Navy releases map showing location of fleet positions during Benghazi attacks

I think a select committee with witnesses under oath could reveal quite a bit. Besides, if you are aware that there was an ongoing intelligence operation going on there, then I suppose the secret is already exposed. Besides, the One, the Messiah, the Savior from the Left, the Marxist, already managed to be re-elected. Why hide the truth now? Telling us where the ships were more than a year later is not likely to reveal very much.

And if the operation was illegal I bet there would be more interest in exposing it. Oh, wait. Obama is not a Republican. Nothing to see here. The World's Salvation was just lowering the height of the ocean. Move along.

 

Ok, there are some people on this forum who resort to, "I'm British, and since you're not, your opinion on British history is invalid," and I'm not going to stoop to that but I'll tell you, I was in the Navy, and having a destroyer within a couple hundred miles really wouldn't have done squat. What do you expect, for the destroyer to try to shell the crowds outside the embassy?

No, what you should have been looking for are nearby LHDs, CVNs, or air bases. Though it's possible to have done it in less than an hour, I don't imagine we would have paratrooped anyone in a place like that. But we have naval air bases with in range (Italy), and I'm pretty sure we have Air Force bases (Turkey) in range, and they could have sent over a chopper and landed extra troops or evacuated the embassy, if necessary. I mean really, if the ambassador had to retreat and hide, I don't think that evacuating him would have been a much worse slight to national pride. The issue would have been refueling, but something could have been figured out.

 

Are you also trying to figure out if the commanding general of Africom is any kind of military expert? There is a way to find out. One select committee, put everyone under oath and ask everybody the right questions.

 

We'll, going by Kennedy's testimony Stevens had been killed in less than 90 minutes. When you hear about Benghazi you hear about Stevens and why something wasn't done. First, according to Kennedy there never would have been enough time for Stevens, because no one could have reached Stevens in that time frame. That is why I call this the main part of the attack, because so many have made Stevens the focal point of this incident to use against Obama and Clinton. Secondly, the military along with Panetta have clearly made the case that better intelligence of this situation was needed in order to go in. You don't just go in 3 or 4 hrs. later with fighter jets with no target when these individuals could have been very close to the other Americans, possibly taken them hostage, no one new. Look what happened and look how it happened in the real life incident in Somalia that was recreated with the new movie Captain Phillips with Tom Hanks. Look at the intelligence gathering, the strategy, the slow methodical maneuvers that were made to save his life and his crew. Everything about that rescue was strategic, precise, and most of all, it took time. Sufficient time was never on the side of Panetta and our military to stage a strategic rescue with the intelligence they had obtained.


- - - Updated - - -

 

Did the attack last almost 8 hours? Or from start to finish did it last about 30 minutes? And you are aware that the nation did respond, aren't you?

 

Interesting question.

Ambassadors are treated like very senior general officers. In my eyes each life lost was equal to every other life lost. But to the nation the equivalent would be the murder of a flag ranked officer.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps they were treating it as a slush fund, walkin' around money, to sway an election.

 

Because it happened on Obama's watch and because they were doing their very best to try and get him re-elected the MSM did their very best to shrug off Benghazi and all those deaths as, "Meh, just one of those regrettable incidents -- and who really cares?"

 

Interestingly, I agree with you. However, there was that pesky Doolittle raid in a previous unhappy historical moment.

To your point it would have required lots of training for the navy and for the attack helicopter pilots. The answer, if there is one, lies in fixed win, high performance aircraft, flying from a long ways off in Italy.

 

This line of questioning is unproductive.

Angry pants is right. If State and Defense were going to cooperate to defend the temporary consulate and the CIA Annex why not just say it with Marines on the ground at both locations? It is far cheaper to put Marines in the places they are needed than to train people how to take off from and land on decks.

I think I will continue to wonder why we did not expect something to happen on an important anniversary date. I will also wonder why we did nothing.

 

Why do you think that Eric? Is it that you cannot handle the truth that Obama was more interested in a fund raiser the next day than he was with what was happening on the ground in Benghazi?

