Yes. It seems pretty simple. Lots of things seem simple; not all of them are.
Here’s the point: you are operating under a cloud of ignorance, and at this point I kinda have to assume it’s willful. You have a very wrong idea of how armed response works, and you’re using that to justify your obvious political agenda.
I’m sorry. I’d like to be wrong about that. If you’re really interested in understanding why your assumptions are flawed, I’m willing to try to explain further, perhaps in a different way that might help with understanding. But I’m not confident you’re willing to even accept that your assumptions might be flawed.
I’m happy to leave it at this: the US Armed Forces, like life, are not an action movie.
I’m operating under a cloud of secrecy. This would never had made the news if Obama was transparent about the actions taken. If he can justify the decisions made then all is well.
This is not the road he took. What happened after the attack as a willful attempt to mislead the public. It was no accident that Rice dropped out of the sky with talking points about a movie director and protests. These are not the actions of someone who made the right decisions.
He ran on a platform of transparency. How do you not get the hypocrisy of this?
No, it’s not the standard. The standard is that we hold elected officials accountable. When that is stonewalled the natural reaction should be to question why. If it was a mistake then it was a mistake he needs to own up to. If it’s not a mistake then he gets credit for making the right decision.
People died defending US interests and it involved an extended period of time sufficient to re-secure the facilities. It doesn’t make sense on the face of it that additional security wouldn’t have made a difference.
We have a military history of going after downed pilots and risking lives to save lives. We have a history of police officers saving lives from snipers. Of them rushing to a terrorist bombing and not away from it. Of Secret Service agents taking a bullet for a President. I find it disturbing that people would think we would behave otherwise.
So can I take that to mean you’ve given up on the “magical special forces could have teleported in and fixed everything” angle?
Obviously you’re free to believe that. The evidence does not support it.
Ah, there’s the crux. Are you really mad that the guy you don’t like might be a hypocrite? Or are you just using it as another reason not to like the guy?
No, just calling bullshit on the idea that you wouldn’t have been outraged in any scenario, regardless of how ‘transparent’ the president would have been.
What are you talking about? How hard is it to grab standard issue munitions and equipment and fly from Italy to Libya?
It’s a matter of record that Rice delivered talking points on the subject. Are you suggesting this was done independently on her part?
you’re defending his decision in the face of the hypocrisy. You can argue the outcome of a decision but you can’t really defend the lack of transparency.
I’m trying to follow you here. Given that the attack on the Consulate was over in about an hour, surely you recognize that there’s no chance that a team from Europe could be assembled, and delivered, in time to make a difference, yes?
So, I take it you’re referring to the later attack on the CIA annex. Given that the fatalities came from a mortar shell, how could more ground troops have prevented this? An 81mm mortar has a range of over 6,000 yards, and mortars by their nature don’t require line of sight.
As an observer of this thread I may as well chime in. Think of it as my vote in a poll, if nothing else.
Your military scenarios are fantastical bullshit. Does “standard munitions and equipment” include your motorcycles? If so, let us envision deploying them from an airplane over the city. We kick six bikes out of the airplane with parachutes attached, and half a dozen highly trained special forces members also jump. Shall we assume that each of them is carrying all the “munitions” he/they may need, or do you want to complicate this up with some additional packages on their own 'chutes? I don’t really care either way, so let’s keep it simple – 6 bikes, 6 guys, 12 ‘chutes.
Tell me, have you ever participated in a parachute drop, military or sport? Heck, have you ever even seen one? The 12 items are going to arrive at 12 different locations, scattered over (if they are very, very lucky) several blocks of the city. Some will land on rooftops. Some will likely become entangled in electrical or other wires, or antennas or other spires. Of the 6 bikes, probably 3 will survive the trip in operating condition. (Just my guess, I admit. This drop might not be as bad as the cluster-fuck that was Normandy, but then again, it might.) How many of those bikes will be immediately appropriated by the locals as ‘manna from heaven’? So our first job will be to get all the personnel together, then have them gather whatever equipment survives and hasn’t been stolen. We must assume, for the sake of your pathetic argument, that no locals attempt to interfere with armed men parachuting into their fair city. Then our finest can start the bike ride through the unfriendly streets to they-know-not-what. Doubled up at best, and carrying a few hundredweight of shoulder mount missiles and other assorted paraphernalia to boot. Yeah, superb training and preparation will overcome those little obstacles. I need not go on with this aspect of your ridiculous argument. A “rescue” it would not be.
