Dempsey: State Department never asked us to respond to Benghazi
posted at 12:41 pm on February 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
Via Daniel Halper, John McCain extracted some significant testimony from a clearly reluctant chair of the Joint Chiefs in an Armed Services Committee hearing on Benghazi today. Appearing with outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, both tried arguing that there are too many threats and places requiring defending to have the American military act as “a global 911 service,” in Panetta’s words:
“The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
That testimony, combined with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey’s argument that the military did what its location allowed, angered Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who accused the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman of peddling falsehoods.
“For you to testify that our posture did not allow a rapid response, did not take into account threats to our consulate … is simply false,” McCain told Dempsey. McCain contended that the military’s capability allowed armed forces to intervene in short order.
McCain didn’t bother to restrain his disgust in this exchange, either:
“Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.
Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”
McCain interrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”
“I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”
“So it’s the State Department’s fault?”
“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.
This is an absurd argument. No one would have questioned a lack of preparation at our Geneva embassy on May 14th, for instance. But this wasn’t May 14th, and it wasn’t Geneva. It was 9/11 — the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on Washington and New York City, which as anyone who hasn’t been in a coma for the last dozen years knows, al-Qaeda has highlighted for more attack attempts. Furthermore, it took place in Benghazi, which has been overrun by AQ-affiliated and other Islamist terrorist groups ever since the US and NATO left a huge power vacuum in eastern Libya by decapitating the Qaddafi regime the previous year. And finally, as McCain points out, the late Ambassador Chris Stevens was trying to point all of this out for months to the State Department, to no avail.
So it wasn’t a question of having a “global 911 service,” as Panetta scoffed. The problem is an ignorance bordering on the willfully incompetent about the risks in Benghazi and shrugging off preparations to provide support in case something happened. Dempsey and Panetta are dodging that question of responsibility for the lack of interest at State and the White House in military readiness for a terrorist attack that Stevens saw coming months in advance, and that practically anyone could have predicted after the transformation of eastern Libya into a failed state.
Update: And then there’s this:
Graham: Was one single asset military asset deployed anywhere in the world to help these people before the attack ended? Dempsey: no–
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) February 7, 2013
–because the attack ended before we got off the ground. Graham: but you didn’t know how long the attack was going to last.
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) February 7, 2013
And why weren’t there assets moved closer prior to the 11th anniversary of 9/11, especially given Stevens’ warnings?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
.
We can’t know every think that Christopher Stevens knew, until we get the “right people” from the administration, and WATER-BOARD THEM.
.
It wouldn’t take that many people to “set the stage” for what happened.
.
The White House honestly believed their meme, that “It was all a reaction to that damned ‘youtube movie’” would work.
That’s where they miscalculated.
If ANYONE besides Panetta, H. Clinton, or Obama would have been responsible for the ‘stand down’ order, they would have had their name broadcast everywhere our media reaches. They would have been made to “fall on their sword”, and been “thrown under the bus.”
They don’t have anyone else to blame.
listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Yup, though you could also say Christ walked the earth “days” ago.
I think a guy named Carter–that peanurt farmer with lust in his heart–took days to respond with an emasculated military, to a little embassy security matter.
Don L on February 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM
You’re good at playing the fantasy game.
Come up with one thing that Stevens knew that would cause Obama to order some complex scheme with a low probability of success??
Conspiracy theorists never have any experience planning or executing anything. You’re no different.
Tell us how you would execute an operation to use Al Qaeda to kill Stevens without utilizing many people. Feel free to provide all the detail required to thorough convey the plan.
On what basis are you claiming that there was a stand down order? If there was such a stand down order, then there would be dozens and dozens of staffers in DC and Europe that would know all about it. The most credible stories about that evening indicate that upper echelon commanders didn’t have a complete picture about what was happening on the group. The credible stories indicate that ground assets arrived in Sigonella hours later than most people think.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Were you trying to make a point.
Are you unaware of the US embassy evacuations that have been executed since Carter? Do you know nothing about them?
blink on February 8, 2013 at 2:52 AM
Ask Beyonce and Jay-Z what Obama was doing while Ambassador Stevens and his team were being killed… during an 8 hour long fire fight.
