Specifically, how do you substantiate a lack of intel?
Specifically.
Spell it out in detail. Write me exactly what you’re looking for.
But you can’t, because you have no idea what you’re looking for. You can’t even imagine what it would take to satisfy your absurd desire for information.
What would that information look like.
Why isn’t Darryl Issa asking for it? Where is the subpoena, or summons or whatever it is?
You are demanding absurdities and deflecting attention because you don’t want to face the fact that you are wrong. Sorry, bro.
I’ve already cited what “one drone” can do. It’s capable of tracking every movement in a very large swath of land. Not that it was required to do so since this wasn’t a citywide war with thousands of people. And upon arrival additional drones would be introduced. And that’s on top of satellite information. They had a tremendous advantage over the terrorists in this area alone.
You keep re-posting the same arguments without the benefit of the background information of the opinions you quote. It all comes down to a lack of cooperation by the WH. What Congress has asked for is an accounting of what happened. You can’t cite what happened in even the slightest bit of detail as it relates to the decision making process that took place.
On top of that you sink to the level of name calling when I pointed out I was asking the same question that Congress has been asking. You did this by saying it was only one person who was a dingbat and a lapdog. When I showed you were wrong you changed your rant to calling the group of them wingnuts on a witch hunt.
It defies logic that you accept a person’s opinion without any substantiation and then base your arguments rants on it.
I withdraw that previous line. I’m getting a bit flustered at what I perceive to be an endless request for answers that have already been given. My apologies.
Of course. I’ve stated this already. Please provide us with the information you used to come to that conclusion.
Imagine a fire department that didn’t send out a truck because in someone’s opinion it was hopeless. There wasn’t enough information to risk the fire fighters. It might be hopeless when they arrive. Or people might be saved. But you launch the truck and make an assessment as information becomes available. Without knowing how long the attack would last or if there was going to be a hostage situation it’s prudent to send the people best qualified to deal with it and assess the situation while they move toward it. Where is the flaw in this argument? Flying to Libya does not mean engaging the enemy.
It’s more than one person’s opinion, it’s a few high-ranking military officers and cabinet secretaries.
Where are you getting the idea that the administration has not been forthcoming? Unless you’ve watched every minute of all of the investigations, you’re taking one person’s opinion without any substantiation on that.
Maybe they got the information about the situation in Benghazi from our tremendous drones and satellites.
First of all, that’s not really true since no matter where it flies, buildings are going to be masking alleys running behind them.
But beyond that, it’s a big information processing issue. Even if the drone could see every single human in the city, it doesn’t come with a Terrorist Identification Device. People have to go over the video and look for fleeting clues with their Mk. 1 eyeballs. That takes time, and it’s a difficult process. Fact is, it’s *because *that process takes time and is non-trivial that US drones blow kids away with a dreadful regularity.
Since Magiver isn’t responding to my request for clarification whether Congress has been stonewalled with respect to the military response to Benghazi, allow me to liberally quote from a report issued to House Republicans in April 2013. It is co-signed by the Republican chairmen of the House Government Oversight, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Judiciary committees.
So, the House committees investigating Benghazi apparently have plenty of information to draw a conclusion that the military simply couldn’t respond with a Magiver-like raid.
And if you want additional details about why the House committees reached that conclusion, read this transcript of a deposition with Admiral Mullen, conducted by Darrell Issa and his staff. Beginning on page 49 is a more detailed discussion of why the idea of simply getting the proper military forces to the right places is not as easy as boarding a Southwest Airlines flight. I’m not going to quote that, you all can just read it.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Imagine a fire department that didn’t send out a truck because in someone’s opinion it was hopeless. There wasn’t enough information to risk the fire fighters. It might be hopeless when they arrive. Or people might be saved. But you launch the truck and make an assessment as information becomes available. Without knowing how long the attack would last or if there was going to be a hostage situation it’s prudent to send the people best qualified to deal with it and assess the situation while they move toward it. Where is the flaw in this argument? Flying to Libya does not mean engaging the enemy.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, good news - those assets you speak of were launched. A FAST platoon was readied and sent to Tripoli, a team from Ft. Bragg was readied and sent to Sicily, and a team from Tripoli was sent to Benghazi. Please acknowledge that you are aware of this.
