ABC News: Emails Show White House LIED About Benghazi Story "Revisions"

no matter what it is you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on

look what happened to operation eagle claw

 

So you don't know--- GOT IT

That's total BS. Besdies, that doesn't cover willful ignorance...the administration knew the embassy was under attack and I'm pretty sure that the protocol does not stipulate that you wait 7 hours and then wait to see what's going on.

Umm... to my recollection that was a hostage situation and the Embassy was not under attack....completely irrelevant to this situation. Now if you're advancing the notion that we should not attempt a rescue mission because the embassy is under attack, that's ridiculous. Two of our guys died because they put their lives in danger by manning a machine gun to fight off the attack hoping and waiting for troops to show up...and that was 6 hours after the initial attack...5 hours after OWEblamer met with Panetta and Biden, but to send help would have acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. That wouldn't play well with team OWEBlamer's campaign mantra that Osama bin Laden was dead, al-Qaida was destroyed. Clearly they decided that it would be better to blame a filmmaker and his obscure video few ever saw.

 

you're projecting your own state of mind

ever hear the term, 'fools rush in'?

it means that stupid people do things without thinking about the consequences carefully

it's relevant in that it shows how easily missions can go wrong

 

Projection isn't a state of mind. And you don't know the protocol-- GOT IT.

Yeah, I'm chatting with one who has.

That pretty much sums up Liberals and the POTUS. That doesn't speak for our military. Too bad for our fellow Americans who had to die because the military is ran by a liberal Commander and Cheif.

So, using that idiotic logic, we would NEVER attempt rescues. .

 

no, you were advocating rushing in foolishly

it means find out what's going on before you rush in

 

No, I was advocating going in and saving Americans. It was you who thought it was rushing foolishly in the face of admitting that you don't know what the protocol is for embassies under attack.

What part of "They were told the embassy was under attack" boggles you so? Ridiculous.

 

you're advocating rushing in foolishly, without knowing the circumstances, which could have gotten many more of our people killed and even started a conflict that might potentially have gotten lots of people killed

 

At the cost of how many more casualties and loss of assets, especially when the Right is unwilling to burden the wealthiest with wartime tax rates to replace any materiel losses.

Why was evacuation not a first priority at the first sign of any demonstrations in a more volatile region?

 

So now the left is concerned about costs?
Those were Americans on American soil and you think it requires a cost/benefit analysis to act?
America doesn't operate that way. If we have civilians in harms way, we send in our military forces

So only the wealthiest among us should pay for such things? And you wonder why the left has the reputation of being un-American? Too funny.

What demonstrations? There were none. In such a volile region, why weren't additional security given when requestd? FYI...typically, the first priority when an embassy is under attack is to destroy any classified documents, information, equipment and other such sensitive items so that the attackers don't get them.. or die trying. Our first response, unlike you on the left, is NOT TO RUN LIKE COWARDS.

 

Wartime tax rates on the wealthiest, even for a War on Drugs.

From one perspective and in that alternative, the senior officer present should have known to make due with what he had available. What he had available was no order to hold that position at any cost. Evacuation should have been a first priority with an understrength garrison at a diplomatic post.

 

BS.. your mantra is just tax the wealthy, period.

What he had was no support from his superiors and repeated denial of adiquate security personel as requested. That's why all the lying we have now is taking place.

 

Simply because they are, worth it.

So, knowing that, why not establish a better evacuation plan?

 

I'm not advocating no such thing. We knew the circumstances. We were being attacked. It is you who foolishly ignores that fact.

or which could have saved the lives of Amiericans on American soil and many more. Why do you think that is such a bad thing?
We were being attacked and this administration did NOTHING to protect and defend our embassy and our people. That is all that matters.
Why do you think we are able to get people to serve in our foriegn services in dangerous territory? It's because they know that when they go over to serve, they will have the full force of America's might behind them should things get ugly. They don't sign up and serve to be bait as this administraion has done.

 

Only cowards and idiots think retreat is a winning strategy.

 

Only worshipers of a false war god believe holding a position at any cost without any orders to so is moral.

 

i think it's people who know little about history that make such ignorant remarks

was general george washington a cowards or an idiot?


Landing on Long Island in August, Howe defeated Washington in the largest battle of the war, but the Continental Army was able to retreat to Manhattan under cover of darkness and fog. Washington suffered a series of defeats in Manhattan, with the exception of a victory at Harlem Heights, but was nevertheless chased north to White Plains, New York. At that point Howe returned to Manhattan to capture forces Washington had left in the north of that island.

Washington and much of his army crossed the Hudson River into New Jersey, and retreated all the way across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania, shrinking due to ending enlistment periods, desertions, and poor morale.

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

 

That's what one would expect an idiot or coward would say.

Um.... So you seek to find relevancy from the annals of history when there is no relevancy? The continental army was at war -- not in an "overseas contingency operation". The Continental Army fought Howe because George Washington did not have as a first priority to "evacuate at the first sign of any demonstrations in a more volatile region" as you would have had him do. That would be cowardice. GW fought and then retreated because he did not have reinforcement troops to call in like we had available in Benghazi. GW would not have order troops to stand down when those reinforcements where in reach to save American civilian lives. Too bad we didn't have GW as commander and chief instead of our equivalent of Neville Chamberlain . So don't bother trying to invoke heroism to cover cowardice. I think your so mixed up and confused that you don't know the difference between the two.

 

It can't be real times of War, if the wealthiest are not being burdened with War Time tax rates.

 

that's funny coming from someone that seems to think history is a joke

and ignorant statements that have no merit, have any credence

retreat or delay of action to survive, trumps suicide

i provided historical facts that show the prudence of retreat in face of sure annihilation, which is absolutely relevant

you really think you can speak for washington?

 

Maybe the Right can explain the strategic or tactical value of holding that non-firebase at Any cost.

 

The jokes on you. You can't cherry pick historical events and strip them of context just to try to make them appear relevant. You my friend are a historical joke.

I agree, your ignorance proves this to be true.

Enabling homicide trumps suicide? How so?
Besides, that is all speculation on your part. There is no certainty that our troops and forces would be so iept as be unable to dispatch 60 "protestors". Unlike you, I believe and support the execptionalism our military capability.

It's not relevant nor is it a fact without context. That's called ommison and cherry picking.

Apparently better me than you....I don't hate America

 

Who said anything about that? Maybe you can explain the tactical or strategic value of not providing support or having adaquate security at an Embassy in the heart of terrorist territory and leaving our ambasador to die?

BTW, what is the going rate for an Embassador's life these days?

 

Tripoli, the Embassy, was well secured. The outpost was not and that is why there was an investigation where suggestions were given and implemented. That is taking action. Not sitting around and doing Monday morning quarterbacking.

Increase the funding for security abroad and every outpost can be set up like Fort Knox if you think that it is necessary.

 

face it, you made a stupid remark about 'retreat', then had to backpedal and make excuses

where do you come up with such looney stuff?

evidently you hate the truth

 

It should make all the difference in the world to a senior officer present.

Wartime tax rates on the wealthiest, even for a War on Drugs, is what I am advocating.