Hillary

[spence]

I'd consider giving you a mulligan on that post.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd consider giving you a mulligan on that post.

-spence

I'm not sure what you mean, and it's doubtful I care.

Spence, you said I fabricated the notion that Al Qaeda was known to be active in Libya. You said I fabricated the notion that military helicopters are quite capable of extracting soldiers who are pinned down.

You're wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. Maybe you should ask yourself, why is it that you have to lie so blatantly and so regularly, in order to support that which you believe? That should indicate that there might be something flawed about what you believe.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not sure what you mean, and it's doubtful I care.

Spence, you said I fabricated the notion that Al Qaeda was known to be active in Libya. You said I fabricated the notion that military helicopters are quite capable of extracting soldiers who are pinned down.

You're wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. Maybe you should ask yourself, why is it that you have to lie so blatantly and so regularly, in order to support that which you believe? That should indicate that there might be something flawed about what you believe.

I didn't say any of those things.

What universe do you live in?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't say any of those things.

What universe do you live in?

-spence

OK, so now Spence is denying that he claimed in made up that Al Qaeda was n Libya. Here is what you posted, an exact quote...

"I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up."

Spence, you also deny that you said I was inventing fantastic hypotheticals about using helicopters to rescue americans...here is what you posted, an exact quote...

"I love all these fantasy hypotheticals"

[spence]

So you're saying that if I buy property in France the US Govt can send in the military to protect me?

Wow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that if I buy property in France the US Govt can send in the military to protect me?

Wow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No not you as an individual owner, but I hope so if you were living under a US Flagged/owned property.

[spence]

Ha, keep making stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

-spence

Spence:
Gates is a known communist, obviously.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Spence:
Gates is a known communist, obviously.

Worse, in the interview he actually DEFENDS Hillary Clinton's character!

That alone should get him on the no fly list.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Here's some very good perspective.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability - CBS News

-spence

You call it "very good perspective" , and you call Marc Steyn's perspective "malarkey". You don't offer one shred of support for why one guy's perspective is "very good", and the other guy's perspective is "malarkey", because you don't dig that deeply. If someone agrees with you, they are correct, if someone disagrees with you, they are incorrect.

I had always said, that if there were no special forces available, then, you can't send what you don't have. I still don't know if that's true. Gates says no one was available to send. Others have said forces wanted to go, but were told to stand down. I want to know the truth.

As to Gates' assertion that you can't send in a Delta Force team unless you have absolutely perfect intelligence? He's wrong. He's just wrong.

Spence, do some research on the publicly available data on what these guys do...they specialize in the impossible, and they are ridiculously good at it.

You think they had perfect intelligence about who, and what, was inside Bin Laden's compound? The Seals didn't know if people in there were wired with explosives, they didn't know if there were booby traps, they didn't know if Bin Laden was holding hostages. You could fill the oceans with what they didn't know. And yet they went in.

Lastly Spence, where in Gates' piece did he say that the Libyans rejected our request to send in troops, because you certainly mentioned that as a reason why no help was sent in...

[Jim in CT]

Gates also could not comment on why the request for additional security, before the attack was rejected. Nor did he comment on the alleged cover-up in blaming the video.

Spence, I concede that you can't send in the cavalry if there isn't a cavalry to send. But if there was no cavalry to send (and some have said there was cavalry to send), it's valid to ask why the hell not.

Put that aside...most folks have said that the cover-up was the most scandalous part of this, and the "very good perspective" you posted, didn't mention that.

[JohnR]

If you ask a lot of the recently retired military, especially those with recent last decade (AFG/IRAQ) service there should have been resources available. Part of the reason to find out, that and if there was a cover up.

This was watched in mil/security watch centers all over the world. Something should have been sent. You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. You do not know how things are going to be 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours later. But if you do nothing or order to do nothing by way of getting people to the area, then you forfeit the ability to influence events.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. .

Another key point. You at least mobilize what you have, and move some kind of force toward Libya, so they are closer if you should decide to send in the cavalry.

