Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[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

[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

[wdmso]

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not much logic or reason in that statement...I thought this was about Hillary?

maybe it's my conservative lack of logic and reason and probably other things but I don't think I see O mentioned anywhere in the thread...oh wait...here's one "Hilary or Obama do"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's all about Obama I get it.. seems another topic were logic and reason need not apply. Answer this where was support going to land to engage? How did everyone else get out? And using your logic if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight. you feel the were abandoned. Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It's all about Obama I get it"

No, it's mostly about fairness and facts and common sense. Isn't it POSSIBLE that the facts might point to errors made by Obama or Hilary? Are they infallible? Why do you assume that all criticism of Obama is nohting more than political b.s.?

"Answer this where was support going to land to engage?"

Good question. First, depending on the type of aircraft, it doesn't need to land, in order to engage the enemy in this type of fight, correct? Some types of aircraft are designed to support ground troops, from the air, in close-combat situations. Were any of those aircraft within 12 hours of Benghazi? I don't know. But if there weren't any, that points to horrific planning at the top. If there were any, why the hell weren't they deployed?

Second, there is an airport in Benghazi where aircraft carrying troops could have landed. I know this for certain, because Glen Doherty, one of the 2 former SEALs killed in Benghazi, was not in Benghazi at the start of the attack. He was in Tripoli. When the fight stared, he got himself on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi, then got himself to the annex, in time to join the fight. Therefore, we know for an absolute certainty, that a plane carrying troops could have landed in Benghazi, and that those troops could get to the annex to engage. Because it happened.

"if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight"

Absolutely correct. You can't stop every soldier from getting killed in every situation. But it's less reasonable that guys are fighting for 12 hours, repeatedly asking for help, and none comes. You see no difference, in terms of what's preventable, between the first guy who gets killed in the first second of a surprise attack, and someone who gets killed 12 hours later? Twelve hours? It's hard for me to fathom, in a time of war in a known danger zone, why a small number of Americans are badly out-numbered for 12 hours, unless they have no way of calling for help. That's not what happened here. People in Benghazi were in direct contact with the White House situation room, all throughout those 12 hours. It's in the book.

"Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss"

I don't think I said that. What I said is, we have an obligation to try. We did nothing, as far as I can tell. In 12 hours, notihng got there, except for 1 heroic SEAL from Tripoli.

Seems like you are the one for whom it's all about Obama, meaning, you won't allow any criticism whatsoever.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Because. Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you are being dishonest. I'm not angry that aircraft missed. I'm angry that no aircraft were there to try.

Try to respond to what I am saying, not nonsecial jibberish that you claim I'm saying, which isn't even close to anything I said.

[spence]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...e-being-855720

[PaulS]

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1

"Bob"...that article is hilarious

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The drone was already in the area performing surveillance."

according to the book, a drone showed up ove rth ebattle, after the former SEALs asked for it. We have sent assets to the rescue with less than that.

"The 2014 House investigation did look into this and found no assets that could have helped"

Which means what, exactly? If there were 8 guys that could have been flown in (like Glen Doherty did), that could have made ALL the difference.

"pretty absurd that in this whole Clinton hate fest "

When she keeps flip-flopping about the video, she deserves an avalance of criticism.


If there were no assets within a 12-hour flight time, that generates a new line of very fair criticism...why the hell wasn't there anything within a 12 hour flight radius of a well-known hotspot? Has anyone asked that? Whose job is it, to make sure that we don't send people into harm's way with no possible means of support, and why hasn't that person been publicly fired for this?

A 12 hour flight time represents a huge chunk of the planet. If ther ewa snothing in that radius to help these people, that's almost as bad as if there were assets that were never sent.

I can't fathom the reluctance to be outraged. That has zip to do with politics.

And again, her behavior in the aftermath, was revolting.

Jim, you're not going to get answers to your questions because Spence, and others, are answering different questions. They continue to point out that a bunch of "investigations" claimed that it was not strategically possible to get help to Benghazi in time.

We are told to get over it, that it has been covered over and over, that it just wasn't possible to get help there. Spence, and others, are not interested in the possibility that help could have gotten there in time, as did Doherty as you point out, or as the guys in the movie did, even though they didn't leave to help as soon as they could have or as they would have liked because some superior told them not to go.

