Special Forces were told not to go there.:
According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”
CNN is on the case, finally, too, but of course, it’s Jake Tapper. I wonder what Candy Crowley thinks?
The rest of the media is finally starting to at least attempt to catch up with Fox, though they remain far behind.
You mean the C-130 [that] left between 6 and 6:30 a.m., so the four Special Forces troops would not have arrived in time to fend off the 5:15 a.m. attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi. The C-130 that left about the same time the annex personnel arrived at the airport? That C-130?
I’d also like to point out that Hicks was told the nearest fighter jets were in Aviano, which is northern Italy. Benghazi is out of their range, the fighters were not on alert, and no tanker aircraft were available, yet Hicks still wanted fighters overhead. I wonder exactly who’s ass he was expecting them to be pulled out of?
How do you know what Hicks was told? Why do you take the word of the administration, whose story has always been obvious nonsense, rather than someone who was actually there?
I know what Hicks was told because in this CBS transcript he said:
I called — when we knew that — I talked with the Defense Attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, “Is there anything coming?” And he said that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano.
So, Hicks is told by his Defense Attache that no fighters were available yet he’s still asking for fighters.
It’s funny to watch the president’s defenders frantically bobble and weave.
I cannot fathom what special magic this idiot in the White House has that can make so many people so willing to make fools of themselves. “Cult of personality” is really the only term that reflects the reality of the situation.
Why is it “bobbing and weaving” to point out the laws of physics? Fighter jets need fuel, and if they run out they fall out of the sky.
Perhaps he thought aircraft could be refueled on the ground at a closer base, say Souda Bay? Or SecState forbid anyone ask the NATO allied Greek Hellenic Air Force if they could send a combat unit from Souda Bay.
The combat radius of an F-16 is 340 nautical miles. F-16s, Greek (Souda Bay) or US (Aviano) would need tanker support.
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Distance from Souda Bay NAS to Benghazi, 327 miles (284 nautical miles for you Navy types).
Combat Radius of Block 30 F16 is 340 NM (under a very specific combat load and mission profile with your only source being wikipedia).
The USAF and Hellenic Air Force use Block 52s with improved engine performance over the Block 30s. The Hellenic Air Force actually has Block 52 plus units at Souda Bay, and those have built in Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) that add an additional 3,000 lbs fuel. That’s over 40% more fuel over a Block 30s internal load 7160 lbs.
First, I’m coming up with a range for ground attack for a Block 52 of 360 nautical miles. Not exactly a massive discrepancy. Second, what exactly is an F-16 with no bombs supposed to do? If it flies low enough to take a target with guns, it’s low enough for MANPAD and plain-old ground fire.
Third, now we’re supposed to ask the Greeks to scramble their jets to protect our consulate? And we somehow think that’s going to take less time then getting our own forces in place? Assuming, for argument’s sake, that there are F-16s on alert at Souda.
The +20 NM is for the improved engines, but note it mentions “standard block 52”, which likely means “not the plus model” which has the CFTs. But then, we are aware you’ll use any bogus information to support your argument. The distance to travel is only 284 NM.
As for what’s the plane to do? Fly over. Don’t act like an armed force has never surrendered, or in this case just retreated, when faced against the visual threat of enemy fighter above.
And yes, ask the Greeks. They are closer, so why do you think it will take more time? You’re now claiming to be some professional logistician, how much time do you think it takes for the Greeks to arm and fuel vs the USAF to arm, fuel, ferry, and refuel? So why not ask?
Assuming, for argument’s sake, that there are F-16s on alert at Souda.
Here, don’t believe me. I didn’t believe you’re a professional logistician or that you knew the difference between one F-16 from another. So we’re even.
“Third, now we’re supposed to ask the Greeks to scramble their jets to protect our consulate? And we somehow think that’s going to take less time then getting our own forces in place?”
