Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 11, 2014

In a new report released on Tuesday, the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene. "Given the military's preparations on Sept. 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack," the report concludes. (Summary from thinkprogress.org.)

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Majority members believe the regional and global force posture assumed by the military on September 11, 2012 limited the response," the report continues. "Majority members recognize, of course, that it is impossible for the Department of Defense to have adequate forces prepared to respond immediately to every conceivable global contingency. Ensuring that preparations exist for some likely possibilities is not to be confused with the ability to anticipate all prospective circumstances, especially in highly volatile regions."

The night of the attack, the United States had few military assets within the region, the report reads, requiring the transport of soldiers from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stationed in Germany to Libya, a trip that took several hours. Once there, the majority of the reinforcements were given the order to remain in Tripoli to prevent a possible attack on the U.S. Embassy itself, a distinct possibility in the eyes of the Pentagon. The Pentagon also confirmed to the HASC that there were no AC-130 gunships or armed drones within the region that night, another topic of speculation from right-wing media outlets.


While this should be the definitive end to any Benghazi speculations, I'm not naive enough to believe these findings matter one whit even if they come from the GOP. The only question remaining is how this GOP report will be framed against the members who issued it. This should be good.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course, the military commanders said this at the time, but the GOP spin was overwhelming facts with biased perspectives yet again.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Among the Republican findings:

IV. The U.S. military's response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.

V. There was no "stand down" order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.
armedservices.house.gov

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

GOP Report? What a load.

#4 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

GOP Report? What a load.

"Majority Interim Report: Benghazi Investigation Update"

Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon
Committee on Armed Services
February 2014


Who's in the MAJORITY in the House Wissie and what party boasts Buck as it's member?

It's fairly pathetic not to even comprehend the title and assume wrongly, but hey, it's so you.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Wissie, cant stand the truth if it doesnt fit the narrative.

In a 'nut' shell. This is today's GOP.

"We couldnt possibly be wrong. Any evidence to the contrary to GOP narrative must be false".

Wissie comes thru with the party line denial.

Way to go, Wissie.

#6 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-11 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Bwahahaha. Thinkprogress and it's sidekick MediaMatters is Tony's idea of journalism. Thanks for the laugh, girls.

#7 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Think Progress did not author the report.

Wissie doesnt know the difference between the report and where the report was presented.

Thank YOU for the laugh, Wissie.

BTW, we still have a bet on a Walker conviction.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-11 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Key findings laid out at the beginning of the actual report:

Findings

I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White
House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security
situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public
statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment
conducted at the time.

II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the
administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no
intelligence of a specific "imminent" threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State,
which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of
Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi
that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President
subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

IV. The U.S. military's response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of
the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how
the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective
length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to
prepare for a more extended operation.

V. There was no "stand down" order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who
sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack
were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and
responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the
Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating

Those are some pretty unflattering findings, Tony. They point to a degree of laziness, incompetence and even negligence on the part of the administration and the State Department.

By themselves, these things are not worthy of being deemed a 'scandal', but they sure don't paint this administration in a positive light.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Military that was not on the scene couldn't help a bunch of sitting ducks when the inevitable happened?

OMG, what a revelation!

The way to save these people would have been to not make them sitting ducks in the first place.

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-11 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

First good for Roma to post a original document and not his usual Think Progress/Salon,Media Matters tripe.

"Colonel Gibson: Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place. "Stand down" implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities"

"As Lieutenant Colonel Gibson noted to the committee, there is no doubt the instructions to remain in Tripoli to assist in protecting embassy staff was a "legal and lawful" order with which he properly complied."

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, we still have a bet on a Walker conviction.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

Yeah, how long is that on? Until they start the embalming pump after he passes?

#12 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those are some pretty unflattering findings, Tony.

I don't believe I've ever said the circumstances were anything but unflattering toward the Administration Jeff. It was a bureaucratic tragedy, but one unfortunately predictable because of how our government functions regardless of who holds the White House. The report is also very clear that it was near impossible to foresee imminent trouble at that one particular location over any other in Muslim countries that saw 20+ demonstrations on 9/11/12 including the penetration of our Cairo embassy that day.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

People who persistently pound the Benghazi talking point while ignoring the trillion fold larger Iraq and Afghan disaster are brain dead partisan shills. Even the larger picture of what has happened to Libya since we staged that coup is more important. We are destabilizing the entire region and creating many enemies by making lives in that region ever more miserable.

#14 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-11 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#12, till he is convicted or acquitted. This is the same investigation that was going on when we made the bet. It's only $20 bucks, big spender, dont welch on a bet that small.

#15 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-11 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The way to save these people would have been to not make them sitting ducks in the first place...Sully.

It was a CIA operation, Sully. Those guys cant do their stuff from home.
It is in the most unstable region of the world. Fact is, we have to be able to go where the danger is.

They understood where they were working.

#16 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-11 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Think Progress did not author the report.

Wissie doesnt know the difference between the report and where the report was presented.

Thank YOU for the laugh, Wissie.

It's no laughing matter that so many remain willfully ignorant because they chose to impugn the messenger without regard for the veracity of nor the breadth of the information presented. However, many have no problem buying into any and every thing that paints their opposition in a negative light even when there isn't a shred of credible evidence to back up their invented outrages.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeah, how long is that on?"

