Hillary

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Will we? I'm still waiting for the bombshell. We learned nothing material today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain your definition if a "bombshell "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Explain your definition if a "bombshell "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By your expectation I was expecting "mind blowing" but instead we got a slightly different perspective on the same events with nothing that really challenges previous assertions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

By your expectation I was expecting "mind blowing" but instead we got a slightly different perspective on the same events with nothing that really challenges previous assertions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please cite the evidence of that. I think you have an incomplete understanding of available facts.

I am happy to help you though...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Please cite the evidence of that. I think you have an incomplete understanding of available facts.

I am happy to help you though...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain to me please, how they could have thought , five days later, it was a protest? Incompetence ? Do you really believe that they are this stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Explain to me please, how they could have thought , five days later, it was a protest? Incompetence ? Do you really believe that they are this stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They didn't say 5 days later it was just a protest. They said that current information indicated it started as a protest which was joined by extremists.

The militant group reportedly claimed the video as motivation after the attack then recanted. The NYTimes reported attackers claiming video as the motivation after the attack. The initial and final drafts of CIA talking points included the line that suggested the video ignited the attack.

The CIA also did believe the militant group was involved early on and was investigating any links to alQaeda. Gen. Petraus is on record stating the terror references were intentionally removed by the CIA so as not to tip off any terror links that could be of value.

And what was left is what was given to Susan Rice. It's all out there...

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;99799 . It's all out there...

-spence[/QUOTE]

Now!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

They lied Spence ! Evidently your ok with that . I'm not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you were ok when republicans lied??

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and soooooo..........

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But you were ok when republicans lied??

They all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lie. All of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't suppose you can imagine yourself in the position these four were in?
I'm not ok with lies period!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

I would say mind numbing on how ill prepared we were to respond to an attack on our embassy after repeated requests from Hicks, second in command to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens himself for more security in
a hot bed of terrorism before the anniversary of 9/11. Complete failure
on Clinton's part.
That Tripoli was down to 4 special forces troops from an original 14.
That a Drone was over the embassy taking pictures 2 hours into the attack but
an armed drone wasn't around in Libyia ?????
That the FEST ( Foreign Embassy Support Team) formed for just such attacks
was told to stand down. Kennedy said no, the FBI should handle it.
The 4 Special Forces troops in Tripoli were told to stand down during the attack.
There were 2 waves of attacks on the Embassy and no one knew how long the attacks would last so the fact they couldn't get troops there within 7 hours is a moot point. Maybe they had a crystal ball.
There were up to 60 terrorists inside the embassy.
The FBI didn't show up until 18 days after the attack, yet the Administration didn't want to release their classified??? reports.
Hicks was told by the Libiya Govt. it was a terrorist attack on 11/12 yet the administration blamed it on a movie hating crowd, and sent Rice out to talk it up a week later.
The CIA original talking points on the attack were cleansed more then twice by the State Dept. before being released.
The fact that Pickering/Mullen wouldn't show up for todays hearing and didn't interview either Hicks or Clinton for their Accountability Review Report.
Yes, Clinton was on the top of her game.

[Jim in CT]

No smoking gun unfortunately, but it was a validation of what any rational person would conclude...

- we got caught with our pants down by not having more adequate security in place. That happens to all presidents at some point, hopefully we at least learn from that.

- I still cannot believe that we didn't send in the cavalry. The notion that we couldn't send them in because we didn't know what was going on, is flimsy at best. That's what the special forces guys train for, they routinely get sent into situations with less than perfect knowledge of what is happening. They do that all the time. We also had drones flying overhead, which would provide more than enough information for them to go in and take care of business.

- then, the cover-up. The only plausible explanation is that the attack came right on the feels of the Democratic convention, where Obama claimed that, thanks to him, AL Queda was on the run, with no real capabilities. In order to avoid looking like he made false claims, the administration did everything they could, to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, they blame a US citizen who made a dopey video, which everyone knew had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. That, right there, is the most inexcusable thing they did. In the process, they lied, they lied to all of us.

The TV stations, except one, will ignore the story, and Obama will emerge unscathed. The people (like me) who disliked him already, will dislike him more. His worshippers will continue to kiss his ring. And it will resurface when Hilary runs in 2016, but nothing seems to stick to her either, after all, her last name is Clinton.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

- we got caught with our pants down by not having more adequate security in place. That happens to all presidents at some point, hopefully we at least learn from that.

The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.

- I still cannot believe that we didn't send in the cavalry. The notion that we couldn't send them in because we didn't know what was going on, is flimsy at best. That's what the special forces guys train for, they routinely get sent into situations with less than perfect knowledge of what is happening. They do that all the time. We also had drones flying overhead, which would provide more than enough information for them to go in and take care of business.

There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.

- then, the cover-up. The only plausible explanation is that the attack came right on the feels of the Democratic convention, where Obama claimed that, thanks to him, AL Queda was on the run, with no real capabilities. In order to avoid looking like he made false claims, the administration did everything they could, to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, they blame a US citizen who made a dopey video, which everyone knew had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. That, right there, is the most inexcusable thing they did. In the process, they lied, they lied to all of us.

There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.

‘‘There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,’’ [Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)] said after the hearing. ‘‘They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

‘‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’’ Schiff said. ‘‘He completely debunked that idea.’’

Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews ‘‘reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.’’

AP

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The ARB provided thorough detail on this topic.


There as no cavalry to send. There appear to been multiple factors at play. It wasn't just the confusion, the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready. Also, the military has said they received threats at the actual embassy in Tripoli and wanted them to stay put in case they were needed there.

And even at that, the C130 they were going to fly on wasn't even scheduled to take off until after the entire event ended.


There's the other explanation given by the Director of the CIA.



-spence

"There was no cavalry to send"

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?

"It wasn't just the confusion"

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).

"the only special ops in Libya were lightly armed and not ready"

How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"...Didn't the firefight last for hours?

What you said, and there is more then one rub. The fighting could of gone on for days, no one could have known it would only last for 7 hours.
Since when does our military not respond immediatly to an attack that's killing Americans?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have seen conflicting reports on that, all of which you ignore of course. And if what you say is correct (and that's a big 'if'), how is it possible that the administration had zero capability to respond to an attack on an embassy that everyone knows is in an area with Al Queda ties? On the anniversary of 09/11? When there had been credible threats made already?

Show me a credible "report" that conflicts with the DoD.

They asked for extra security. not only was that request rejected, but according to you, no security apparatus existed to provide help? That's just great. Why the hell would anyone want to replace Ambassador Stevens?

The ARB documented in great detail communication breakdowns that were systemic in nature.

The government and the military are trained to deal with incredibly confusing scenarios. That's no excuse in this day and age. Confusion and chaos actually increases our tactical advantage (because we know how to deal with the confusion, and the bad guys don't).

You just contradicted what you said earlier in this same thread.

How long does it take to get ready, compared to how long the firefight lasted? I presume you have never been in that situation, so take it from someone who has...when the alarm goes off, you can be ready in far less than 5 minutes if you have to...Didn't the firefight last for hours? And what about groups outside of Libya, that could have gotten there before the fight was over - were there any? As for 'lightly armed', forgive me, I keep forgetting you are an expert in military tactics. The special forces guys don't need heavy weapons to slaughter a few dozen untrained barbarians. I'm not saying life is like a Jason Bourne movie...but the special forces guys could have handled an untrained mob with very light weapons, with very little difficulty.

Not ready for combat, those are a General's words and not mine.

-spence