Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[wdmso]

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason

Would you please stop littering this forum with reasoned posts

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

.. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

"sure how Air support would have changed the outcome "

Due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a reason why those there were asking for air support. Air support easily could have prevented the rebels from setting up mortars, which is what killed the last two.

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.

The folks on the ground were telling outside channels what was happening...estimates of enemy strength, what weapons they had, etc. We would not have been going in blind.

"whos talking to the planes "

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that.

"do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ?"

Again, the guys on the ground had strobes and lasers and radios.

This was well within the capabilities of the US military. This is not an overly complicated scenario.

If an air asset sees armed Muslims aiming a mortar at a US compound which is under attack, you don 't need to be Steven Hawking to figure out what's going on.

My hindsight is 20/20, for sure. But this was very do-able.
Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. The book goes into his many requests, and the specific reasons he made them.


"

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"sure how Air support would have changed the outcome "

Due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a reason why those there were asking for air support. Air support easily could have prevented the rebels from setting up mortars, which is what killed the last two.

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.

The folks on the ground were telling outside channels what was happening...estimates of enemy strength, what weapons they had, etc. We would not have been going in blind.

"whos talking to the planes "

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that.

"do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ?"

Again, the guys on the ground had strobes and lasers and radios.

This was well within the capabilities of the US military. This is not an overly complicated scenario.

If an air asset sees armed Muslims aiming a mortar at a US compound which is under attack, you don 't need to be Steven Hawking to figure out what's going on.

My hindsight is 20/20, for sure. But this was very do-able.
Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. The book goes into his many requests, and the specific reasons he made them.


"

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

This is a pathetic comment . You clearly only respect the left half of the country , as you are ready to take any cheap shot you can at conservatives.
If you think Hillary will make a good President , than you are one of a very few in the military that thinks so , Why do you think that is ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

The true story of 3 surviors of Benghazi

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

An F-16 would have a tough time target a mortar crew. But what it can do, is make the enemy too scared to set up a mortar crew. And there are other planes that can easily target a mortar crew, and I promise you that we had some within a 12 hour flight of Benghazi. If not, then Obama should be impeached.

"we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target "

I'll wager that sh*tkicking bandits aren't as well trained.

You're missing the point. We didn't even try. They fought for 12 hours, and they got exactly zip in terms of support from us. That doesn't anger you? Not at all? When we send people into harm's way, we don't owe them better than that?

We sat on our hands while these guys fought for their lives, for 12 hours. If large numbers of Americans aren't bothered by that, then what in God's name have we become?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan..

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.

People die in war. These deaths were likely preventable.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, Jim is now getting his facts from Hollywood.

Expect FOX to push this as the breaking story of the century.

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.

Originally Posted by Nebe

What you fail to realize is Hillary is not going to be the Democratic Party candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.

Originally Posted by wdmso

12 hrs seems like a long time in Hindsight but I highly doubt that Washington had a clear picture ASAP.. Those men who died defending died doing what they were paid to do they accepted the risk and should be seen as heros .. Not sure how Air support would have changed the outcome The distance from Aviano Air Force Base (AFB) in Italy to Benghazi is 1044 miles again this sounds easy if Aviano had f16s on the runway fueled and armed and even if launched an hour or 2 after the attack started add filght time and time on target danger close on a 500lb bomb is Mk-82 LD 500-lb bomb is 250 425 meters whos talking to the planes and do they know where other friendly forces are many variables ? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-23-1/appf.pdf

Ambassador Steven's who one would suspect had the most current intell felt it was safe to be so far from Tripoli "Driving distance from Tripoli to Benghazi is 998 kilometers (620 miles)" yes it was ugly but it seems we dont mention all who were not killed .. and the movie and the book i feel were made to cash in .. not because some moral high ground to set the record straight . kinda of like the 2 seals saying they kill bin laden ... I wasn't there but my comments are formulated by my Combat experiences as in Infantry Plt Sgt in Iraq and how information flows thru the system we call the Armed forces .. its called the fog of war for a reason Black hawk down comes to mind

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer

Originally Posted by spence

We've covered this about 100 times already.

