(01-24-2013 12:48 AM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Once the attacks began, we weren't going to save anyone. The only assets we could get there in time to make any sort of difference were fighter or attack jets, and this is not the kind of situation where a fighter or attack jet can make a difference, particularly when the requisite difference is saving a life.
The problem is that we allowed things to get to a point where that was the case. That's the part for which there needs to be some culpability.

I don't remember the source, but I heard somewhere that we had troops less than 2 hours away by chopper and some of the ones were not killed till 4 hours after US intelligence knew of the attacks. If this is true there would have been a 2 hour window to save some.

That's not what I've heard. Not that it isn't true, who knows exactly what is true? It would be reasonable to assume that we would have had troops at least that close, but that's not what I've heard. I find it hard to believe that we were caught with our pants that far down, but things like that do happen.

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  She's right. Why does it matter what their motivation to to kill was? They killed and we need to prevent that.

Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No.

Uh yes. How else can you prevent it from happening if you don't know what the root cause was to begin with?

You've never actually solved a problem before, have you?

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  She's right. Why does it matter what their motivation to to kill was? They killed and we need to prevent that.

Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No. All you care about is preventing it from happening again not what they were thinking. Also, perhaps finding out who did it so you can get your stuff back.

No, I wouldn't care what the cause was, then again, I'm not the one trying to find ways to address it. That's the police and the prosecutors jobs. Analogy fail.

(01-24-2013 02:07 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  She's right. Why does it matter what their motivation to to kill was? They killed and we need to prevent that.

Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No. All you care about is preventing it from happening again not what they were thinking. Also, perhaps finding out who did it so you can get your stuff back.

No, I wouldn't care what the cause was, then again, I'm not the one trying to find ways to address it. That's the police and the prosecutors jobs. Analogy fail.

Lets see, preventing it from happening again goes directly to what the motivation was to why they robbed him. Was there a rash of robberies in the neighborhood? Was this possibly part of a larger operation? Was it gang related?

The motivation and why leads to the who? Speaking to the Benghazi case it's certainly pertinent to what the motivation was to lead to the who. Main reason is to find them before they kill any more Americans..... Oh ****......too late......see Algeria

(01-24-2013 12:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  She's right. Why does it matter what their motivation to to kill was? They killed and we need to prevent that.

Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No. All you care about is preventing it from happening again not what they were thinking. Also, perhaps finding out who did it so you can get your stuff back.

Not even close to the same thing. Replace you little scenario with someone murdering a family member. I'm willing to be the word "why?" comes out of your mouth at some point.

You're missing the point completely though. The fact that the administration chose to go with the video story and present no evidence to back it up is the real problem. We are supposed to believe that this spontaneous reaction to the video happened to fall on 9/11 even though the video had been online for months?

I intentionally didn't use murder in that scenario because I thought it bad karma with Reb.

(01-24-2013 03:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:07 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:36 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  She's right. Why does it matter what their motivation to to kill was? They killed and we need to prevent that.

Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No. All you care about is preventing it from happening again not what they were thinking. Also, perhaps finding out who did it so you can get your stuff back.

No, I wouldn't care what the cause was, then again, I'm not the one trying to find ways to address it. That's the police and the prosecutors jobs. Analogy fail.

Lets see, preventing it from happening again goes directly to what the motivation was to why they robbed him. Was there a rash of robberies in the neighborhood? Was this possibly part of a larger operation? Was it gang related?

The motivation and why leads to the who? Speaking to the Benghazi case it's certainly pertinent to what the motivation was to lead to the who. Main reason is to find them before they kill any more Americans..... Oh ****......too late......see Algeria

Do you really care what they were thinking?

Bet she's getting tips from the best.

(01-24-2013 05:36 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 03:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 02:07 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 08:21 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Are you f'n serious?

Somebody breaks into your house and steals all your sh1t. Do you care that they did it because: 1.) they knew you weren't home during the day 2.) they knew you have nice stuff 3.) they don't like you as a person 4.) their parents didn't love them 5.) they have a drug problem? No. All you care about is preventing it from happening again not what they were thinking. Also, perhaps finding out who did it so you can get your stuff back.

No, I wouldn't care what the cause was, then again, I'm not the one trying to find ways to address it. That's the police and the prosecutors jobs. Analogy fail.

Lets see, preventing it from happening again goes directly to what the motivation was to why they robbed him. Was there a rash of robberies in the neighborhood? Was this possibly part of a larger operation? Was it gang related?

The motivation and why leads to the who? Speaking to the Benghazi case it's certainly pertinent to what the motivation was to lead to the who. Main reason is to find them before they kill any more Americans..... Oh ****......too late......see Algeria

Do you really care what they were thinking?

Yes, and so did HC when they started issuing all of those apologies.

