens those wounds for her, because she has it coming.

If she did truly tell the families it was because of the video, and now she's claiming that THEY are lying...there's a special place in hell fo rher.

she was a liar 30 years ago and she is still a liar

God help us all

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.

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

It just shows how the military is covering up for her bc they want her to be President. You would think someone would do an investigation and get to the bottom of this.

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

Would you please stop littering this forum with reasoned posts :lama:

PolitiFact ranks ALL of the Repub. candidates as being more untruthful than her.

Yes, we should believe the liar in chief rather than those heroes in the action
and the parents of the slain heroes. Pfft-

Yes, because the chain of command and military who investigated the entire event know nothing compared to the parents of those killed.

Really?

So you're saying what happened on the ground by those that were there,
and the slain Heroes parents who heard Hillary's video explanation have
something to gain by lying?
Common sense says the only one to gain by
lies is Hillary and past behavior is a good indication of present behavior.
She has lied many times before, and imho lied here trying to blame a video.

I guess when she left the White House broke, she took the furniture
and art work so she could have a yard sale in order to survive. LOL

The parents don't have an agenda . The "chain of command's " boss did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've covered this about 100 times already.

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.

When the bodies arrived back in the US the video was still being flagged by the CIA as a primary motivation.

But hey, if it's on the big screen it must be true right?

I think some of the parents have been shameless exploited by elements of the media.

As for agendas, usually when something stinks you'll figure it out pretty quickly. There still is to my knowledge, other than a few guys frustrated they weren't allowed to rush into an unknown firefight, evidence of any stand down order that would have helped save American lives.

But if a movie studio can make millions exploiting the situation I'm sure you're all for it.

Spence, the only thing I'm for is the truth and I know we'll never get it
from Hillary. :doh: She is a serial liar and I'm sure your Not all for it.

\

(1) Spence, what did I say that is factually incorrect? I'm all ears.

(2) The movie isn't out yet. My facts are from the book, what the surviving operators have said, and what the families of the fallen have said.

"sure how Air support would have changed the outcome "

Due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a reason why those there were asking for air support. Air support easily could have prevented the rebels from setting up mortars, which is what killed the last two.

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.

The folks on the ground were telling outside channels what was happening...estimates of enemy strength, what weapons they had, etc. We would not have been going in blind.

"whos talking to the planes "

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that.

"do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ?"

Again, the guys on the ground had strobes and lasers and radios.

This was well within the capabilities of the US military. This is not an overly complicated scenario.

If an air asset sees armed Muslims aiming a mortar at a US compound which is under attack, you don 't need to be Steven Hawking to figure out what's going on.

My hindsight is 20/20, for sure. But this was very do-able.
Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. The book goes into his many requests, and the specific reasons he made them.


"

Oh really? Then WHY IS HILARY DENYING THAT SHE BLAMED THE VIDEO?! Please answer that? Hilary isn't defending her blaming the video. She is denying blaming the video.

It's possible the parents have an agenda, maybe they don't want her to be President. But we know Hilary is a serial liar, especially when her career is at stake, so why believe her?

Spence, why did she keep flip-flopping between blaming the video, and declaring that it was a terrorist attack? If it's fog of war, why not say "we are getting conflicting intel, we are looking into it"?

You cannot win this one. It doesn't pass the common sense smell test.

And instead of making fun of my Hollywood sources (even though the movie isn't out yet), can't you just tell me one thing I said that's wrong?

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

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

This is a pathetic comment . You clearly only respect the left half of the country , as you are ready to take any cheap shot you can at conservatives.
If you think Hillary will make a good President , than you are one of a very few in the military that thinks so , Why do you think that is ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An F-16 would have a tough time target a mortar crew. But what it can do, is make the enemy too scared to set up a mortar crew. And there are other planes that can easily target a mortar crew, and I promise you that we had some within a 12 hour flight of Benghazi. If not, then Obama should be impeached.

"we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target "

I'll wager that sh*tkicking bandits aren't as well trained.

You're missing the point. We didn't even try. They fought for 12 hours, and they got exactly zip in terms of support from us. That doesn't anger you? Not at all? When we send people into harm's way, we don't owe them better than that?

We sat on our hands while these guys fought for their lives, for 12 hours. If large numbers of Americans aren't bothered by that, then what in God's name have we become?

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.

People die in war. These deaths were likely preventable.

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.

Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.


"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. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer :gu:

Perhaps, perhaps not

Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

The conversation in question invoilved the CIA station chief, and the 4 security officers who were present. All 4 security officers claim that the station chief ordered them not to go to the State Dept compound. All 4. They have testified to that. The CIA station chief denies it.

Spence, in all sincerity (I'm not being sarcastic), what proof is there, that the 4 security guys are lying? For sure, we know they didn't leave the CIA annex right away, we know that for a fact. Some time had passed before they left. Was there a tape recording or something?

The local militia that we relied on there? They ignored repeated calls to help. Hopefully we learned the lesson that we cannot rely on them.

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.

That was a reasoned post, with some good points. Sorry for saying you don't know what you're talking about, obviously you do, and I had no business saying that.

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

not much logic or reason in that statement...I thought this was about Hillary?

maybe it's my conservative lack of logic and reason and probably other things but I don't think I see O mentioned anywhere in the thread...oh wait...here's one "Hilary or Obama do"

nice....correct again...you're on a roll buddy....she can blame the vast right wing conspiracy for this one :cool:

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".

"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.

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

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?

I knew that Jim vs. Wayne would be great fun :jump:

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.

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.

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

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."

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?

feel the Bern baby!!!