Or is it because the two of you share a skin hue and that the truth might look bad for the first black president? Well, you shouldn't worry. Wasn't Bill Clinton the first black president? And isn't Obama more Red than black?

 

I don't like you and you don't like me. So?

Why be a jerk? Do you believe it is required on this board?

 

Right. Explain why you think doing absolutely nothing prevented a "blow up"? Are you alleging a massive cover-up of some dastardly deed? Like arming America's enemies in Syria? Maybe we should change Barrack Husein Obama's name to Ronald Hussein Reagan. Then you might be interested in the truth.

 

If that is true then why didn't the Marxist fire the Pansy? After all, the Pansy said the Marxist told him to do everything possible to protect those people. And you are telling me that the Pansy said we don't put people in harm's way?

I do not believe that you believe this nonsense story. The Pansy is lying. He had former special operators on the ground. He had a UAV in the air. He had plenty of intelligence to respond and develop the situation. If this is true than the Pansy should be shot for cowardice. And the Marxist should be impeached for his incredibly bad judgment in asking the Pansy to take the job.

 

[video=youtube;P_igpyewuzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ[/video]

[video=youtube;sg6InDwaWFc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6InDwaWFc[/video]

 

Thats not the question. Servicemen die under every single President. Always have always will. The question is the cover up. These four people did not need to die.

 

Still no word on when the Navy is going to release a map showing the where abouts of obama, during the attack?

 

I'm not the one ignoring the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

So Hillary wasn't the Secretary of State with the final say on everything? That's a novel defense of her leadership failures.

 

OF COURSE THE MILITARY IS PREPARED! Obama however only prepares for apparently ......Letterman.

- - - Updated - - -

OF COURSE THE MILITARY IS PREPARED! Obama however only prepares for apparently ......Letterman.

 

The means of our response is unimportant, in my view.
The main point is we did nothing as you have pointed out. We sat back and watched as our people were slaughtered and our assets were ransacked and burned to the ground. To even show up after all the killing with a military presence to try and arrest the lingering terrorists would have at least been something of a positive nature.
But no....Obama did nothing!

And to compound everything....to this very day, we still have done nothing about this attack though we well know who pulled it off! That's the perfect, fat cherry on top of the cake.

 

Had Hillary coordinated with the Military and moved assets like the U.S.S. New York which was at the south end of the Red Sea, there would have been plenty of protection available. Too bad our Secretary of State lacked the vision and leadership to make that happen in advance of the 9/11 attack. Who still thinks she should be President?

- - - Updated - - -

Different KIND of target I'm sure.

 

Only idiot zealots who really don't care what happens to the nation as long as someone with a D next to their name gets to preside over our slow motion self immolation.

 

Had Hillary's State Dept heeded all the warnings, they could have had the U.S.S New York................



..........with an Embarked Landing Force of 699, two CH-53E Super Stallion, two MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, four CH-46 Sea Knight, four AH-1 SeaCobra or four UH-1 Iroquois helicopters move up the Red Sea and into position off the coast of Benghazi and been at the consulate in a matter of minutes to air lift in a security force and provide close attack helicopter air support. They had months to get it done.

 

you lefties are so out of touch of what the military can do its frightening. Some people even posted they cant fly "at night" Are you serious people? Holy sh78 how is it possible people dont know these capabilities? These videos and documentaries are everywhere. Go to youtube and search for "military aircraft" "insurgents" anything. An Ac130 can obliterate a single human from two miles away like its a video game >>> at night, in the rain, through smoke and fire even <<<<< smoke and fire was another one people thought was a reason not to send the military in. Good grief people.

 

With leftwingers it seems to be a matter of pride that they remain as ignorant as possible about U.S. military capabilities . . . which is rather ironic since they have had a War President for their party's leadership for the last five years.

 

[video=youtube;XpuMzD5mmsQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpuMzD5mmsQ[/video]

Afghan footage from AC130 and Mortor Squad