Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 151

Thread: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

  1. #71
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You have lied about your own words, used unrelated information to make provably false claims and ignored the truth in front of you, and you're asking me to stop defending the indefensible? Really?
    I'm not bothering with all that repetition. You're asking a public that can fly from NY to LA in less than 6 hours to believe that help could not have arrived in time in Benghazi. That's not only false Sly, it's downright stupid. I can buy a ticket, pack, get to the airport, and arrive in LA in less than 7 hours from right now here on the east coast. That's civilian aircraft, Sly. Don't tell me the military can't do better than that when I know they can. Anyhow, continue without me. I've reached my BS exposure limit for the day.

  2. #72
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,147

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I did read your post, and like this one, it's about as I summarized previously. I'm not going to bother with a point by point response.
    excellent call
    appears you recognize you are without the ammunition to do so


    Just a quick look at the number of lies told,
    all we have are lies from the reich wing media and a disgruntled employee who insists he was demoted when the facts tell us otherwise

    ... the people who told them,
    hicks and the reich wing propaganda organs have the freedom to lie

    ... and the frequency with which they were delivered is enough to discount much of what you contend.
    and yet you are able to provide no facts to discount one syllable of what was posted; hence, your inclination not to

    Forgive me for mentioning that the help sent was useless.
    no. forgiving stupidity only breeds more stupidity
    it would be stupid to place more American lives at risk for an adventure that faces no prospects for success

    You're all about not understanding that an effort should have been mounted the moment the attack began.
    that means we would have to borrow your crystal ball, so that we could have known the attack was imminent

    Nobody guarantees success, but I can guarantee failure if nothing is done.
    you advocate stupidity
    placing more lives at risk when the calculus showed there was no possibility for success
    that stupid action would be the essence of failure


    And stop with the common sense BS.
    common sense is not BS; unfortunately, it is not all that common ... as your posts evidence

    Common sense dictates that one should refuse to believe a known liar - or in this case, liars.
    those with common sense and the powers of observation can see for themselves that hicks and faux news are lying
    hicks for insisting he was demoted when the facts prove that he was not
    and faux news for pushing such unsubstantiated tripe in its efforts to gin up opposition to the Obama administration
    but it does require common sense to understand that

    It's all unraveling Sly.
    it is
    not a single revelation has come out of the benghazi hearings

    If you have a shred of decency, you'll stop defending the indefensible.
    excellent point
    only stupid people would continue to believe the faux news propaganda when the factual circumstances are known
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    If you had read my post, you would have had your answer. So unless it's your position you like to ask questions which have already been answered (which is entirely possible), you didn't read my post.

    Were you confused by the fact you would have to ask them how the 14 news agencies were determined? Were you confused by the fact there were conservative leaning news organizations there also?

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

    Please do more reading than just your simple conservative opinion pieces. You can start with the posts of mine that you quote.


    Look all you had to do.....was to Admit all New Sources were NOT Represented. Wasn't that difficult to do. So truly it doesn't matter how many Right leaning News Sources.

    Like I said could you change that fact.....which truthfully we already know you couln't.

    Also Next time look around in all the Benghazi threads......that way you wont be confused at to who was putting Up Conservatives New Sources. While I pound away with Fact Checkers and overseas Sources. That which many cannot get round.

  4. #74
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    excellent call
    appears you recognize you are without the ammunition to do so



    all we have are lies from the reich wing media and a disgruntled employee who insists he was demoted when the facts tell us otherwise


    hicks and the reich wing propaganda organs have the freedom to lie


    and yet you are able to provide no facts to discount one syllable of what was posted; hence, your inclination not to


    no. forgiving stupidity only breeds more stupidity
    it would be stupid to place more American lives at risk for an adventure that faces no prospects for success


    that means we would have to borrow your crystal ball, so that we could have known the attack was imminent


    you advocate stupidity
    placing more lives at risk when the calculus showed there was no possibility for success
    that stupid action would be the essence of failure



    common sense is not BS; unfortunately, it is not all that common ... as your posts evidence


    those with common sense and the powers of observation can see for themselves that hicks and faux news are lying
    hicks for insisting he was demoted when the facts prove that he was not
    and faux news for pushing such unsubstantiated tripe in its efforts to gin up opposition to the Obama administration
    but it does require common sense to understand that


    it is
    not a single revelation has come out of the benghazi hearings


    excellent point
    only stupid people would continue to believe the faux news propaganda when the factual circumstances are known
    Bubba, just because some fool posts a particular spin redolent with falsities does not require me to address them any more than I'm required to address this mess above. I've already outlined your problem, and it starts with lying. I fully expect that your hysteria is going to grow exponentially as the truth slowly dribbles out. Even the New Yorker (!) has called Carney a liar. Your post proves where the partisanship resides in this issue, and it's going to be your undoing in the end. Truth is not a partisan issue.