Who knows, we never asked…
Rand, how is that one of our “chairborne” commentators around here has the “street cred” to use vulgar words in commenting about an eyewitness in Libya?
I am game for someone challenging the credibility of Mr. Hicks, but this kind of 60’s counter-culture swagger, “Am I not kewl for using bad words” is wearing thin.
Huh? Chris Gerrib points out that there was no way the decisions being criticized could have made a difference — because the special forces operators would have gotten there too late, and because there were no fighters in range — and you’re stuck on his use of the word “ass”?
The Benghazi scandal goose chase, like the ones that preceded it, seems to follow a pattern:
Original charge: OMG, Fox News/the House GOP/etc. has found the smoking gun!
Response: If you actually read the evidence, it doesn’t support the charge
Rebuttal: But what about some-totally-unrelated-other-charge?
Hence Al’s comment, below, in which he quickly segues to talking about the FBI’s post-attack behavior, and this sudden concern over “vulgar” language.
Actually, the pattern of the Benghazi scandal is:
Al Qaida warns or potential attacks months in advance.
Libya forwards warning months in advance.
US Ambassador warns of potential attacks weeks in advance.
UK warns of potential attacks and pulls out its Embassy staff in advance.
Attacks occur on the anniversary of 9/11.
The President goes to bed.
The President wakes up the next day and claims terrorist attack.
Secretary of State claims a spontaneous attack caused by a video.
US UN Ambassador claimes a spontaneous attack caused by a video.
US arrests film maker.
FBI finally arrives to investigate crime scene.
US has made no arrests of anyone that actually killed US Ambassador and 4 others.
Secretary of State says, “What does it matter?”
WH Spokemen says, “It was so long ago”.
So what’s the scandal? That State wasn’t ready for the attack? That State initially gave too much importance to the video? That the FBI hasn’t arrested anyone?
Part of the GOP scandal-hunt MO is to throw up a flurry of charges. Individually they aren’t much, especially if you look closely, but that’s why it’s important to keep changing the subject, to preserve the illusion of a big scandal in there somewhere.
A challenge: can you pick a single specific Benghazi misdeed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration that is backed up by non-partisan evidence, and that is serious enough to be considered criminal?
Remember that being unprepared for a warned-of attack, making disastrously bad military and foreign policy policy decisions that result in loss of life, and making dubious statements to the press have not been considered criminal acts by other administrations.
Really, Jim. So that’s what you have to resort to as a defense?
They fornicated the pooch before, during and after, and got four people murdered, and lied to us about it for weeks and months afterward, and have been intimidating whistleblowers, but they didn’t break any laws?
Actually, intimidating a whistleblower is against the law. Oops.
Screwing up isn’t criminal. There’s no proof of lying or intimidating whistleblowers.
Yes, we’d like public officials to do better than merely obey the law. But the GOP and its media organs have been treating this as something worse than Watergate and the Iraq WMD fiasco put together, when meanwhile there isn’t even hard evidence for a misdemeanor.
Benghazi isn’t about what the administration did, it’s about keeping the GOP base fired up.
There’s no proof of lying or intimidating whistleblowers.
Proof doesn’t happen until an investigation and trial. There’s plenty of evidence.
But the GOP and its media organs have been treating this as something worse than Watergate and the Iraq WMD fiasco put together, when meanwhile there isn’t even hard evidence for a misdemeanor.
What law did Nixon break in Watergate? How many people died in Watergate? I think that lying about your own malfeasance should at least result in firings. Who’s been fired?
Benghazi isn’t about what the administration did, it’s about keeping the GOP base fired up.
Yeah. Right.
So what’s the scandal? That State wasn’t ready for the attack?
No.
The scandal was that State was ready with an excuse for the attack that was not based on reality. There was never a spontaneous attack based on a video. Since it never occurred, why was that story ever given by State to the American people? Why lie about the reason for the attack? Hell, why not even investigate, meaning have investigators on the ground or ask survivors, what caused the attack before making up a BS story?