Fifty Years. Duh!

#18 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-11 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12, till he is convicted or acquitted. This is the same investigation that was going on when we made the bet. It's only $20 bucks, big spender, dont welch on a bet that small.

#15 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

We bet on the first John Doe probe, which has been closed.
I'll take cash.

This is the second secret probe involving Walker launched by Milwaukee County prosecutors. The first John Doe investigation, which closed in 2013 after nearly three years, led to criminal convictions of six individuals, including three former Walker aides, an appointee and a major campaign contributor.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: www.jsonline.com
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13

Fair enough, Tony.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

However, many have no problem buying into any and every thing that paints their opposition in a negative light even when there isn't a shred of credible evidence to back up their invented outrages.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma

You mean invented like Susan Rice and her Talk Show tales?

#21 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was a CIA operation, Sully. Those guys cant do their stuff from home.

It is in the most unstable region of the world. Fact is, we have to be able to go where the danger is.

They understood where they were working.

This has been the point since day one and the reason I've found the GOP's actions so irresponsible and reprehensible. The US Government spends billions to keep it's clandestine operations secret and the GOP members of the intelligence committees knew what the Benghazi front truthfully was. The State Department isn't directly responsible for the security of field CIA operations though the relationship apparently is complicated.

I certainly hope better processes have been put in place in all our facilities in hostile nations. THAT is the lesson of Benghazi, though Sully is right on his point as well.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

Like we didn't hear anything from your side about Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. Pot meet Kettle

#23 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

willfully ignorant because they chose to impugn the messenger without regard for the veracity of nor the breadth of the information presented.
#17 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Please remember this next time someone post an article from Heritage, CATO or anything from FOX news.

#24 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony,

I have a problem with the denials of requests for additional security. I've yet to see any credible explanation as to why they were denied.

I have a problem that a greater effort wasn't made by the military to try and lend support.

I have a bigger problem that both the President and Sec of State appeared awfully disengaged and unconcerned about this as it was unfolding. No, I wouldn't have expected either of them to parachute in with a military rifle and begin firing away. But a little more transparency as to how closely they were following events as they happened would be nice.

All of this is ugly enough.

Where I have a MUCH bigger problem is perpetuating the lie about the Youtube video; even going so far as to arrest the producer of said video on trumped-up charges. I also have a much bigger problem with the fact that no effort appears to have been made to bring retribution on the attackers in spite of staunch assurances by both Obama and Clinton that we would do just that.

It's the aftermath of this event that pushes the whole thing toward 'scandal territory'.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It was a CIA operation, Sully. Those guys cant do their stuff from home.
It is in the most unstable region of the world. Fact is, we have to be able to go where the danger is."

Of course Libya is unstable. We de-stabilized it.

"They understood where they were working."

Sure just like a guy sticks his head in an alligator's mouth three times a day in front of tourists is a respected "alligator expert" right up until the point where he gets his head chomped.

Obviously, they put themselves in more danger than they believed they were in.

#26 | Posted by sully at 2014-02-11 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have a problem...

I have a problem...

I have a bigger problem...

I also have a much bigger problem...

It's the aftermath of this event that pushes the whole thing toward 'scandal territory'.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ

There's little doubt in my mind that a significant partisan would have so many problems... Or that you'd continue to try and manufacture a scandal.

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-11 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The first John Doe investigation, which closed in 2013 after nearly three years, led to criminal convictions of six individuals, including three former Walker aides, an appointee and a major campaign contributor
#19 | Posted by wisgod

See, the man's a Saint. It's only those he surrounds himself with that are the bad apples.

#28 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-11 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

There's little doubt in my mind that a significant partisan would have so many problems... Or that you'd continue to try and manufacture a scandal.

#27 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Re-read my post and get back to me.

I am not manufacturing anything.

I take it you have no problem with anything regarding Benghazi?

It couldn't have possibly been handled better.

You're down with the lie repeated over and over about the Youtube video being the cause for the attack?

You're satisfied with the efforts being made to bring retribution to the attackers?

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's little doubt in my mind that a significant partisan would have so many problems... Or that you'd continue to try and manufacture a scandal.

#27 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

'
I find it humorous that you appear to define 'partisan' as any criticism of Dems in general and this president in particular.

But hey, at least you didn't call me a racist (or was that implied?).

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

See, the man's a Saint. It's only those he surrounds himself with that are the bad apples.

#28 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Yeah, he could use some vetting lessons from The President.

#31 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have a problem with the denials of requests for additional security. I've yet to see any credible explanation as to why they were denied.

In a vacuum, yes, but I have no idea how many other embassies/consulates made similar requests and what transpired with them as well. It's too easy to view Benghazi as a singular point when in reality until 9/11/12 it was just one of hundreds.

I have a problem that a greater effort wasn't made by the military to try and lend support.

Again, the military does not respond to spies under attack. Libya is a sovereign nation regardless of how dysfunctional it's government was at the time and likely still is. We have to ask permission to introduce military into a country and only operate under the rules of engagement established by the host country. This is why the first responders from Tripoli were detained at the Benghazi airport for hours before the Libyan government released them to proceed to the annex.

