JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[Redskins Diehard]

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. It stated out as complaining about how the administration was "apologizing" while the attacks happened. Mitt fired that one off before he had any idea what the hell was going on there. Then the focus changed to the Youtube video and whether Obama was blaming American Christians for causing this attack. Then it was a claim that Obama was weak because he didn't attack random Libyan civilians in retaliation. Then it became Obama could have saved the Ambassador with our Team America strike force that was hovering nearby in their invisible spaceship, but Obama preferred to sit in the White House and let the Ambassador die, you know, for kicks.

All of those things are complete bull, which is why they never stick with any one accusation for long. If you change the charges over and over, no one can respond to them coherently, so you can scream "coverup" "scandal" "Benghazi-gate!!!!!" They are flogging this because they have nothing else to work with right now, and they are desperately trying to make something negative , anything, stick to the President before Tuesday. They are trying to fire up their base with the idea that Obama is cowardly, and unamerican, and and anti-Christian, hell, he's probably a murderer, and he certainly cares more about those dirty Arabs than about our brave soldiers.

It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.

I haven't noticed what Fox is doing and haven't defended a single thing that they have said(unless purely by coincidence). I have said throughout that I don't question what tactical decisions the President(specifically because I would hope that he was not involved whatsoever in a decision to send a QRF). Nor do I think anyone at the "political appointee level" of any organization was involved in the decision of whether or not to send a QRF immediately. I have said that multiple times. The analogy to Gothic Serpent is one that I think doesn't apply all that well and probably one that a hardcore supporter of the President and his party should steer clear of making. ASF made the claim that committing a QRF without knowing the full situation is one I take issue with. And in fact it appears that most that are on the side of defending everything that took place are making an effort to dispute. That there was no order to stand down. That they committed what they could when they could to attempt to secure the Ambassador. I think that is 100% the right decision. And I suspect that the brave men that went to the sound of the guns to try to save him feel the same way. I suspect that the Rangers involved in that rescue attempt in Mogadishu feel the same way for the most part. Hell Shugart and Gordon ASKED to be put in to that position knowing that chances were they weren't coming out alive. Greater love hath no man than this...I will never leave a fallen comrade...Thou I be the lone survivor....these guys live that and thank God they do.

I have a feeling that the drivel that the Sean Hannity's of the world are spewing is exactly that. And it is distracting us from the discussion that really needs to happen.

[Jumbo]

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. <edit details >
It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.

So far, I see it much the same way as you present. My emphasis is on the tragedy being just that, and having a perpetual willingness to examine all things relevant that could have been done better no matter who looks bad (if anyone does) in the process.

But the way I feel I want to deal with the people you describe at the end there, P, is not with any of the qualities I usually seek to employ. My reaction here forces me to face my dark side.



(none of the above applies to Redskins Diehard, btw, who I read as a poster of intelligence and integrity who gives thought to his positions)

[Predicto]

Hell Shugart and Gordon ASKED to be put in to that position knowing that chances were they weren't coming out alive. Greater love hath no man than this...I will never leave a fallen comrade...Thou I be the lone survivor....these guys live that and thank God they do.

I have a feeling that the drivel that the Sean Hannity's of the world are spewing is exactly that. And it is distracting us from the discussion that really needs to happen.

I agree. I don't know what the right decision was, and those men are 5000 times braver than me, and I'm not a military expert.

But I know a concerted smear job when I see one (not by you of course). This is shameless.

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d93_story.html

The Post’s View

A security breakdown in Benghazi

NEWS REPORTING about the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, has moved from the political and mostly pointless issue of when the Obama administration had publicly acknowledged that a terrorist attack had taken place to more essential questions: Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions.

And then there's uh...this.
Giuliani is just kind of sad these days....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...him-for-libya/

In fiery speech, Giuliani calls on Obama to resign, faults him for Libya

Not long after taking a few seconds of silence for those affected by Superstorm Sandy, Rudy Giuliani began ripping into President Barack Obama on Friday while speaking at major campaign event for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in Ohio.