  5. #75
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,147

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Bubba, just because some fool posts a particular spin redolent with falsities does not require me to address them any more than I'm required to address this mess above. I've already outlined your problem, and it starts with lying. I fully expect that your hysteria is going to grow exponentially as the truth slowly dribbles out. Even the New Yorker (!) has called Carney a liar. Your post proves where the partisanship resides in this issue, and it's going to be your undoing in the end. Truth is not a partisan issue.
    the lies are from the reich wing
    but where were they and their outrage during the republican administration when our diplomats were under attack:

    June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

    February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Truck bomb kills 17.

    February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

    July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
    Suicide bomber kills two.

    December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
    Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

    March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.


    what we have is a rovian effort to preempt hillary's 2016 presidential bid
    that it also enables the wingers to fleece their ignorant sycophants is only a GOP bonus
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  6. #76
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the lies are from the reich wing
    but where were they and their outrage during the republican administration when our diplomats were under attack:

    June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

    February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Truck bomb kills 17.

    February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

    July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
    Suicide bomber kills two.

    December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
    Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

    March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
    Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.


    what we have is a rovian effort to preempt hillary's 2016 presidential bid
    that it also enables the wingers to fleece their ignorant sycophants is only a GOP bonus
    Every one of those events was characterized exactly as it obviously was. Odd, huh? Hillary has lied through her teeth multiple times. If it costs her politically, why that's just tough. I can't help but note that the Clintons have never been held up as the poster couple for the truth. I believe the left, during Bill's tenture, waxed poetically about Bill's elegant lies. Sometimes that "art" cuts the artist, it seems.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,982

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    so some so called "republican" from some gossip rag says so it is a FACT?
    So a Republican made up a story which works against them? What exactly are you trying to say here?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I'm not bothering with all that repetition. You're asking a public that can fly from NY to LA in less than 6 hours to believe that help could not have arrived in time in Benghazi.
    Uh, no, I'm asking you to read the article from a former Marine officer, and special operations team leader, who provided a timeline of the event and why your argument was not possible.

    That's not only false Sly, it's downright stupid.I can buy a ticket, pack, get to the airport, and arrive in LA in less than 7 hours from right now here on the east coast. That's civilian aircraft, Sly.
    Are you doing it under heavy fire? Do you know if your airport in LA is secure? Do you have to fuel and plan attacks? Do you need to get permission from Los Angeles before you do? Do you have to assess where you'll land, how you'll land and how you'll make it to an area under attack?

    The fact you think going into to a fluid situation is the same as getting on civilian aircraft shows you've not really thought this through.

    Anyhow, continue without me. I've reached my BS exposure limit for the day.
    Yes, it's awful when people use logic and common sense to get in the way of partisan political attacks. I can't help but notice you've not ONCE addressed the article I posted earlier, and your entire argument is now based around the fact you apparently know more than everyone else. Read the article, pay attention to the details and then get back to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Look all you had to do.....was to Admit all New Sources were NOT Represented. Wasn't that difficult to do.
    It is when that's not the question you asked. You asked this question:

    "Did you figure out that part of the Meeting being with only certain media sources?"

    So now you're upset I didn't answer a question you didn't ask?

    So truly it doesn't matter how many Right leaning News Sources.
    Yes, it does. The implication was that the White House and the "liberal media" were in cahoots in trying to cover this story up. The presence of right leaning news sources, which do not have an interest in covering anything up when it deals with the President, shows there was no conspiracy at the meeting. Thus, as for why the certain news agencies were chosen, the answer was probably far more innocuous than implied and you'd have to ask the White House why.

    This really isn't difficult.

    Also Next time look around in all the Benghazi threads......that way you wont be confused at to who was putting Up Conservatives New Sources. While I pound away with Fact Checkers and overseas Sources. That which many cannot get round.
    I have no idea what you're talking about. All you ever do is post a bunch of articles, with an incredibly annoying amount of colorization and bolding which distracts from any argument being made. I was replying to the implication this was a conspiracy between the White House and the media. Perhaps you should do a better job following along?
    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Bubba, just because some fool posts a particular spin redolent with falsities
    I'm a fool because I'm providing actual facts and evidence you don't even attempt to deny? That doesn't begin to make sense. The only thing foolish in this world is to stubbornly stick to your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I once believed the attack was because of a protest to a video gone wrong. The overwhelming evidence told us that was false and I no longer believe it. You believe no help was sent and you believe some Hollywood style rescue was possible to MAYBE save...someone. The evidence overwhelmingly tells us you are wrong...are you going to continue sticking to your position?

