Wow, she can do that? Wouldn’t she at least have to put it in writing? Shit, she makes Kissinger look like a wimp.
Let’s be honest here. You were advocating childish motorcycle spec-op drops earlier in this thread, to justify your disdain of Hillary. That she must have done something incompetent.
Don’t try to project that nonsense on those that actually took the effort to understand the issues.
And the testified that it wouldn’t have made a difference. You keep omitting this part.
Don’t go down this road again about parachutes and that other BS. You aren’t more experienced or better informed than the couple of Secretaries of Defense, multiple four-star generals, the SF commander, or the congressional committees that investigated this and unanimously said your kinds of scenarios weren’t possible.
I’m not inclined to take your word that less than ten Americans with small arms were prepared to repel an attack of many dozens of bad guys who had already seized an entire compound. You don’t have any credibility in this thread, so why should we take this claim at face value?
Honestly, it seems to me that spending a short amount of time to try to mobilize the militia that was friendly to the US, was a very reasonable first step. If you’re facing 100 bad guys, it seems entirely rational to spend a short amount of time trying to get -00 armed friendlies to show up, rather than rushing the single digit numbers of forces you have into the situation with no understanding of what was going on. And you know what? By waiting 25 minutes, about 50 militiamen DID arrive at the compound with the security force, and even they were not able to secure a perimeter against the hundred-plus armed baddies that were there.
Are you conceding that special forces were readied and sent, but couldn’t have arrived until after the evacuation from Benghazi was complete?
From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report:
The Chief of Base decided to wait until armored vehicles, and friendly militias with heavy weapons, were available. Even then, they were able to depart in about 20 minutes.
You think he should have sent seven men on foot with small arms to relieve the consulate instead?
As has been well-established, the nearest combat aircraft were the F16s at Aviano, Italy.
Read the timeline again: the drone arrived onsite at 11:10 pm. The team from the CIA annex arrived at the consulate at 10:10 pm. The drone was of no help in the decision when to send the team from the annex.
They were sent.
You are the one who (even still) insists on exhausting this line of deceased equine reasoning.
I merely offered the most realistic, plausible fact-based scenario possible.
You’re welcome!
Sorry, but I’m no longer responding to confabulation about a rescue mission that never took place.
Ah, what the hey: if that scenario is the best that could have been mustered, then the Senate Intelligence Committee was correct to conclude:
If it is fact-based, then you should have a cite to back up your assertion. Please provide it.
I know you won’t because you just pulled the scenario out of your, uhm, imagination which is fueled by having read a couple Tom Clancy books back in the late '80s. The really is no reason to take your scenario seriously, Mr. “I’m a Military Planner on the Internet but Don’t Know the Names of the Geographical Combatant Commands.”
It stands quite factually based all on it’s own. If you knew who wrote it, you would not doubt it’s authenticity. You only doubt me because you don’t know me and the scenario disagrees with your preconceived notions about the Benghazi attack.
Maybe you should re-read it a 3rd time. Or possibly re-post it in a quoted version for all to see again?
Maybe he disagrees with it because it’s contradicted by the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Just a thought.
I’m still waiting for him to call in the B-52s from Burpelson.
Maj gen. Daryl Roberson knows not of what he spoke in his (cough) testimony.
That’s a fact, not a thought. Perhaps try having more coherent thoughts?
Just speculating on Ravenman’s desire for a cite.
Speaking of, surely you can substantiate the alleged fact that Maj. Gen. Roberson “knows not of what he spoke in his testimony?”
I’ve read it plenty. You can’t provide a cite that it is factually based, so as far as I can tell it isn’t. We have provided cites from the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Accountability Review Board which state in no uncertain terms that no military response was possible.
Now you’re implying that you got that scenario from someone – was it from General Dempsey? Was it from Airman First Class Joey Fingerbooger? Was it from abovetopsecret.com? Nobody knows but you, and you won’t provide a cite.
So we have cites that no military response was possible from two congressional committees with expertise and jurisdiction over these sorts of things, but another cite from the Accountability Review Board. Earlier in the thread I linked to specific testimony from Admiral Mullen that formed the basis of the ARB’s conclusions. In response, you play coy and imply that you got it from a well-placed source – does this source even know the difference between AFRICOM and AFRICON? You certainly haven’t established that.
The problem isn’t that people haven’t read what you have posted. The problem is that the words you posted are unsubstantiated, at odds with other conclusions from experts that are on the record, and your post looks like made-up bullshit. The more I read it, the more it continues to look like made-up bullshit, so asking me to read it again with only harm your cause further.
Now make with the cites or take your nonsense to the conspiracy theory websites.
I re-read. You know what it needs?
A giant spider.
Where’s your cite from the personnel stationed at Aviano? Without that you have nothing but here-say.
Of course, let’s give credit where credit is due and not overlook all the politically-motivated 2nd-hand he-said she-said “cites” you have so graciously provided. I’d giver greater credibility to Airman finger-booger than General brown lips any day, myself.
Yes, because you’ll agree with anything that paints Obama or Clinton in a bad light, no matter who says it; no matter who refutes it.
If an alcoholic bum said he had evidence that Obama did something wrong, I bet you’d believe him over the word of Our Savior Jesus Christ should He disprove that assertion.
Do you have a cite containing testimony from personnel stationed at Aviano? Or are just assuming that they’d contradict Maj. Gen. Roberson, because you’d like to believe that?
ALWAYS with the giant fucking spider.
[sub]You and Streisand’s former hairdresser owe me a new laptop. Mine’s sprayed with Mt Dew because of you[/sub]
I pointed out the equipment listed in the inventory of the people who specialize in special ops missions. take it up with them if you think they or their equipment are foolish. You and a number of people ranted on how hard it was to get an airplane loaded, fueled and airborne and I pointed out how easy it was and was done every single day in the freight industry. If you think specially trained troops who do nothing but plan for such contingencies can’t do the simple tasks done in the civilian world then I don’t know what do tell you. Nothing I suggested was particularly difficult or high tech.
You didn’t know even the basics of transport logistics. Not even the tiniest bit. That’s a polite way of saying it. I’ve set up transport for oil equipment and had it delivered to the middle of nowhere on a grass strip with no ground handlers. I did this on-the-fly with nothing but a telephone. The freight was moving before I had a destination for it. If I can knock this out on the side while doing my regular job I’m pretty sure highly trained troops can do it with the entire backing of the US military, NSA, and CIA.
We’re not saying THEY are foolish; because they didn’t DO anything foolish. We’re saying that your proposal is foolish when multiple Secretaries of Defense, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commanders, an independent review board, and multiple congressional committee investigations (one headed by the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee) all conclude that the Department of Defense wasn’t able to accomplish what you say they should have done.
Why is it that all the experts I listed above don’t agree with you? How can they all be so wrong, and little ol’ you, an Internet expert and former employee at an airport, knows so much more than they do, what with their several centuries’ worth of combined military experience?