• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Offers New Details Of Deadly Libya Attack

rocket88

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,221
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.

Officials say that U.S. forces from Europe and Fort Bragg in North Carolina were dispatched in an effort to help, but they arrived too late. Officials considered sending U.S. warplanes from Italy, but it was decided that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

also:

The officials had little time to respond. There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries. So dozens of special operations forces and CIA guards from Tripoli were sent by aircraft to Benghazi, 480 miles to the east. They could not get there in time to help defend the consulate
Click to expand...

Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
 
It in no way excuses them from using the assets they had on the scene.
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

You should include the parts that show individuals from the CIA annex in Benghazi were sent and on scene withing 25 minutes of the call for help
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.


also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

That might very well be. But can they explain the numerous reports that they did have warnings of activities in the area and of a pending attack and didn't deploy more assets based upon the threats? So it is now being explained that we didn't have readily available assets, thus bringing up the question of why we didn't.

Why is that when Bush was president and a threat was not responded to and something actually happened, everyone was up in arms about it, but when Obama didn't respond to a threat, all kinds of "reasons" are brought forth to show it wasn't his fault? Everyone should use the same bloody standard regardless of who is president.

They, the Obama regime and their supporters, keep trying to Whitewash this whole mess.
 
DVSentinel said:
That might very well be. But can they explain the numerous reports that they did have warnings of activities in the area and of a pending attack and didn't deploy more assets based upon the threats? So it is now being explained that we didn't have readily available assets, thus bringing up the question of why we didn't.

Why is that when Bush was president and a threat was not responded to and something actually happened, everyone was up in arms about it, but when Obama didn't respond to a threat, all kinds of "reasons" are brought forth to show it wasn't his fault? Everyone should use the same bloody standard regardless of who is president.

They, the Obama regime and their supporters, keep trying to Whitewash this whole mess.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if we get up in arms about 4 dead Americans, will you ask for Bush's head over 3000?
 
DVSentinel said:
That might very well be. But can they explain the numerous reports that they did have warnings of activities in the area and of a pending attack and didn't deploy more assets based upon the threats? So it is now being explained that we didn't have readily available assets, thus bringing up the question of why we didn't.

Why is that when Bush was president and a threat was not responded to and something actually happened, everyone was up in arms about it, but when Obama didn't respond to a threat, all kinds of "reasons" are brought forth to show it wasn't his fault? Everyone should use the same bloody standard regardless of who is president.

They, the Obama regime and their supporters, keep trying to Whitewash this whole mess.
Click to expand...

For the record, you're the one who brought up Bush. I only say because last time I said his name, I was accused of deflecting.

Everyone should use the same standard. The hyper-partisans on either side are always the first to bring up the failings of the other, and this issue is no different. It's not like you can just drop your troops into another country based on "somebody might do something." I'd be the first to admit that Bush probably couldn't have prevented this if he were President.

Intelligence suggesting that there were terrorists in Benghazi...no ****, Sherlock! When a country's in turmoil in that region, there will be a presence. Gadafi's buddies didn't all run away. You can bet there are still people there loyal to him, and it's not like Gadafi had an aversion to terrorists. Look what Saddam loyalists did in Iraq following his departure. It's taken 9 years to make Iraq anything close to stable, why would Libya be different? The big difference between Iraq and Libya is that we had the troops on hand to deal with it.

I only show this as saying that they didn't sit on their hands doing nothing. They tried to do something. You could argue too little too late, but there is evidence that they tried to do something.
 
Hatuey said:
Okay, so if we get up in arms about 4 dead Americans, will you ask for Bush's head over 3000?
Click to expand...

Before I comment further, please explain which 3000 you are referring to. I am assuming the 9/11 attacks, but will wait to comment further.
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:

Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

This attack happened over seven hours. If we couldn't deploy armed helicopters from anywhere in the region in that length of time, we should be ashamed of ourselves. If we couldn't get armed drones in the air in less than seven hours, shame on us.

I don't believe it. And I think they are just digging themselves a bigger hole.

Officials considered sending U.S. warplanes from Italy, but it was decided that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

The only thing our planes can do is drop bombs? That's a bunch of baloney. Can anyone spell strafe?
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

There were no U.S. troops anywhere near the consulate, either in Libya or even in neighboring countries
Click to expand...

Damning statement right there. Where the **** were the Marines that should have been stationed at the consulate and elsewhere security was necessary. An ambassador is like a 4-star general, how many 4-star generals only have 5 men around to provide security for them when they're in a hostile environment? Why do you think the SEALS are all pissed off? They aren't stupid you know, they know a thing or two about how the military operates. The administration is treating everyone like they're six year olds, like they don't know ****. What we have here, is a failure to communicate and a failure to lead.
 
