Hillary

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said the hearings were a political witch hunt. I said that can't be, since some top dems called for the hearings. You were not convinced by that. In other words, the fact that these Dems said they were lied to and that the hearings were necessary, was not enough to convince you.

Yet when a general says they weren't ready for combat, that's good enough for you.

As always...as soon as someone, somewhere, supports your agenda, they must be correct. If anyone questions or contradicts your agenda, they must be a lying political hack. No exceptions, ever.

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

But the general saying that isn't good enough for you?

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ummm. f*ck no. Because I know from experience, that 8 special forces guys (IF there were any within range, which I don't know for sure), with light weapons and the intelligence provided from the drones flying overhead, would have made all the difference in the world against an illiterate, untrained, barbaric mob. I also know that a fighter jet (and there had to be many within range) doing a low pass would have scared a lot of the mob away. If it's true that there was no cavalry within range, then shame on the administration for drastically reducing the on-site security (after a request was made for extra securoty) in a known terrorism hotbed, and not at least having rescue troops nearby. Rockhound, you just can't do that to your people. You cannot send these superb Americans into harm's way, and then hang them out to dry.

But in my opinion, not sending in the cavalry, is not as blatantly inexcusable as the coverup. Do you think it's a coincidence that the references to terrorism were deleted form the initial CIA report? This was a known hotbed for terrorism, why would they want to make the world think it wasn't terrorism? And to top it all off, they blame it on an American citizen, a guy they are sworn to represent? How about that Rockhound? Does that bother you at all?

Then the #2 in command, Hicks (an appointee of the Obama administration), comes home after the attack, and complains that the request for extra security was denied, and complains that no help was sent in. He gets demoted. Nice.

Rockhound, you asked why I accepted the intentions of the Dems who wanted the hearings, and not the statement of the general. That is a fair question. I reject the general's statement, because I have actual, first-hand experience that refutes that statement. I answered your challenge directly and honestly, regardless of whether or not you believe me. Let's see if you-know-who shows the same courtesy.

Rockhound, this is an adminstration with a history of lying, and leaving our allies out to dry. Everyone, except you-know-who, knows that Hilary lied through her teeth about getting shot at. And this administration also allowed the Pakistani government to inmprison the doctor who helped us get Bin Laden. How does that sit with you? How is that kind of dishonesty and disloyalty, at all inconsistent with what conservatives feel took place in Libya?
Nope, nothing to see here, everyone go about your business...

Great summary Jim, and yes there were Special Forces in Tripoli who could have responded according to the testimony of Risk. There were 4 Special Forces troops, down from the original 14, who wanted to respond but were told to stand down.

[Jim in CT]

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

At the end of the firefight, the mob set up mortars to fire at the annex. I believe this is what killed the last Seal (or both) and marked the end of the fight.

Whoever was fighting on the roof of the annex, radioed in that he was under mortar attack. He also communicated that he had a laser on the mortar position, and asked that be bombed.

Why wasn't that at least done? That can be done from a long, long ways off. It can be done with drones. It can be done from jets flying way overhead who would be in no danger.

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

And therein lies the problems. It was the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
The Embassy had repeatedly asked for more security as they felt under threat
well before.
The resources should have been sent but they weren't. So who's
fault is that, the buck stops with the Secretary of State.

There was only ONE drone in the hot bed that made it within 2 hours
and NO armed drones in all of Libya ???? and no help sent however
far away it was????? That was the best decision they could make?? BS.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, the drones weren't armed and there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft that were also 2-3 hours away.

Where are you guys going to realize that people made the best decisions they could given the resources available?

-spence

"the drones weren't armed"
"there weren't logistics in place to fuel aircraft"

Spence, whose fault is this?

• Send people into a known hotbed of terrorism.
• When the terrorists make threats, those people ask for more security.
• Not only is the request for more security denied, but the existing security is reduced.
• And according

to you, there is literally zero addiitonal help in the region to send.

Does that sound like the SecState is supporting her people in the field, Spence?

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?

Spence, which is it? Were there no special forces to send, or were they available but told to stand down?

There are no consistent answers to this, which is why we should keep digging. I keep hearing conflicting things, I don't know what to believe. I'm not like you, I don't accept one side and reject the other side, in every scenario.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What about the special forces in Tripoli that were told to stand down (according to justplugit)?

No not according to me, according to Hick's testimony at the hearings Wednesday.