Laughing about Mitches, probably.
profitsbeard on February 8, 2013 at 5:17 AM
McCain is just fine here.
That Dempsey is a creepy-arsed weasely leprechaun ….
Repugnant.
Sherman1864 on February 8, 2013 at 6:26 AM
My take.
kingsjester on February 8, 2013 at 7:19 AM
McCain did an AWESOME job undressing Obama’s lapdogs. Perhaps he should run for president….oh, wait….
greataunty on February 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Remember all the criticism Obama/Dems gave Bush over Katrina? Sandy victims are STILL waiting for help…some still living in shelters…and this winter storm blwoing through is dumping on them….where the h@ll is the condemnation for the Obama administration? Liberal medai –
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 9:09 AM
At this point, what difference does it make?
Galtian on February 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM
o Ham did not ‘step down’ – he was RELIEVED OF COMMAND.
o Panetta declared at a press conference on 9/12/12, the day AFTER the attack, that Ham was being replaced by another General, that Obama planned to name another general as AFRICOM Commander – its in the new, check it out.
o But the order to ‘Stand Down’ WAS GIVEN – again, there are numerous articles on it…if one is willing to search for the truth.
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM
O ‘Ground Forces ‘ NEVER arrived. Obama/the State Department entrusted the lives and protection of our Ambassador & Americans to a rag-tag group of Libyan Militia members who we helped during the overthrow of Qadaffi. They were as inept as Obama & Hillary and never made it, ‘conveniently’, until AFTER it was all over – approximately 9 hours after the attack began. Again, SpecOps Teams were less than 2 hours away at Sigonella Nava Air Station, Italy…and those teams prepping to go were ORDERED to ‘Stand Down’! Panetta keeps LYING about the only aid being able to come from EUCOM, 9-12 hours away. His @$$ is in the hot seat now & OF COURSE he is not going to mention Sigonella – this administration has lied about this from the very start!
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM
o WOW! This President & Secretary of State denies additional security to Stevens/Americans in Benghazi AFTER 2 PREVIOUS TERROR ATTACKS, gave the task of protecting them to a Libyan militia instead of US being responsible for our own peoples’ security, then abandoned them during the 3rd attack that resulted in the 1st Ambassador dead in 30 years & 3 other dead Americans….And YOUR RESPONSE is ‘Yadayada – the REPUBLICANS are losers and need to do something’?! Where the h@ll is the outrage by the Democrats over the incompetence of our leaders, the FAILURE to protect Americans, the DEATHS of Americans, & the lies/cover-up?! You are saying, ‘Yeah, Democrats killed Americans & are pieces of $hi’ite, but shame on the GOP for letting us be like this / doing it! What an ignorant, partisan 1d10t!
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Who would have ever thought that Pres. Obama, Sec. of State Clinton wroking with the ATF and with the apporval of Atty. Gen. Eric Holder would conspire to have know Mexican Drug mules buy with U.S. tax payer money sniper rifles, other high price guns of all types in order to get them into Mexico. Not track the guns, not track the fellons from Mexico end up with some of the guns at a kill site of Border Patrol Officer Brain Terry. An DEA paid informent at the kill site, the FBI in on the deal collecting the kill gun/guns.
Who would have thought that prior Ms Clinton, Eric Holder would have been in Mexico talking with the leaders of Mexico and not given them information on this comming gun running?
Who would have thought the Mexican Goverment would not even to this day demanded information that Obama etal have on this due to the Mexican Goverment getting thousands of their citizens killed with the guns run by Obama, Holder, Clinton etal.
Na, Obama is not envolved in any thing other than making sure the dole checks get to the vote slaves on time.
NON BLINKER NATION
APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
o How about the fact that people so incompetent and/or so UN-caring about protecting Americans – their job – that they would ignore 2 previous terrorist attacks & a warning from now DEAD Ambassador Stevens that he will not survie a 3rd – SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR POSITIONS.
o How about because if someone doesn’t raise enough h#ll about this & force it to change these b@$t@rd$ will get away with it & it will happen again?!
o How about to PUNISH these LOSERS who FAILED to do their job, who INTENTIONALLY SACRIFICEd Americans – EX-Navy SEALS and an AMBASSADOR – in order to keep a low profile & NOT offend the terrorists starting up the 10 new terrorist training camps (which Stevens reported) in Benghazi?!