What it Chechen rebels stormed a Russian embassy in the US and Putin wasn't happy with our police response? Would we want him to send Russian military into our nation to protect his people? I realize this is a stretch, but the point remains the same: The US does not have carte blanche to launch military strikes in other countries without their permission and this should have been made manifest from the outset.

Where I have a MUCH bigger problem is perpetuating the lie about the Youtube video; even going so far as to arrest the producer of said video on trumped-up charges. I also have a much bigger problem with the fact that no effort appears to have been made to bring retribution on the attackers in spite of staunch assurances by both Obama and Clinton that we would do just that.

There was no lie and all you have to do is look up the international reporting - including that done by the BBC on the ground in Benghazi that night and in subsequent days after the attacks - to see that protests abounded in the ME on 9/11/12 over the VIDEO; protests that were called for from mosques the world over. I posted volumes of first hand accounts of this in the days after 9/11/12 and there has been follow-up articles recently. At the time of the attack, local Bengahzians formed to protest and were joined by coordinated militia members who proceeded to lay siege to the consulate and annex. The US Government only reported what the whole world was seeing from it's own reporters on the ground.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here are a couple extemporaneous to the attacks:

Mosaic News - 09/12/12

US ambassador to Libya killed in consulate attack, anger sweeps the Muslim world over American film insulting Islam,...

news.linktv.org

13 September 2012

The US is investigating whether the attack in Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people was planned in advance, officials say.

The assault had earlier been thought to have been a spontaneous reaction to protests over an anti-Islamic film.

On Wednesday, demonstrators in Cairo angry at the film - Innocence of Muslims - had breached the walls of the US embassy and torn down the flag.

www.bbc.co.uk

#33 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is another:

September 17, 2012

The worldwide protests against anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims: By the numbers An incendiary U.S.-made film smearing the Prophet Muhammad has sparked outrage in at least 20 countries from Libya to Australia, triggering deaths and dozens of arrests.

20+
Countries that have experienced protests triggered by the film trailer, including Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Iran

400
Demonstrators who took to the streets in Sydney, Australia

2
Australian police reportedly injured

17
Sydney protesters reportedly injured

10
Protesters who have died in the worldwide riots

2,000
Marchers who took to the streets in the Afghan capital of Kabul

50
Policemen who sustained wounds during the Kabul protests

3,000
Students and teachers who protested in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province. Students as young as 12 were reportedly told to skip class by their instructors to attend the protests

1
Country (Sudan) that denied U.S. Marines entry as the Pentagon bolsters security measures

128
U.S. diplomats and members of the U.S. embassy staff evacuated from Tunisia

1.5 billion
Worldwide Muslim population

$100,000
Reported cost of the obscure, low-budget film. (Read more about it here.)

50
Protesters arrested in Libya over the U.S. consulate attack last Tuesday, which killed 4 Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens
theweek.com


I don't believe that the Australian news company was carrying water for the Obama Administration.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#30 | Posted by JeffJ

Perhaps it is just this President.

I don't think anybody on this site melted down harder than you did between November 5th, 2008.. and before Obama was even sworn into office.

#35 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-11 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

How would the military change what happened? How much military would be needed? Would more military presence have prevented the 11 embassy attacks between 2001 and 2008? Why do we have embassies in hostile nations?

And finally, the ambassador died from smoke inhalation in his poorly constructed safe room. What was the strategic military response going to be? Traveling back in time to properly construct the room?

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure President Rmoney would have done it.

#37 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-11 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"This report about Benghazi is just a distraction from what really happened in Benghazi."

- Fox News

#38 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-02-11 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

And finally, the ambassador died from smoke inhalation in his poorly constructed safe room. What was the strategic military response going to be? Traveling back in time to properly construct the room?

#36 | Posted by ClownShack

Or squash the Video?

#39 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm just glad that this report will be distributed to all the Americans who have listened to the Republican Benghazi propaganda all these months. I'm sure that millions of Americans who heard it will now, out of fairness and a desire to know the truth, read it and understand that they have been lied to by members of Congress, Fox News and lots of other pundits who knew better.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

What is Rand Paul going to talk about now...just Monica Lewinski?

#41 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

There was no lie and all you have to do is look up the international reporting - including that done by the BBC on the ground in Benghazi that night and in subsequent days after the attacks -

According to the source that you linked on for this thread:

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi
that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry
, and the President
subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bull ---- ! Some military men went to Benghazi of their own accord and arrived in time to offer resistance and save some lives. Had their been more support the outcome would have been better, certainly more honorable. Personally, I believe the entire federal government, with the exception of a handful, have sold America down the river.

#43 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-02-11 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't think anybody on this site melted down harder than you did between November 5th, 2008.. and before Obama was even sworn into office.
#35 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

What in the world are you talking about?

I freely admit that I got into quite a number of heated arguments with site members during the campaign. But that is commonplace for most on this site during campaign season. Do you remember the primaries? Corky and the Obama supporters were at each others' throats far worse. My point is this is a very contentious place during campaign season.