  8. #78
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,100

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    .....The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

    But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

    Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

    If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

    It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations......
    John F. Kennedy: Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    There were, by most estimates, 500 Nazis in Charlottesville. One of them went homicidal. Not all Nazis are violent extremists. You are trying to rationalize your hatred and it's simply not rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    as I noted, its better that 10 nutjobs get guns than one good person be wrongly disarmed.

  9. #79
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    the background briefing badly backfired

    carney got carved up immediately afterwards like he has never been so cut

    Full Video: Jay Carney Grilled About Benghazi At Friday Press Briefing | RealClearPolitics

    holding forth rather hopelessly in the james brady briefing room, the white house press secretary was challenged with THIRTY SIX questions on benghazi

    carney was also confronted with 8 inquiries concerning the irs' targeting of groups politically opposed to this addled administration carney's charged with defending

    2 questions concerned chemical weapons in syria, one was about obamacare, and that was it---not exactly what the white house wants to be wonking

    that is, not a single member of the worked up white house press corps asked the worn out wag what the president thought about comprehensive immigration reform...

    or background checks for gun purchases...

    or jason collins, the gay basketball player

    the tone of the hour was calm and professional, no one was leaning forward, none waved their arms

    but they were clearly NOT buying a word the white house wafted their way

    ap: on benghazi, with all due credit to my colleague on my right (jonathan karl), we now have emails showing that the state dept pushed back against talking points language from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information could be used politically in congress---you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here but these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes---so, again, what role did the white house play not just in making but in directing changes?

    carney: the only edit made by the white house or the state dept to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post, a matter of non substantive factual correction

    ap followup: but his information was information that the cia obviously knew was about prior attacks and warnings---does the president think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how congress might use it

    jeff zeleny: the substance of these emails tho suggests you're having very specific exchanges between state dept officials and an official here at the white house which jonathan uncovered in which a state dept official raises questions about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of the concern that congress would use that against the state dept

    zeleny a few seconds later interrupts carney who is reading to him: the emails specifically demonstrated a concern about giving members of congress something to use against the state dept

    zeleny followup: that's not, that, i mean, the language of that email is pretty clear and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address victoria nuland's concerns---no matter who ended up providing the talking points in the end it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state dept on the cia talking points

    zeleny again: was concern about how congress would react a factor in what went into those talking points as that email suggests

    april ryan (american urban radio): since you say this is a minor change, a minor change in venue, that the wording is a change in venue, why such a big deal today with this deep background off-the-record briefing, makes it seem like there's been fuel added to the fire---if this is such a minor issue why not just tell the press like you did from the podium just a few minutes ago instead of having this background briefing with a select few and not the whole corps if it's such a minor issue

    dan lothian, cnn: how do you go from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this govt on sept 14, and in those emails, that email exchange, there is a discussion about a group, ansar al sharia, and then after victoria nuland raises questions on the part of the state dept, that reference to that group is then removed from the conversation and doesn't make its way into the talking points---that is not a stylistic edit, that is not single adjustment as you said back in november, that is a major dramatic change in the information

    followup: but if you go back to what susan rice was talking about on those talk shows she may have left open the possibility of extremists but this is an altogether different thing when you talk about a specific group, ansar al sharia

    cnn continues: but just a followup on this once and for all (carney: you promise once and for all; lothian: well, maybe not)---you are comfortable, you are still comfortable with the way you characterized this back in november---this was a single adjustment---and perhaps it was the cia that drafted these talking points but that's sorta glossing over the fact that you had all of these other parties invovled---these were not stylistic edits, jay, this is very much a content driven change

    abc's man of the hour, jonathan karl: you told us that the only changes made to the talking points were stylistic, is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi

    karl interrupts to ask: jay, this was not the change of one word to another, these were extensive changes after they were written by the cia---there were concerns that were raised by the state dept that the white house directed the interagency process used in making these talking points, the original version included references to al qaeda, references to ansar al sharia, the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats and terrorist attacks in benghazi---these were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft based on input from the state dept, do you deny that

    carney: no (24:50)

    karl: jay, if you come back to what you said, you said the only changes made by the white house were stylistic and a single word, what we see here is that the state dept raised objections about the references to ansar al sharia, they raised objections to the fact that the cia had warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack---those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on objections from the state dept

