No idea, as I didn’t listen. It was in hope that you would object to having our soldiers deliberately take aim at and shoot noncombatant women and children in the face. At this point I am left to draw my own conclusion. The only one I can arrive at since saying “I object to such a thing” is as easy as that. And, not for the lack of trying to get your objection on record.
I welcome the way you portray my state concerning this issue. A spectacle. Yes, indeed. Better spectacle than open support or even enabling silence.
You’ll have to ask them why they didn’t at least try.
Panetta says they (The DoD) did everything they could to help, though. I’ve got no reason to doubt his word.
Either there was air support within reach that could have helped or there was not. We could have tried and the Devil Dog in me thinks we should have tried, but that doesn’t change logistics.
But you ignore this:
"However, witnesses on the ground, including CIA contractors who were inside the Annex, said there was no lull in the fighting at all. The “lull” claim is central to the Obama administration’s explanation for why no air support or special forces were deployed to Benghazi.
•Was there a lull or not? If not, why didn’t the Obama administration immediately deploy reinforcements?
If there was no lull, why did the State Department claim there was?
•Why were no reinforcements sent the night of the attacks?
The government’s standard response is patently absurd. They say they thought the attack was over following the initial assault so therefore there was just not enough time to send a rescue mission or air support.
But how could they have known what the gunmen had planned or that the “first wave” was the only attack to be carried out?
I think we can probably surmise that the cover up had something to do with it. Otherwise…why the cover up?
I didn’t ignore anything, but those are just questions. What are the answers?
Or, it was logistically implausible to react any differently than they did.
Those are unanswered questions which is not good enough for any thinking man to be satisfied.
As you said the devil dog in you would have sent help.
Why didn’t they?
Cover-up.
Jets one hour away. The fighting lasted something like 10-11 hours.
No there weren’t, we’ve covered this. Ask Buck McKeon.
There have been at least 21 committees regarding the attack. So they should have been answered (or similar questions answered). Where are the answers?
“Dozens of vessels were stationed in the region on that day, including two aircraft carriers (Dwight D. Eisenhower and Enterprise), four amphibious ships, 13 destroyers, three cruisers and more than a dozen other smaller Navy boats as well as a command ship. Carriers are warships, the powerhouse of the naval fleet with a full-length flight deck for aircraft operations. During the Benghazi attack, two carriers were based to the east in the Arabian Sea, the Navy map shows.”
Or take a look at the facts as to where the many ships were located.
Honestly doesn’t any of this stink to you as a former military man I would think that you’d be appalled.
If I recall correctly…Trump was speaking of going after the extended families of terrorists who attacked America.
Please show me a quote where he said he wanted our soldiers to deliberately take aim and shoot a child in the face.
People that play telephone with political statements that turn into something like this are JUST as bad as the original stupid statement.
Please show me the quote where he said he wanted to murder women and children.
Link to deliberately take aim and shoot women and children in face?
You keep this quote on repeat so much, you must have a soundbite handy.
Poor Zeb. He’s gone full troglodyte with personal attacks.
Sorry, Zeb - as if we needed a reminder, you have perhaps the least class and character of anyone posting in PWI. Hell of an accomplishment. Well done.
Huh? You’re not suggesting Hillary had intentionally let them die for to cover up terrorist involvement? That doesn’t make any sense. If the help had been available the only choice (even if for only saving one’s political behind) to make would have been to send it in order to mitigate the fallout. Less, perhaps no deaths, makes for a much shorter news cycle. The scale of the losses HELPED to call into question the random act narrative post event.
1 Like
And you talk about me hitting a low with personal attacks. Like many of your encounters with other posters when things don’t go quite your way you take the low road. Yet, act all offended when others attack back.
Like I said before I don’t know what changed in your life but it was not for the good.
Pitiful, just pitiful