I have no recollection of any kind of 'meltdown' between election day and inauguration day.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

Its always been obvious that "protesters" normally don't show up with RPG's and other heavy weaponry, but the point always was that the international protests against the video spurred on by the Imans (and particularly the one in Cairo) had a catalyzing effect on the Benghazians, seeing as how their action took place after the day's events were completed in other countries.

It has been the height of stupidity to hold the rigid belief that the video had no influence on the events leading to the attacks as though such an acknowledgement precluded that the acts themselves weren't coordinated and acts of terrorism. It wasn't an attempt to cover-up the truth; it was simply one part of the overall truth.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

It has been the height of stupidity to hold the rigid belief that the video had no influence on the events leading to the attacks as though such an acknowledgement precluded that the acts themselves weren't coordinated and acts of terrorism. It wasn't an attempt to cover-up the truth; it was simply one part of the overall truth.

#45 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

That interpretation is generous to the point of an outright giveaway.

Internal briefings in the immediate aftermath in no way pointed to any kind of protest and certainly not a 'spontaneous' protest.

Here is, in part, what Susan Rice told Jake Tapper (5 days after the attack):

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

Before she and the administration knew this was a false claim, but they went ahead with it anyways.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-11 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm just glad that this report will be distributed to all the Americans who have listened to the Republican Benghazi propaganda all these months. I'm sure that millions of Americans who heard it will now, out of fairness and a desire to know the truth, read it and understand that they have been lied to by members of Congress, Fox News and lots of other pundits who knew better.

#40 | Posted by danni

Sure, I'm sure his approval rating will be over 40 by this time tomorrow. Maybe a few Democrats up for re-election will even be seen with him.

#47 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-11 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one has a crystal ball.. but hey... Sept 11th ? even a high school kid would have thought "Maybe we should be ready for something"

#48 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-11 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46

It always has been nothing more than a distraction trying to parse who said what, when and why. There is not one iota of evidence to support that Rice said anything publicly that wasn't given her by the joint intelligence/military office who at that time still hadn't decided to remove the video/protest language until right before her Sunday appearances of which she wasn't informed until afterwards.

The genesis of the attacks is and was irrelevant to the importance of discovering who did them and how they coordinated. Public statements within the US media had nothing to do with this nor did they retard any investigations.

And is the point of outrage that the Obama Administration was afraid of the truth of Benghazi? When has this been an impediment to the US media investigating the facts underlying the attacks? In my opinion, it hasn't been and many remain woefully ignorant of the facts because they've been distracted by the false narrative of cover-up when there never was one. The talking points changed as the facts dictated that they did, but there is no factual basis for denying the role the global video protests played in the original assessments on Benghazi, even though they were later amended and abandoned by the US Government.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is Rand Paul going to talk about now...just Monica Lewinski?

#41 | POSTED BY DANNI

Even Unkle Karl pointed out today how stupid that is as a strategery.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-11 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's see. An anti-Muslim video made and debuted at the end of 2011 is coincidentally dubbed into Arabic 9 months later and released September 8 three days before The anniversary of 9/11. Because coincidences like that happen all the time.

Face it. Our American intelligence, response, and strategy failed. Hindsight being 20-20, one would think an anti-Muslim video, which had been available for months, being released in Arabic days before the 9/11 anniversary would cause concern for those in charge of security for our embassies in Arabic countries.

Did someone fail to do their job? Absolutely. I would think the three blind mice saw this coming.
Is that in another itself enough to discredit Hillary Clinton? I have serious doubts about that.
Are our government officials stupid? Evidently.

#51 | Posted by gavaster at 2014-02-11 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no recollection of any kind of 'meltdown' between election day and inauguration day.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Of course you don't.

#52 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-11 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

It's interesting that idiotic notions about Benghazi aren't considered "conspiracy theories".

Republicans, completely okay with 9/11. Unable to comprehend how Benghazi slipped through the cracks.

You morons need new barking orders. Fake birth certificate, secret Muslim, trying to spread sharia law, taking away our guns, and Benghazi are all dead ends.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The military cannot solve or prevent all of the disasters and folly caused by incompetent diplomats and politicians. The full weight of the Benghazi disaster falls directly on the frail shoulders of obama and Hillary, neither of which are qualified to hold high office.

#54 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-02-11 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no recollection of any kind of 'meltdown' between election day and inauguration day.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

neither does Whatsleft.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

including that done by the BBC on the ground in Benghazi that night and in subsequent days after the attacks - to see that protests abounded in the ME on 9/11/12 over the VIDEO;
#32 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You should get some kind of medal of honor from the DNC for continuing to push that bunch of crap.

#56 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Republicans, completely okay with 9/11.
#53 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Where were you in the years after 9/11? Maybe you have heard of the "9/11 Commission"?

#57 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

You should get some kind of medal of honor from the DNC for continuing to push that bunch of crap.

#56 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-02-11 06:05 PM | FLAG:

Is it a similar medal to the one you're receiving from the RNC for parroting their bull?

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Republicans, completely okay with 9/11.
#53 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Where were you in the years after 9/11? Maybe you have heard of the "9/11 Commission"?
#57 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-02-11 06:09 PM | FLAG:

Did the 9/11 commission explain why months of intelligence were ignored by the BushJr administration?

Thanks for proving my point.

You are, and will always be, a partisan hack.

