Benghazi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Phydeaux -> Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:08:55 AM)

"Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=1#ixzz2aAVDZTRv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter"



mnottertail -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:11:20 AM)

Yeah, I love that sun myung moon.

Richad Nixon, you very funny guy!!!



DaddySatyr -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:13:27 AM)

No. NO. NO! It was an anti-Islamic video that was the trouble.

The date had nothing to do with it.

Terrorism had nothing to do with it.

Uncle Barack is protecting us.

Everything he does is good.

Life is good.



Sid Vicious



DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 10:59:38 AM)

I do so love right wing lies about a well documented event.

We did respond with the closest security personnel available from Tripoli. One of security contractors that died was from that group. They arrived just in time to fight off the final attack on the CIA station. There is no way we could have gotten anyone else there before this thing was over.




Phydeaux -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 3:10:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I do so love right wing lies about a well documented event.

We did respond with the closest security personnel available from Tripoli. One of security contractors that died was from that group. They arrived just in time to fight off the final attack on the CIA station. There is no way we could have gotten anyone else there before this thing was over.




I've been over the myththat no way anyone could have gotten there time after time. The "attack" lasted more than 9 hours. F16's on afterburners from two separate bases could have gotten there in 2 hours or 5. A special response team flying by plane from italy could have gotten there in 7.

And this has nothing to do with other forces, which we don't know about such as the Stennis.

Why was there no rapid response force - like there was supposed to be.
Why did Obama head to Nevada for a campaign even while the attack was underway.
Why were whistleblowers punished.

Yeah. No scandal here. Nothing to see. Move along.

Oh - and why was a secure facility left unsecured for 2 weeks. Why didnt' they take steps to protect their spy network - instead of hanging them out to dry and in at least once instance get killed by the islamacists.

We have a man that had infiltrated and was the chief of security of one of the Islamic militias. His existence as an agent was revealed and he was killed. And we don't even have the courage to investigate.

What an unreal bumbling, lying buffoon our president is.



DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 4:01:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I do so love right wing lies about a well documented event.

We did respond with the closest security personnel available from Tripoli. One of security contractors that died was from that group. They arrived just in time to fight off the final attack on the CIA station. There is no way we could have gotten anyone else there before this thing was over.




I've been over the myththat no way anyone could have gotten there time after time. The "attack" lasted more than 9 hours. F16's on afterburners from two separate bases could have gotten there in 2 hours or 5. A special response team flying by plane from italy could have gotten there in 7.

What is the operational duration of an F-16 on afterburners? It is less than 2 hours. No tankers were in the air so an F-16 flight over the Med was out of the question. The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Unless there is a mysterious unknown base more than 100 miles closer to Benghazi no F-16 support was possible in the time available.

The flight time for a team from Italy is 7 hours. That does not include mustering the troops getting gear aboard etc.

So as usual total bullshit.



TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:05:55 PM)

Here's a Benghazi fun fact for the Obots - the person who was sent out to respond to the attack with a big fat lie to the American people has been promoted, and is now the National Security Advisor to the President.

I think we can all sleep more soundly, knowing that. [8|]



Phydeaux -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:20:40 PM)

Do you do anything other than reguritate talking points? Go look at the distance from Incirlik.
Go to the USAA website and check for locations of other bases. Such as sigonella.

There are three bases that could have provided troops or air. Not to mention there are tankers at incirlik. Not to mention our allies have planes, such as the brits.

Course they couldnt get there. They were never sent. Here's a reminder for you: http://www.benghaziheroescampaign.com/official-timeline-response-to-benghazi-dont-add-up/


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I do so love right wing lies about a well documented event.

We did respond with the closest security personnel available from Tripoli. One of security contractors that died was from that group. They arrived just in time to fight off the final attack on the CIA station. There is no way we could have gotten anyone else there before this thing was over.




I've been over the myththat no way anyone could have gotten there time after time. The "attack" lasted more than 9 hours. F16's on afterburners from two separate bases could have gotten there in 2 hours or 5. A special response team flying by plane from italy could have gotten there in 7.

What is the operational duration of an F-16 on afterburners? It is less than 2 hours. No tankers were in the air so an F-16 flight over the Med was out of the question. The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Unless there is a mysterious unknown base more than 100 miles closer to Benghazi no F-16 support was possible in the time available.

