Benghazi committee

#252
#252
lawgator1 said:
According to the article, the email came 3 hours and 40 minutes into the incident and went to unidentified deputies. What was the distance involved and when did HRC get informed?

Those are important facts, if the goal is to suggest that some lack of action by her that night prevented a rescue, which remains a dubious claim. Especially from the repeatedly discredited partisan Judicial Watch.
Click to expand...

I love how nothing on the internet ever goes away...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/w...ells-of-monitoring-situation-in-benghazi.html

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders “felt very strongly” that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

“There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here,” Mr. Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

As a result, Mr. Panetta said, he and two top commanders “felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” The commanders are Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter F. Ham of Africa Command, which oversees American military operations in Africa, including Libya.
Click to expand...

You know, it's not the fact he was caught in a lie...but the fact he was caught in a lie. So we now have an email sent from the chief of staff of Mr. Panetta that directly contradicts the statement given to Congress.

LG? Any comment on this? It appears the Generals were ready to send in help, exposing the lie of the testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#253
#253
T.N. Buckingham said:
giphy.gif


You are a cheerleader. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

Good to see my baby mama in that video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#254
#254
As a person who knows where the military bases are in Italy. Yes U.S. Forces would have reached Benghazi in time. Its only a 1 hour and a half flight from Aviano Air Base and Naval Air Station Sigonella is 1 hour away. a Marine QRF team could have made it there in an with coordinated air support in 2- 3.5 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#255
#255
Grand Vol said:
I love how nothing on the internet ever goes away...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/w...ells-of-monitoring-situation-in-benghazi.html



You know, it's not the fact he was caught in a lie...but the fact he was caught in a lie. So we now have an email sent from the chief of staff of Mr. Panetta that directly contradicts the statement given to Congress.

LG? Any comment on this? It appears the Generals were ready to send in help, exposing the lie of the testimony.
Click to expand...

We should also note that General Carter Hamm, whose name is in the email too was relieved of command about a week after this happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#256
#256
Why not send everyone available regardless of the circumstances? There is never a response from the government. My bet is the administration did not want to offend someone? I don't even blame Hillary for this mess.
 
#257
#257
IPleadInsanity said:
Why not send everyone available regardless of the circumstances? There is never a response from the government. My bet is the administration did not want to offend someone? I don't even blame Hillary for this mess.
Click to expand...


As I recall this specific question was addressed by a bipartisan committee and the Republican leader said there was no evidence of a delayed rescue response.

But I'm not stupid. I know that the GOP will run a lot of ads about this and try to get some traction on it in the general. I doubt it will sway independents, because there is so much to counter it. But they've pretty much committed themselves to making it an issue at this point because, otherwise, they look silly for having spent all this time and money re-investigating it.

I'm sure that Gowdy's committee will release a scathing report, oh, say maybe August or September. Or earlier if the polling says they need a boost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#258
#258
lawgator1 said:
As I recall this specific question was addressed by a bipartisan committee and the Republican leader said there was no evidence of a delayed rescue response.

But I'm not stupid. I know that the GOP will run a lot of ads about this and try to get some traction on it in the general. I doubt it will sway independents, because there is so much to counter it. But they've pretty much committed themselves to making it an issue at this point because, otherwise, they look silly for having spent all this time and money re-investigating it.

I'm sure that Gowdy's committee will release a scathing report, oh, say maybe August or September. Or earlier if the polling says they need a boost.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on your thoughts about how that email directly contradicts Panetta's testimony.

As a lawyer, if contrary evidence was to come up, would you just consider it "partisan politics" or would you ask the tough questions about it?
 
#259
#259
Grand Vol said:
I love how nothing on the internet ever goes away...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/w...ells-of-monitoring-situation-in-benghazi.html



You know, it's not the fact he was caught in a lie...but the fact he was caught in a lie. So we now have an email sent from the chief of staff of Mr. Panetta that directly contradicts the statement given to Congress.

LG? Any comment on this? It appears the Generals were ready to send in help, exposing the lie of the testimony.
Click to expand...


