Posted on 11/02/2012 9:23:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I SOOOOOOO want to come back in 500 years to see what the history books write about these idiots. Assuming there are anything/anyone here but moorlocks.
The stupid...Yup. It burns.
You don't know that, the beaten zone from his MG could have been quite small.
But this engagement at the CIA annex would have been far within "danger close" parameters, Webb says, referencing the zone within 600 meters of friendly troops into which only the most experienced air combat controllers can direct aerial strikes. Given the description of the attack, the mortar team must have been within a few hundred feet, he says, and among many noncombatants.
Screw the non-combatants if there were any. Anyone still around after 10-20 minutes should've been a target. An AC130 can shoot closer to friendlies than 600 meters. And if you are going to die without fire support I'd take it inside the ECR. (expected casualty radius)
Would the people in Washington, DC have known what civilians, if any, might have been endangered by Woods’ fire? If Woods was firing anywhere near where the mortars were coming from, anybody who wasn’t part of the attack would have dispersed; Woods’ fire would have been warning to any “innocents” who happened to be out wandering those streets from about 1-4am who were too stupid to interpret the presence of militants shooting mortar fire as a sign that it was dangerous territory...
The excuses being used stink to high heaven. If those are the rules of engagement then every soldier we’ve got is a dead duck.
Utter BS! How would anyone know how long the attack would last when it began? This moron is saying that you can't send help until you know the final outcome. That's cowardly crapola.
We now know that they sent a message from the consulate that an attack was about to happen three hours before it began. Flight time from Sigonella is two hours. A team could have been there an hour BEFORE the attack!
No, this is all extraneous BS to try and muddy the real issue that the President abandoned the Americans in the area. They ended up dead after many hours of combat. There is/was always a plan for support, it wasn't allowed. 0bama's failure to lead = dead Americans. It is that simple, all the rest is smoke.
Bull sh*t.
Agreed. The smokescreen will be effective if people don’t think through exactly what it would mean if the excuses they give were real reasons - for instance, if we really used rules of engagement like they’re suggesting they had to use for this case.
One thing I don’t understand, that you guys might be able to help me on: if the military assets were in Sigonella because they had to hold somewhere, waiting for approval to go into Libyan airspace, were they in Italian space already before Sept 11th, or did Obama have to approve those assets going into Italian airspace? Trying to figure out at what point Obama aborted the contingency plan.
If all of this is true why did the white house, the defense department, the state department and the CIA all lie?
Even if all this is true this wouldn’t happened if the security requested by Stevens had been provided. So, why was he turned down?
Trying to figure out at what point Obama aborted the contingency plan.
When he walked out without ordering it. Find out when the meeting ended, there's your answer.
Thanks. I didn’t realize the cross-border issue wouldn’t come into play between NATO countries. I suppose Sigonella was the closest we could get without having to cross a non-NATO border?
Who would have authorized the replacement drone? The first drone was already in Libya, I understand, but the replacement came from Sigonella. Wouldn’t Obama have to authorize that?
It really depends who was controlling it. In general the answer is yes, but it is likely that the drones are part of an operation or ongoing effort already approved, whether an intel collection effort or a targeting scheme diverted to what turned out to be bad movie night at the White House.
If the drones were part of an effort already approved, such as for intel collection, it could explain why an unarmed drone was sent in rather than an armed one, if what the military has said about both drones being unarmed is correct.
If they were military drones at all. I believe nothing from this pack of liars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.