(09-07-2014 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Lol. Even a Republican panel found no wrong doing. It must suck to know that Bush couldn't stop thousands from dying and all you have is Benghazi. Lol

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Damn, just damn, You "Lol" at thousands of American deaths. Damn.

" what difference does it make" lol

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-07-2014 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Benghazi again? The conspiracy that won't die. Lol

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Unlike the Ambassador and the men who did die.

Which isn't a LOL.

Owl 69/70/75, can you still maintain that no assets were available?
Post: #9

(09-08-2014 06:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Owl 69/70/75, can you still maintain that no assets were available?
Post: #9

None really appropriate for the mission.

Flyovers might have had some effect of dissipating the crowd, but by the time a flyover could have occurred the crowd was pretty much out of the picture anyway.

What was needed was a way to put a Marine landing team ashore, with air support. That would have required a large amphib standing off Benghazi harbor. In my 6th Fleet days, that would have been SOP. But there were exactly zero gator assets anywhere in the Med on that date. So not only were we not able to respond in Benghazi, we'd have been unable to respond to an event in Beirut or Tel Aviv or Alexandria or Cairo or Tripoli or Tunis.

Air support is great when you have troops engaged on the ground. But it's called air "support" for a reason. It supports other units, of which there were none.

And I still want to know what republican panel found no wrongdoing?

What difference does it make?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-08-2014 06:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 06:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Owl 69/70/75, can you still maintain that no assets were available?
Post: #9

None really appropriate for the mission.

Flyovers might have had some effect of dissipating the crowd, but by the time a flyover could have occurred the crowd was pretty much out of the picture anyway.

What was needed was a way to put a Marine landing team ashore, with air support. That would have required a large amphib standing off Benghazi harbor. In my 6th Fleet days, that would have been SOP. But there were exactly zero gator assets anywhere in the Med on that date. So not only were we not able to respond in Benghazi, we'd have been unable to respond to an event in Beirut or Tel Aviv or Alexandria or Cairo or Tripoli or Tunis.

Air support is great when you have troops engaged on the ground. But it's called air "support" for a reason. It supports other units, of which there were none.

And I still want to know what republican panel found no wrongdoing?

Don't remember who said that, but I think his choice of words is wrong. The investigations all found faults in what was done in the lead up to this as you have mentioned, but none of them have found any evidence of any sort of cover-up. I'm guessing that's what the poster meant.

(09-09-2014 10:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 06:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 06:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Owl 69/70/75, can you still maintain that no assets were available?
Post: #9

None really appropriate for the mission.
Flyovers might have had some effect of dissipating the crowd, but by the time a flyover could have occurred the crowd was pretty much out of the picture anyway.
What was needed was a way to put a Marine landing team ashore, with air support. That would have required a large amphib standing off Benghazi harbor. In my 6th Fleet days, that would have been SOP. But there were exactly zero gator assets anywhere in the Med on that date. So not only were we not able to respond in Benghazi, we'd have been unable to respond to an event in Beirut or Tel Aviv or Alexandria or Cairo or Tripoli or Tunis.
Air support is great when you have troops engaged on the ground. But it's called air "support" for a reason. It supports other units, of which there were none.
And I still want to know what republican panel found no wrongdoing?

Don't remember who said that, but I think his choice of words is wrong. The investigations all found faults in what was done in the lead up to this as you have mentioned, but none of them have found any evidence of any sort of cover-up. I'm guessing that's what the poster meant.

And which investigation was given access to the evidence necessary to establish the existence of a cover-up if one existed.

As I've said before, if the cops don't patrol a road, they won't be finding any evidence of speeding on that road--but that doesn't mean speeding doesn't occur, does it?