The flight time for a team from Italy is 7 hours. That does not include mustering the troops getting gear aboard etc.

So as usual total bullshit.



Do you do anything other than reguritate talking points? Go look at the distance from Incirlik.
Go to the USAA website and check for locations of other bases. Such as sigonella.

There are three bases that could have provided troops or air.



Kirata -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Do you do anything other than reguritate talking points?

It might be a good idea for somebody to start working on a faux narrative for the next one.

Crisis in Kabul

U.S. diplomatic facilities in Afghanistan have serious security lapses that pose “unnecessary risk to staff,” including poor emergency preparedness and inadequate protections that might allow classified materials to fall into the hands of attacking enemies, according to an internal report that raises fresh questions about the State Department’s commitment to safety in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy.

The confidential State Department inspector general’s report, obtained by The Washington Times under the Freedom of Information Act, directly criticizes the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security for failing to perform a physical inspection before approving the security plan for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul...

When IG investigators inspected the embassy in Kabul, they found inadequate emergency shelters, food, water rations, medical supplies and backup communication equipment that would be essential to repel or survive an attack, according to the report, which was released to The Times partly redacted for security reasons.

K.



DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 9:53:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Do you do anything other than reguritate talking points? Go look at the distance from Incirlik.
Go to the USAA website and check for locations of other bases. Such as sigonella.

There are three bases that could have provided troops or air. Not to mention there are tankers at incirlik. Not to mention our allies have planes, such as the brits.

Course they couldnt get there. They were never sent. Here's a reminder for you: http://www.benghaziheroescampaign.com/official-timeline-response-to-benghazi-dont-add-up/


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I do so love right wing lies about a well documented event.

We did respond with the closest security personnel available from Tripoli. One of security contractors that died was from that group. They arrived just in time to fight off the final attack on the CIA station. There is no way we could have gotten anyone else there before this thing was over.




I've been over the myththat no way anyone could have gotten there time after time. The "attack" lasted more than 9 hours. F16's on afterburners from two separate bases could have gotten there in 2 hours or 5. A special response team flying by plane from italy could have gotten there in 7.

What is the operational duration of an F-16 on afterburners? It is less than 2 hours. No tankers were in the air so an F-16 flight over the Med was out of the question. The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Unless there is a mysterious unknown base more than 100 miles closer to Benghazi no F-16 support was possible in the time available.

The flight time for a team from Italy is 7 hours. That does not include mustering the troops getting gear aboard etc.

So as usual total bullshit.



Do you do anything other than reguritate talking points? Go look at the distance from Incirlik.
Go to the USAA website and check for locations of other bases. Such as sigonella.

There are three bases that could have provided troops or air.

I just told you Sigonella is out of range for F-16's without tankers in position. Incirlik is further away. I have no idea what other base you think is closer than nearly due north across the Med (Sigonella).



TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 10:01:29 PM)

Since you are going to quote him, Phydeaux, I guess we could point out that if Ken's "facts" are actually accurate (he lies casually, and sometimes with links for show, that he hopes you won't click), such limited US military capability in so a vital and potentially explosive region is, in and of itself, a dereliction of duty scandal for the Commander in Chief.

Funny how a squid forgets to mention the existance of these cool things called, "aircraft carriers."



DomKen -> RE: Benghazi (7/26/2013 10:45:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Since you are going to quote him, Phydeaux, I guess we could point out that if Ken's "facts" are actually accurate (he lies casually, and sometimes with links for show, that he hopes you won't click), such limited US military capability in so a vital and potentially explosive region is, in and of itself, a dereliction of duty scandal for the Commander in Chief.

Funny how a squid forgets to mention the existance of these cool things called, "aircraft carriers."

The distance from Sigonella to Benghazi is easily searchable and the F-16 combat radius comes straight from Janes. I'm guessing it is somewhere on the web too.

I can't find any reference to a carrier being in the central Med at the time. Again according to Janes the F-18 E/F (Super Hornet) has a combat radius of 449 miles so that imaginary carrier would have had to have been somewhere right there in the central Med. The Enterprise and Eisenhower were in the Persian Gulf. Stennis, Washington and Nimtz were in the Pacific. The rest seem to have been in home ports. I've checked every source I can find and there does not seem to have been any CVBG in the 6th Fleet (Med Sea) at the time.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 7:36:57 AM)

What the fuck are F16s going to do? In addition, we now the attack lasted 9 hours NOW, but that is a long time and nobody could have predicted that.