Your Bush card has been revoked by Obama exceeding everything that Bush did that the left complains about.
Last time I checked Bush jailed 0 people as political prisoners.
There’s plenty of evidence.
It’s lousy evidence. See above, with the timing of the C-130 flight. You are reduced to arguing about things that happened after the attack was over.
What law did Nixon break in Watergate?
Obstruction of justice, for starters, by ordering the CIA to interfere with an FBI criminal investigation.
I think that lying about your own malfeasance should at least result in firings. Who’s been fired?
Who’s lied?
There was never a spontaneous attack based on a video.
There were, in nearly 20 countries (including Libya’s neighbors), around that same time. It’s hardly surprising that the two things initially seemed related. But within hours the administration was describing the attack as a terrorist act.
Contrast that to Dick Cheney, who wouldn’t drop a politically convenient theory of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 for years afterwards (I’m not sure he’s dropped it even today).
Obama exceeding everything that Bush did
Exceeding? The way the death toll from Benghazi exceeds the death toll from the botched Iraq occupation?
Last time I checked Bush jailed 0 people as political prisoners.
You really want to argue that holding convicted felons to their parole conditions is equivalent to jailing political prisoners?
It’s lousy evidence.
Witnesses’ statements that they have been intimidated is “lousy evidence” that they have been intimidated? Really? On what planet? What could constitute good evidence?
Witnesses’ statements that they have been intimidated is “lousy evidence” that they have been intimidated?
OK, what’s the best case you can make for witness intimidation? Who’s the witness, and where is the sworn testimony that the witness was intimidated? Who did the intimidating, and in what manner?
Someone saying they feel intimidated is not proof of a crime. Bob Woodward can say he felt threatened by a friendly email, but the rest of us don’t have to believe him.
Because minor details like securing the site are so low on the priority list the FBI is unable to visit for…. how many weeks was it?
How did they know when it was going to end?
This is what happens when Grand Admirals of the Fleet – and morons like Leon Panetta, fail to think out of the box:
1) Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
Lack of adequate warning? You had months of cables and emails telling you the security was weak there. Or at least, State did. But you could not fail to notice if you tried. You saw demonstrations in Cairo and many other embassies before 9/11. You KNOW there were several previous attacks at the embassy. You did not move a carrier closer. You did not stage land-based a/c closer. You did not stage spec ops closer. You failed to pre-position and prepare.
Grand Admiral of the Fleet Gerrib:
“The combat radius of an F-16 is 340 nautical miles. F-16s, Greek (Souda Bay) or US (Aviano) would need tanker support. ”
Hey Master logistician…what is the definition of “combat radius”? Hmmm?
No tankers were required. This is what happens when you (and Panetta) fail to think:
*IF* the closest US F-16′ were at Aviano then you do the following:
1) get a flight together and give them orders to fly to Signonella. That’s a couple hours. No tanker needed. They go as is. Just gas. If they have 20mm aboard so much the better.
2) MEANWHILE, at Sigonella you get your mission planners working on routes and timing and available intel to get the planes over Benghazi. That way when the flight arrives at Sigon you give them a 10 minute briefing.
While the pilots are being briefed, you load up a bomb or two, if you can. Nothing fancy. Dumb iron if that’s all you have. And top off the tanks. Because in fact you don’t need t do much to discourage the jihadists…they will be as shocked as Gerrib to hear jets screaming overhead and their cohorts ripped u by 20 mm.
3) Distance from Sigon to Benghazi is about 284 (as stated by Leland). But Master Logistician and Grand Admiral of the Fleet says no way you need tankers because the combat radius is 360.
But that’s COMBAT RADIUS isn’t it Gerrib???…….it assumes a return flight doesn’t it?
If you don’t have tankers then you find another way.
You fly direct, make a guns pass or two for show, then LAND IN LIBYA (which State would have already gotten permission to do from Libya). Maybe you had to be fed attack info en route. This is the age of the communications yes?
