What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

Hey, I don't mind being wrong.   My biggest main beef or question with the whole thing was who called the rescue squad off, as I was under the mistaken impression that the cavalry was within 3 hours.  Apparently this is wrong according to Trey Gowdy so my main beef is moot.   Secondary beefs though,  were the lying about the cause of the attack because of a presidential election.  This unfortunately is true; the lying that is by Hillary and Susan Rice. 

 
Hillary probably hopes they call her in front of their little committee again. Best she has looked in a ling time, that Trey Gowdy twerp made her look like a boss.

 
matuski said:
Here we go, the right working themselves into a bigger frenzy only to make bigger fool's out of themselves.. everyone else gets to sit and marvel at the show.

Palin, Birthers, Benghazi, etc... when does a leader on the right reign in the crazy?
Click to expand...
:yes: Obvious for years where this was headed.

Planned Parenthood, emails, and on and on and on.  And on.  And on.... it gets embarrassing to watch after a while.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
In an interview with Bill Hemmer on Fox 'News' May 17th, Trey Gowdy finally admitted the truth about Benghazi ...

Gowdy told Hemmer, "Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, they couldn't. I don't think there's any question about that."
Click to expand...


Here's the link for any who want to see it.

http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2016/05/trey-gowdy-admits-one-gops-main

Q: There is a letter ... stating that Gen. Dana Chipman said from the beginning that nothing could be done to save the four Americans in Benghazi in September, 2012. Is that true?

A: No. Dana Chipman is a great man who served our country with great distinction... that is a transcript from one question he asked... what Dana was talking about was a very small point, the posture of the troops, how the order that was given by Panetta and the president, how that order was received,  Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don't think there's any issue with respect to that, they couldn't. I don't think there's any question about that. The question is why could you not, why were you not in position to do it? ...
Click to expand...


- I think Gowdy's point was that Cummings had released a portion of one statement without releasing the whole transcript or even the full statement or exchange. I think what Cummings did even so is actually fair given that the Republicans have selectively released information themselves.

- I guess what this is about is the recent interview of Fox of crewmen who said they could have reached the mission within 13 hours if they had been requested to:

This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night.

He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.

“I'm not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”
Click to expand...


His squadron got the alert: a “real world mission was going down.”  

The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.

"There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi. 
Click to expand...


The source said: "I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day."

The source who spoke with Fox News challenged the military claim that a re-fueling tanker wasn’t available. He said American jets routinely refuel by using what’s called a “hot pit maneuver,” which allows the jets to land and then get fuel without shutting off the engines.

Multiple sources say there were multiple locations available the night of the attack.

He said they were waiting on the call, though, through the night. The men say they didn’t truly learn about the mission they had missed until they returned home the next day from the airfield and saw the reports about the Benghazi attack on the news.

Many still don’t talk about the subject and some insist it has hurt morale within the squadron because “people know we were stationed there and didn’t respond.” 
Click to expand...


“We could have been there. That's the worst part,” the source said.
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/12/could-have-been-there-squadron-member-speaks-out-on-stalled-benghazi-response.html

The video with the airman talking is there.

Further up, I posted Panetta's testimony, I'll post it again:

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Panetta%2002-07-13.pdf

- I think he already covered it in his testimony and I don't think anything really new has been added since then:

Soon after the initial reports about the attack on Benghazi, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DoD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It is important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana’a, and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response. In consultation with Chairman Dempsey and AFRICOM Commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions: ·A Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team(FAST) platoon, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi; ·A Second FAST platoon to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli; ·A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe; and ·A special operations force based in the United States to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe. Some have asked why other types of armed aircraft were not dispatched to Benghazi. The reason is because armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not in the vicinity of Libya and because of the distance, would have taken at least 9 to 12 hours if not more to deploy. This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time. The quickest response option available was the Tripoli-based security team. Within hours, this six-person team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane and deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the Annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket propelled grenades.

Members of this team, along with others at the Annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks began, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi.
Click to expand...




- I have never had reason to doubt what Panetta says, what Chipman said (in context or not) makes sense to me too.

This doesn't seem very complicated, does it make sense that it would have taken 3 hours to fly from Aviano to Benghazi or would it have taken 9-12 hours? I have no idea, but I don't think I've ever read anything that says what Panetta statement of 9-12 hours was inherently false.

 I think the most significant thing to come out of Panetta's testimony and the emails produced is that the president took the attack very seriously, got a meeting together within an hour and sent a military team on the ground to respond immediately, which is not how you respond to a demonstration. Throughout Panetta refers to the event as an "attack" and never once references a protest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Years, 118 pages invested in this.