F16s are not used as ground attack aircraft in Europe so anyone look up the time to arm an F16, that is assuming it doesn't need to have other ordnance removed first?

Lets pretend they have two on ready alert. All they will have is 20mm, Aim 9, and Sparrows. They are not much use against vehicles in an setting and completely useless against personnel, especially when they are so close to friendlies.

Lets pretend now. Flight of F16s loaded with 4 GBUs and inboard drop tanks. NOT a loading you would find sitting on ready alert. This would get the F16s to Bhengazi but youaren't flying across an.ocean with one engine on afterburner for two hours. Ffuel consumotion is at least double, if not tripple and even drop tanks aren't going to fix that. Then you need to loiter, F16s don'y loiter well, so, 4 hours there, plus an hour, then back. I haven't done the payload /speed/distance math but i am sure that is best case.

Bad guys take an.hour lunch break and clock back.in after an hour. Bet the military told obama the same thing.






cloudboy -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 8:04:27 AM)

Fox News and the Republican base is upset about how Obama handled Libya, yet remains thoroughly content about IRAQ and Afghanistan. It's like concentrating on a stubbed toe and ingoring two amputated limbs. For further insanity, the right is now asking for a balanced budget and austerity measures after signing off on two (2) unfunded wars prosecuted during rounds of tax cuts offered by their party.

It's hard to imagine this level of ignorance and hypocrisy, but as Jeff says, its all a misnomer (GoT), the base just wants Obama out --- and all their information lines up behind that goal. It is why their information is consistently so bad.

The one thing I got out of Benghazi was the personal story of the Diplomat, Stevens, who was killed. He had a lot of passion for the region and the people who lived there. He was a guy who needed to be out with the people and involved in the local culture, not bunkered behind walls in a green zone.




TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 8:11:24 AM)

Straight off the OFA talking points instructions. When the incompetence of this adminstration is impossible to defend, change the subject, and be sure to mention Fox News.



mnottertail -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 8:14:55 AM)

Well, there doesnt seem to be any incompetence. How many troops could get there when? And then get in the embassy when to defend it? Or would it have been the old walk down the Champs Elyesse and just start mowing down the people on the street and clear a path?

Rich, you are a vet, and even if you saw all your action in a cookshack, you know better.




cloudboy -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 8:42:49 AM)

A regrettable incident happened / a battle and lives were lost -- but the legacy of this mistake does not compare to others. Libya did not cost near a trillion dollars and result in a largely failed mission.

What purpose does revisiting Benghazi serve? All the major new services in the USA dropped this incident a long time ago. Who's still focused on it and why? Is the driver behind the focus the future security of American embassies or something else?



TheHeretic -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 9:43:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

What purpose does revisiting Benghazi serve?



Seen the report the New York Times just got through the FOIA, Clouds? The one one about the security flaws at the Embassy in Kabul? Just because those who will latch onto anything have run with Benghazi does not mean there aren't issues there worth looking at.

The two things I find most troubling in the whole Libya and Benghazi affair are the remote-control exception to the requirement that Congress handles decisions to make war, and our Secretary of State going overseas to brag that we had locked up an American for his unpopular exercise of free speech.

Now if you are totally okay with someone who was the vehicle for handling a crisis by telling a giant orchestrated lie to the American people being promoted to National Security Advisor, why not just say so, instead of dragging this off into how much better at manipulating public opinion and Congress Bush II was?



mnottertail -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 10:14:49 AM)

quote:


The two things I find most troubling in the whole Libya and Benghazi affair are the remote-control exception to the requirement that Congress handles decisions to make war, and our Secretary of State going overseas to brag that we had locked up an American for his unpopular exercise of free speech.


Two things wrong with this, but not particularly troubling. There is no exception to make war of any kind, upon the president. There is only the congress that can formally declare it.

And the Secy of State did not brag about a guy we locked up for an unpopular exercise of free speech.




chatterbox24 -> RE: Benghazi (7/27/2013 10:31:41 AM)

So very unfortunate what happened. It is a possibly price made for this kind of work, and for those who do it, I am very grateful.
Considering the kind of unrest this world has, and how many irons we seem to like to put in the fire, its a God send this is not happening more often.
What an incredibly demanding, wrenching job, where it is impossible for perfection and to please and protect all.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875