If the closest help is on Mars, you get them moving towards Benghazi. Because if the firefight lasts that long, at least you now have the chance to send in help.

Were any assets moved one inch toward Benghazi? Or did we leave the whole thing for the Libyans? Did Obama do anything more than ask the Libyans to wait fo rthe shooting to stop (which took several hours), and then go collect the American corpses?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Another key point. You at least mobilize what you have, and move some kind of force toward Libya, so they are closer if you should decide to send in the cavalry.

If the closest help is on Mars, you get them moving towards Benghazi. Because if the firefight lasts that long, at least you now have the chance to send in help.

Were any assets moved one inch toward Benghazi?

Great points.
Weren't there Carriers in the Mediteranean that can move at 30 plus knots with F-18s that have a ferry range of 1800 miles and a speed of 1200 mph, that could have landed in Tripoli for fuel if needed, and buzzed Benghazi with their 20mm cannons?
Oh that's right, probably not cost effective.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You can send resources/units and decide not to use them or you cannot send units and have no choice whether or not to use them. You do not know how things are going to be 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 hours, or 24 hours later. But if you do nothing or order to do nothing by way of getting people to the area, then you forfeit the ability to influence events.

According to ABC Within hours of the attack multiple platoons of Marines trained to protect diplomatic missions were moved to Italy and Special Ops were moved into place in case there was a hostage situation. Some were sent to Tripoli but not Benghazi as the Americans had already been evacuated.

Pentagon on Benghazi Troop Movements: ‘Swift Action’ on Night of Attack - ABC News

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information -spence

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information -spence

Before these hearings, I hadn't heard what Hicks (the #2 man in Libya) had to say, nor had I heard what the head of security there had to say.

Just because what is being said doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

And I'm glad to hear that troops were moved, at least...

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=spence;998691

This is the problem with the entire debate. It's rehashing old information with little to any regard for what's on record or already been reported.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Information is only as good as it's depth and truth.

We still don't know what roll the Commander in Chief played in this debacle.
Where was he, in the situation room leading and making decisions, packing his suite case for the next days fund raiser or what? Why didn't Hilary askHicks, the second in command, in her telephone call during the attack, who the culprits were? Why was the President on David Letterman 2 weeks later still pushing the gathering movie crowd explanation along with Rice?

Those are some of the questions that need to be answered for the record.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Information is only as good as it's depth and truth.

Oh God the irony.

We still don't know what roll the Commander in Chief played in this debacle.

He was likely working on his golf swing obviously. Obama hates America.

Why was the President on David Letterman 2 weeks later still pushing the gathering movie crowd explanation along with Rice?

I've read all the transcripts from his various remarks and while he certainly references extremists and terrorists exploiting the video I don't see him pushing the "gathering crowd" idea.

4 media outlets reported attackers claiming the video was the source of their outrage and from the investigation there certainly was CIA opinion that it was a factor. The question that's impossible to answer is if the video never happened would the attacks never have happened? I don't think anyone can prove that, but early evidence sure seemed to indicate there was a relationship.

-spence

[spence]

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the Obama administration got to the reporter
Next ..... I feel bad for you Spence. this must be getting exhausting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, since yuo know so much about teh hearings, why won't yuo provide the evidence to support yoru claim that the Libyan government prevented us from sending special forces in, or your other notion that the special forces were too busy with other priorities.

Also, Foxnews wasn't the only one who skipped that...the top Democrat on the House oversight committee specifically mentioned Hisks' testimony as an important reason for holding last week's hearings. I guess he's Glenn Beck in disguise.

Never said such a thing...keep whiffing.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Never said such a thing....

-spence

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, Hicks testified that he was interviewed twice in the State Department investigation, the second time by his own request even...

FOX appears to have skipped over this part somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence


Keep making things up.

I'll speak for Spence because he's busy making the rich. richer in the market right now.

" We have been through this over and over... Obama told the truth about everything. "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess FOX changed their name to CBS: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/2...bout-benghazi/

Good article with good video.

Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?

I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.

Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?

You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

-spence