(01-23-2013 01:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'm rather disappointed that she wasn't asked why it was presented to the public as a "spontaneous protest". I'd like to know who decided that's what it was. To me that's the real question.

We know the result. Four dead Americans. We know assistance was available but not sent. We may not yet know exactly what caused it, but we do know it wasn't a video, or spontaneous protest. What we will never know is why the administration chose to tell a bold faced lie to the American public for weeks.

What bold face lie are you speaking of? Didn't the administration say that it was an act of terror the very next day?

(01-24-2013 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 12:48 AM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Once the attacks began, we weren't going to save anyone. The only assets we could get there in time to make any sort of difference were fighter or attack jets, and this is not the kind of situation where a fighter or attack jet can make a difference, particularly when the requisite difference is saving a life.
The problem is that we allowed things to get to a point where that was the case. That's the part for which there needs to be some culpability.

I don't remember the source, but I heard somewhere that we had troops less than 2 hours away by chopper and some of the ones were not killed till 4 hours after US intelligence knew of the attacks. If this is true there would have been a 2 hour window to save some.

That's not what I've heard. Not that it isn't true, who knows exactly what is true? It would be reasonable to assume that we would have had troops at least that close, but that's not what I've heard. I find it hard to believe that we were caught with our pants that far down, but things like that do happen.

Not exactly what I thought but close.
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=48231

Quote:The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

Hostilities and gunfire went on at the CIA annex for more than four hours, which was enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive.

(01-24-2013 05:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What bold face lie are you speaking of? Didn't the administration say that it was an act of terror the very next day?

It did not say it was a terrorist act. It did say "act of terror" but that wording was obviously very carefully chosen and parsed. The two are not the same thing. If a bunch of innocuous protestors, upset about a movie, broke into the consulate and killed a bunch of folks, that would be an "act of terror." But it wouldn't be a "terrorist act" unless there were terrorists involved. And they worked pretty hard to maintain the fiction that there were no terrorists until well after the event.

That is the essential distinction here. The administration wanted to downplay the idea that there were actually any terrorists involved, because their election campaign mantra was that Seal Team Six had overcome terrorism by killing bin Laden. That lie couldn't be maintained if there were terrorists killing ambassadors. But winning the election was far more important at that point than telling the truth.

(01-24-2013 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What bold face lie are you speaking of? Didn't the administration say that it was an act of terror the very next day?

It did not say it was a terrorist act. It did say "act of terror" but that wording was obviously very carefully chosen and parsed. The two are not the same thing. If a bunch of innocuous protestors, upset about a movie, broke into the consulate and killed a bunch of folks, that would be an "act of terror." But it wouldn't be a "terrorist act" unless there were terrorists involved. And they worked pretty hard to maintain the fiction that there were no terrorists until well after the event.

That is the essential distinction here. The administration wanted to downplay the idea that there were actually any terrorists involved, because their election campaign mantra was that Seal Team Six had overcome terrorism by killing bin Laden. That lie couldn't be maintained if there were terrorists killing ambassadors. But winning the election was far more important at that point than telling the truth.

+1. Remember - it's not about what is best for the country, it's about winning elections. Scumbags.

(01-24-2013 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 05:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What bold face lie are you speaking of? Didn't the administration say that it was an act of terror the very next day?

It did not say it was a terrorist act. It did say "act of terror" but that wording was obviously very carefully chosen and parsed. The two are not the same thing. If a bunch of innocuous protestors, upset about a movie, broke into the consulate and killed a bunch of folks, that would be an "act of terror." But it wouldn't be a "terrorist act" unless there were terrorists involved. And they worked pretty hard to maintain the fiction that there were no terrorists until well after the event.

That is the essential distinction here. The administration wanted to downplay the idea that there were actually any terrorists involved, because their election campaign mantra was that Seal Team Six had overcome terrorism by killing bin Laden. That lie couldn't be maintained if there were terrorists killing ambassadors. But winning the election was far more important at that point than telling the truth.

+1. Remember - it's not about what is best for the country, it's about winning elections. Such a sorry direction my country's supposed leaders have chosen.

"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" ...... Monty Python

Obama cracks joke about 4 dead Americans on 60 minutes.

"You know, I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, "Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up." (Laughter)

Bet that wont be discussed anywhere.

(01-28-2013 07:13 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Obama cracks joke about 4 dead Americans on 60 minutes.

"You know, I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, "Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up." (Laughter)

Bet that wont be discussed anywhere.

Obama might tell that story when he's retired from the presidency and at some party in Davos or Martha's Vineyard.

Speaking of Robert Gates, he could enlighten Obama (and anyone else who's p*ssed about the Susan Rice affair) on what it's like to endure the confirmation process of a Democrat-majority Senate, too. One part star-chamber, one part witch-hunt.