There was no stand down order. A local officer telling his guys not to rush into an unknown situation while they rally militia backup is not a stand down order. This has been investigated to death.

Perhaps, perhaps not

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can you point out an example of men and women who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, who called for help for 12 hours, and were ignored? Because that's what bothers people.

Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Read the book. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on that. The book is very interesting and brings you along in a very methodical way.



Felon or Communist - I cannot decide.




"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available. However, if none of these were available with a one hour alert than there is an institutional problem and we are beyond merely atrophy.

SGT in Iraq - I owe you a beer



Perhaps, perhaps not



Call for help for 12 hours and ignored? Happens a lot doesn't it? Maybe not ignored, but deciding not to blow stuff up due to collateral damage happens all the time, no?

A thoughtful, fair post. Except your last point, IMHO. It's common to dither while worrying about collateral damage, but when Americans are literally fighting for their lives? i don't think that happens every day.

But we didn't even try. If we got F-16s there, and they said they couldn't do anything because of the proximity of the annex to civilians, or because they couldn't tell friend from foe, that's one thing. But we didn't do anything, as far as I can tell. 12 hours is a long, long time.

When we worry about collateral damage, it's usually when we are trying to see if we can kill a specific terrorist from the air, in what is more or less a passive target at the time. In that case, you can make a compelling argument that collateral damage mnight not be worth the objective. I don't know that moral calculus holds when you are talking about supporting Americans on the ground who are about to be overrun. We don't typically worry so much about collateral damage in that situation.

In any event, collateral damage was never a consideration in this case, because despite the fact we had 12 hours, we never got that far to assess what the collateral damage might have been. There were no assets on the scene, even after 12 hours. It blows my mind. That's what I cannot understand. Nor can I understand why so many people don't feel that frustration.

I don't claim to be politically neutral in this. But when it took the feds 3 days to get water to the victims of hurricane Katrina, I was very, very critical of Bush, because he absolutely deserved it. I'm capable of criticizing Republicans who are incompetent. I don't see some of the hard-core libs here showing that ability, no matter what Hilary or Obama do. It's something to see.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

"Supposedly" there were AC130s on the ramp at Sigonella in Sicily (450mi, 2 hour flight time - 3 hours on station assuming 1 hour). I do not know if that is true or not. F16s out of Aviano were in range , 2 hours flight time, F16s from Bitburg 3 hours flight, F15e out of Incirlik 2 hours, all possible, all within reason. There are B1s at Qatar that are 4 hours flight time. And yes, all could have reasons why they were not available.

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

That's funny, because it was a single aircraft that brought Jack Silva, one of the operators, to Benghazi. It was also a single aircraft that landed in Benghazi that brought the SEAL Glen Doherty from Tripoli. And according to the book, it was a single aircraft (a big, slow aircraft, not an F-16, and thus much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire) that got the Americans out of Libya to Germany the next day. So it would appear that Gates' concern there, is, well, quite selective.

So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know.

I also see that you aren't addressing Hilary's flip-flopping on the video.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

"Supposedly" implies a sense of unknowing, perhaps based on speculation or rumor. It's perfectly appropriate during the initial phases of the discussion. But later, when investigations are complete and findings are made it's just a conspiracy code-word to persist doubt and scandal.

Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome.

And from SecDef Robert Gates:

"And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

If Gates really said this (and I don't doubt you), I'd like to know in what scenario, exactly, would he send in a quick reaction force? If it means you need to have 2 aircraft, fine. But whatever the protocol is, why didn't we have that functionality, within 12 hours of a well-known hotspot, on the anniversary or 09/11? And whose fault is it, that we didn't? Sarah Palin's?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

As for not knowing what one is talking about .. the Air power angle is just Monday morning quarterbacking when an F16 can pick out a mortar Crew from 20,000.00 feet with out eyes on with out the ground telling them where it is in a city is pure fantasy.. and oddly enough my MOS was 81mm Mortar Gunner and we could set up fire leave before the 1st round impacted the target