Now that this is clearly a pattern.. do you start to question the ways and sources that you allowed to take you down this path?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
In an interview with Bill Hemmer on Fox 'News' May 17th, Trey Gowdy finally admitted the truth about Benghazi ...

Gowdy told Hemmer, "Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, they couldn't. I don't think there's any question about that."
Click to expand...
Absolutely disgusting.  With the billions upon billions we spend on defense...Libya being a clear hot zone...to not be able to respond in 13 hours is horrendous.  They hung Chris Stevens out to dry..,they sent him into a a war zone...with reduced security, and no ability for the US military to do anything to help him in the event of an attack.  When other countries were bringing their people home, the United States was being reckless with their people.  

Simply despicable dereliction of duty....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
Absolutely disgusting.  With the billions upon billions we spend on defense...Libya being a clear hot zone...to not be able to respond in 13 hours is horrendous.  They hung Chris Stevens out to dry..,they sent him into a a war zone...with reduced security, and no ability for the US military to do anything to help him in the event of an attack.  When other countries were bringing their people home, the United States was being reckless with their people.  

Simply despicable dereliction of duty....
Click to expand...
Of course, you found something else to rail on about.  You don't know jack spit.

 
Watched 13 hours...how much of that is true?  That we didn't respond for 13 hours, they were evacuated by Libyan forces, and were flown out by non-military flights?

 
bueno said:
I know we have two bases in the Mediterranean - one in Bari, the other in Rota. Both close to Libya. (We probably have more, those are the two I know about.)
Click to expand...
No, you don't know apparently. 

That's the problem with this thread, a lot of people have no idea what they are talking about.  From post #1 on...

 
Doctor Detroit said:
No, you don't know apparently. 

That's the problem with this thread, a lot of people have no idea what they are talking about.  From post #1 on...
Click to expand...
Did we close the one near Bari in the past fifteen years or so? Because I was there in 1998. There is a baser in Sicily too, according to my Sicilian friend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rascal said:
Aviano has F-16s
Click to expand...
What were F-16s going to do?  What happened wasn't a movie, you can't just call in airstrikes when an attack of an American consulate is going on.  You don't just launch F-16s in a blink of an eye from a non-contingency operation, you need to consider thousands of things like air-refueling, safe passage, ground assets to assist in any air strike, etc, etc, etc. 

I've read that the F-16's would have been a "game-changer" because it would have scared the aggressors.  I find that to be plausible but not the likely scenario, in the end you would have deployed F-16s to fly in circles.  After the third pass the terrorists, who had spent time in Iraq, would have known they were just for show.  You send a Spector, Warthog, or an Apache then we have fear on the ground. 

Sigonella had the search and rescue support and they could not muster the troops to get there before the end of hostilities.  The F-16 scare tactic narrative thrown out there by groups littered with the word "liberty" in their names are empty and unrealistic.  Much like 99% of Rove! posts. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
What were F-16s going to do?  What happened wasn't a movie, you can't just call in airstrikes when an attack of an American consulate is going on.  You don't just launch F-16s in a blink of an eye from a non-contingency operation, you need to consider thousands of things like air-refueling, safe passage, ground assets to assist in any air strike, etc, etc, etc. 

I've read that the F-16's would have been a "game-changer" because it would have scared the aggressors.  I find that to be plausible but not the likely scenario, in the end you would have deployed F-16s to fly in circles.  After the third pass the terrorists, who had spent time in Iraq, would have known they were just for show.  You send a Spector, Warthog, or an Apache then we have fear on the ground. 

Sigonella had the search and rescue support and they could not muster the troops to get there before the end of hostilities.  The F-16 scare tactic narrative thrown out there by groups littered with the word "liberty" in their names are empty and unrealistic.  Much like 99% of Rove! posts. 
Click to expand...
It would have been doing something at least. Not sure where the nearest Apaches would have been (was there an AAS in the Mediterranean at the time?) , but it doesn't sound like we even bothered to prepare an evacuation contingency.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
What were F-16s going to do?  What happened wasn't a movie, you can't just call in airstrikes when an attack of an American consulate is going on.  You don't just launch F-16s in a blink of an eye from a non-contingency operation, you need to consider thousands of things like air-refueling, safe passage, ground assets to assist in any air strike, etc, etc, etc. 

