Quote:
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.