Meanwhile ammo and bombs have been flown to Libya, by fast movers carrying them( say other fighters with tankers), so that you might use them. If not, then you gas up and go with guns. Flight time minutes. Repeat until it’s over.
MEANWHILE you’ve been shuffling all kinds of assets Southward from Yerp. Planes, tankers, munitions. Staging everything South.
And why do you do this?
Because not even Master Logistician and Grand Admiral of the Fleet would know how long the battle would last.
And if after all of that the people still died then AT LEAST you did something.
You didn’t just sit there and listen to them beg for help then die because you were too stupid to pay attention in the months leading up to it.
Also, our pilots had darn well better be able to put together a fast mission without hours of planning. They darn well better be able to get their butts from Aviano to Sigonella without too much prior planning. They should be practicing things like that.
If they aren’t, it isn’t their fault; it’s Obama’s and the Sec Def.’s fault.
To cry about no adequate warning is to fail to understand the world we live in and to prove you are not fit for the job.
There are probably even more ways to improve on this but it just goes to show how morons like Panetta and people with inflated Napoleonic complexes like Gerrib get their minds stuck in a rut (gotta have tankers)
Gregg – so let me get this straight. You fly planes to Sigonella (450 air miles) or Souda (280) empty. You arm them there, then fly over Benghazi, while you’re trying to set up a forward air base on Benghazi’s airport?
The first rule of rescue is don’t add to the body count. With this “plan” if there’s any problem with security at the Benghazi airport, you’ve just added hostages (worst case) or committed to ditching F-16s and launching night SARs for pilots (best case).
You’re right – it’s impossible to know how long the operation would take. Throwing away assets in some half-baked rejected-by-Tom-Clancy plan is a lousy way to start.
“so let me get this straight”
You did not get it straight.
” You fly planes to Sigonella (450 air miles) or Souda (280) empty. ”
Forget Souda unless there is something there that isn’t anywhere else. I wrote that you fly to Signorella. Where there are munitions and gas.
“You arm them there, …”
Yes with whatever you have and not a full load. if all you have is 20mm or all you have time for is 20mm you fly with that.
“then fly over Benghazi,”
Yes
“while you’re trying to set up a forward air base on Benghazi’s airport?”
No. After you do what you can over Benghazi you land at any one of the numerous fields there that have JP. Wherever.
You ARE trying to stage munitions to a forward base even before you took off from Aviano. But that’s secondary.
Note what you have accomplished at this point – you’ve made several pases over the area. You have alerted the bad guys you have airpower there. You’ve scared them silly and have at least caused them to pause.
“You’re right – it’s impossible to know how long the operation would take.”
By that I mean the fight on the ground not the air op.
” Throwing away assets in some half-baked rejected-by-Tom-Clancy plan is a lousy way to start”
1) it isn’t half baked
2) Nothing is thrown away.
3) We better be able to do this.
4) I notice you failed to answer the question – “what is the definition of combat radius?”. In other words you were shown to be an unthinking, boxed-in-mentally, armchair nothingburger.
5) I don’t care what Tom Clancy says or thinks.
6) I see you assume a higher body count for…what reason? But do not allow for saving lives. How very partisan of you.
7) And the full might of the US military helped those people on the ground…how?
I did answer what combat radius was – scroll down.
Throwing away assets in some half-baked rejected-by-Tom-Clancy plan is a lousy way to start.
Then I guess flying in the QRF in a chartered plane from Tripoli was a dumb-assed idea?
Hey Mr. Logistician, ever hear of a Drop Tank? Better yet, ever hear of an F-15? Check out the range on that bad boy!
But “he served in the military!” I wonder if he ever heard of LOGCAP. I’m sure he thinks those folks never served in the military and thus must be amateurs. One wonders what he thinks of UPS, other than they aren’t the USPS and thus are amateurs.