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1


Obviously, they put themselves in more danger than they believed they were in.
#26 | Posted by sully

H. Clinton and Obama need to take the blame for this and move on rather than try and spin it. It's just going to ruin Clinton's attempt in 2016. This will not go away .

#60 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

No I'm just waiting for the Special Prosecutor for Benghazi Attack to be appointed. What ever or who ever do you think could be standing in the way of that?

#61 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I proved nothing and you proved you know very little about the 9/11 commission report but you are great at liberal talking points.

I'm not taking issue with the Benghazi attack nor do I take issue with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor for that matter only what happens later. Government is almost NEVER pro active but it dam well better have a plan once the crap hits the oscillating device. Bush did, Obama punted. IMO but again I'll wait for the Special Prosecutor.

#62 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

No I'm just waiting for the Special Prosecutor for Benghazi Attack to be appointed. What ever or who ever do you think could be standing in the way of that?
#61 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-02-11 06:19 PM | FLAG:

It will probably be the same people that investigated the 11 embassy attacks that happened between 2001 and 2008.

Their results were good enough for you then. I am sure you'll be just as content now.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bush did,

Really?? Bush did?! And that's the story your sticking with?

What was bushjr's plan? Getting us into Iraq? Starting two wars that will pay for themselves? Expecting to be welcomed as liberators? Telling America the war will be only a few months long? Claiming mission accomplished? Not listening to anyone when they asked for anything? Lying to America? Ignoring Osama Bin Laden? WMDs?

Please PA, what was BushJr's plan?

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You should get some kind of medal of honor from the DNC for continuing to push that bunch of crap.

#56 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

Only a partisan hack would fail to notice that the Obama Administration and the DNC disagree with the causation I've simply reported from international media sources uncorrupted by US politics.

It's the complete and utter ignorance of US citizens over events that occur in other nations - which don't have a direct connection to the United States - that is really the problem here. Things that were internationally known by 9/13/12 remain controversial here because our media cannot competently report facts when there are lies and innuendos to forward, guaranteeing the sheep remain blissfully unaware of the complete narrative independent of partisan bias and spin.

Complicated doesn't play in our media regardless of sides unless it fits into a 30 second soundbite of outrage.

#65 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

No I want the one that cost Scooter Libby his job and law license for nothing.

#66 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It will probably be the same people that investigated the 11 embassy attacks that happened between 2001 and 2008.

Their results were good enough for you then. I am sure you'll be just as content now.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack

So, you are admitting that Obama did a terrible job protecting Embassies?

#67 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

What was bushjr's plan? Getting us into Iraq? Starting two wars that will pay for themselves? Expecting to be welcomed as liberators? Telling America the war will be only a few months long? Claiming mission accomplished? Not listening to anyone when they asked for anything? Lying to America? Ignoring Osama Bin Laden? WMDs?

Please PA, what was BushJr's plan?

#64 | Posted by ClownShack

Sounds like you are talking about Obama.

Really, if you change the names and the events, you get the same rhetoric.

#68 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

The news right after a incident often bears no resemblance to the truth and in most cases most people understand that. That would not be you. almost no one even knew about the obscure You Tube video.

The fact that Ambassador Susan Rice made five appearances on Sunday morning talk shows spinning this would make most people go Hmmmmm?

Not to mention that the White House end up retracting that claim after a couple of weeks.

#69 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

H. Clinton and Obama need to take the blame for this and move on rather than try and spin it. It's just going to ruin Clinton's attempt in 2016. This will not go away .
#60 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 06:14 PM | FLAG:

They need to take blame for what?

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

No I want the one that cost Scooter Libby his job and law license for nothing.
#66 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-02-11 06:35 PM

So this is a grudge thing? Cool. Got it.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Please PA, what was BushJr's plan?
#64 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Congress's plan was called the Patriot Act, you may of heard of it?

See one of your many faults is that you lack consistency. I on the other hand accept that government is not always going to keep us safe and that successful attacks will happen. You only care if they happen when a Republican is in the White House.

#72 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It will probably be the same people that investigated the 11 embassy attacks that happened between 2001 and 2008.
Their results were good enough for you then. I am sure you'll be just as content now.
#63 | Posted by ClownShack

So, you are admitting that Obama did a terrible job protecting Embassies?
#67 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 06:42 PM | FLAG:

So, you read what I wrote, and that was your response?

Not able to comprehend what you read?

It actually makes sense given your posting history.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#71 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

No it's a rule of law thing. We can go into Alberto Gonzales or Clinton's firing of all the U.S. Attorneys? Consistency, Clown, consistency.

#74 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Sorry but someone did a terrible job.

Other Western nations bailed out of Benghazi because of increasing terrorism.
Why did the US stay even the UK pulled out?
Especially without increasing security on the anniversary of 9/11?

But again I'm more concerned about what happened later.

#75 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-02-11 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress's plan was called the Patriot Act, you may of heard of it?

Wow! Way to move those heavy goal posts PA!

Congress's plan huh?

And here I thought you wrote; "Government is almost NEVER pro active but it dam well better have a plan once the crap hits the oscillating device. Bush did, Obama punted."

So what you're saying is, after 9/11, congress created the patriot act and Bush acted on it.