Such arguments are of no interest to Spence, and others. The bunch of "investigations" supposedly tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them Big Bang.

Also of no interest to Spence, and others, is the question of, ultimately, why (as you ask over and over and get no answer) were there no resources available for a situation like Benghazi. Spence, and others, are not interested in that question. They are only focused like a laser on the bunch of "investigations" which say that the resources were not available.

Or, I should say, they are focused on THAT PART of the bunch of "investigations" which say that resources were not available. But, strangely, the bunch of investigations did reveal a great deal of incompetence in all facets of the Benghazi situation. And much of the answer to your questions is revealed in that part of the bunch of "investigations." But the answer to your questions, as revealed by that part of the bunch of "investigations," could be, if explored too closely, very embarrassing to the beloved Hillary.

And so there is this myopic insistence on the end conditions, not the preliminary planning. Even though it was the preliminary planning which set in unanswerable stone the "fact" that no resources were available.

Of course, that part of the bunch of investigations is easily dismissed as some impersonal "systemic" failure. Actual names and people are not identified, and, somehow, the beloved Hillary is not involved in the system snafu. Ambassador Stephens is an exception to the anonymity as he is heavily implicated in the systemic snafu. As wdmso points out, "He repeatedly asked for more security . . . but again he felt it was safe to be in Benghazi He's the Boss" By this assertion, it is clear that the Ambassador suffered from a sort of schizophrenia. He repeatedly asked for more security even though he felt it was safe.

Now, the beloved Hillary, had ultimate trust in this schizoid person, and gave him the Ambassadorship not because she is a poor judge of such things . . . after all, she was secstate and is about to be POTUS. Her obvious, apparent, and well documented accomplishments qualify her for the high and highest callings in our nation. After all, she WAS the wife of the most popular President in the past half century. And she IS a woman. Her impeccable qualifications would argue against her being a poor judge of such things. And there was no reason whatsoever for her not to sign off on his idea of a low, actually nonexistent, profile of American power stationed in his compound. (Maybe not even having resources available to get there in time.) There is absolutely no doubt that she knew how dangerous the situation was in Libya. But she just knew that it was a good plan. It would show the Libyan people that we trusted them and that they should trust us. It was, actually, a brilliant plan. It came from the highest ideals in human nature. It was that kind of motherly, nurturing love that only women are capable of.

That she didn't consider that there were these brutish men roaming about with the basest, most cruel, instincts, should not be an indication of poor judgment. Or maybe she actually did consider it, but the good people of Libya, after all, would protect our people because we showed them our trust and love. And we must understand that it was systemic failure, not her judgment, that led to the death of our people.

And we must be pointed to folks under Hillary within the "system" as being the source of systemic failure. After all, as wdmso points out, Stephens was "the Boss."

Well, actually, Hillary was the Boss.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, you're not going to get answers to your questions because Spence, and others, are answering different questions. They continue to point out that a bunch of "investigations" claimed that it was not strategically possible to get help to Benghazi in time.

Yes, let's discount the millions poured into bi-partisan investigations that have for the most part reached similar conclusions.

Instead we should fixate on long-since discredited conspiracy theories.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, let's discount the millions poured into bi-partisan investigations that have for the most part reached similar conclusions.

I didn't discount the investigations. I referred to them as backing up the "big picture" of incompetent support policy for the consulate.

Instead we should fixate on long-since discredited conspiracy theories.

What discredited conspiracy theory was I fixated on?

[wdmso]

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?
Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya
Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you mean like the people that blamed a movie

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?
Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya

F16s are periodically at Bagram over the past 13 years and they came from Hill, Shaw, and 10 other mostly CONUS bases, yes, including the 2 squadrons from Aviano. So you know what unit was providing cover out of Bagram in September 2012? F16s from Aviano? Or A10s and F15Es from all over the world?

F16s were at Aviano.

Originally Posted by wdmso

Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, perspective, and a different animal. Medevac with Marine escorts from Al Asad are a different animal than Strike or CAS from air force fighter/bomber/attack. Just saying. To be clear, I am just saying what was available in the possible area. From semi available to barely available.