Our F-15s are based in the UK or Germany, which means even longer flight times involved. Yes drop tanks are an option. That takes time to load, and coming from Aviano, 1,000 air miles away, you’d burn a couple of drop tanks just getting there. All this assumes that you have some alert aircraft, which we didn’t.
Interesting, I realize its Google Earth, and the images are old. But, if you go to Google Earth, pull up Souda Bay, you’ll find 2 F-15s (mislabeled by the Google community as F-18s) sitting on the tarmac.
And yes, we know in Obama’s military, no aircraft are on alert on September 11th after receiving multiple warnings of potential attacks on US assets around the Mediterranean. Your point is made. Should we never consider whether this was a good idea?
Asking whether aircraft should have been on alert is perfectly valid. Claiming people were deliberately left to die because aircraft were not on alert is not valid.
The F-15s on Google Earth were not based at Souda. They may have been there in transit or for the 2011 no-fly zone festivities.
First, that “combat radius” for F-16 appears to be on internal fuel only. How do we know this? Because the Israeli F-16s on the raid on the Osirak reactor flew quite a lot further than that (620 miles each way in a straight line, but they didn’t fly a straight line, either), unrefueled, carrying 2 Mk 84 2,000 lb. bombs each. Drop tanks are wonderful things. They’re even better when the frickin’ planes can refuel in Sigonella, first, or are the gas pumps closed at night?
Second, even unarmed fast-movers overhead can most definitely deter some attacks simply because of the fear of what they might be able to do. Especially after a supersonic pass or two, popping flares. It’s been done before in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Would it have worked, or worked long enough? We’ll never know because we didn’t even f***ing <try, but that’s okay because Grand Admiral Gerrib is most pos-def sure trying would’ve been the greatest crime of all. Sheesh.
Can I ask a more basic question? How did anyone know how long they had to scramble other assets (C-130s in Tripoli, F16s wherever) before the secondary attack took place? I can see ruling out one option that takes longer than another, but not ruling out ALL options.
Or am I too blindly in rage at Obamanation?
This
Candy Crowley thinks?
Not only did we have spooky gunships 90 minutes away we already had two in Libya which would not have required presidential permission to enter Libyan airspace (since they were already in that airspace.)
So, for an operation that ended in 31 October 2011, on September 11, 2012, 11 months later, we still had the C-130s in country? And the operators of those C-130s haven’t come forward yet? Smells fishy to me.
Jim Muncy – between midnight and 2 AM, four special forces units were ordered to move. None of them were able to get to Benghazi in time to do any good.
Looks like none of them ever got there. What good they could have done when they got their we will never know.
Also, have you ever lived near an American airbase, either in the states or abroad? They constantly have aircraft in the air. It’s the same with aircraft carriers.
Actually, no they don’t. Sigonella or NAS Jacksonville, to name two examples of my personal experience, do not maintain “constant aircraft in the air.”
Assuming they have aircraft stationed there; all that means is you weren’t paying attention. Sit with their controllers for part of a day and then tell me they have no aircraft in the air.
The determination by some to defend the Maladministration’s untenable position speaks to their vulnerability on this issue. If there really were no there there, they wouldn’t feel the need to insist same.
So your determination to defend yourself from charges of child molestation means what, exactly? When you point out that you were never alone with the child in question, does that mean your defense is untenable?
Or are you really trying to use facts to defend yourself from rumor and wild speculation?
Except we know the highest levels of the State Department received numerous warnings about the security situation at a consulate where our ambassador was having frequent meetings and that on the very day the attack happened he wrote about security concerns there. He was repeatedly denied. Why the security concerns of an ambassador to a country that just saw the overthrow of its government by Islamic militants were ignored is anyone’s guess but clearly a bad decision.
After the attack, the President and his administration said it was a protest, lying about what led up to the attack and who was responsible for the attack. As part of this elaborate show they arrested a guy who posted a video on youtube and he now sits in prison, a true political prisoner. This is the only man to be put in prison over the attack. No one lost their jobs.