Sorry, meant to address this yesterday and forgot.

The simple answer is, the two are not contradictory. They did not know what was going on at the time that forces were marshaled for a possible response. Makes sense given that the attack had devastated the compound almost four hours into it.

You are really reaching trying to claim this is different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#260
#260
lawgator1 said:
Sorry, meant to address this yesterday and forgot.

The simple answer is, the two are not contradictory. They did not know what was going on at the time that forces were marshaled for a possible response. Makes sense given that the attack had devastated the compound almost four hours into it.

You are really reaching trying to claim this is different.
Click to expand...

Of course I am...how silly of me to think otherwise.
 
#263
#263
lawgator1 said:
As I recall this specific question was addressed by a bipartisan committee and the Republican leader said there was no evidence of a delayed rescue response.

But I'm not stupid. I know that the GOP will run a lot of ads about this and try to get some traction on it in the general. I doubt it will sway independents, because there is so much to counter it. But they've pretty much committed themselves to making it an issue at this point because, otherwise, they look silly for having spent all this time and money re-investigating it.

I'm sure that Gowdy's committee will release a scathing report, oh, say maybe August or September. Or earlier if the polling says they need a boost.
Click to expand...

This is just common sense. If I am president and told my embassy is under attack I say send everyone from everywhere. Staff says they probably can't make it there in time. Send them anyway and do it fast! The problem is it looks like there was a discussion, decisions were made based on estimates. Maybe they were good estimates, still doesn't matter looks bad.
 
#264
#264
So far I've seen no evidence to contradict the following:

1) The initial indication that the military was prepared to intervene came almost four hours into it.
2) Though the military was eager to engage, the circumstances on the ground at that time were unknown.
3) There is no evidence that HRC in any way whatsoever thwarted a rescue attempt. ZERO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#265
#265
lawgator1 said:
So far I've seen no evidence to contradict the following:

1) The initial indication that the military was prepared to intervene came almost four hours into it.
2) Though the military was eager to engage, the circumstances on the ground at that time were unknown.
3) There is no evidence that HRC in any way whatsoever thwarted a rescue attempt. ZERO.
Click to expand...

Can't interview the embassy personnel, email records have been redacted and the top dogs won't discuss the details of what happened in those 4 hours. Yes there is no evidence period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#266
#266
IPleadInsanity said:
Can't interview the embassy personnel, email records have been redacted and the top dogs won't discuss the details of what happened in those 4 hours. Yes there is no evidence period.
Click to expand...

With in the first hour of the attach the U.S. Air Force had a MQ-1 Predator on station over looking and providing a live video feed of the entire attack. For @LawGator to say that circumstances on the ground at that time were unknown and prevented a rescue or the arrival of a QRF team is a flat out lie. What he doesn't know is that DOD mobilize three fully equipped ground response teams (by air transport) at the same time that DOD sent HRC and her staff that email asking them to get permission from the host country (Libya) to clear some air space so that they could mount a rescue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#267
#267
lawgator1 said:
So far I've seen no evidence to contradict the following:

1) The initial indication that the military was prepared to intervene came almost four hours into it.
2) Though the military was eager to engage, the circumstances on the ground at that time were unknown.
3) There is no evidence that HRC in any way whatsoever thwarted a rescue attempt. ZERO.
Click to expand...

Did she even ask about the possibility of a military rescue. That would have been my first question when informed on what's happening.
 
#271
#271
I think we all know what the answer here is. Mrs. Clinton chose to play politics with the lives of Americans. This terror attack was swept under the rug and blamed on a video because of the upcoming Presidential elections. Really disgusting if you ask me and shows you want kind of person this woman is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#275
#275
theFallGuy said:
I think we all know what the answer here is. Mrs. Clinton chose to play politics with the lives of Americans. This terror attack was swept under the rug and blamed on a video because of the upcoming Presidential elections. Really disgusting if you ask me and shows you want kind of person this woman is.
Click to expand...
The Democratic base does... not... care about any of that. Ask LG.



She's a strong woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top