The former New York City mayor delivered a series of blistering zingers against the president, rallying the massive crowd with line after line of reasons why Obama should "resign" and faulting him for "incompetence" over the Libya consulate attacks.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Giuliani stopped being relevant when he Bloomberg took over in NYC, now he just sounds like the bitter old hack Trump.

[JMS]

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there?

In Mogadishu we had 160 soldiers, superior air support, superior mobility.. You are right as soon as we lost one soldier who fell out of the helecopter we lost our advantage. mobility doesn't matter if the bad guys know where you are and you have to stay there. Mobility was also mitigated because the bad guys who had about a 20 to one advantage on people knew the area we would be defending before we did. They basically tied us up and trampled us. Mitigated our strength, maximized their own.

We took 1 casualty and we were locked in place, that allowed all the other bad things to occur.

That is the "mistake" we would have been at risk of repeating.. sending 16-30-50 guys in to face hundreds. or hundreds in to face thousands.. Sending people in blind.

I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms.

The "engagement" was never on our terms. We had mostly unarmed guys facing 150 armed terrorists.
They picked the time, the ground, and knew who we had to call in, it was a no win situation for us by design.

We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

Well we didn't leave them out there to die. They sent two relief groups and got them the hell out of dodge at the earliest possibility. That seemed to be a pretty good game plan... We could have sent 200 guys in there, and those 200 guys could still have been facing 600 terrorists or 2000, in fortified positions.... The lesson of mogidishu is to not fight the guy on his terms, don't get bogged down and allow him to mitigate your advantages. Hell if we had sent a huge releif effort more folks would have died than just 4. They did well as it played out.

If you are going to commit troups know what you are committing them into and go strong, I think that's a good rule and I think Penetta and the generals did well here.. given all the things we didn't know.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:36 AM ----------

They knew that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

But that's their entire game.. To force our hand... They tried that here, and I don't think our hand was forced, I think we opted to send in the surgical teams, with instructions to get the hell out. Rather than go in with company or batalion of guys to hit the terrorist back.

The big issue with Mogandishu wasn't no resources. I mean sure when the crisis was upon us we really needed heavy tanks to bail us out and didn't have them; but the real issue was what caused the crisis. We were forced to defend ground against superior forces because those superior forces set a trap which we fell into. They forced our hand and we played their game. That's what killed our 80 soldiers.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:39 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

It would absolutely have been going in blind. The unarmed UAV can see who's attacking the consulate, but it doesn't know if those are the only bad guys there. The consulate doesn't know either. You send a company or batalion into that and you absolutely could have been facing Mogadishu II. We knew about the 150 guys who attacked the consulate, but we don't know if their were 2000 guys wating for our counter strike.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 12:55 AM ----------

Black Hawk down also showed that a few US military forces can handle thousands... (lets give our boys credit)
Could we not be sick and tired of something that killed out boys and we haven't had the first real report yet? I mean really.
A 13yr old can decimate the explanations given so far... If they died protecting others they need to be decorated.

Dude, I again disagree with you. 160 vs 4000 - 6000 where you end up getting half your command killed is a debacle. It was a preplanned ambush where the Mohamid Adid set out to inflict one casualty to pin our forces down and force us into that trap. That we played into it and slugged it out with him doesn't reflect well on our military. All it shows is the most highly trained and sophisticated force in the world can still get defeated and get beat up when their leaders don't make smart decisions in the face of smart oposition. Mogadishu was a defeat. We got outsmarted and played into the hands of a warlord who employs untrained children with AK's to do his mussel work. The lesson to be learned there. We aren't bullet proof and we have to make good decisions to avoid stupid idiotic sensless loss of American lives ending in defeat. defeats like Vietnam, Lebonon, and yes Mogadishu.... Thankfully not Benghezi.

Mogadishu where the United States had to rely on Pakistan to bail us out of the hole we had dug outselves into. The only good thing which came out of that was the President had the good sense not to commit more troops.