During the attack, the administration did not do all they could. Not knowing when the attack would end, they sent no one. They would not known the attack was over until forces were almost to Benghazi but those forces never were ordered to go.Our people were being burned alive by AQ affiliates and our President went to bed early. It is ok to call Obama at 3am but not at 9pm. None of the people who witnessed those events have talked to congress.
According to what the whistle blower’s lawyers are saying, they were intimidated into not talking. Think about that a minute. The people who experienced the attack were not allowed to talk to the investigators. It is almost like they don’t want the public to find out about the poor way the whole situation was handled.
Which would explain why it took almost a month for the FBI to look at the crime scene which after other similar events had a much quicker response time and the administration continues to coverup their actions. If Obama had ordered military forces to respond, they may very well have showed up too late but they would have been in place in case the attack lasted longer and to secure the scene for the investigation. CNN wouldn’t be finding the ambassador’s diary amid the wreckage, the diary where he wrote about his fears over security. Who knows what other sensitive documents disappeared?
You might be totally cool with what happened but you have to recognize why other people would be upset. This should be a case study in how not to do crisis management and exercise executive judgement. There should be an entire section about not going to bed during the crisis you are supposed to be managing, your staff will be confused, wont work well with each other, and critical decisions that require your approval cant be made.
Except if the Ambassador was do concerned about security why did he leave his secure embassy and go to the consulate?
As has been repeatedly documented, no less than four (4) anti-terrorism teams were sent. They didn’t get to Benghazi in time because the laws of physics limited the speed at which they could move.
If the people who witnessed the attack aren’t being allowed to talk to investigators, who is testifying in Congress tomorrow?
What is this focus on when Obama went to bed? Is the President supposed to personally run every military operation around the world? We had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan that night, conducting God knows how many raids. Is he supposed to wait up for them too?
Except if the Ambassador was do concerned about security why did he leave his secure embassy and go to the consulate?
That’s an awesome line of questions that we don’t have a sane answer for, thank you for seeing our point of view.
What is this focus on when Obama went to bed? Is the President supposed to personally run…
The troops in Afghanistan happen to be in a declared war zone. They have guns. Scratch that – assault weapons. And … bullets. They have patrols set up by at least nominally competent superiors. I wouldn’t expect much involvement by higher unless they need air support etc. If Bagram were overrun, I would expect a competent commander to be losing sleep.
But in Libya, he’s got nothing and knows it. The US asked Libya for permission to fly in aid – and were denied. The British media has reported British troops within an hour’s jog. There’s our “ally” Egypt. Both the French and the Germans made mutterings about not even being asked.
There is actual Presidenting to be done. So of course he went to bed.
Witnesses were not allowed to speak, were intimidated into silence and only now, nearly a year later will talk but only a couple of them with wistle blower protection. Nothing fishy about that at all. Where is all the skepticism you had for Bush? Why not hold the President from your own party to the same standard?
Why would the focus be on when Obama went to bed? Because many decisions in this situation could only be made by him and he posts endless photos of him in the situation room for far less serious incidents. Because he said he would be there for a 3am phone call. Because he helped Islamists militants overthrow the government in Libya just months prior. Because the ambassador was following orders. Because the buck stops with Obama, in this situation he was in charge.
Obama arrested a man as a scapegoat for his lies about this being about a youtube video. Where is the free bradley manning brigade? It seems that when a real case of someone being thrown in jail because of politics, the Democrats are all stfu.
That’s a good question that we’d really like answered. What was so important? Was he ordered there? Was something going on that overrode other considerations? Regardless, it was verging criminal incompetence for State Dept. to be caught so unprepared and unawares by a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, of all dates.
We’d really like to know the details about who was responsible for this clusterf***, and why, but I guess that’s too much to ask. After all, what difference does it make?
So much of this is damning in a Catch-22 sense.