I've read that the F-16's would have been a "game-changer" because it would have scared the aggressors.  I find that to be plausible but not the likely scenario, in the end you would have deployed F-16s to fly in circles.  After the third pass the terrorists, who had spent time in Iraq, would have known they were just for show.  You send a Spector, Warthog, or an Apache then we have fear on the ground. 

Sigonella had the search and rescue support and they could not muster the troops to get there before the end of hostilities.  The F-16 scare tactic narrative thrown out there by groups littered with the word "liberty" in their names are empty and unrealistic.  Much like 99% of Rove! posts. 
Click to expand...
I agree with part of what you said, but it doesn't take 13 hours to send in a mission.

What about the air evacuation coming from non US assets?

 
bueno said:
It would have been doing something at least. Not sure where the nearest Apaches would have been (was there an AAS in the Mediterranean at the time?) , but it doesn't sound like we even bothered to prepare an evacuation contingency.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to accept the fact that we couldn't have brought in any real assets before the fighting had stopped (it's a bit of a stretch but I don't have any evidence otherwise).  What I don't accept is the lack of a contingency plan.

 
rascal said:
I agree with part of what you said, but it doesn't take 13 hours to send in a mission.

What about the air evacuation coming from non US assets?
Click to expand...
It takes much more time than 13 hours to send a fighter mission if you don't have assets on the ground to assist.  This is why I don't find that plan realistic or effective. 

As far as the non US evacuation idea, the problem there is the location of Libya and what is around that place.  You send in a Tunisian S&R team and everyone is gonna die anyway, the Spaniards would have had to have dinner before launching so they are out too.  The Greeks?  No, definitely not the Greeks. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
It takes much more time than 13 hours to send a fighter mission if you don't have assets on the ground to assist.  This is why I don't find that plan realistic or effective. 

As far as the non US evacuation idea, the problem there is the location of Libya and what is around that place.  You send in a Tunisian S&R team and everyone is gonna die anyway, the Spaniards would have had to have dinner before launching so they are out too.  The Greeks?  No, definitely not the Greeks. 
Click to expand...
I always thought Libya should have been an Italian problem.

 
rascal said:
I'm willing to accept the fact that we couldn't have brought in any real assets before the fighting had stopped (it's a bit of a stretch but I don't have any evidence otherwise).  What I don't accept is the lack of a contingency plan.
Click to expand...
This I agree with 100%, but that falls clearly on the State Department security apparatus, not the DoD.  They have tons of experience, especially recently, in dealing with security scenarios at Embassies and consulates. 

Or it's all Hillary's fault like Rove! says. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
It takes much more time than 13 hours to send a fighter mission if you don't have assets on the ground to assist.  This is why I don't find that plan realistic or effective. 

As far as the non US evacuation idea, the problem there is the location of Libya and what is around that place.  You send in a Tunisian S&R team and everyone is gonna die anyway, the Spaniards would have had to have dinner before launching so they are out too.  The Greeks?  No, definitely not the Greeks. 
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree with you on the first one.

I agree with your assessments of Greeks and Spaniards.  I don't have any experience with Tunisian units.

I was thinking more of the fact we didn't have any C-130s, probably wouldn't want to risk a C-5/17, to fly in.  It's more of an insult than anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
This I agree with 100%, but that falls clearly on the State Department security apparatus, not the DoD.  They have tons of experience, especially recently, in dealing with security scenarios at Embassies and consulates. 

Or it's all Hillary's fault like Rove! says. 
Click to expand...
I agree.

 
rascal said:
Doctor Detroit said:
It takes much more time than 13 hours to send a fighter mission if you don't have assets on the ground to assist.  This is why I don't find that plan realistic or effective. 

As far as the non US evacuation idea, the problem there is the location of Libya and what is around that place.  You send in a Tunisian S&R team and everyone is gonna die anyway, the Spaniards would have had to have dinner before launching so they are out too.  The Greeks?  No, definitely not the Greeks. 
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree with you on the first one.

I agree with your assessments of Greeks and Spaniards.  I don't have any experience with Tunisian units.
Click to expand...
Do you know that Aviano has TAC-Ps?  I doubt they do, and that is what you need to pull off this mission.  Plus this whole 13 hour timeline is bull####, for the military response it would have been 10 or less.  Maybe Vicenza has some Tac-Ps, but I think most of them are in Germany.  How were we going to get a TAC-P there in these circumstances?  He'd have to have security, he'd have to have support, he'd have to be brought to the scene.  What am I missing here since you disagree? 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Do you know that Aviano has TAC-Ps?  I doubt they do, and that is what you need to pull off this mission.  Plus this whole 13 hour timeline is bull####, for the military response it would have been 10 or less.  Maybe Vicenza has some Tac-Ps, but I think most of them are in Germany.  How were we going to get a TAC-P there in these circumstances?  He'd have to have security, he'd have to have support, he'd have to be brought to the scene.  What am I missing here since you disagree? 
Click to expand...
I know they have had them at times, not sure at the time of the attack.  