I heard Collin Powel speak last friday... I was about six rows away from him. Powel is probable one of the best military leaders this country has produced in 50 years. I believe that... The genius which embodies his sucess as a military strategist is amaizingly simple... Don't send troops in unless vital National intrests are at risk, and you can use the full advantage of the US investment in it's military grants you. If you send in troops, go all in; no half measures. It's amizing that that common sensical credo makes him a genius.. Coarse it's not just that credo which did it. It's also having the disipline to live by those words.

[Redskins Diehard]

In Mogadishu we had 160 soldiers, superior air support, superior mobility.. You are right as soon as we lost one soldier who fell out of the helecopter we lost our advantage. mobility doesn't matter if the bad guys know where you are and you have to stay there. Mobility was also mitigated because the bad guys who had about a 20 to one advantage on people knew the area we would be defending before we did. They basically tied us up and trampled us. Mitigated our strength, maximized their own.

We took 1 casualty and we were locked in place, that allowed all the other bad things to occur.

I never said we lost our advantage. I said we lost our initiative. They are not the same thing. We maintained significant advantage throughout Gothic Serpent. And we did not lose the initiative when Blackburn fell out of the helicopter. That was a bump in the road compared to having a downed MH60 and isolated crew in the city. Word of advice and take it for what it is worth...if you ever come across any of the guys that were there I wouldn't share the "they tied us up and trampled us" assessment with them.

That is the "mistake" we would have been at risk of repeating.. sending 16-30-50 guys in to face hundreds. or hundreds in to face thousands.. Sending people in blind.

Are you asserting that sending in the rescue convoys in Mogadishu was a mistake? There were plenty of tactical, operational, and strategic mistakes associated with that mission to choose from. Are you saying that sending in the convoys was one of them?

The "engagement" was never on our terms. We had mostly unarmed guys facing 150 armed terrorists.
They picked the time, the ground, and knew who we had to call in, it was a no win situation for us by design.

I agree with you that it was never on our terms. That is my point. We do not get to choose whether or not we have enough information to commit our QRF....if there is one. They took the initiative when they placed our Ambassador in peril. We did not get to choose anymore.

Well we didn't leave them out there to die. They sent two relief groups and got them the hell out of dodge at the earliest possibility. That seemed to be a pretty good game plan... We could have sent 200 guys in there, and those 200 guys could still have been facing 600 terrorists or 2000, in fortified positions.... The lesson of mogidishu is to not fight the guy on his terms, don't get bogged down and allow him to mitigate your advantages. Hell if we had sent a huge releif effort more folks would have died than just 4. They did well as it played out.

So you have no problem sending in the 2 "relief groups" but would have had a problem with anymore? So it was bad enough and we knew enough to send people from the Annex and the Embassy but NOT bad enough and we did not know enough to send anymore. In other words you have defined the opposite scenario as Sean Hannity....he says nothing was done right and you say everything was.

But that's their entire game.. To force our hand... They tried that here, and I don't think our hand was forced, I think we opted to send in the surgical teams, with instructions to get the hell out. Rather than go in with company or batalion of guys to hit the terrorist back.

They killed our Ambassador. I really don't think making the claim that their objective to force "our hand" is accurate or relevant.

The big issue with Mogandishu wasn't no resources. I mean sure when the crisis was upon us we really needed heavy tanks to bail us out and didn't have them; but the real issue was what caused the crisis. We were forced to defend ground against superior forces because those superior forces set a trap which we fell into. They forced our hand and we played their game. That's what killed our 80 soldiers.

80 soldiers were not killed in Mogadishu. You started with "lost". You have progressed to "killed". You are wrong.

It would absolutely have been going in blind. The unarmed UAV can see who's attacking the consulate, but it doesn't know if those are the only bad guys there. The consulate doesn't know either. You send a company or batalion into that and you absolutely could have been facing Mogadishu II. We knew about the 150 guys who attacked the consulate, but we don't know if their were 2000 guys wating for our counter strike.

As it turns out it appears we had a fairly robust intelligence element on the ground at the Annex. We had UAVs. We had eyes on. Did we know where every single possible threat was? Probably not. Do we ever know where every single possible threat is? No. Did we know there was nobody with an RPG in Abbottabad? No. But we sent helicopters in anyway.