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Precisely the kind of general officer you would expect in the Obama regime . . . a boot licking incompetent.
rplat on February 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Take a hike “blink” . . . the intent of your pseudo-intellectual verbosity is blatantly obvious.
rplat on February 8, 2013 at 10:09 AM
When?
Feel free to link to the press conference.
Feel free to link to one of the articles about the “stand down” order that was given from the top.
The only “stand downs” that seemed credible are the ones that were told to the guys that wanted to rush over to the compound – and that may have simply been told to them by their direct boss.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 10:24 AM
AGAIN, there was no SpecOps team in Sig when the attacks began. Some of EUCOMS in-extremis force was flown to Sig after the attacks started. Their arrival time is unknown.
The assets originated from Germany, and it did take hours to prep and fly to Sig. The credible reports indicate that they were told to “stand down” after the last of the attacks had ended.
You can keep typing the same wrong information over and over and over again. That doesn’t make it true.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 10:28 AM
SO WHAT! No one REALLY cares about this.
Let’s review: In the last election Americans who vote for Republicans submitted to the will of the GOP Establishment and decided to run the ONLY GUY WHO COULD NOT DEFEAT THIS COMMUNIST! Because of their sloth they refused to do the research necessary to make an informed decision. Indeed, these people make more of an effort in selecting their TP than they did in this matter.
Appx 40% of the American people are registered to vote, and out of that small group barely 30% voted. Out of that 30% LESS THAN 1% are involved in grass roots efforts, the life blood of all campaigns.
Today that malise still exists. The vast majority of Americans could hardly care less about the issues highliting the destruction of America today, and the proof is when questioned about the Oath Keepers. They remain as uninformed as is humanly possible. If they spent half of their efforts spent to remain ignorant of the facts in fixing these problems, America would be a different place today.
America ALWAYS gets the government it DESERVES.
DannoJyd on February 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM
From the POTUS all the way done, asleep at the wheel. From my service expereience, giving an answer as Gen Dempsey did to my superiors would have been my immediate end of service. Wish he had the guts to report the lethergy of the administration for all things not political and its result on defense.
StevC on February 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM
My intent is to help Hot Air commenters get the story straight. I’m trying to help push the information that came out later (and makes much more sense) rather then simply allow them to repeat the initial rumors that swirled around on blogging websites, etc.
I will continue to do this.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM
I already have provided links, Blink.
You admit that the CIA gave a stand down order to the Ex-SEALs who responded. WHY?! Why were they told NOT to try to help save the U.S. Ambassador from assassination? Who gave that 1st order – how far up and from whom? The CIA also stated that they were in clear contact with them for 7 hurs, right up until the times of their death, that they kept calling our for assistance / fire support. If 2 SEALS could hold out for 7 HOURS, why wouldn’t ‘the forces that be’ send them assistance…especially when it is only 2 hours away.
Here’s another lesson for you, blink: It is obvious that you were never in the military. If you were, you never were truly ‘in’ the miiitary, otherwise you would KNOW the bond between commrades in arms…and you sure don;t know anything about SEALS! The teams in Signoella were highly trained specialists who were are expets at counter-terrorism and terrorist-related rescue missions. You can d@mn-well believe that when they hear that 2 fellow SEALs are in a firefight for their lives & that the Ambassador of the US is in jeopardy….ONLY 2 HOURS AWAY…they are going to GO! Just questioing that fact demonstrates how little you know. and are less than intelligent for questioning.
The fact that Panetta said the nearest assistance was 9-12 hours away when ANYONE can easily goodle the fact that these teams were at Sigonella 2 hours away proves Panetta is a d@mn LIAR and just committed PERJURY!
