Hillary

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

according to mediamatters...yes......I read through them quickly,,,,,from what I can see "no Americans killed" is a repeating theme.....does George Bush get points for doing a better job protecting Americans ?

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:


Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.

Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:


Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.

The prosecutor general's office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.

The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.

The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:


A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.

Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.

Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:


Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.

Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling " Allahu akbar " -- "God is great" -- opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus's Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:


An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:


Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building's balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:


Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.

No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.

It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]





I love ya Eben but the "everybody does it" or "they all do it"......rationale is something that I don't even accept from my children...it's what you say when you've no defense left and it resolves and improves nothing...it does however, empower and enable the manipulative and the opportunists

you do reinforce the obvious need to better protect and to have better protected our embassies and staff given the history and one has to wonder how these folks were left so vulnerable and unable to get help in a timely fashion

[JohnR]

One thing I am pretty confident of is that under Bush's watch, there would have been better security and should a reaction be needed, a faster response.

The need to protect diplomatic officials / dependents is WAY HIGH of importance. Otherwise these people (this.hat really bust thier asses sometimes - not all are political donors in cushy locales) will be very reluctant to stick their necks out.

Now the administration is throwing the CIA under the bus. Methinks the career types are going to have a pushback on this

Originally Posted by Nebe

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And how many were American? None.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president??

How many republicans were screaming for investigations over them?? None.

The GOP is in shambles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The GOP is in shambles."

Yes, that's why they control the House of Representatives, and a large majority of governorships. We did get roughed up in November 2012, no doubt...

"Did you guys know that 60 people died in embassy attacks when bush was president?? "

Nebe, not every death that takes place, means the president is an incompetent liar. Did Bush change the facts to blame an innocent American citizen for those deaths?

[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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Armed drones and refueling planes staged offshore cost money.

-spence

The failure was the leadership decision not to send the proper protection
when the embassy asked for it from the State Dept. a month before.

What number of American's have to die before it is cost effective?

[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

[Nebe]

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Again. 60 dead under bush's watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not only, as ScottW has pointed out, were no Americans killed, there was no need to cover up what happened. There was no need to call for investigations since what really happened was not hidden or lied about. No concocted stories were necessary to cover the butt of the Administration.

[Nebe]

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops.

To have such an agreement with a place that is a hot bed of terrorist and anti-American activity and then insert American personnel without even a backup plan in case of an emergency is purely god-awful, lame-brain, incompetent diplomacy.

Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0.

I hope we learned from Mogadishu and would not repeat the mistake. Drones, fighter jets, special ops, etc. would do a better job.

Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we should accept the excuses and move on? That grants the politicians license to do whatever they wish and cover it with lies if they feel the public will disagree. That is pretty much what has been happening for the past seventy or eighty years, and has brought about the continuing "fundamental transformation" of responsible citizens into dependent sheep.

If all politicians lie, and, probably, "all" humans lie, what is the point of law and order? What is the point of contracts and agreements of all sort? What is the point of "diplomacy" if it is potentially a pack of lies? Does truth ever enter the equation? Are truth, "transparency," honor, justice, government by of and for the people nice sounding phrases used by cynical politicians to hoodwink us into their peculiar vision of freedom?

So is lying the "safest thing to do"? Are we really safer if how we govern, how we relate to the rest of the world, how we as individuals act, depends on how well we lie? And how readily we accept those lies?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops.

You bring up a good point that's often overlooked.

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.

When we moved the drones in over Benghazi we asked for permission first so we wouldn't interfere with their airspace.

And 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.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.

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.

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?

And 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.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.

People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?

We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much., conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic. One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

You said that "people have become so used to acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do whatever we please. Now, by "people" you mean the citizenry. A whole lot of the citizenry that I'm familiar with and whose opinions I've read or heard in various media have a different view. We did not act with impunity. Many "people" (citizenry) feel that we were too restrained and too bound by restrictive rules of engagement. And we did not act alone, but with others and with a great deal of worldwide and U.N. approval as well as with congressional consent. We paid a tremendous price for those incursions. That was not impunity. And many paid a political price as well. That was not impunity.

That some "people" got the notion that we acted with impunity may be the result of anti-American, anti-war, anti-capitalistic, and academic propaganda. Maybe even from books like bacehvich's The New American Militarism.

We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

We have diplomatic personnel in nations that are not dangerous and can't freely operate our military their either. But they are allowed to defend themselves and their diplomats if attacked. Or will even if they are not "allowed." If there is no plan or method to protect diplomats in dangerous countries, we should not send them there. That invites exactly what happened. That is not competent.

Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism

It may be a hotbed of crime, but terrorism--I don't think so. At least not yet.

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.

The administration's version is that Al Qaeda was on the run and ineffective, that the administration had pretty much secured our safety, especially after the killing of bin Laden. That it was not a "big topic" was negligent, incompetent, and unrealistic. It unnecesarily left the diplomats vulnerable

One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

Apparently, the administration was wrong.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.
-spence

didn't they ban that phrase?....no wonder it wasn't a big topic

the only thing worth noting is that the security situation was deteriorating, help was requested, was not given and Americans ended up dead and the administration and it's surrogates lied repeatedly about it and continue to...there were a number of incidents leading up to this

"The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June"


..you can continue to split hairs and regurgitate the talking points....the effect of which reinforces the fact that we have people who aren't nearly as smart as they pretend to be and who are too caught up in their I'm smarter than you posture and ideology to see or acknowledge what is actually going on and who will say and do just about anything to maintain that posture and promote their ideology which makes them a danger to the rest of us .....

