Navy releases map showing location of fleet positions during Benghazi attacks

Thats really all you got? seriously? Your posts are useless drivel.

[video=youtube;a3RfxNJBArU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3RfxNJBArU[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;a3RfxNJBArU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3RfxNJBArU[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

[video=youtube;a3RfxNJBArU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3RfxNJBArU[/video]

 

ok, i watched the video, hilary is right, what's your point?

 

Apparently the kind of useless drivel that comes with fundamental questions that the so called conservatives can't seem to address.

 

So you dont think hillary telling lies about benghazi being the result of a youtube video protest, is relevant?

tsk tsk tsk....

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe her when she claimed the benghazi attack was the result of a youtube video protest?

 

So what is this dim witted point implying? That the Defense Department and the State Department do not cooperatively collaborate to advance American goals?

After having bombed and harassed our Benghazi asset many times in the months before the 9/11 attack I'd have to say their motives were not exactly mysterious and unfathomable.
Another foolish point.

They carry other means by which terrorists can be dissuaded from attacking our people. In any event there were anti terrorist FAST units sitting in Tripoli while Benghazi burned down. What were they waiting for? Word from the Commander in Chief to go into action?

Yes, actually.

Our vessels cruise those waters constantly. I don't see what your point is.

After seeing your post I'd have to agree.

 

The problem for so called conservatives on this thread is that they obviously lack even the most basic rudimentary knowledge of military operations and capabilities. So how do they even begin to speculate about what might have been possible?

 

show me exactly where in that video she said the benghazi attack was the result of a youtube video protest

because i've watched it several times and still don't see it

not that it's relevant, in the first place

 

I agree with Hillary it makes no difference what caused the attack, lying about it does. The sheer fact that they weren't ready for it to happens falls back on her failure as Secretary of State

 

show me exactly where in that video she said the benghazi attack was the result of a youtube video protest

not that it's relevant, i just want to see it


here's what she said in that video, word for word:

"We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence.

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."

 

As opposed to all the Norman Schwarzkopfs and George Pattons that populate the progressive base, you mean?

Yeah....great point...

 

No, I mean as opposed to me.

 

Did she blow a fuse or have a stroke?

[video=youtube;QSooz2wXpes]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes[/video]

Why on Earth would she bring up the video when the bodies from Benghazi were arriving home if the two had nothing to do with each other? Either they do or she's gone round the bend and her aspirations for the White House should be traded for a white coat with straps on the sleeves.

 

wrong & wrong again, she had a blood clot

because she's right, there were protest over the video and at that time, the dust hadn't settled yet

like i said earlier, you've got no evidence of any crime

you must be projecting your own state of mind

 

No, but I'll forgive you for not realizing my point, you seem like a very special person.

The State Department does not dictate to the Defense Department where the Defense Department's own assets go.

Another foolish point.

Ever been to a war zone? I doubt it, you probably wouldn't have survived, you need intelligence to survive in combat.

Do you know what a destroyer can do to respond to an urban firefight? Not a *******N THING, unless you're suggesting leveling the surrounding half-block around the hot zone.

The United States Navy only operates one type of destroyer, the Arleigh Burke class. The only weapon that those vessels have that could have struck Benghazi within any time to have made a difference is the Tomahawk cruise missile. Tomahawks are only used to attack hard targets, like buildings, they are next to useless against soft targets or personnel. Not to mention the obvious foreign policy implications of firing a weapon of war into the territory of another country and causing innocent civilian casualties. Oh, and since we had friendlies in the center of the hot zone, guess who would have freaking died? Yep, the same people you're thinking would have been saved. This isn't some damn video game, friendly fire is always on, and there is no respawns.

That our warships sail in the Med is entirely irrelevant if the warship does not have the capability to respond to a comparatively small firefight in a country that we have no cause to fire a missile with a thousand-pound warhead into. Then again, you supported Bush, so I guess the rules of war don't mean a damn thing to you. Oh to be a Republican and not have the rules apply to you.

The FAST team couldn't just jump in and go. Did they have a chopper or an Osprey? If not, you're talking hours to wait for a chopper to get the team to Benghazi, which was again an hour away at least. By that time, the battle would have been over and the Americans would have been just as dead. Let's also not forget, to deliver troops, a helicopter has to hover. There were RPGs in the hands of the enemy. Ask Michael Durant what an RPG does to a helicopter. IT GOES BOOM! HELO GOES BYE BYE. MORE AMERICANS DEAD.

For all the people that claim to love the military, if you actually knew the capabilities of the military, there wouldn't have been much of a controversy. We were powerless.

 

"The attack lasted about eight hours.

Ships could have responded, but they would not have helped.

We receive intelligence pretty darned quickly. Of course we have to actually be looking for it. The NSA was probably too busy monitoring my phone calls to bother with such mundane, routine things like an ambassador being murdered. If unarmed aircraft, or aircraft improperly provisioned for a ground fight is all you have then launch them and develop the situation. The next pair in the air can have a better weapons load out."

What is your level of expertise in air power?

Your questions are good questions. We own the night. One can never be certain about anything other than death and taxes.

I will wait to hear your answer.

 

Near is a relative term when it comes to air power. Given that there were no know helicopters nearby I agree with your answer. I do not agree in general with dismissing air power. But I will be patient as I wait to hear your answer about your expertise.

 

Thats cause youre not telling the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

blah blah blah no links, no proof, no nothing, just bs....

 

in other words, you can't show me because it's not there

 

Its there, she says it. Your making crap up, yet again.

 

I do indeed realize your point and if by very special you mean exceptional then I would agree with you.

I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested that. I believe I used the phrase cooperative collaboration, instead.

Speaking of foolish, are you suggesting that Benghazi was a "war zone" in any sense of the word.

And do you not think that the many provocations by Ansar al Sharia (the bombings, the attempted assassination of the British ambassador, etc.) constitute a real and reliable indication of their not so subtle intentions?
When your next door neighbor punches you in the face one day, and then later tries to set your garage on fire, you don't need the CIA to figure out
he means you harm. Or maybe you don't understand such subtle signals.

In the single case of a destroyer you are undoubtedly right. But it's disingenuous to suggest this then translates to all our other military options in such a base rich environment. The idea that we were helpless to respond to the terrorist assault on our asset in Benghazi is frankly bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!

A disingenuous fallacy at very best, as my previous comment makes clear. Unless our military response was limited entirely to our warships (which it was not) your point is pure sophist nonsense.

So it was an hour away...so what? Do you realize how long that attack went on? It seems not.
And even at that, how in hell could Panetta and Obama possibly know when definite news from Benghazi reached the White House (quite early in the attack) how much longer the fighting would last?

Were they omniscient wizards? I think not! Your point is just recycled bull crap! I've seen it regurgitated over and over again by leftist apologists that, oh oh...we didn't have enough time to send help to Benghazi. That's a load of dung, frankly. No one knew that at the time.
And, in fact, we DID have time to get help to our people. But we never even tried and that's criminal!

I guess if you hovered directly over the fighting you might have a point. We had real time drone feeds from the battle, however, from early in the fight.
I guess you think our people there were too stupid to drop FAST units at a safe, yet nearby, distance.

You haven't demonstrated that at all! What a fail.

 

here's what she said in that video, word for word:

"We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence.

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."

[video=youtube;a3RfxNJBArU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3RfxNJBArU[/video]

 

Super, than admit youve been lying the entire time.

 

no, i reiterate my assertion:

she didn't say the benghazi attack was the result of a youtube video protest

if you think she did, copy the words, put quotes around them and paste them up in your post

 

nope, everyone in the administration was perpetrating the exact same lie, of a protest of a youtube video.

[video=youtube;bxf77xQ_NLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxf77xQ_NLU[/video]

[video=youtube;QSooz2wXpes]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes#t=72[/video]

 

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks.

So was she being disingenuous or round the bend? Either way she's got no business attempting to run for President in 2016, she's as bad as Obama. Her Presidency would be nothing more than an Obama third term.

That's just childish.