As for Rice, you’ve been asked repeatedly to identify the actual lie you claim she uttered, but you have not done so. That’s because you can’t. Her description of the event was couched in sufficient generalities that “blaming it on a video” is unsupported by fact.
As for hypocrisy, since there was no lie, hence no cover-up, there was no hypocrisy.
Obviously more difficult than you seem to think. Apart from logistics, which are a real thing, you’re talking about 1100 miles. Again, this is not an action movie where stuff just happens in a jump cut.
Sure, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting, right. :rolleyes:
Fine, I’ll bite. I’m suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to support the assertions that “what happened after the attack [was] a willful attempt to mislead the public,” that “Rice dropped out of the sky,” or that either has anything to do with transparency.
Nope, I’m not defending anything. But if I were so inclined I certainly could defend the so-called “lack of transparency.”
More relevantly, you’re trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth here. Firstly, the administration completely fucked up by not instantly knowing the entire tactical situation and then magically inserting the Expendables via Dropship…and secondly, that would have been juuuuuust fine if only the administrations had just been upfront about it.
Again, I just can’t help but think that you’re only grasping at anything you can in order to be able to flog your hatred of the President.
It was a 2 hr attack. So yes, I think they could have saved them. But again, an alternate story was presented to the public and the decisions made kept from Congress
Yes, doing their level best at one of the jobs they do best (misinformation). Well played.
The ambassador’s relatives and family might take issue with that characterization.
Happens all the time. Ever heard the term “fog of war?”
For someone who does not know the meaning of the word “deployed” in this context, you make an incredibly spurious argument. They were already “deployed.” That is what they were “deployed” there for - to do that job. As a 20 year military veteran of several “deployments,” I can assure you with unbiased certainty that the real fun never started until weeks or months “after” the “deployment” took place.
I would suggest some members of this forum are abusing their capacity to communicate with dishonest calls for cites when the facts belie their reasoning.
As unfortunate as that was for all involved, viewing it strictly from a tactical battle outcome standpoint, it’s pretty clear we won it big time with hundreds of dead skinnies compared to a handful of our own.
They need to expend those stocks before FY end for budget panning purposes? :smack:
Naw, straw man is always an easy one here.
Unwittingly oblivious (is that redundant?) to the certain folly of that rug disappearing from beneath them even as their continued desperate attempts at misdirection were taking place.
I saw the televised press conference - good enough for me.
It could probably be “close” to a mile, but the LZ radius clearance request to an AC-130 would probably be a lot smaller AND closer to the fight.
Your imaginary concept of how the operation might have unfolded is just not credible. Did you dream that up right off the top? Armored vehicles with parachutes? Really? :rolleyes:
Again, tell it to the ambassador’s family and relatives. Sheesh. Wonder how you’d feel if your brother was stationed there. Nah, just a few dead Americans, no biggie, let it go.
Riiiiight. This is the type of thinking that frames the minds on the other side of this issue. It is characterized by specious arguments contrived with immoral, selfish, politically-motivated tripe.
When it’s all said and done, ultimate responsibility for setting the stage lies at Hillary’s feet, so she’s done - stick a fork in 'er.
Blame Magiver, he’s the man with the plan to save everyone in a blaze of air-dropped tanks. Or parachuted Vespas now, I dunno.
Last I checked, parachute assaults were still very WW2 anyhow - although we froggies dropped a particularly ninja one in Mali recently. I strongly suspect it was done just to be cool though :), since helicopter insertions are much better and safer, generally speaking.
Well, you can see how they would not be in a hurry to broadcast the fact that they had a building full of agents and spy shit there. Not before they’d cleared the site and nuked it from orbit, figuratively speaking.
Yes. It means that intelligence will always be spotty or somewhat inaccurate in some regards. That doesn’t mean soldiers are sent blindly to make it up as they go along.
Skinnies ? Really ?
Per the article quoted earlier in the thread (look for “conservative columnist”), there were no AC-130s available to the commander in charge of that particular theatre. Not that an AC-130 pouring down hate and discontent over such a densely packed urban area would have been a particularly good idea…