No, it hasn’t. Only their opinion has been provided.
The Congressional investigation is still on-going.
I don’t assume anything without background information. Why do you? I question the validity of claims made when they are not substantiated.
Not one of them has provided any evidence that justifies their opinion. That’s all that’s been asked of them. Assuming they are right you should agree that the information they based their opinion’s on would be made available for all to see so that we can share in their centuries worth of great wisdom.
I don’t see the great angst in providing this information. Do you? Are people who represent us not accountable for their actions?
Why is Boehner not pursuing all this missing information with all the tools available to his opposition party as he pledged in September that he would do?
Is he holding off until 2015 to see if damage can be done to the Dem nominee?
If that is the case your complaints should be addressed to the Speaker not the President. At this point the WH has apparently given all that Boehner has requested them to give.
More good news is that Magiver has responded to others but not to your request.
Not on this issue it isn’t. I’ve already cited that House Republicans have reached a conclusion on this rescue mission nonsense.
Did you read the interview with Admiral Mullen? Have you seen the news stories about General Dempsey? The explanations they provide make sense.
By you. The committees doing the investigating reached a conclusion on this issue seven months ago.
Your standard of proof is very interesting. On one hand, we have the settled issue that there were no military assets in place to rush to Benghazi, as evidenced by the congressional investigation, an independent panel, and several military leaders. On the other hand, in the other thread you’ve proposed to bomb Iran because you are alone in claiming that they are in the “breakout” scenario, for which there is no evidence to support that view.
Their testimony, which is the best evidence of what happened, was provided. What was asked for (evidence) was provided.
Magiver has given us no clue that he’s actually *read *the testimony.
[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]
Bolding mine, as it perfectly encapsulates Magiver’s view of the military.
I’ve already cited Boehner’s position on this.
At the onset of the attack, how long was it going to last? I’ll let you think about that while contemplating the testimony.
And statements like this make no sense:
“it was not realistic to think that we could task fast movers, jets, notionally in Aviano, Italy, 2 to 3 hours’ flying time away, without tankers, which were a minimum of 4 hours away in the middle of the night with no previous tasking”
A C-130 has a range of 2300 miles. A C-17 has a range of 2700 miles. it’s a thousand miles from Aviano Italy to Benghazi. Aviano is in the northern part of Italy so they had all the Southern Airports to take on return fuel. They didn’t need tankers or drop tanks or anything special.
The flying time quoted is extremely vague. Was it 2 hrs or 3 hrs? 2 hrs means he’s quoting a C-17 with a speed of 500 mph.
A C-130 is not a fast mover.
Neither the C-130 nor the C-17 is a “fast mover”, which refers to jet-powered combat aircraft. Note the explicit reference to fighter jets. Unsurprisingly, combat aircraft like the F/A-18 have much shorter ranges than transport aircraft.
What’s a C-130 or C-17 going to do above Benghazi other than get shot down? They are both unarmed transports.
And FTR, Wiki lists the C-130s cruise speed as 330 miles/hour. I expect a KC-130 filled to bursting with 30 odd tons of fuely gifts goes slower than an empty one. So there’s your rough 4 hours.
According to This, the Aviano base’s fighter complement is all F-16s.
The F-16 has a combat radius (meaning the distance from takeoff to target, allowing for the return trip and loiter time) of…340 miles.
I don’t know. Nobody knew…which is kind of the fucking point. Just a WAG here, but I suspect we probably don’t want the military going balls-to-the-wall at the very first drop of a hat in any random corner of the globe where a US military presence may or may not be received with open arms.
Just one little morsel for you to chew on: if I thought my enemy would, in fact, go balls to the wall at the drop of a hat, I’m sending in a small team to make some commotion over *here, *then springing my serious attack way the hell over *there, *when my enemy is now completely and totally fucked 'cause they’ve sent all their military assets on a wild & meaningless goose chase.
And you have not answered why Boehner does nothing to seriously counter all the horrible things he says the White House is doing. When do we get that?
he didn’t say 4 hrs.
Yes, that IS the fucking point.
“We couldn’t get there in time” is not an answer unless you know how long the attack would last.
If he was referring to an F-16 then it has the ferry range of 2600 miles. It would easily cruise there at ferry speeds in the timeline given. Combat radius takes into account the use of afterburners.
Ferry range explicitly and specifically means loaded with fuel, maximum amount of external tanks and no combat ordnance or otherwise non-fuel related load whatsoever.
Combat radius does not take use of afterburner specifically into account, either. It does account for weapons load (and the additional power & fuel it takes to drag the fuckers along) ; loiter time over target for acquisition, making one’s run, BDA etc… ; safety margins and so on ; all that stuff that’s necessary for any sort of combat operation, particularly a continuous close combat support one (as opposed to a get-in get-out straight bombing run).
Try again, grasshopper, eventually you’ll say something not entirely silly. Statistically speaking.