The FACT that no one was allowed/no one responded from sigonella proves the order was given. the fact that Woods was on top of the compound roof LAZING the terrorist’s mortar pits is PROOF that there were assets on-hand capable of stiking those targets. SOP, Blink! Ever lazed a target or been called to do so…been trained to do so, Blink? In a firefight, with 100 terrorists trying to kill you, you don’t stop to lase a target for shi’ites and grins with nothing to ‘synch’ with.
We could disect this whole thing, and I could educate you on SpecOps, military tactcs, training, weapons, etc…but from what I have read others saying about you nothing will ever change you mind. so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree…
easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM
While this cover-up is fully and wholly owned by Mr. Obama, I found the general’s comments stunning.
Not only was he not consulted by the President, it took an occasion to have hi under oath an to determine that fact. Given that four Americans including an ambassador were left helpless to be murdered one might hope that was a fact admitted in the official investigation. But it was not.
Secondarily, “a global 911 service”? That is simply a stunning comment and very adroitly shows how far away from honor or perhaps competence the general has come. Our military is rife with QRF’s as an active tool for such engagements. We have the FAST Marine forces as simply one example. Witness, we had another 7 man team in Tripoli at the time of this engagement.
The bottom line is the President did nothing and gave no orders to save brave men who were being slaughtered. He ignored their pleas and then fallaciously said he did give an order. That is probably the most loathsome thing I have ever witnessed by a president in my entire lifetime.
But I save special disgust for our press, who has become so far into the pockets of Obama and Democrats they are willing to let the murders of four Americans go truthfully unquestioned. They have become nothing but a propaganda arm not worthy of anything except our absolute disgust.
Marcus Traianus on February 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM
.
It appears we have a “dueling credibility” situation, here.
.
The following copy/paste is from: http://theatheistconservative.com/2012/12/05/who-gave-the-order-to-stand-down-at-benghazi/
This BLOGsite might not have enough ‘credibility’ for some people, but I can’t do anything about that.
.
listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM
No, you haven’t.
You’re a clown.
You’re a clown.
You can’t educate me about anything.
You can’t even commit to the method that you would have used to get ground forces to the compound in Benghazi.
I’m embarrassing the heck out of you on the other thread.
You’re a clown.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM
The only stand down order that sources agree about is the one that was given to the former SEALs already on the ground in Benghazi.
And nobody seems to know who gave that order which means that it might have been a low level officer that made the unfortunate decision based on faulty tactical concerns.
Adjust your tin foil hat.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM
.
One more time . . . . .
.
This excerpt is altogether without credibility, due to: (fill in the blank)
listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM
This was later disputed, but what assets were supposedly told to stand down by NSA? Couldn’t the team at the other Benghazi compound have been considered a counterterrorism team? Some of the CIA ops guys may have been former SEAL Team SIX guys, etc.
blink on February 8, 2013 at 7:46 PM
.
Okay. “Disputed” by . . . . . the White House? … National Security Advisor James Jones? … A third party?
listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 7:55 PM
.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
What difference does it make, as to ‘who’ was told to ‘stand down?’
listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM
This is the one stand down order that seems to be agreed upon. Your info doesn’t conflict with this.
blink on February 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I want to know, who gave the order of ‘STAND DOWN’. !!!!!!!!!!
RdLake on February 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM
“What difference does it make , as to ‘who’ was told to stand down?”
It’s a slow Saturday afternoon so I’ll jump into this late.
Who is told is very important, it’s called the chain of command. Who is told is indicative of Who gave the order. As a Platoon Commander I could tell my Platoon (within reason) to stand down but not the platoon next to me. As A company commander I could order any section in my Company to stand down but no one next to me. If only the two CIA Operatives that were killed were told to stand down that order could have been given by the Station Commander. If all military assets were told to stand down and not to deploy, That order can not be given by the CIA, That order can not be given by the Secretary of State, That order can not be given by the Department of the Defense and the Chairmen of the Joint chiefs is not in the command structure.
The order for all to stand down can only be given by one and only one individual and can not be delegated to anyone else. That order can only be given by the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
See the importance of ‘who’ was told to stand down. It is indicative of who gave the order. It can blow the Plausible denial thing out the window.
jpcpt03 on February 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM
This isn’t true. SecDef has operational chain of command of all military. He most certainly could have ordered this.
Thank you. That’s my point. The only people who have claimed that they were told to stand down were the two CIA ops guys.
blink on February 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM
We weren’t asking for a global 911 service. We were, of course, expecting a global 9/11 service.
unclesmrgol on February 9, 2013 at 7:27 PM
+1000, and far more truth than anything Panetta said before the Committee.
unclesmrgol on February 9, 2013 at 7:32 PM
.
Thanks for the comment, jpcpt03.
According to the excerpt in my 2:10 pm Feb 8 comment,
The command was given to a “counter terrorism team”, who must have already started activity towards purporting a rescue attempt.
Based on “e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones“, the order given to this counter terrorism team to CANCEL the rescue, came directly from the White House.
But do the sources cited by Robert Engler, bear sufficient credibility?
listens2glenn on February 9, 2013 at 8:48 PM
You are right.
jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 9:17 AM
General, did you call your boss and make a recommendation that, hey, maybe we could do something to save our ambassador? Was everyone sitting on a bar stool when this attack was going down? If our military is not a global 911 response, why do we have bases all over the world? Once we go into a country, we never really leave, see Iraq and Germany. This is tap dancing on graves from leaders we thought were responsible people. This whole hearing thing is a joke.
Kissmygrits on February 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Good Morning to all you Sunday Morning Blogging Heads:
Lets take this question of ‘Who was told to stand down’ a little further.
If it was just the two CIA Operatives then the question is why give the order.
a. Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?
b. Was this was a small part of something bigger and the two operative would mess it up?
The argument put forth that there were no assets that could be deployed in a reasonable time frame is predicated on time how much time was the attack would last.
Let’s try this like simple math: 7-3=4
(Time of Battle)- (Time to Deploy) = (Effectiveness of Deployment)
Examples: If time of battle is 7hrs and time to deploy is 3hrs then the effectiveness is 4hrs. This is good.
Simple math: .25-3=-2.75
If time of battle is .25hrs (typical fire fight) and time to deploy is 3hrs then the effectiveness is -2.75hrs. This is not good.
Here’s the RUB: How did anyone know how long the attack would take? This begs the same questions as above but now to the Secretary’s of Defense and State and the White House.
a. Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?
b. Was this was a small part of something bigger and the two operative and the Military would mess it up?
jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM
.
In reference to your line above:
… are the terms “a lost” and “a waste” equivalent to “expendable?”
listens2glenn on February 10, 2013 at 12:12 PM
TO: listens2glenn on February 10, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?
Expendable? Collateral damage? Offering? Part of the plan? Write off? Negative asset? Cover-up? Pick the “NEW SPEAK” definition of your choice. They all come to the same point, “The Powers to be have had 6 months to muck this up big time.
This is the worse, most inept job of coverup I have ever seen our Government try. I go back President Eisenhower’s explanation to Khrushchev that Frances Gerry Powers was not real and that the U-2 plane did not exist.
Thank-you for reading my opinion.
jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM
.
You’re welcome . . . . .
Out of your your list above, I’ve already chosen “offering” and “cover-up.”
The White House killed (no pun intended) two birds with one stone.
listens2glenn on February 10, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Two half hour attacks separated by 7 hours isn’t 7 hours of battle.
Are we sure that stand down orders weren’t given after the end of the second attack?
Does anyone on this thread think that teams on the east coast of the United States had time to ready, launch, and arrive in Benghazi in time to do much good?
blink on February 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM
And someone tell me what the plan would have been to get teams to the compound in Benghazi.
blink on February 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Just trying a couple of different ways of saying the same thing just to see what might hit a nerve of understanding. If it was one 7 hour attack or two half our attacks separated by five hours it dose not matter except maybe that a 5 hour lull makes these government accounts even worse.
How could anyone say that there was not enough time to send help since no one could know how long the attack would be? Regardless of whether one wishes to except that there were two half hour attacks with a 5 hour separations or one seven hour attack the following points still remain unanswered:
During this time there were only two boots on the ground.
During this time they could not find or rescue the ambassador.
During this time no security of the area could be done.
During this time no security sweep could be placed on any Embassy classified documents.