After Benghazi, congress created __________ and Obama punted.

Got it. So you're misplaced anger should be directed to congress for not having created another patriot act.

See one of your many faults is that you lack consistency. I on the other hand accept that government is not always going to keep us safe and that successful attacks will happen. You only care if they happen when a Republican is in the White House.
#72 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2014-02-11 06:52 PM | FLAG:

Yea yea, sure, I'm always inconsistent. I'm sure you got proof of that.

You on the other hand can't go two posts without changing "what you meant to say".

By the way. What was BushJr's response to the 11 embassy attacks that occurred during his 8 year administration?

#76 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#55 | Posted by eberly

That's one of the biggest problems in America.. short memories.

#77 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-02-11 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

They need to take blame for what?
#70 | Posted by ClownShack

You need a little more practice, but you could easily be Obama or Hilary junior. Just more for us to poke fun at.

#78 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

They need to take blame for what?
#70 | Posted by ClownShack

You need a little more practice, but you could easily be Obama or Hilary junior. Just more for us to poke fun at.
#78 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 07:18 PM

So you have no clue what you're trying to blame them for? Got it.

Here's the provided talking point, you're supposed to blame them for their reaction to Benghazi, although, theres nothing there to hold them accountable for.

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Ah, but they could have tried - and that would have been worth something in the eyes of most Americans. In the Iran Hostage Crisis President Carters initiative failed, but at least he tried. Unfortunately we now have a president who hid for hours {still no one will acknowledge where he was, but it was not the War Room} so that he would not have to make a decision - a leader? -- Anything BUT!

#80 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-11 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Something is rotten in Denmark.

Aviano airbase being home to the 31st Fighter Wing which is described as always being in a High State of readiness. It's roughly 1,000 miles from Benghazi

The operational cruise range of an F16 is 1,407 miles at 577 MPH. About a 1 1/2 hour trip. Still you need fuel to get back and to cause havoc. They need to carry munitions, so cut the range to 1,000 miles and they have to be refueled before they engage. What about a tanker? None? then a stop at NAS Sigonella, then on to Benghazi.

Totally possible. Worse case they could have been there 3.5 hours from the initial order. There was an 8 hour gap between the time officials in Benghazi knew they were in trouble and lights out for all of them. Plenty of time to get assets in the area.

Let's put it this way. Would it have been possible if Obama were on the ground in Benghazi at the time? I'll bet it would have been.

So what they are really saying is. The personnel at Benghazi were expendable.

#81 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-11 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

they could have tried - and that would have been worth something in the eyes of most Americans.

Okay, cool, they could of tried to do what? I'm still waiting on a plan of action. One which no one has.

LeastAmerican wants to blame Obama and Hillary for something, yet he doesn't even know what.

In the Iran Hostage Crisis President Carters initiative failed, but at least he tried.

Too bad Carter wasn't aware that the 1% had made a deal with Iran to hold onto the hostages until after Reagan's election.

Unfortunately we now have a president who hid for hours {still no one will acknowledge where he was, but it was not the War Room} so that he would not have to make a decision - a leader? -- Anything BUT!
#80 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2014-02-11 07:47 PM

Where was he hiding? In a classroom full of children reading a story book?

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Aviano airbase being home to the 31st Fighter Wing which is described as always being in a High State of readiness. It's roughly 1,000 miles from Benghazi

only 1000 miles away?

The operational cruise range of an F16 is 1,407 miles at 577 MPH. About a 1 1/2 hour trip.

Bombing Benghazi with cruise missiles would of saved the ambassador's life how?

Still you need fuel to get back and to cause havoc. They need to carry munitions, so cut the range to 1,000 miles and they have to be refueled before they engage. What about a tanker? None? then a stop at NAS Sigonella, then on to Benghazi.

You're already too late, the ambassador has already choked on smoke.

Worse case they could have been there 3.5 hours from the initial order. There was an 8 hour gap between the time officials in Benghazi knew they were in trouble and lights out for all of them. Plenty of time to get assets in the area.

You're a war strategist? I never knew. 2016 is coming up, time to throw your hat in the ring. I'm sure our government can use another couch warrior.

Let's put it this way. Would it have been possible if Obama were on the ground in Benghazi at the time? I'll bet it would have been.

Because you've changes all the variables? okay, great. and if we weren't in Libya at all, none of it would of happened.

So what they are really saying is. The personnel at Benghazi were expendable.
#81 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-02-11 07:50 PM

Same message BushJr and administration had for the people in the twin towers and in the 11 embassies that were attacked between 2001 and 2008.

Seems republicans only care about the 3 dead men in Benghazi.

#83 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bombing Benghazi with cruise missiles would of saved the ambassador's life how?"

As ill informed as ever ClownS****. Cruise missiles indeed. Get a brain.

"Because you've changes all the variables? " Me'sa didn't changes all the variables... doh.....

I got my information from blogs and research. Typical of liberals you got yours from {where the sun don't shine }

#84 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-11 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems republicans only care about the 3 dead men in Benghazi.

That has never been true. The 4 men - Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods - were fellow citizens who willfully accepted assignment working for the US Government, and paid the ultimate price over the evening and morning of September 11th and 12th 2012 in service of you and me.

