More breaking news on Libya, about how help was denied

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Completely agree they're the best but this also wasn't a Seal mission. It was a security mission not designed to repel this kind of attack. Also, watch the Fox special report on the timeline. It's got a ton of biased reporting but the timeline portion I think was pretty good. Fair enough, how about some of the guys who were calling the shots then: Hacks right The timeline and official comments suggest they thought the attack was waning and support from Tripoli was arriving soon. All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it. To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force. You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case. Remember 30,000 Benghazi's are reported to have protested the attacks holding pictures of the dead Ambassador and then stormed the headquarters of the Islamist group! Another under reported part of this story (I didn't even see it until today) is that after the attack the government has moved to disarm unofficial militia groups with broad public support. Libya Disbands ?Illegitimate? Militias - By Mary Casey and Jennifer Parker | The Middle East Channel As I've said, there's legitimate questions to be asked if we did enough to keep our people safe. Even Obama has admitted mistakes were made. This should be the focus of review and changes made to personnel or policy where appropriate, but not the petty election witch hunt you so dream of undermining the Commander and Chief. -spence

"You might be able to justify it with good intel but it would seem as though that wasn't the case."

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.

"All this bluster about gunships and such is a bit much when you think about it"

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

"To deploy such force would have certainly led to significant collateral damage against a ~40 person insurgent force."

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.

You have no knowledge to back up anything you say. you make up liberal apologist jibberish as you go along, anything to avoid making Obama look culpable for his blunders.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK Tom Clancy. Follow the bouncing ball. We had guys on the ground communicating with us. And we had images from the drones. In the miliotary business, that's what we call awesome intel. from where do you get the knowledge that we need more than that? Did you get that tidbit from the terrorists as well.

I got that tidbit from the United States Secretary of Defense, last I checked he wasn't on a watch list.

It's not 'bluster', #^&#^&#^&#^&-for-brains. It's page 1 of the us military manual.

Again, how the hell would you know anything about that? what you do is, position a helicopter above the compound. you announce over a loudspeaker that anyone still there in 20 seconds is going to be obliterated. Anyone still there, gets obliterated.

My assumption is that the military leadership has read page one of the manual.

They also would do a risk assessment.

Spence, here's somethingf you don't know. We make a compact with guys we send into harm's way (at least we did before we elected Obama). That compact is that we won't abandon them. Sometimes things get messy. We try to avoid hurting non-combatants when we can, but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first. That's the way it works in the real world. That may not get discussed much in the Harvard faculty room, but it means a lot to guys in uniform.

The key words in your statement are "but in the end, the safety of Americans comes first."

By all accounts this was a very confused situation. You can "what if" it all you want but that doesn't change the fact that some pretty experienced people made the best call they could based on the information they had.

Interestingly enough, even John McCain has now attacked the Pentagon stating that the US Military was not in a position to respond. The Pentagon disputes this and says it was a risk based decision. Petraeus is reported to have denied CIA assets were told to stand down, although I've not seen this confirmed.

They need to complete the investigation and make adjustments where necessary, but this isn't something you litigate during an election. That's not fair to the families and people impacted by the attack.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence, our commanders knew that Tyrone Woods and 2 other guys were able to slip in and out of that mob without any difficulty. And they had zero intelligence.

You take at face value anything that anyone says, as long as it is favorable to Obama (including, incredibly, the words of the terrorists). You dismiss everythiing else. That's all you do.

2 or 3 guys who literally had no intelligence (and no heavy weapons) were able to fight through the mob to rescue the folks at the consulate, get them out of the consulate, and back to the CIA annex a mile away. If they could do that, then a team of tier-1 delta force operators could certainly do the same, especially if they had tons of intelligence to work with, heavy weapons, and air support. It would be an easy mission. Easy.

Spence, all you can say to that is "Panetta must know what he is doing." It doesn't appear so. We'll see how this plays out. Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying about Bush's response to the Katrina victims. I'm sure you said "well, if it took FEMA director Brown 7 days to get water to the Superdome, that must be how long it takes, because he must know what he is doing". Panetta woduln't be the first moron in a senior cabinet position.

"this isn't something you litigate during an election. That's not fair to the families and people impacted by the attack. "

As usual, you could not be more wrong. What's unfair to the families, is to tell them that the election is more important than finding out why there sons are dead, when it was within our ability to save them. Politics is more important than that? Obama believes so, and therefore so do you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, our commanders knew that Tyrone Woods and 2 other guys were able to slip in and out of that mob without any difficulty. And they had zero intelligence.

They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?

You take at face value anything that anyone says, as long as it is favorable to Obama (including, incredibly, the words of the terrorists). You dismiss everythiing else. That's all you do.

No, you just see what you want to see.