Dude, I again disagree with you. 160 vs 4000 - 6000 where you end up getting half your command killed is a debacle. It was a preplanned ambush where the Mohamid Adid set out to inflict one casualty to pin our forces down and force us into that trap. That we played into it and slugged it out with him doesn't reflect well on our military. All it shows is the most highly trained and sophisticated force in the world can still get defeated and get beat up when their leaders don't make smart decisions in the face of smart oposition. Mogadishu was a defeat. We got outsmarted and played into the hands of a warlord who employs untrained children with AK's to do his mussel work. The lesson to be learned there. We aren't bullet proof and we have to make good decisions to avoid stupid idiotic sensless loss of American lives ending in defeat. defeats like Vietnam, Lebonon, and yes Mogadishu.... Thankfully not Benghezi.

Mogadishu where the United States had to rely on Pakistan to bail us out of the hole we had dug outselves into. The only good thing which came out of that was the President had the good sense not to commit more troops.

I heard Collin Powel speak last friday... I was about six rows away from him. Powel is probable one of the best military leaders this country has produced in 50 years. I believe that... The genius which embodies his sucess as a military strategist is amaizingly simple... Don't send troops in unless vital National intrests are at risk, and you can use the full advantage of the US investment in it's military grants you. If you send in troops, go all in; no half measures. It's amizing that that common sensical credo makes him a genius.. Coarse it's not just that credo which did it. It's also having the disipline to live by those words.

Are you saying that the President did not commit more troops to Mogadishu after the events of Oct 3/4? He in fact did decide to send armor in AFTER the battle was over. It is interesting you cite Gen Powell and his theory of overwhelming force and ignore the fact that he made that same argument BEFORE Gothic Serpent. One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

[twa]

One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

Yep, and it is reflected in the Benghazi mess
you present weakness and someone will take advantage....and we certainly had our ass hanging out there

I do think there might have been concern over the man-pad threat in the rescue options though, wouldn't be the first time a trap was baited.(which could be suppressed,but doing so would be ugly)

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d93_story.html



And then there's uh...this.
Giuliani is just kind of sad these days....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...him-for-libya/

I think the Washington Post article does a pretty good job laying out my feelings on the situation also. Instead of the group of people that want to question everything that happened. And the group of people that feel compelled to defend every thing that happened. There are some questions out there that should be asked. And should be answered.

As far as Giuliani....minus 9-11 he would have left his terms as mayor in the midst of scandal.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 09:32 AM ----------

Yep, and it is reflected in the Benghazi mess
you present weakness and someone will take advantage....and we certainly had our ass hanging out there

I do think there might have been concern over the man-pad threat in the rescue options though, wouldn't be the first time a trap was baited.(which could be suppressed,but doing so would be ugly)

It would be interesting to see what the manpad threat would have been. Since we were providing the air cover during the revolution I can't imagine that we would have provided Stingers or any such weapon like we did in Afghanistan(1980's version). If the threat was RPG? Well that is there just about every single time we send anything anywhere. About the only thing more widely proliferated than an RPG at this point is an AK47. It is risky no doubt. But I'll say this again and people can disagree with me if they want...when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed. I also want to point out that to a large degree I think the game changed for us also...and in the proper manner. The UAV, the element from the Annex, the element from the Embassy(by air) they were all committed in a seemingly timely manner. And before we had plotted out every single potential threat that was out there.

The Washington Post article lays things out pretty reasonably in my opinion(mainly because they are saying the same things I have been saying ). It appears that we knew about security concerns at least a month before this took place. There are all types of responses to these concerns...what did we do?

[JMS]

I never said we lost our advantage. I said we lost our initiative. They are not the same thing. We maintained significant advantage throughout Gothic Serpent. And we did not lose the initiative when Blackburn fell out of the helicopter. That was a bump in the road compared to having a downed MH60 and isolated crew in the city. Word of advice and take it for what it is worth...if you ever come across any of the guys that were there I wouldn't share the "they tied us up and trampled us" assessment with them.