I've never forgotten this and in their memory I've always sought the truth, as best as I can discern it, from behind this screen. I know at what times they each reportedly died and I know under what circumstances. I know that there were multiple attacks in different places and that the last fatal mortar attack didn't occur until after 5 in the morning after the limited amount of "rescue" troops were freed from the Benghazi airport, after they'd flown in from Tripoli, only to be detained until enough Libyan militia members gathered to tacitly lead them. For all we know some of the troops with our soldiers early in the morning could have been against our personnel at the embassy. There was around 7 hours between the embassy attack and the last mortar volley at the annex, interwoven with hours of silence.

What the majority fails to recognize is that the annex from where our personnel were rescued the morning of September 12th was a CIA base and nearly all our personnel were spies under diplomatic cover. Spies, if caught in foreign nations can be legally executed, though most governments aren't so barbarically gauche since captured spies become commodities of trade between opposing nations.

It wouldn't matter what party the Administration was from in international incidents like these. This is one of the reasons so little was publicized about all the embassy incidents during the W Administration. Anything having to do with an embassy always has layers of clandestine intelligence interwoven in it and that becomes complicated to openly discuss in public. We have to trust our congressional oversight. If there was anything egregiously wrong, it will still come out because there is always someone without an agenda - other than the truth - with a credible story to tell.

#85 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-02-11 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I got my information from blogs and research."

Translation: He got his idiotic ideas from crackpots.

#86 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 6


nothing there to hold them accountable for.
#79 | Posted by ClownShack

Keep it up. You are becoming more like Obama and Clinton every day.

They know that their worshipers will believe everything they say.

I'm just going to make fun of you since you choose to be on the wrong side of the argument.

#87 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:


I got my information from blogs and research. Typical of liberals you got yours from {where the sun don't shine }

#84 | Posted by sames1

MSNBC is where the sun don't shine? I've been wondering all these years where that was.

#88 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:


"I got my information from blogs and research."

Translation: He got his idiotic ideas from crackpots.

#86 | Posted by danni

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

He was saying that the Liberals on the Retort get their information from blogs.

What's worse is that you got two Newsworthies

#89 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Translation: He got his idiotic ideas from crackpots."

No.. didn't use the Democrat Underground or Daily KOS .... those are the real crackpots as well as those who think they can translate.

#90 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-11 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

nothing there to hold them accountable for.
#79 | Posted by ClownShack

Keep it up. You are becoming more like Obama and Clinton every day.
They know that their worshipers will believe everything they say.
I'm just going to make fun of you since you choose to be on the wrong side of the argument.
#87 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 10:36 PM

The fact that you can't answer a simple question is hilarious.

Please, deflect and make excuses all you want.

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

He was saying that the Liberals on the Retort get their information from blogs.
#89 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 10:39 PM |

Hey stupid, try reading it again:

I got my information from blogs and research.
#84 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-02-11 08:17 PM |

you officially achieved Eddie status. You deflect from questions, are horribly partisan, and are dumb as dirt.

At least Tea Party members are consistent...ly stupid.

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Thanks for the correction Tony.

#93 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene. "Given the military's preparations on Sept. 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack," the report concludes.

darn that liberal Issa. Everybody knows Obama planned the attack so Biden had a shot at Hillary for the WH in 2016. It's not like Obama didn't have 50 warnings that narrowed down the time and type of attack in the months leading up to it.
What?
Oh, sorry, I confused benghazi with 9-11. Still conservatives have a right to demand Obama do what a good War Preznet does in cases like this-he should have invaded Madagascar.

#94 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-02-12 12:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Democrums are so proud of this report that only shows how unprepared and ineffective they are at running anything. Better read again.

They blew it at Benghazi big time and are looking for any way to bury it.

#95 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-12 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

- he should have invaded Madagascar.

FF!

www.madagascar-themovie.com

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still think F-16's drop cruise missiles ClownSh*** ?

#97 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-12 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

They can, but that's now how they were configured. Read the report.

#98 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-02-12 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Democrums are so proud of this report that only shows how unprepared and ineffective they are at running anything. Better read again.
They blew it at Benghazi big time and are looking for any way to bury it.
#95 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-02-12 12:28 AM | FLAG:

I'll take a Benghazi over 9/11 plus 11 embassy attacks under the BushJr admin.

Aren't you concerned about Obama being born in Kenya anymore?

Or have your handlers stopped feeding your this talking point?

#99 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-12 01:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still think F-16's drop cruise missiles ClownSh*** ?
#97 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-02-12 12:31 AM | FLAG:

They can, but that's now how they were configured. Read the report.
#98 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2014-02-12 12:33 AM | FLAG:

And his brain broke at 12:31 AM eastern, 9:31 PM pacific.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-12 01:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The libs stand for many things, but accountability is not one of them.

#101 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-12 02:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

this reminds me of when he had to release his long form birth certificate...some things will never change people's mind, regardless of the truths.

in two years the only people that are going to be in a froth over this are people who weren't going to vote for Dem's anyway.

#102 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-12 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#100 | Posted by ClownShack

Clownshack doesn't realize that his version of the truth is coming from a Liberal blog.

#103 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

The military couldn't have changed the outcome?

Nonsense.