Hatuey said:
Legitimate question. Or are deflections only allowed for MaggieD the great debater?
Click to expand...

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, Hatuey. You just like playing the Bush Card. ;)

Edit: Oh! And thanks. ;) ;)
 
MaggieD said:
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, Hatuey. You just like playing the Bush Card. ;)

Edit: Oh! And thanks. ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, so the word comparison means nothing to you. More evidence you're not really here to do anything other than cheerlead for your side. As I said, if we're going to be up in arms about 4 dead Americans thanks to ****ty intelligence, then Bush's head needs to roll over 3000.
 
MaggieD said:
This attack happened over seven hours. If we couldn't deploy armed helicopters from anywhere in the region in that length of time, we should be ashamed of ourselves. If we couldn't get armed drones in the air in less than seven hours, shame on us.

I don't believe it. And I think they are just digging themselves a bigger hole.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. I think that those of us who don't know the logistics should sit back and at least listen to them.

The only thing our planes can do is drop bombs? That's a bunch of baloney. Can anyone spell strafe?
Click to expand...

If you're worried about civilian casualties, don't you think firing indiscriminately into a crowd would cause that? I don't think you can exactly be a sniper from a plane, but I could be wrong. There's also the fact that usually when you fly warplanes into a country's territory, that's considered an act of war. So now you're talking about the potential for another 3000 troops dead to protect 4 people. Wars can escalate quickly. I think it's a reasonable question to ask about whether it's worth another war.
 
rocket88 said:
Time will tell. I think that those of us who don't know the logistics should sit back and at least listen to them.



If you're worried about civilian casualties, don't you think firing indiscriminately into a crowd would cause that? I don't think you can exactly be a sniper from a plane, but I could be wrong. There's also the fact that usually when you fly warplanes into a country's territory, that's considered an act of war. So now you're talking about the potential for another 3000 troops dead to protect 4 people. Wars can escalate quickly. I think it's a reasonable question to ask about whether it's worth another war.
Click to expand...

A poster put up an amazing video earlier this week. I can't find it. It showed individual soldiers being taken out from an airplane . . . with what looked to be short-burst strafing. (I know nothing, remember. Ha!) You could see the guns in their hands and slung across their backs. It was amazing.

Edit: Not that I don't understand what you're saying, by the way. I just had a thought though. Why doesn't the U.S. military have tear gas they can disburse across a large area to handle mobs like that? If we don't? We should.
 
rocket88 said:
Time will tell. I think that those of us who don't know the logistics should sit back and at least listen to them.



If you're worried about civilian casualties, don't you think firing indiscriminately into a crowd would cause that? I don't think you can exactly be a sniper from a plane, but I could be wrong. There's also the fact that usually when you fly warplanes into a country's territory, that's considered an act of war. So now you're talking about the potential for another 3000 troops dead to protect 4 people. Wars can escalate quickly. I think it's a reasonable question to ask about whether it's worth another war.
Click to expand...

Funny, you don't seem to have an issue with drones over Pakistan.
 
American said:
Damning statement right there. Where the **** were the Marines that should have been stationed at the consulate and elsewhere security was necessary. An ambassador is like a 4-star general, how many 4-star generals only have 5 men around to provide security for them when they're in a hostile environment? Why do you think the SEALS are all pissed off? They aren't stupid you know, they know a thing or two about how the military operates. The administration is treating everyone like they're six year olds, like they don't know ****. What we have here, is a failure to communicate and a failure to lead.
Click to expand...

Consulates rarely have a marine guard.

The CIA had authority over the Consulate, not the State Dept and the former Seals were attached to the CIA Annex.
 
It is a collection of stupidities. They can sniper rabbits from aircraft now, can easily see who is and isn't armed, and the comment about sending aircraft from NC was absurd. There were TWO carriers offshore.

Remember Obama explaining how aircraft can land and take off of aircraft carriers? Now he's claiming he forgot about that?

The OP is crap. The Secretary of Defense has already stated they pro-actively decided NOT to take any actions. Remember that press conferance statement he made?
 
madman said:
LOL, wordpress.com?
A guy that has a blog and gives NO SOURCES? Laughable
Click to expand...

I was just looking for the account of the story. It's being discussed all over the place.

This was a monumental f-up by Obama.
 
Erod said:
I was just looking for the account of the story. It's being discussed all over the place.

This was a monumental f-up by Obama.
Click to expand...

Just for Fox noise, that's all.
 
Use it. It is far less bias than the news they swear by.
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom