Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

.

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:



-spence

"the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. "

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

Sorry Spence, it was YOU, not me, who quoted Lovell as if he was an authoritative source. Your source, the man you quoted, said we should have done more. I'm sorry if that pokes holes in your theory, but that's your fault for bringing Lovell into this. You did that, not me.

"Make a little effort to try and understand"

I understand you perfectly. All you do is find some source, any source, anywhere, to applaud Obama, no matter what he has done. When, as in this case, that source seems to be critical of Obama, you cast your original source aside and find another source.

Spence, on any issue, you can post sources that praise Obama, I can post sources that attack him. How come you won't post what you think for yourself? Hint: I already know the answer, we all do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time.


-spence

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-sa...030646726.html

Read your own article...

A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.

The general "did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon said.

And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Read your own article...



And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.

I'm not discrediting Lovell, rather that when pressed to be explicit on his position he backed down on any talk of "could" or "should."

I can see why Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif was so upset. Here he's thinking they've settled the issue once and for all yet his Republican cronies are pulling out anyone they can -- even someone who may not have been in a good position to know -- to give FOX News and the conservative blogosphere more fodder to confuse people.

Before the court I'd like to present exhibit A - that's your cue to look in the mirror.

-spence