This is a job for the Mickelsons (Snopes). Just looked; didn't find.
Q. Does the article say anything about jets doing fly bys?A). The US military have used jet fly bys in the past which have been effective in dispersing combatants with out a shot fired. Not even tried,
A. No, not a thing.
Q. How did soot preface his comments?
A.Rather than falling all over yourself to scream "FAIL" and making yourself look like a jackass how about you read what's written, mmmkay?That article is all ate up.
Since my knowledge of and experience with small unit tactics seems to pale in comparrison to yours please explain to me how 12 additional men at a fixed location would have bettered the odds of the group against indirect mortar fire.B) 12 soldiers could have done more then you speculate considering the fight given to the terrorist by less than 12 DSS agents and CIA operators on the ground. I believe our people had 8-10 combatants in the fight! 12 would have been a god send.
Maybe there'd be 12 more guys to help hold the roof up with broomsticks?
Absent the mortars, which are what killed Woods and Doherty (and injured Ubben) the element on the ground at the time of the attack was sufficent to hold off the attackers (taking pot shots) and evacuate the Americans at the annex, which is exactly what they did as soon as there was a lul in the fighting following the mortar attack and upon being advised that a Predator was taking video of a "large group" of insurgents massing for an attack.
So again, other than there being more guns on the roof at the time of the mortar attack, and consequently more deaths, what would 12 more men have added?
And if the group at the annex had been pinned in place by indirect fire how would 12 more men in a quickly deteriorating defensive position have signifigantly added to the initial group's ability to hold off an estimated 100 or so insurgents attacking behind indirect fire and crew serveed weapons?
Simple fact of the matter is, they wouldn't have been able to.
You're welcome to maintain your TEAM AMERICA!!! fantasy if you'd like. I couldn't care less. But if you'd like to convince me that you're right you'll have to bring more than, "Well they coulda too!"
OMG!!!!! Another scandal!!! No way Obama survives this one (again)!!!!!!!!!
We all know this whole thread is false. The interesting thing is the pathology of the conservative mind in posting this stuff and hoping that somebody will believe it or at least that it will taint legitimate political discourse and poison the well for the next election.
The way the rightwing noise machine works is that it floats these ridiculous memes (sometimes started from rightwing think tanks, sometimes from idiotic rightwing websites like Breitbart), then it's picked up by the rightwing blogosphere, sent around in those silly email rings, and it enough chatter is created then the lazy mainstream media will pick it as a questions, which is easily rebutted by facts, but that's not the point. The point is to get the narrative out there.
It would be funny if it weren't so insidious. I hope progressives catch on and start doing the same thing. The nice thing about smearing conservatives and tea partiers is that generally, the weird stuff you can say about them is completely true!
Oh I don't know I worked the State Dept security before DSS was formed - you? I'm sick and tired of forum experts that claim to know all. When we worked in a hostile environment, and this was after Iran, we were told we needed to hold on for a certain time frame. Maybe that rule has changed, if so its sad. I'd like to know who changed it, but more importanly who ignored it because DSS did that at the State Dept facility they merely lost control of the one building the ambassador was in. They mainained the rest of the facility.
Was it you that said "urban" setting - really - didn't bother to look at the "urban" nature of the US Facility did you? Maybe you ought to google it before you type of which you clearly don't know. Such failure.
"What difference" "does it make?"