Spence...if you deal in facts and truth you don't have to engage in all of the word games and obfuscation.....what happened is very clear...this game that you play serves no purpose but to make you look like a fool....as in the Ayers thread......


btw....Jim posted an article with remarks from a recent speech by Ayers where he made this comparison....



Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical who went on to become a college professor and associate of President Obama, said Saturday the bombings he helped the Weather Underground carry out to protest the Vietnam War bear no resemblance to the deadly Boston Marathon attack.

“How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers told a reporter who asked him to compare the incidents . “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.”


I'm sure that you can find some logic in this stupidity Spence but I'm pretty sure that of the four examples...three are illegal and can or could have deadly consequences and shooting at a hunting range is a most absurd comparison....but some are so impressed with their pretend brilliance that they don't realize or care that they look like fools....

"no relationship at all"

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.


-spence

If I'm not mistaken, a country owns the Embassy property in the host country.
If the host country can't defend it we have the right to do it ourselves and is why we have defending troops in our Embassies.

We wouldn't have been acting with impunity in Libya, just defending the lives of our citizen personnel and the property we rightfully own.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If I'm not mistaken, a country owns the Embassy property in the host country.
If the host country can't defend it we have the right to do it ourselves and is why we have defending troops in our Embassies.

We wouldn't have been acting with impunity in Libya, just defending the lives of our citizen personnel and the property we rightfully own.

Read the Wiki.

An Embassy is not sovereign territory, but the diplomats are usually afforded special privileges. The attack on Benghazi wasn't even on the "Embassy" but a consulate office.

So if you were to station Marines at the Embassy they could defend it, but that doesn't mean they could fly in air support and bomb attackers.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Read the Wiki.

An Embassy is not sovereign territory, but the diplomats are usually afforded special privileges. The attack on Benghazi wasn't even on the "Embassy" but a consulate office.

So if you were to station Marines at the Embassy they could defend it, but that doesn't mean they could fly in air support and bomb attackers.

-spence

Read your Wiki source and found nothing about Embassy land ownership.

However, a Yahoo Search turned up that Embassys are either OWNED or Leased from a country and therefore it's property.

Please show me the law that says we can't protect our citizens under attack
with air support. Come on Spence, Wiki and your statement about no air support to save American lives doesn't cut it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You bring up a good point that's often overlooked.

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.

When we moved the drones in over Benghazi we asked for permission first so we wouldn't interfere with their airspace.

And 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.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

"The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil"

Did you just make that up? What's that, reason #8 why no soldiers went in (there were none, there were some but they weren't armed correctly, there were some but they were too busy, there were some but we couldn't afford to gas up the plane, there were some but Libya wouldn't let them in."

"And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism""

There were terrorist threats to the embassy in Libya (valid threats, it would seem". Terrorism is the reason that the diplomats asked for more security...they weren't afraid of flashers...

"in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up."

I don't play that card, you do. Spence, put down "Audacity Of Hope", and google "Al Qaeda Libya",and see what you get. Let's see if you are honest enough to admit that prior to the attack in Benghazi, the whol intelligence world knew Al Queda was active in Libya.

"Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?""

It wasn't always lightly protected. revently, the state department drastically reduced the number of security personnel. Very perceptive move, no?

Spence, there are patriots in this country who will gladly worl in areas that we know are dangerous. We owe it to such patriots to support them. I guess you disagree.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil"

Did you just make that up? What's that, reason #8 why no soldiers went in (there were none, there were some but they weren't armed correctly, there were some but they were too busy, there were some but we couldn't afford to gas up the plane, there were some but Libya wouldn't let them in."

.

I love ya Spence, but you have to admit, that is funny.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? "

You drop them a mile from the mob, and they are there in 10 minutes. Infantry tactics 101. We had unarme ddrones flying overhead, that told us all we needed to know about where to drop those guys.

Also, if you can't risk an RPG attack, you may as well get rid of helicopters, becauae that risk is always present. Those guys train gfor hot insertions all the time, it's well within the capabilities. That's just fact, they get inserted into hot zones all the time...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You drop them a mile from the mob, and they are there in 10 minutes. Infantry tactics 101. We had unarme ddrones flying overhead, that told us all we needed to know about where to drop those guys.

I love all these fantasy hypotheticals that ignore what our own military leadership say about the situation.

They're probably all in on it as well. Jesus, this conspiracy is going to take down thousands of top officials.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I love all these fantasy hypotheticals that ignore what our own military leadership say about the situation.

They're probably all in on it as well. Jesus, this conspiracy is going to take down thousands of top officials.

-spence

"I love all these fantasy hypotheticals "

It's not a fantasy hypothetical. Going back to at least Vietnam, helicopters have been used thousands of times to rescue Americans that are pinned down or surrounded, or out-numbered, in hot zones. Do you deny that? Do you seriously deny that?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just my opinion. But we probably had an agreement that we would not have troops in Lybia or send in troops. Plus, what would have happened if a Blackhawk came in loaded with troops and it was hit with an rpg?? Mogadishu 2.0. Why they tried to cover it up is inexcusable but all politicians lie. If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools. 4 people died and that's a shame, but there was probably a risk of more deaths and they felt it was the safest thing to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably.....what would have happened if?.......probably.......

maybe......you are so convinced that every bleepin' one lies.... that you are probably desperately reaching to avoid the truth....which is tough to accept....


"If anyone thinks that all politicians are honest, they are fools."

if you can produce a fool who thinks this I'll give you a hundred bucks

[Nebe]

I think we need to get rid of all of them. Term limits for congress and the senate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device