“No, we couldn’t do really obvious thing X, because we’ve already bolluxed that plan doing really stupid thing Y.”
“Security Detachment” is a couple guys not receiving combat/security pay.
“Base Security” is a Home Depot Special.
“Contingency Planning” here is “Cower and wait for help” – that is, the “school lockdown plan”.
“Allies” either denied us or weren’t consulted even through they had troops.
There’s either a carrier in the eastern Med denied access… or there’s -no- carrier around Sept 11 even with the pile of red flags out of Syria, Egypt, and Libya.
There’s apparently a drastic tanker shortage in -all- of these places as well.
The choice isn’t between ‘unlucky or criminal’, it’s between ‘so incompetent it’s criminal’ and ‘criminally callous disregard’.
It will be the cover-up that will nail Obama and Hillary. They claimed it was the video that caused the fight and we now know it was not.
I’m sure Jim and Gerrib will point us to the proof (I’ll take evidence) that the video caused a spontaneous attack. Perhaps some eyewitness testimony or comments from the Libyan government that backup the Department of State claims?
Except the Libyan government said it was terrorism from the get go and the administration went out on TV and essentially called them liars.
went out on TV
On the same show, just minutes later, even after being told directly what the Libyan President said. There are times when this might be the right thing to do. I haven’t found evidence that this was such a time.
Jim? Gerrib? Do you have some evidence that supports Rice’s contradiction at the time of the Libyan President? Something other than the State Departments own memo, but rather something from the actual investigation that hadn’t started on the ground in Benghazi yet? An eyewitness? Perhaps a survivor of the attack?
Rice went out and said what the DCIA and DNI had cleared her to say. The DCIA and DNI testified as much, under oath.
And if inaccurate CIA talking points are a crime….
Jim you might not like the trial of who changed the talking points…
It will be the cover-up that will nail Obama and Hillary. They claimed it was the video that caused the fight and we now know it was not.
When exactly did Obama and Clinton claim it was the video that caused the fight?
When Obama tells his representatives to say something, it is the same thing as him saying it.
Hillary said it to one of the parents of a victim before they had the film maker arrested.
How did we get to the point where the President of the USA, the most powerful man in the world, isn’t even responsible for what he directs his staff to do and responsibility lies instead with unnamed anonymous low level staffers?
Hillary said it to one of the parents of a victim before they had the film maker arrested.
So the big cover-up is that, according to this parent, she made an untrue statement in a private conversation? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
“When exactly did Obama and Clinton claim it was the video that caused the fight?”
You must be out of your ever fricking mind….Why is it you never do any of your own research but rely on others to do it for you?
Try here –
Jay Carney (who speaks for Obama) time hack 30 seconds to TH 50:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Qx7Fmn4uE
And I also quote time hack 55 seconds to 1:07
“This is not in response to US policy…this is in response to a video that is offensive…to muslims”
Obama here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g83moMSTYdU
Time hack: 1:48 through 2:28
I quote: “What also happened was that extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies including the one the consulate in Libya.”
Clinton:
I quote:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
She said this in a speech when the bodies arrived at Andrews AFB.
Please, Jim try to exert yourself just a LITTLE bit and do your research huh? Try to not accept wholly what you see at the bottom of the kool aid glass….
And Jim that was just a sample extracted after about 30 seconds of searching…..there are more.
You’ve taken the Carney quotes completely out of context. If you read the transcript you see that he was talking about “unrest around the region” generally, not the Benghazi attack specifically.
The Obama quote does not say that the video caused the attack, it says that the video was used as an excuse, and that the attack was committed by extremists and terrorists. Obama is openly stating the thing you accuse him of covering up.
The Clinton quote blames the video for the attacks on embassies in Egypt and Tunisia, not for the Benghazi attack.
Is reading comprehension really that hard?
try to exert yourself just a LITTLE bit and do your research huh?
