Hillary

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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.

[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