All or at least some of this could be avoided if support aid was dispatched regardless of the time it would take to get there. What did it take for the FBI to get there. Two weeks?
jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 9:51 PM
.
I don’t have to “divine” or figure out what the plan would have been, to justify and validate the extreme harsh criticism I have been unloading on the White House.
There’s NO valid explanation/reason why an emergency contingency plan wasn’t already in place then, or even now for that matter.
There should be emergency contingency plans ready to GO at a moments notice, for rescuing and evacuating American diplomats everywhere we have them.
With Libya and Egypt being the “tinder boxes” everyone knows they are right now, there should have been multiple teams and contingency plans ready for the call.
Obama’s guilty of either GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY, or (as I believe) a premeditated and planned murder/cover-up.
listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 2:26 AM
There enough time to initiate help, but not necessarily enough time for help to arrive.
Look, I’m really sorry that these type of operations take a long time to plan and execute, but this is reality right now.
Btw, help was sent and did arrive in Benghazi if you count the Marines from Tripoli – which you do seem to be counting.
blink on February 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM
A “moments notice” means that we have ground assets sitting strapped in aircraft at the end of a runway. But even this takes more than a “moment” since departure clearance would certainly be obtained from local ATC – and even Search-And-Rescue departure clearance takes a bit of time.
Now, how long can you keep these ground assets in the aircraft? What’s the “most tired” you would want these assets to be when they arrive? 12 hour day? 18 hour day? 24 hour day? This will decide how often you need to rotate these assets – which determines the amount of assets that you are “tying up” simply to have this “moments notice” alert that you want.
So, you might say, well, they don’t need to be at the end of the runway, they can just be in rooms on base resting for “the call.” Fine, so now we are pushing the launch time back to 1 hour (most likely), and we need rooms on a base dedicated for this.
Do you want them to be at home ready for a recall? Well now you’re likely talking about a 3 hour launch time.
Now, how do you want to get ground assets to a compound? Do you want to have them jump into an urban environment, or do you want to land at an airport and have them drive organic vehicles? Because this would require many more aircraft to transport these vehicles – aircraft that would need to sit around doing nothing while they wait for the call.
Additionally, tell me if you want to get diplomatic clearance to fly into Libya, or if you want to risk the lives of all these ground assets by going up against Libyan air defense systems? Dip clearance will take more time, but there’s probably not that much risk from air defense so you’d probably want to risk that, right?
I’ll await your answers to these questions.
blink on February 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM
.
That’s NOT what “moments notice” means as I used it.
However, in this case it could have meant that.
Christopher Stevens and his body guard knew in the days before that something really bad was brewing.
From the dailymail.co.uk (2012-10-19):
.
I’m sticking with murder/cover-up. But it’s at least “dereliction of duty.”
listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Well feel free to tell us exactly what response time you want.
Without an incredible amount of support being put on instant and time-sensitive stand-by, response times easily slip to being measured in hours.
Also, feel free to tell us exactly how you would get the assets to the compound in Benghazi.
blink on February 11, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Events on the ground can be incredibly difficult to understand from over-head surveillance video (which I shouldn’t need to remind you – have no audio).
Amateurs should stop pretending that they understand what they’re talking about.
blink on February 11, 2013 at 3:51 PM
.
Moot point. Reinforcements should have been brought in HOURS (days?) before the attack.
Why weren’t they?
Repeating: Justification for criticizing Obama over this is NOT contingent on me explaining how I would get assets into the scene (after the attack initiated) “if I were in charge.”
listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the State Department thought that the CIA should have been able to assess the threat and protect themselves for their own operation????
Did you really intend to ask such a stupid question?
Your criticism of Obama over this has NOT been accurate and has therefore been completely ineffective.
You need to tailor your comments so that you don’t keep writing stupid things – and making Hot Air commenters look stupid in the process.
blink on February 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM
.
I don’t believe my criticism is either inaccurate, or ineffective.
.
You should overjoyed, at the prospect of “Hot Air commenters being made to look stupid”.
In fact, here … I’ll do it again. Reposting:
listens2glenn on February 14, 2013 at 1:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4