In the operation to capture Adid, we secured several blocks of the city including the entire building where Adid was supposed to be, took prisoners and were preparing to leave all without a single casualty. After blackburn fell, Half the command was casualties. That is kinda simptomatic of loosing the advantage... As I said our advantage was mobility, suprise, and airpower. When the descision was made to remain longer than we intened our primary advantages were gone. lost,

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 10:32 AM ----------

I Are you asserting that sending in the rescue convoys in Mogadishu was a mistake? There were plenty of tactical, operational, and strategic mistakes associated with that mission to choose from. Are you saying that sending in the convoys was one of them?

Absolutely. it was a chain of mistakes starting with strategic resulting in Adid taking away options until he knew tactically exactly what we would do, where we would be, on his ground outnumbered, waiting for his strength to roll over us while our strength was taken away or mitigated.

I agree with you that it was never on our terms. That is my point. We do not get to choose whether or not we have enough information to commit our QRF....

We did send a QRF in from Trippoli and they did arrive before the annex was attacked. But their job wasn't to engage the enemy so much as it was to secure our personell and get the hell out of dodge.

My point, We always have a choice. The moment you act reflexivily you are in trouble. Our Technology advantage works best when it's coupled with smart decision making.

They took the initiative when they placed our Ambassador in peril. We did not get to choose anymore.

They killed our Ambassador and they did it in the first hour of the confrontation. Do you think we would have or should have acted differently if the ambassador wasn't at the consulate?

So you have no problem sending in the 2 "relief groups" but would have had a problem with anymore? So it was bad enough and we knew enough to send people from the Annex and the Embassy but NOT bad enough and we did not know enough to send anymore. In other words you have defined the opposite scenario as Sean Hannity....he says nothing was done right and you say everything was.

I think it's a miracle that 150 guys attacked our consulate and we only lost 4 guys. I think miracles are usually the result of good decision making. I think the biggest mistake we could have made would be to commit a company or batalion blind not knowing what we were facing. Turn four deaths into 50, 100 or more. I think the smaller teams with orders to get our folks out were pretty sucessful.

They killed our Ambassador. I really don't think making the claim that their objective to force "our hand" is accurate or relevant.

Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell, I think it's entirely relevent premise though.

80 soldiers were not killed in Mogadishu. You started with "lost". You have progressed to "killed". You are wrong.

160 men, took 91 casualties
18 killed
73 wounded
1 captured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

Are you saying that the President did not commit more troops to Mogadishu after the events of Oct 3/4? He in fact did decide to send armor in AFTER the battle was over.

Battle for Mogadisu occured October 3–4, 1993,

In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, U.S Presdient Bill Clinton directed the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense.
....
and then announced that all U.S. Forces would withdraw from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994.

see military fallout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...litary_fallout

It is interesting you cite Gen Powell and his theory of overwhelming force and ignore the fact that he made that same argument BEFORE Gothic Serpent. One of the big strategic mistakes of that whole situation was a mission creep without the associated resource creep. Both our strategic execution and our response were another step in the direction of 9-11. An emboldened adversary that had no respect for American resolve or ability to take a punch.

Yes mission creep was a one of the mistakes. I don't think if we had invaded and secured Mogadishu and took hundreds of casualties doing so we would have looked any stronger. You don't go to war to appear strong, or because you are afraid of looking weak. You go to war when you care enough to put the full force of the country behind it, when you have no other choice because your vital interests are at stake... There is no evidence 9-11 would have been avoided if we had a different result in mogadishu. 9-11 was about (1) Our Troops in Saudi in the first gulf war. (1b) Our support of Israel. Again with committing minimal resources AQ thought they could draw us into a war in Afghanistan and break us as the Soviet Union was broken in Afghanistan.

Our support of Saudi keeps the royal family their in power and Al Quada controling Saudi is an interum goal.. The head nod towards Israel is an appeal for broader Arab support; as Al Quada's overall goal is a return of the calaphate... an empire stretching from Iran across the ME and north Arica to Morroco and potentially even into Europe.

