Hillary

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Special Ops that aren't equipped or might have another priority doesn't mean the answers given are inconsistent. It simply means for a variety of reasons there wasn't a simple solution and the leadership had to make hard decisions. The guys in Tripoli according to the DoD weren't prepared for combat and were needed in case the threats against the actual embassy became real.

That's a leadership decision, not a failure to act.

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this equipment the military has to make effective use of what they have. Did the government expect to be sending forces into Libya? They obviously didn't think do. The ARB has already found issues and solutions are in place.

I'm sure you didn't read about this on FOX but after the attack 30,000 Benghazi people protested the attacks and thousands sent condolences to Stevens's family.

-spence

"Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this... "


Pardon me? According to you, the lives of all those Americans aren't necessarily worth the cost of fueling a jet? Brave Americans holed up in an embassy annex, under attack by terrorists, fighting for their lives in a foreign land. But to you, we can't splurge for the jet fuel to send in the cavalry, unless the Congressional Budget Office does a cost-benefit-analysis first?

So according to you...

- there were no special forces available
- no wait, they were available, but inadequately armed (as if you'd have any clue about that)
- no wait, they were busy working on "another priority", which is something they only told you about, I guess, because no one else is using that as an excuse
- no wait, they were available, but the US government doesn't have the liquidity to splurge on jet fuel (I notice you have no quarrel with spending money on jet fuel so Obama can fly around the world to vacation with the swells). Spence, by the time your Messiah is through with his second term, we might not have enough cash to fuel up a jet, but as of today, I think we can swing it.

Have you no shame? None at all?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money. Unless there's a mission that justifies this... "


Pardon me? According to you, the lives of all those Americans aren't necessarily worth the cost of fueling a jet? Brave Americans holed up in an embassy annex, under attack by terrorists, fighting for their lives in a foreign land. But to you, we can't splurge for the jet fuel to send in the cavalry, unless the Congressional Budget Office does a cost-benefit-analysis first?

So according to you...

- there were no special forces available
- no wait, they were available, but inadequately armed (as if you'd have any clue about that)
- no wait, they were busy working on "another priority", which is something they only told you about, I guess, because no one else is using that as an excuse
- no wait, they were available, but the US government doesn't have the liquidity to splurge on jet fuel (I notice you have no quarrel with spending money on jet fuel so Obama can fly around the world to vacation with the swells). Spence, by the time your Messiah is through with his second term, we might not have enough cash to fuel up a jet, but as of today, I think we can swing it.

Have you no shame? None at all?

So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

translation: " I know you are but what am I ? "

haaaaaaaaa...good one!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

translation: " I know you are but what am I ? "

:

Except I most certainly am not...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So is it your MO to just make #^&#^&#^&#^& up rather than have a real discussion?

-spence

No, it's not my m.o., it's yours. Did you read my last post, where I listed a half-dozen lame excuses you have posted in this thread, as to why help was not available, or not sent?

You are the one who speculated that we didn't have a credit card handy to pay for the gas in the jet (I picture a 5-star general at a Shell station with his pockets turned inside-out), and you are the one who suggested that spec-ops teams had other priorities at the time. I haven't heard anyone else make those excuses, but that didn't stop you. You are the one who said that Hilary didn't lie about getting shot at.

Please don't include me in your world where it's OK to make stuff up as you go along. I don't do that...

You want to discuss? Let's discuss! Where did you get the idea, that the reason that special forces weren't sent in, is because they were doing off doing other things? From what I saw, those forces were available to be sent it, and wanted to go in, but were told to stand down.





.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You want to discuss? Let's discuss! Where did you get the idea, that the reason that special forces weren't sent in, is because they were doing off doing other things? From what I saw, those forces were available to be sent it, and wanted to go in, but were told to stand down.

I got the crazy notion from the US Department of Defense.

They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat and there was concern about additional threats at the actual embassy. I've only said this about 5 times now...

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said. Also, as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting.

For all the beotching you guys do about manipulation by the media it's astounding how eagerly you lap it up.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I got the crazy notion from the US Department of Defense.

They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat and there was concern about additional threats at the actual embassy. I've only said this about 5 times now...

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said. Also, as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting.

For all the beotching you guys do about manipulation by the media it's astounding how eagerly you lap it up.

-spence

Spence, I asked you for proof of your position, that the special forces troops were involved with other priorities at th etime (something more vital than the lives of the Americans at the annex. Nowhere in this rant, do you support the notion that they were too busy.

"You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said."

You didn't provide a link to, or identify, who said they were inadequately armed, so I assumed that was your desperate attempt at explaining what took place.

If the troops weren't within reach, that's one thing. That's not what you said. You said they were off doing something more important, or that we didn't have the cash to fuel a jet, etc...

"They made the call because the troops weren't equipped for combat "

I have never heard of active-duty special forces troops not equipped for combat. I don't know who said that, nor do I know what their status was at the time of th eattack, so I could be wrong. But that's incomprehensible to me. By definition, these are extremely light-infantry assault troops. They don't need howitzers and battleships to support them.

"as a numbers guy I'd think you would have a basic understanding of budgeting:

I wager I know more about it then you, given that your political heroes won't make any fixes to SS or Medicare.

I get budgeting. And if you are the President, one of the first things you budget for, is safety measures for your folks in harm's way. If that was indeed the cause of this, budgeting (and I haven't heard anyone suggest that except you, that doesn't speak well of Obama's prioritization skills, does it? He has the $$ for a $25 million Hawaiin vacation, but no finds to protect diplomats in terrorist zones? Does that speak well of Obama's abilities to you?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's pretty sad. You want to attack my lack of combat experience when all I'm doing is relaying what the military leadership has already said.
-spence

he was just extrapolating from your previous posts

wait...when did Jim attack your lack of combat experience?....are you making things up?