great, waiting on the cite on what transpired.
Seriously? This is vile. I can’t believe that you get the information you ask for, and then just ignore it.
Yes, cite it. What is so difficult for you to understand. Not someone’s opinion. cite what actually took place.
A transcipt of what transpired. Something that shows what assets were looked at, and an analysis of what could or could not be done. No more of your childish one sentence renderings.
Unless of course, you’re suggesting that Panetta just shrugged his shoulders and pulled a one sentence opinion out of his ass.
I gave you SoD Panetta’s words. You think he’s lying?
You want a transcript of real time deliberations? That’s your standard? Absurd.
No, Lobohan, you didn’t provide what I asked to be cited and unless you’re really dense you know you’re not.
Panetta saying he couldn’t have done it in time is not a cite of what took place the night of the attack. You’ve provided ZERO background information. None. Nadda.
Here’s the exchange between Senator McCain and General Demsey (bolding and color mine):
“When you’re talking about the Benghazi issue, you say, ‘We positioned our forces in a way that was informed by and consistent with available threat estimates,’” McCain continued. “Then you go on to say, ‘Our military was appropriately responsive,’ even though seven hours passed and two Americans died at the end of that. Then you go on and say, ‘We did what our posture and capabilities allowed.’”
McCain said a base in Crete was just 90 minutes away.
“We could have placed forces there,” he said. “We could have had aircraft and other capabilities a short distance away at Souda Bay, Crete. So, for you to testify before this committee that they were consistent with available threat estimates is simply false; that our military was appropriately responsive.”
“I stand by my testimony, your dispute of it notwithstanding,” Dempsey replied.
McCain countered, “Well, perhaps you can give me some facts that would substantiate it.”
Dempsey then said that a contingent was not sent because the State Department didn’t request one.
“So it’s the State Department’s fault,” McCain challenged.
“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded. “I’m sure they had their own assessment.”
So I will ask you again, Lobohan, for a cite regarding this assessment.
Has any president, in the history of ever, provided that level of documentation on his decision making process (on any subject, much less a military one)?
It’s more than a little ridiculous of you to demand such a thing now, or to claim that he’s not being forthcoming if you don’t get it.
What’s absurd about it? They were asked in a Congressional hearing to substantiate their opinion. “I stand by my statement” is not substantiation.
They may very well have made the right decision but we don’t know that because it hasn’t, to my knowledge, been substantiated. All you’ve done so far is say that the people in charge said so, therefore it must be true.
What information did the State Department have that the DoD didn’t? Were there State Department drones on site?
Were there State Department ninjas in the rooftops?
Why do you think the State Department, which generally doesn’t have its own satellites, had better intelligence than what the DoD had?
Well, Magiver? By the way, just so you know, you’ve moved the goalposts so fucking far that it’s embarrassing.
First it’s that Obama was a shithead because he didn’t order motorcycle drops in the city. Now it’s gone all the way to, “I need a transcript of State Department personnel in real time, even though such a thing likely doesn’t exist, or it will prove that Magiver is right in all things!”
As I say, it’s asinine.
CONGRESS demanded it and it’s their job to do so.
I haven’t moved the goal posts a micron. I’ve asked for the same information Congress asked for.
Well that’s funny at least.
Who did congress ask? Let me look up whatever testimony that will make you admit you’re wrong.
Who, SoS Clinton? Want me to link to her testimony? Or the dudes that were testifying for her when she had the concussion? Or the Accountability Board?
What are you looking for, paint me a picture. What question, in specific do you want answered, and who in congress asked it, at which hearing?
Testimony like what I just cited is just opinion. They were asked for specifics and that was not provided. I didn’t ask for opinion, I asked for the specifics behind the opinion which is what Congress asked for.
Seriously, how do you not understand the difference between making a statement and the data to back it up the statement?
The person asked in your quote wasn’t in the State Department. He was a general. That’s why he didn’t answer.
What question was asked for a State Department person that you would like me to find the transcript for?