[Madison Redskin]

It would be interesting to see what the manpad threat would have been. Since we were providing the air cover during the revolution I can't imagine that we would have provided Stingers or any such weapon like we did in Afghanistan(1980's version). If the threat was RPG? Well that is there just about every single time we send anything anywhere. About the only thing more widely proliferated than an RPG at this point is an AK47. It is risky no doubt. But I'll say this again and people can disagree with me if they want...when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed. I also want to point out that to a large degree I think the game changed for us also...and in the proper manner. The UAV, the element from the Annex, the element from the Embassy(by air) they were all committed in a seemingly timely manner. And before we had plotted out every single potential threat that was out there.

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

[brandymac27]

US officials counter reports on Benghazi attacks

http://t.news.msn.com/us/us-official...nghazi-attacks

[twa]

Manpads likely refer to SA-7s, i.e., the Soviet equivalent of the Stinger. Nasty little buggers. And I believe Libya had thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of them.

not really a maybe
http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo....tenidoID=39165
Estimates vary widely, but it appears that the Libyans had an estimated inventory of 20,000 MANPADS. It appears that the SA-7b seems to have been the most common MANPAD in the Libyan inventory, though there were also several far more advanced SA-24 missiles (the latest Russian design) that were intended to be used in vehicle-mounted launchers sold to the Libyans but that could be used as MANPADS if they were paired with the proper gripstocks and battery coolant units. Of those 20,000 missiles, teams from the United States and NATO have secured roughly 5,000; another 5,000 are thought to be in the hands of the various Libyan militias and to still be in the country. That leaves a remainder of 10,000 missiles. While a number of them were destroyed by NATO airstrikes or launched at aircraft, it is believed that somewhere around half have been smuggled out of the country. For obvious reasons, obtaining an accurate number of missiles is very difficult. Indeed, with a variety of parties involved in the smuggling, it is doubtful that anyone knows for sure how many missiles have been smuggled out of Libya.

The U.S. government has designated $40 million for a program intended to buy back Libyan MANPADS, but clearly many of them have already made it out of the country. In addition to the February seizure in Algeria, Egyptian authorities seized eight SA-24 missiles in the Sinai Peninsula in September 2011. A month earlier, two Israeli Cobra helicopters came under fire from a MANPAD fired from Sinai during a multi-stage attack launched from Sinai that resulted in the deaths of eight Israelis.

But as Redskins Diehard said 'when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed.'

what is the acceptable risk to protect a embassy and Ambassador?
The men that went to rescue certainly have a different perspective than those looking at the bigger picture....but I can certainly understand one of them wondering "Where the **** is the Spectre." before his end.

[JMS]

But as Redskins Diehard said 'when the United States Ambassador is at peril then the game has changed.'

Only the ambassador was killed within the first hour of the attack. They didn't put him in peril they killed him. It's not like chess when they capture your king the game is over.

what is the acceptable risk to protect a embassy and Ambassador?
The men that went to rescue certainly have a different perspective than those looking at the bigger picture....but I can certainly understand one of them wondering "Where the **** is the Spectre." before his end.

Spectre? source?

We didn't send folks into bengazhi with the goal of protecting our people, we sent folks in to help our people withdrawl.

Do we "look" weak in withdrawling from one of our Consulates? Should that really be a driving force in the decision making? I don't think so.

[twa]

Only the ambassador was killed within the first hour of the attack. They didn't put him in peril they killed him. It's not like chess when they capture your king the game is over.



Spectre? source?

We didn't send folks into bengazhi with the goal of protecting our people, we sent folks in to help our people withdrawl.

Do we "look" weak in withdrawling from one of our Consulates? Should that really be a driving force in the decision making? I don't think so.

From everything I have read his death was not confirmed till long after,and even recall reports of him dying later at the hospital

we send people to protect their withdrawal.....you make it sound like we sent a cab
the Spectre reference is from Griffins reporting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/


The US displaying weakness was a major factor in OBL's reasoning,and getting killed and burned out is slightly different than withdrawing.


perhaps this would make good reading
http://wecheck.org/wiki/Benghazi_Attack_Timeline