Originally Posted by scottw

bingo....and of course the lies that followed that were political in nature....followed by the condescension of collectivist narcissism aimed at anyone asking obvious questions

what does it matter?...shut up and get over it!

That is part of the problem. For a country that had been at war for 10 years at that point it was not acting like a country at war. Politics and Lawfare getting in the way of and not doing the best to support the people - like WDMSO - in the field. This is an institutional problem that is not just under Obama's watch, happened under Bush as well. Though it can be argued it has gone from bad to worse under Obama.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

To be clear, I am just saying what was available in the possible area. From semi available to .

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????

Can't remember which report but yes they did evaluate assistance from regional allies.

[justplugit]

If your recollection allows, did they call Turkey, where we have bases,
and at 1300 miles from Libya would be less than an hour for a jet fighter ?
Can't believe there wasn't one plane , if not readied, could be readied in
short time.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

BTW, where were our vast coalition of countries invented by Hilarey and Obama when we needed them during the attack.
Just a phone call away, was that even considered during the attack ????

I never knew that there was any types of coalition re Libya.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I never knew that there was any types of coalition re Libya.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, Libya was a UN action really driven by the French and British.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems many suffer a lack of Perspective of the big picture and just ingnore certain explanations unless they follow the rights narrative of how it all went down no matter all the investigations that fail to support their version?

If the 12 hour attack is what is meant when alluding to "how it all went down", isn't that only a part of the picture, the effect, the final part? Wouldn't the "big picture" include all the causes which led to the final effect? Wasn't the poor planning, the inadequate security, the misperception of al Qaeda and its affiliates being defeated and on the run, the overall poor judgment in how the consulate was established part of the "big picture"? And didn't "all the investigations" support that version of the "big picture"?

Avano air base f16 are tasked with supporting. Afgan mission. They are not pre staged to cover Libya as they were when we conducted mission over Libya

Is it part of the failure in the big picture that there was no help within a reasonable time/distance to cover an attack on the consulate?

Here is a real world example
In Iraq I called in 9nine medivac after an ied strike on my convoy we had to use a mtc which was text message because our radios could not reach our base at : alasad which was 2 hrs away . from the time the ied blew up the truck secured the area treated the guy i called the medicvac and it landed with cobra escort 2.5hrs later . from an air base with mediavac on station..in an active combat zone . perspective.
We all wish the outcome would have been different. Clearly it could have been worse

I couldn't clearly follow your description of the real world example, but it seems that it is an example of having options for help in an emergency. If options for help at Benghazi were available, rather than it could have been worse, couldn't it have been better?

Of course, the narrative of the "left" only focuses on the effect, that there was no way that help could have arrived in time. So that's that. That's the only picture that counts. That's as big as the picture needs to be. Shut up and get over it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wasn't the poor planning, the inadequate security, the misperception of al Qaeda and its affiliates being defeated and on the run, the overall poor judgment in how the consulate was established part of the "big picture"? And didn't "all the investigations" support that version of the "big picture"?

bingo....and of course the lies that followed that were political in nature....followed by the condescension of collectivist narcissism aimed at anyone asking obvious questions

what does it matter?...shut up and get over it!

[wdmso]

Again just saying if it took me 3 hrs to get a medvac from a base 2 hour drive and 30 min flight.time In an active combat zone Not sure why some find 12 hrs to respond someplace not in an active combat zone. With cia assets on the ground which I am sure only a few higher officers even knew they were there .. With 2 spontaneous attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again just saying if it took me 3 hrs to get a medvac from a base 2 hour drive and 30 min flight.time In an active combat zone Not sure why some find 12 hrs to respond someplace not in an active combat zone. With cia assets on the ground which I am sure only a few higher officers even knew they were there .. With 2 spontaneous attacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe it was in the House Armed Services report that even the head of USAFRICOM had no idea the CIA annex existed.

[JohnR]

So, just saw the movie, good considering it is based on a horrible situation. Authentic mostly and pretty true to the book.

Seemed fair with established facts and did tread a bit into the unestablished.