2 or 3 guys who literally had no intelligence (and no heavy weapons) were able to fight through the mob to rescue the folks at the consulate, get them out of the consulate, and back to the CIA annex a mile away. If they could do that, then a team of tier-1 delta force operators could certainly do the same, especially if they had tons of intelligence to work with, heavy weapons, and air support. It would be an easy mission. Easy.

With hindsight, I have no doubt a special forces team couldn't have cleaned the place out in no time, but that's not the point.

The question isn't about what we know now, it's about they knew then.

Spence, all you can say to that is "Panetta must know what he is doing." It doesn't appear so. We'll see how this plays out. Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying about Bush's response to the Katrina victims. I'm sure you said "well, if it took FEMA director Brown 7 days to get water to the Superdome, that must be how long it takes, because he must know what he is doing". Panetta woduln't be the first moron in a senior cabinet position.

Totally different situations.

As usual, you could not be more wrong. What's unfair to the families, is to tell them that the election is more important than finding out why there sons are dead, when it was within our ability to save them. Politics is more important than that? Obama believes so, and therefore so do you.

Nobody is saying hold off until after the election, I'm sure there's a massive effort going on to assess and adjust. I said it's unfair to "litigate" during the election. This event was jumped on by Republicans for partisan gain without any regard to the families or those impacted.

Notice how Romney has dropped it? Wonder why...perhaps he now knows what really happened that he's getting his own security briefings.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?


No, you just see what you want to see.


With hindsight, I have no doubt a special forces team couldn't have cleaned the place out in no time, but that's not the point.

The question isn't about what we know now, it's about they knew then.



Totally different situations.



Nobody is saying hold off until after the election, I'm sure there's a massive effort going on to assess and adjust. I said it's unfair to "litigate" during the election. This event was jumped on by Republicans for partisan gain without any regard to the families or those impacted.

Notice how Romney has dropped it? Wonder why...perhaps he now knows what really happened that he's getting his own security briefings.

-spence

"They had zero intelligence? They were there on the ground and could see what was around them. That doesn't count?"

Tyrone Woods was at the CIA annex, which os one mile away from the consulate. All he knew i sthat gunshots were reported. That was all he knew, an dthat was enough for him to ignore orders and risk his life to help the 30 people that were trapped.

When Tyrone Woods decided to run towards the consulate, he didn't know what he was heading into. Reports are there were a total of 2 or 3 guys that ran to help those in the consulate.

Nobody was radioing info to Woods, no one was giving him feeds from drones.

Suck on them apples.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tyrone Woods was at the CIA annex, which os one mile away from the consulate. All he knew i sthat gunshots were reported. That was all he knew, an dthat was enough for him to ignore orders and risk his life to help the 30 people that were trapped.

When Tyrone Woods decided to run towards the consulate, he didn't know what he was heading into. Reports are there were a total of 2 or 3 guys that ran to help those in the consulate.

Nobody was radioing info to Woods, no one was giving him feeds from drones.

Jim, seriously...

He was in country to protect those people. He was one mile away. He's an ex Seal. I'd wager you would have done the exact same thing. I know would have done the exact same thing.

Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives. There's a difference between being selfless and being in a larger leadership position.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, seriously...

He was in country to protect those people. He was one mile away. He's an ex Seal. I'd wager you would have done the exact same thing. I know would have done the exact same thing.

Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives. There's a difference between being selfless and being in a larger leadership position.

-spence

"Big difference between that and having to order an unplanned mission "

They had 7 hours, and lots of intelligence, to plan a mission. I know what I'm talking about from experience. You are saying things about which you have zero knowledge, just to suport the man you are infatuated with.

"an unplanned mission that would impact a lot of lives"

So instead we sat on our hands and did zilch. That aso impacted a lot of lives.

Spence, you don't send kids into harm's way, amd watch video of them beink killed, without moving heaven and earth to try to save them. If we go in there ike the wrath of God, we would have saved some of those who were ost, no question. Would Libyans on the ground have been kiled? Yes, no question.

Are you opposed to that? Whose side are you on? Ty Woods and the other SEAL were firing non-stop from a roof-top,with a heavy machine gun, for several hours. THis was a battle Spence. People get killed in battles. If an armed mob shoots at Americans, you kill them all, get your people out, and sort it out later. That's the pact we have with our armed forces, and for good reason. On that point, I know one hell of a lot more than you ever will. And I'm 100% right.

You cannot send kids into harm's way if political expedience trumps supporting them. We learned that in Vietnam. War is really ugly, and you either go all in,or you get out.

I keep coming back to the fact that Obama left these kids out to dry, and also let the Pakistanis put the guy in prison who told us where Bin Laden was. It almost (not quite, but almost) makes me wonder what the hell side Obama is on.