It most certainly could have affected the outcome. But probably not in a way that would have been positive.

This is what I do for a living. So I'll go out on a limb and assume that I know more about it than any of you.

First, F-16s can shoot cruise missiles. The AGM-158. But they typically won't. They're not very good at it, they can't retarget them, and they can only carry two at a time. Bombers carry most of your stand-off weapons.

Second, you're not just going to go in somewhere and start dropping bombs. Unless you have sorties on alert, you're going to need time to incorporate missions into the Air Tasking Order. And that's going to take upwards of 18 hours. Not to mention any time required to actually generate the sorties.

Third, what are you going to do once you get there. Are you going to drop a few JDAMs on the protesters? Just kill anyone who is in the vicinity of the compound? Probably not. Maybe you can do some low-level show of force flyovers. Basically little airshow maneuvers to let the bad guys know you are there.

Your best bet would have been to use ground forces, which was proposed. But we have seen many times in Afghanistan where QRF troops have been ambushed as they touched down in a helicopter, killing everyone on board. And even if they do hit the ground, they would probably have to fight their way to the compound, and then back out again.

In the Battle of Mogadishu, US forces killed an estimated 2000 Somalis for the loss of 18 US Servicemen. One can't be sure, but I don't know that the current administration wouldn't prefer a handful of US casualties over a much larger number of Libyan civilian casualties. I don't know that any administration would.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-12 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

The libs stand for many things, but accountability is not one of them.

#101 | Posted by MSgt

wing nuts like you stand for many things, but knowing the actual definition of Liberalism is not one of them.

One of the greatest liberal triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of royalist and absolutist rule with a decision-making process encoded in written law.

Liberals believe we are all accountable to the LAW and to the Constitution. Not just the little people.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry, FOX will keep us informed on all the latest info (real or not) on BEGHAZI!

This is nothing compared to all the stuff Bush screwed up, am I right?

Two of the longest most expensive wars in all history and the worst assault on US soil ever.

BUSH!
America's worst president ever.

Obama, doing a fantastic job cleaning up Bush and Cheney's mess.

Never forget how bad Bush/Cheney hurt this country, never forget.

Bush bad. Obama good.
Bad Bush. Good Obama.

#106 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-12 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

But...but...this flies in the face of every lying meme that Issa and his sycophants have trotted out since 2008!

Must be a lie...like the unemployment numbers and like the DJIA numbers.

#107 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-02-12 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"V...there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of...U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi."

B~effing~S ! COVERUP! signed, Partisan Hack Who Did Not Vote For Romney

#25 ~ correct
=+=
[OLD NEWS! What difference does it make now, Senator?] soon-to-be EX-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

#108 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-12 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#106 ~ "BUSH! America's worst president ever. Obama, doing a fantastic job cleaning up Bush and Cheney's mess."

first half of statement has merit, second half abject delusion. ~ signed, Partisan Hack Who Did Not Vote For Romney

#109 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-12 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wis, Jeff,Sip,Boaz, MSgt, et al... while you go on and on about his section.

In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White
House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security
..... ect ect ect
VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the
Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating

Let me direct your minuscule comprehension span to the prelude of the discussion contained in summary posted at the start of this page:

Majority members recognize, of course, that it is impossible for the Department of Defense to have adequate forces prepared to respond immediately to every conceivable global contingency. Ensuring that preparations exist for some likely possibilities is not to be confused with the ability to anticipate all prospective circumstances, especially in highly volatile regions.

Le me remind you again... The scroll bar is your friend

This report is like all the journalistic blop da blam about the subject, are... when all the dust settles, really just opinions... nothing more. The difference is ASC has more informational facts to base their findings on than the lame streamers over at FOX dredged out of their paranoia fueled imaginations whose reports are designed that get all the border liners like the ones that show up here in the DR frothed up.

Based on the incidents in Benghazi it should be apparent to you that unlike Reagan the republiclown hero Obama doesn't not use psychics to make his decisions. Shame on him. Instead that silly boy uses intelligence agencies, and military officers to access the situation. It just makes you want to stamp your feet and squeal at the top of your voice.!!!

When Boaz, and Msgt go off on this its especially disturbing because it is military serving among those that advised the president based on their interpretations of the "facts" in the various theaters of operation. They are the one's with their ears to the ground so to speak. The president is in charge of several things .. the military is in charge of one thing.

Right there in the belly of this report is "we were postured to respond to a wide array of general threats around the globe.
We positioned our forces in a way that was informed by and consistent with
available threat estimates."


If Obama is lacking here... he is lacking in living up to his reputation of a totalitarian dictatorship by ordering all high ranking officers whose advice he followed resulting in this debacle of international import relived of command and executed. After all its what Stalin would have done.

#110 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-02-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why was never such an investigation done as a result of the attack and attempted sinking of the USS Liberty by Israel in 1967, when 34 THIRTY FOUR Americans died and 170 injured and a ship destroyed?

It was covered up by the USA seconders that we elect to lead our nation for the benefit of America but they do not. Instead the USA for most has gone downhill ever since, while the certain others such a Wall Street and celebrities and CEOs have amassed fortunes and our country kept at war.

www.youtube.com


#111 | Posted by Robson at 2014-02-13 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort