Navy releases map showing location of fleet positions during Benghazi attacks

just admit the truth, nowhere in that video did hilary say the benghazi attack was the result of a youtube video protest

why is your question so ridiculously stupid?

oh that's right, because you've got no evidence of a crime

 

Nope, thats what the entire video I posted was about. They all lied, and kept on lying.

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

 

what is this musical videos? everytime i show you that you're wrong

you drop the video and go to another one

face it, you've got nothing

 

Im not going to lie, and thats what your asking me to do.

Maybe you should ask hillary or obama to lie, theyre quite good at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Im not wrong, they all lied, youre the only one who refuses to accept reality.

 

Where did I say she ever committed one? Politicians lying is not a crime.....yet, but is should be. The only crime (rhetorically speaking) would be if that woman is ever elected President, as she would for all intents and purposes be Obama's third term. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

Of course things happen..but Obama tried covering it up by blaming it on a youtube video. If im wrong tell me what obama did that night and why.

 

reality is that the gop is trying to manufacture scandals

like i said all along, if there were evidence of a crime, y'all would be all over it

but, there is no evidence clinton or obama committed any sort of crime what-soever, so give it up

no he didn't and even if he had, it might be a mistake or it might be correct, you don't know for sure

 

right... they just lied to the American people about their negligence that resulted in the deaths of 20 people.

 

negligence is a crime, but, there's no evidence of negligence

 

That's not what I meant by special, but the fact you couldn't figure it out, proves that I was pretty much spot on.

Others seem to have suggested it.

When there's machine guns and rocket-propelled anti-tank weapons being used, that is pretty damn spot on to the definition of "war zone".

What you're suggesting is that we run like scared little dogs every time we are remotely threatened, since it would be next to impossible to prevent every single attack. Go look at all the attacks on diplomatic missions when Bush was in office and get upset over that.

You really have no clue how the military operates, do you? It takes 1-2 hours at least to be able to get the information up the chain of command, generate orders, and then have it get back down the chain of command to the people who can do anything. ONLY THEN will the military make a move, since we are a nation that has strong civilian control over the military. Once the orders are in the hands of the operators, it takes some time to brief the shooters on the threats, and transport them from Sig to Benghazi. It would have taken several hours for the shooters from Sig to get across the Med.

I've never once served in uniform, but even I grasp these concepts, but then again, I have a fully-functional brain.

You should go read a middle-school level physics textbook. We had no capability that would have been able to get enough shooters on scene in enough time to have saved those four. We could have gotten troops there for the tail-end of the attack, but the amount of people we would have been able to put on scene would have been outmanned and outgunned by the hundreds of attackers. We would have had MORE casualties.

It went on for about five hours. The point still stands that you don't send a single unarmed helicopter into a hot zone with known RPGs and expect the damn bird to not be blotted from the sky.

Sure the FAST team probably knew the layout of the compound, but the troops at Sig probably didn't, which means they would have had to be briefed on the layout of the compound, the possible locations of friendlies and hostiles, and a whole threat assessment.

You actually make a damn good point though, they didn't know how long the fighting would last. Knowing that, they figured well four deaths at the compound beats the hell out of having several more deaths of special forces operators and pilots.

Oh really? Is the concept of PHYSICS foreign to your simple simian mind? The fastest way to get troops in would have been to paradrop. Paradrops, however, are just as dangerous, and also would have required alerting the Libyans since most dropships aren't exactly stealthy, fast, or maneuverable.

You know what was likely to have happened had we gotten troops close enough to engage the enemy on the ground? Black Hawk Down Part II. Hovering helicopters are big, juicy targets for RPGs. Oh, and RPGs, being unguided, don't give a damn bit of warning to the pilot.

A helicopter hovering anywhere near the compound would still be damn vulnerable, it doesn't have to be right over the compound.

Way to prove your incompetence about this. There is no safe place for a helicopter when RPGs are around. You're the kind of person I could see being shot by your own people if you were in the military.

I only failed to prove it because you somehow think the United States military can violate the laws of physics. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brain-damaged chimpanzee. You're the failure for not realizing that you can't stop time.

 

Yes there is, criminal negligence, resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans.

oh and theres also that bit about providing material support to an enemy of the United States of America.

 

Really?

They knew all this and still didn't sent the U.S.S. New York up the Red Sea to a position offshore in Benghazi where help would have been minutes away. In my opinion, that makes Hillary negligent, ignorant or just plain stupid.

 

Then Bush should be tried for the thirteen attacks against US diplomatic missions under his watch.

 

Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Criminally_negligent_manslaughter

- - - Updated - - -

He should IF you can provide evidence of the warnings in advance....can you?

 

How many people died?

 

right, you're like the guy from louisiana talking about a crime

but when asked for the evidence, says there's still an investigation going on

which really means he's got no evidence, he just wants to manufacture a scandal based on lies

 

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

 

You make it sound like our presidents are in on the planning. Apparently Clinton had veto power while Bush did not. Awesome.

 

My very limited expertise-if you can call it that-suggests to me that launching a couple of F18s in response as another poster wanted, would have achieved nothing. Wrong aeroplane, wrong role.

 

just admit it, you've got no evidence

what a joke

 

Did the attack in Lebanon extend over nearly eight hours? Obama's Benghazi Massacre ran for about eight hours while out MIA president was, well, voting NOT PRESENT.

The president's inaction is mysterious. I meant political. Pardon me.

 

I got plenty, Ive posted much of it already.

Youve provided zero. no links, no proof, nothing.....

 

I am not surprised about your unwillingness to answer. What is your expertise in the use of air power?

 

obviously you don't understand what evidence is and who hears the burden of proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

if you were to go back through this thread you'd see that i have provided links, which are something

and i have nothing to prove, that burden falls to the accuser

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. I am sure you are doing the best you can.