"quick reaction" another fantasy re enforced by the Movies .. yes we have them but they are That quick to travel thousands of miles in 12 hrs and please dont suggest the could have Jumped in or drove or landed near the site

He repeatedly asked for more security which was denied. as was many other Ambassadors request where .. but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss

The people on the ground, former Marines and SEALs, are more than capable of doing that. Yes they are but that doesn't translate into instant success

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

That was a reasoned post, with some good points. Sorry for saying you don't know what you're talking about, obviously you do, and I had no business saying that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What makes the death of theses men so different then the men who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.. why the outrage from the right I know the Answer it about Hillary .. and thats just wrong not for her but for all our fallen men nad women .. Because wheres the outrage for them no one ever ask where their Air cover was or why was there an IED in the road or why didn't we stop that rocket from landing on the Base .. its comes with the Job we accepted that when we signed up as did they .. Let it go already

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Spence, who was committed to protecting those 4 lives? And what, exactly, did those committed people do, during the 12 hours that they were begging for help? Please be specific. The people at State who denied Stevens' requests for extra security, they were "committe dto trying to protect lives"?

When Bush was president, Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism. Funny how the liberal view on dissent changed in January of 2009.

As I have said, just because people at State died, doesn't necessarily mean Hilary did anytihng wrong.

Her flip-flopping on th evideo? How naive do you have to be, to believe that every time she switched, she was reacting to the latest intel?

Spence, I asked you multiple times, to provide some evidence that every time she changed her mind, it was in response to the latest intel, rather than covering her azz. You never posted anything. Not once. Ever.

Siure, it's possible that every time she changed her tune, she was merely directed to do so by the last intelligence report she received. But boy, it sure worked out conveniently for her, that every time she made a public statement, the laste intel wa sthat it was the video (and therefore not her fault), and every time she made a private statement (to her daughter, the king of Egypt, etc) she said it was a terrorist attack.

Finally, she is clainming that teh families of the dead are lying aboiut hwat they were told. All of them.

Exactly how many lies does she have to tell, before you stop believing her every word?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's worse is the hatred and obsession to blame Clinton distracts from all the people working to help.

As the Secretary of Defense said...

"I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives."

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Other then a political hack can you provide any more names , interviews etc. to support this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys should really just take some time and read the bi-partisan findings from numerous government investigations. It's all there...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This was not the invasion of Normandy in terms of complexity. We have teams all over the world called "quick reaction forces", and in that moniker, the words "quick reaction" mean exactly what they say. Quick. Reaction.






"

This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Poor strategic planning and poor judgement

and apparently not ready for that 3am call...which is quite ironic

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".

Correct. It was no surprise that it was very dangerous in Benghazi. Other nations (like Britain) evacuated their embassies in Benghazi, because they knew it was too dangerous. Same with the Red Cross. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security.

So how did we get caught with our pants around our ankles for 12 hours?

12 hours. I don't get it. I genuinely don't know what's indicative or greater incompetence - not having anything within 12 hours of a known danger spot where you know you have peopple, or if we had assets but chose not to send them. Those are the only two choices, there is no third option, and in either case, someone screwqed up, and superb Americans are dead because of it.

That doesn't mena it was Hilary's fault, she doesn't make every decision.

Also, it's awfully convenienet that in every public statement, she claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video (therefore no one can blame her). Yet in every proivate communication, she said she knew it had nothing to do with the video.

Spence will say that every time she flip-flopped, she was merely reacting to the latest intelligence, which said "forget what we told you an hour ago, now we know it was because..."

It could be that. Or it could be she's lying. We know she's a serial liar. Has she ever offered evidence to support her claim that she wa salways relying on the latest intelligence, instead of saying whatever was politically expedient at the time?

Now she's claiming that th efamilies of the dead are lying, when they claim she blamed the video.

At what point does she start to lose credibility? After how many lies, exactly?

[scottw]

I knew that Jim vs. Wayne would be great fun