Don't need TAC-Ps to fly in circles.  It may not have done anything, we don't know, but it would have been better than what we did which was nothing.

I'm getting the vibe that you think I'm blaming the DoD for this.  I am not.  I blame the state department and CIA.

 
rascal said:
I know they have had them at times, not sure at the time of the attack.  

Don't need TAC-Ps to fly in circles.  It may not have done anything, we don't know, but it would have been better than what we did which was nothing.

I'm getting the vibe that you think I'm blaming the DoD for this.  I am not.  I blame the state department and CIA.
Click to expand...
No not at all, just talking it out.

Maybe State, CIA, and DoD should have used a fantasy football message board to figure this out. lol 

 
Reading the crap fest between republicans/democrats on the investigation is a dishonor to Ambassador Stephens and the three other Americans.  Wish we had an independent agency to be in charge/investigate stuff like this.

 
Republicans thanking each other right now at the podium for the job they did on these investigations. Cant make this stuff up.

Just read their faces... the are pissed and don't even believe their own talking points.  They don't make any actual claims, just accusatory open-ended questions. 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Republicans thanking each other right now at the podium for the job they did on these investigations. Cant make this stuff up.

Just read their faces... the are pissed and don't even believe their own talking points.  They don't make any actual claims, just accusatory open-ended questions. 
Click to expand...
They can't even address the facts, it's all about calling Hillary "morally reprehensible."  They are getting questions from the reporters and they can't answer them.  :lmao:  

 
[SIZE=14pt]The fact the7:30 p.m. White House meeting, which took place while Ambassador Stevens was considered missing and before Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were killed, was about the attacks in Benghazi but much of the conversation focused on the video is surprising given no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the White House meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the White House meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.”[/SIZE][SIZE=8.5pt]65 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The State Department Watch Center had also notified Sullivan and Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Benghazi.[/SIZE][SIZE=8.5pt]66 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/3 Part II Redacted DR.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
Republicans thanking each other right now at the podium for the job they did on these investigations. Cant make this stuff up.

Just read their faces... the are pissed and don't even believe their own talking points.  They don't make any actual claims, just accusatory open-ended questions. 
Click to expand...
My favorite part, very first question:

"It seems like none of this information is particularly damning and most of it is years old, do you think this was a waste of time and tax payer money?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So everyone but the gigantic House guy is saying the American people can make their own determinations and access blame accordingly.  Translation:  "We don't have any direct evidence to burn Hillary here because if we had, we'd be dancing on the podium right now.  So we'll talk around this and hope the Montana militia can write a propaganda piece that the lunatic fringe can get behind."

 
The amount of time, money, and energy that Republicans have spent trying to take down the Clintons is mind-boggling. And mostly they've just ended up with egg on their faces. And a little jizz.

 
Apple Jack said:
What is it you think that proves?
Click to expand...
No idea, that was the key takeaway passage posted by Jake Tapper. But IMO the presidential briefing and decision making has previously been discussed. Obama ordered 2 US military personnel to take a team of militia from Tripoli to Benghazi. Not sure why that doesn't get discussed more, there was a military response to a military attack and the president acted within 2 hours of learning of the attack. Panetta did not mention any discussion of the movie coming into play during his own testimony.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand how we can bomb a doctors without borders facility and kill far more people and its a collective fart in the wind. But Benghazi is such a bid damn deal regardless of who's fault or failure it was. I just can't understand the degree of concern with this one incident when there have been dozens of worse screw ups over the last several decades. Reagan turned tail and run when over 200 military got killed in Beirut and he didn't get near the amount of grief Hill and O got for Benghazi.  USS Cole etc etc. 

Why this one? What was so different? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
What Are Current Bad Habits You Have That You'd Like To Give Up? (12/30)
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jakey
J
GordonGekko
How Should Children Be Trained And Taught To Handle Bullies? (14/30)
Replies
9
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
rustycolts
My wife had a heart attack Saturday. She's going to be ok
Replies
28
Views
1K
rustycolts
rustycolts

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top