I can’t prove a negative. But if this is the best you’ve got, then I think it’s safe to say that you were wrong when you wrote that Obama and Clinton blamed the video for the Benghazi attack.
that was just a sample extracted after about 30 seconds of searching…..there are more
Does Obama or Clinton blame the Benghazi attack on the video in any of them?
“One more mystery: why are commenters on this board (I’m thinking in particular of Gregg and Wodun) so convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?”
It’s only safe to say that if you wish to ignore the obvious.
Take Carney for instance. He’s clearly saying the volatility and *violence* is due to the video:
“Let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video…”
Right around 1:13.
And no way it’s taken out of context because it’s continuous and obvious.
And you must know that at that point in time, Obama and Carney and Clinton were ALL saying it was NOT a planned operation but something that just happened like spontaneous combustion.
THEn a reporter said, “Like Benghazi?” And his dissembling response was: “We certainly don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen in the region HAS BEEN IN REACTION TO A VIDEO (my emphasis)”
Or go to 1:39 in the video where he is pressed by Jay apper. Carney’s answer is:
T he video caused unrest in the region and there’s no evidence that this attack was pre-planned.
or at 2:53 “there is no justification for responding to this video with violence.
Just WATCH the video and you’ll see Carney make the connection several times.
You’d have to contort your mind most wonderfully if you don’t think he’s connecting the video to the attack.
And I said there’s lots more.
Go do your own research.
At around 3:20 he’s asked AGAIN if the cause of the Benghazi attack is due to the video and his response is:
“We have no evidence to suggest otherwise.”
I.e. Yes that’s out position.
Go mix up more kool-aid, Jim. It’s clear they said this…you simply refuse to believe it. I suspect the emotional dissonance that believing it would cause you is more than you can bear.
p.s. and we now know that THEY knew it was not due to the video…
But that was so looonnngg ago and who cares so… shut up.
Yeah! And that guy made that Mohammed (pbuh) movie, too! So our guys in Benghazi deserved it! Because Allahu-ackbar! And you a raciss.
Why does Powerline wimp out on this?
Hey Gerrib – Master Logistician and Grand Admiral of the Fleet:
Tell me…what’s the definition of “combat radius”?
Combat radius = get there and back with a usable weapons load and a reasonable amount of time over target to expend it.
Very good!
Now why does that combat radius absolutely require every mission be a round trip to the originating base, requiring tankers?
It doesn’t. But the nearest base was Sigonella, so in this case combat radius does mean round-trip to Sigonella.
Horsehockey. The chartered plane sent from Tripoli with the small QRF landed at Benghazi. Or was that “stupid”? So did the later C-130. Stupid, too?
Furthermore, Israeli F-16s flew un-refuelled over 625 miles each way to Baghdad in 1981 using the sooper-sekrit technology of drop-tanks (625 miles was straight-line distance to Baghdad, and they didn’t fly a straight line). Gee, I wonder if the USAF has ever heard of them? Maybe we could buy some from Israel…
“It doesn’t. But the nearest base was Sigonella, so in this case combat radius does mean round-trip to Sigonella.”
Oh but why is that, Grand Admiral and Master Logistician?
Are there no airfields for F-16’s to land on in Libya? Like say major airports? Can you land only Pipe Cubs in Libya?
But the nearest base was Sigonella
NSA Souda Bay is much closer. One would think a Navy guy and logistician would know details like that. Particularly considering the mission statement of the NSA:
The United States Naval Support Activity (NSA) Souda Bay is strategically located on the northwest coast of the rugged Greek island of Crete. NSA is poised to carry out its vital mission of extending Joint and Fleet War fighting capability through Operational Support to U.S., Allied and Coalition Forces deployed within the EUCOM/CENTCOM/ AFRICOM AOR at a moment’s notice. This installation extends the war fighting capability by providing, operating and sustaining superior facilities and services dedicated to combat readiness and security of ships, aircraft, detachments and personnel.