You want the Accountability Review Board’s review of the State Department? It’s here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
It has a detailed abstract of what we know happened. But like I said, I need to know specifically what you’re looking for.
That was already posted. It doesn’t mention any of the process involved yet it goes into detail on all the other faults that added to the problem.
What part if the following sentence don’t you understand:
Cite who made the decision not to send a rescue team and the supporting data to back up that decision.
That’s what McCain was asking for in his questioning. Demsey said he couldn’t do it and he was asked to justify his decision. That’s not a one sentence response. It’s a a great deal of information.
How many people are threatening us
What kind of equipment are they using
What kind of teams are available
where are they located
how long to get each team airborne
what equipment do they need
how long to load the equipment
What intelligence assets do we have
where are they located
etc etc etc…
These questions get broken down by task for other people to answer.
Is this an infinitely-resolving request, i.e. even if such information was provided, could we expect demands for finer and finer details, as in if you are told where an asset is located (for example, in a particular city), you might want to know its exact street address at the time?
Frankly, it’s starting to to sound like that poster who held as evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy that the exact quantity of steel and concrete on each floor of the towers was not being published. I never did manage to figure out what he planned to do with such information even if he had it, despite repeated requests.
Jesus merciful fuck.
The SoD and the two generals made the call. It’s in the quote I showed you. They made the call because they had no intelligence on the situation.
You want a cite for no intelligence? What would that look like? An empty file cabinet? A CIA analyst shrugging his shoulders?
Another interesting point is that the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee hasn’t had a hearing or briefing on Benghazi in five months. The last oversight they did was closed-door briefing titled, “U.S. Force Posture and Planning Before, During and After the Attack.” After they brief, they announced their conclusion that there was no stand-down order, and it seems there was no effort they are publicizing to conduct further hearings. I can’t find a statement from Chairman Buck McKeon talking about Benghazi at all in the last few months.
In fact, he seems to have adopted a rather constructive view toward this oversight, in contrast to the Magiver/Issa claims to coverup. McKeon wrote in one letter to the Pentagon: "“The Department has been generally cooperative with this committee in getting to the bottom of what went wrong in Benghazi. They have supported a number of classified and unclassified exchanges with Members and staff.” He went on to ask for additional information, which seems to have been provided at that last oversight briefing.
It is just so odd to me that with these claims of a coverup that go straight to the White House, that the fiercely conservative Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee doesn’t seem to share the view that Obama, Panetta, or other DoD officials erred in not sending in more troops. I get the impression that the committee’s inquiry has been pretty much closed out.
Let the record reflect that you didn’t answer my question.
What happened, according to Panetta, is something like this:
There were reports of an attack and chaos around the Libyan embassy. The SecDef and Generals on duty could not get a consistent and accurate picture of what was happening in real time. Without such a consistent and accurate picture in real time, they were not comfortable ordering forces into the situation, which demonstrates good military discipline and order- you don’t just order additional forces into a chaotic situation if you don’t have a good idea of what’s going on… you don’t want to risk sending more bodies for the slaughter. By the time they had an accurate and consistent picture of what was going on, the attack was over.
There’s no evidence, other than the statements of the SecDef and generals on duty, that could further confirm this is what happened, at least that I can think of. Assuming the above, based on SecDef Panetta’s statements, is accurate, what possible evidence other than statements could support it?
The CIA was running the rescue operation after the first attack was over. They were focused upon Libyan assets getting to the Annex - not on US military assets from outside the country. The CIA are big boys - they assessed the situation and were handling it. They were in Libya - the Pentagon is thousands of miles away. You want a paper trail in the DOD that has no reason to exist.
And you base it on sore loser McCain’s questions that are attempts to smear the White House where McCain will never reside.
You need to find a cite where a Congressional investigation has found that anyone in the chain of command in the US military all the way to Oval Office where It has been found that Woods and Dougherty were by action or inaction deliberately left to die in Benghazi.
Where is your cite since that is what you are driving at.