As the House report Ravenman just cited makes clear, the problem was the positioning of forces, not their lack of deployment.
Sure. Now YOU imagine the “fire department” is not just casually loading up guys on a truck and sending the truck through the streets of a friendly city where it can be recalled at any time. Imagine if you will that the launching of the “truck” is a far more complicated and not-zero-risk proposition, that the “truck” will be going out where there may not even be roads (i.e. a situation that is utterly unsuited to the truck’s capabilities) and the truck’s arrival can itself cause larger problems, and while the truck is out there, it’s not available to address other emergencies that might arise, and all this in the name of react-react-react-and-think-later.
The flaw in your argument is that you’re assuming your assessment of what is prudent was better than the people actually involved. It can easily be very IMprudent to throw assets blindly into a unknown or little-known situation, especially if done so in a rushed manner. Somehow, “they’ll figure it out along the way” is less than convincing.
If you want to resolve that flaw, I suggest you call for a several-orders-of-magnitude increase in the State Department’s security budgets, to the point where they can keep special-forces-teams airborne in shifts 24 hours a day, and/or assign a permanent garrison of at least platoon size to every mission, consulate and embassy.
I’m sure the operationak aspects of reacting to an attack on a diplomatic outpost are classified, as they should be. The demand for that information is unreasonable in the extreme.
Well, that “person’s opinion” happens to come from four of the highest-ranking officers involved, among those most likely to have an understanding or valid commentary on what happened. At this point, the evidence we have is relatively limited - because the evidence they had and were able to gather was limited. At this point, as others have pointed out, you’re looking for proof that they didn’t have good evidence. And I’m not sure what that evidence would suffice to demonstrate that. At this point, we have the option to either believe the high authority figures, or to refuse to believe them. I don’t really see the point in refusing unless you’re trying to stir up partisan points for no good reason, because there’s really nothing else to be gained from this. Even if you do refuse to believe them, what’s the point? What are we trying to prove? I just don’t get it.
Been provided. Panetta and the Generals told them what happened and how they made the decisions. The evidence is their testimony- there wouldn’t be any other evidence. They said what happened, it fits the facts, and there’s no reason not to believe them. You demonstrate poor knowledge of how the military actually works.
Anybody should be able to figure this out WITHOUT a mountain of hard intel: It was night, a difficult time of day for an airdrop into an open, undefended field, much less a crowded city with many people who have already shown themselves to be hostile and dangerous. As accurate and maneuverable modern chutes are the men would AT BEST still be spread over half a block, with loads of hostiles all around them. They would be picked off like tin ducks at a shooting gallery and would be unable to complete their mission, meaning more Americans would die on the altar of your belief that “We shoulda done something. ANYTHING!”
What we did do was based in reality, not some Rambo fantasy land. Your beliefs on this are idiotic, you’ve had your nose ribbed in the facts time after time, and it is high time you you gave up and, um, faced facts. That four-man team from Tripoli would be dead a minute after they hit ground. Dead, torn to pieces, and the video posted on YouTube in ten minutes. And had that happened would you still blame Obama? Of course you would because you have an irrational hatred for the man. Not a rational, “I disagree with him politically” dislike, but a hatred that goes far beyond that.
Stop it. You are making yourself look stupid, even crazy. Look at the situation with fresh eyes, see where you are wrong, and don’t die on this hill. Shit, all but the craziest, showboating Republicans in office quit this fight months ago, and you aren’t getting much support from the conservatives on this board.
Based on my earlier cite, Congress made up its mind in April 2013 that there was no way to rush military aid into Benghazi any faster. It’s been seven months since that issue was settled; why are you saying that Congress doesn’t have the information to make a judgment on this issue?
In light of this, I would like to rephrase a question I asked you earlier:
Why do you assume you understand the situation better than the then-Secretary of Defense, a former Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two four-star combatant commanders, the commander of the four-person Special Forces team based in Tripoli, an independent review board that included the services of a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, *and the Republican chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee, House Government Reform Committee, House Intelligence Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee? *
That is literally centuries worth of experience in the military, government, diplomacy, and related fields, and they all think that your thrown-together rescue scenario could not have been accomplished. Seriously, just think about the expertise of the individuals on that list, and their political affiliations (or lack thereof). All of them are saying you’re wrong. For what reason do you doubt their collective judgment?