    karl: when you said what you said did you know that this had gone thru 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made, were you aware of that at the time

    kirsten welker, nbc: let me ask it in a slightly different way, do you acknowledge that your initial characterization of the white house involvement was to some extent a mischaracterization of the extent to which the white house was involved in the evolution of those talking points

    helene cooper, nyt: why not come forward initially and say friday nite white house officials were involved in the interagency process that you've been describing, why not offer that information at the start

    cooper: speaker boehner has asked that you release the emails and according to our sources house officials are also asking that they get more documentation about the saturday sept 15 meeting at the white house, will you release those additional emails and documents

    peter baker, nyt: you said that republicans are being political about it, is it not also political to say we want to keep something out of these talking points because we might be criticized by members of congress, is that not a political motivation there

    baker: but if the phrasing is say, let's not put this out because we're not sure it's true, the phrase is instead let's not put this out because we don't wanna be criticized by our political opponents, is that not political in itself

    baker: on the backgrounder, you had earlier said, well everybody does it basically, republicans and democrats, everybody has backgrounders---you all came to town tho saying you were gonna be different, change the rule, be more transparent---don't you think it encourages the idea that you had something or your colleagues or whoever did the backgrounder, i wasn't there, had something to say they didn't want to say out here

    baker: you haven't done that on the record, why do a backgrounder

    baker: then what purpose is there doing a backgrounder

    american urban radio: would you provide that information from the background in this briefing, do you think that you gave much of that information from the briefing, that background briefing today, in your briefing today, on the record

    alexis simendinger, rcp: just overarching, looking back at... cuz a lot of us were in the briefing room with you the day after the attacks---is the president satisfied with the way the administration handled this, would you do anything differently, or would he want the administration to do anything differently, looking backward

    rcp: following up on that, you talked right away about the video and i'm wondering when you were saying now that you didn't want to be speculative, some of us were wondering why you didn't just wait and say there was an investigation, so why are you saying the video discussion is not speculative

    rcp: doesn't this series of emails now suggest that your discussion of the video was speculative, you are cherry picking

    rcp: but today the president put out health care work that got wiped out because this has continued because that information was not put out

    unidentified reporter: it seems like you're saying a couple different things, you're saying that the first iteration of the talking points that the cia drafted was what they thought happened and the last version was what they knew happened---by the nature of the cia signing off on each iteration of the talking points they were perfectly fine with members of congress or officials discussing anything they included in any of those versions that they signed off on---so why was it necessary, why was it deemed necessary to refer then back to not including certain information in the final draft if they were perfectly fine with that being put out

    followup: but if it was improper for for the cia to speculate about those things why would they sign off on the first version for others to review

    followup: but the cia's not gonna spill secrets they're not comfortable with putting out there

    another unknown to me: it's coming up on 8 months to the day since the benghazi attack, the fbi's just got around to releasing 3 images of people they're looking for information for about perpetrators of the attack, is the president confident that the fbi is capable of solving and finding the perpetrators he said months ago was a priority for the president, is the president doing all in his power to do that as well

    afp: you talked about the talking points being about what we knew or what the cia believed it knew---the first few drafts say we do know, we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack---this is not couched, it says we do know

    carney: i direct you to the intelligence community

    *****

    1. do you know for whom these talking points were written, were intended?

    2. darn that fox news
    Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker

    The Administration really should have come clean on Day One, and not played PC politics with this.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #80
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post

    Uh, no, I'm asking you to read the article from a former Marine officer, and special operations team leader, who provided a timeline of the event and why your argument was not possible.

    Are you doing it under heavy fire? Do you know if your airport in LA is secure? Do you have to fuel and plan attacks? Do you need to get permission from Los Angeles before you do? Do you have to assess where you'll land, how you'll land and how you'll make it to an area under attack?

    The fact you think going into to a fluid situation is the same as getting on civilian aircraft shows you've not really thought this through.

    Yes, it's awful when people use logic and common sense to get in the way of partisan political attacks. I can't help but notice you've not ONCE addressed the article I posted earlier, and your entire argument is now based around the fact you apparently know more than everyone else. Read the article, pay attention to the details and then get back to me.

    Lt. Col. Gibson was in Tripoli with a team ready to go at the time. This is not idle speculation from a Monday morning quarterback painting a fantasy which suits your argument. The Lt. Col. was not happy, to say the least, upon receiving the order to stand down. With your self-proclaimed fondness for logic and common sense, one would think you would choose to start there with the people actually involved in the events. You know - the ones who were prepared to do what you say could not be done.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •