• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama lied about Benghazi

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
So you are sticking with the "scary jet" scenario that some how would have prevented the attack?
Click to expand...

Black Hawks can go over 200mph right?

Wikipedia says the UH-60L has a cruise speed of 173 mph. Which indicates a travel time of 2.33 hours. At cruising speed.

Even if it took you an hour 15 to get a pilot and preflight, you're looking at an on station time of 1242am, 4.5 hours before the seals were killed.

But don't let facts and math ruin your rant. And if there was a team without a heli at Tripoli, then shame on the administration for not placing their pieces correctly.
 
Last edited:
TerryMathews said:
Black Hawks can go over 200mph right?

Wikipedia says the UH-60L has a cruise speed of 173 mph. Which indicates a travel time of 2.33 hours. At cruising speed.

Even if it took you an hour 15 to get a pilot and preflight, you're looking at an on station time of 1242am, 4.5 hours before the seals were killed.
Click to expand...

You realize how completely idiotic attempting to do this is, right? You have absolutely no idea as to the conditions on the base and what equipment they had ready, what personnel were there and ready, etc. Speculating on this is worse than useless.
 
eskimospy said:
You realize how completely idiotic attempting to do this is, right? You have absolutely no idea as to the conditions on the base and what equipment they had ready, what personnel were there and ready, etc. Speculating on this is worse than useless.
Click to expand...

Obama can do no wrong, amirite?

Seriously, no one contests that there was a team at Tripoli. So was there no hardware? I think that's even worse.
 
eskimospy said:
You realize how completely idiotic attempting to do this is, right? You have absolutely no idea as to the conditions on the base and what equipment they had ready, what personnel were there and ready, etc. Speculating on this is worse than useless.
Click to expand...

^ Agreed. It's always interesting to see people attempt to learn an entire discipline such as military intelligence from a few minutes of Wikipedia searching, despite no access to classified information or otherwise.

guinness-brilliant.jpeg
 
First said:
^ Agreed. It's always interesting to see people attempt to learn an entire discipline such as military intelligence from a few minutes of Wikipedia searching, despite no access to classified information or otherwise.

guinness-brilliant.jpeg
Click to expand...

So why not have EK check my math?

Oh wait, you'd rather complain that I might be wrong that find out that I am right.
 
TerryMathews said:
Obama can do no wrong, amirite?

Seriously, no one contests that there was a team at Tripoli. So was there no hardware? I think that's even worse.
Click to expand...

You say something stupid and then when someone calls you out on it you of course fall back to the 'you're only reminding me that I'm an idiot because Obama can do no wrong'. If you have information about conditions at the base that shows there were both teams and transport ready to go and that there was knowledge of the need for them along with everything else, then we can talk.

You're just speculating about something you don't have nearly enough information to talk about. It's idiotic.
 
eskimospy said:
You say something stupid and then when someone calls you out on it you of course fall back to the 'you're only reminding me that I'm an idiot because Obama can do no wrong'. If you have information about conditions at the base that shows there were both teams and transport ready to go and that there was knowledge of the need for them along with everything else, then we can talk.

You're just speculating about something you don't have nearly enough information to talk about. It's idiotic.
Click to expand...

No, what's idiotic is your assertion that our $664bn/yr military was incapable of moving a team 400 miles within 8 hours.
 
TerryMathews said:
Which part? Speed of a black hawk or distance from Tripoli to Benghazi?
Click to expand...

Can you reference an authority that delineates the conditions on the ground in Tripoli? No? Has any credible official said that distance and speed were the issues? Nope, not AFAIK. But if they did, perhaps there's something there you don't quite understand, eh layman?

How about EagleKeeper as a source? I'm certain he knows more about the subject matter than you or I.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'd love to hear someone that's actually informed speak and reference his sources on this matter, especially if they have access to the classified conditions on the ground.
 
Is there anyone here who actually believes that, had a Republican president been in office, we wouldn't be going through the exact same thing except that it would be the left-wingers exaggerating their great care and concern for the dead men and the right-wingers making excuses?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. You're all playing your roles wonderfully.
 
First said:
Can you reference an authority that delineates the conditions on the ground in Tripoli? No? Has any credible official said that distance and speed were the issues? Nope, not AFAIK. But if they did, perhaps there's something there you don't quite understand, eh layman?



Sure, I'd love to hear someone that's actually informed speak and reference his sources on this matter, especially if they have access to the classified conditions on the ground.
Click to expand...

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...asnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack

NBC News says the team was to board a Libyan C-130. Wikipedia says it cruises at 336 MPH.

That makes my time line better, not worse.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Is there anyone here who actually believes that, had a Republican president been in office, we wouldn't be going through the exact same thing except that it would be the left-wingers exaggerating their great care and concern for the dead men and the right-wingers making excuses?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. You're all playing your roles wonderfully.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. We've seen this play before.

I can admit that. It seems that Eskimospy can't.
 
Yes, Democrats are not as organized as Republicans and do not act in lockstep.
Do you remember all of the Democratic hearings about the failures in intelligence that led to the unnecessary war in Iraq? I don't either.
I've got a new slogan for you: Bush lied, thousands died. Obama lied, four people died. 🙂
 
TerryMathews said:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...asnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack

NBC News says the team was to board a Libyan C-130. Wikipedia says it cruises at 336 MPH.

That makes my time line better, not worse.
Click to expand...

You're confused, you must have forgotten to answer this, so I'll repost for your convenience: "Can you reference an authority that delineates the conditions on the ground in Tripoli? No? Has any credible official said that distance and speed were the issues? Nope, not AFAIK. But if they did, perhaps there's something there you don't quite understand, eh layman?"

No one cares about a stand-down order. If that's the worse offense, then clearly there are other pertinent details we don't know about, common in war. Unless we're just crazily assuming the Obama administration would have preferred Libyan embassy officials to perish in flames.
 
TerryMathews said:
No, what's idiotic is your assertion that our $664bn/yr military was incapable of moving a team 400 miles within 8 hours.
Click to expand...
While I'm sure your Call of Duty buddies consider you an amazing military tactician, the Pentagon nonetheless disagrees with you. Go figure. You are, of course, free to believe whatever crazy things you want. But, like most rational adults, when they state they did not have the right men and the right equipment in the right place to deliver a greater response, I will defer to their expertise.
 
First said:
You're confused, you must have forgotten to answer this, so I'll repost for your convenience: "Can you reference an authority that delineates the conditions on the ground in Tripoli? No? Has any credible official said that distance and speed were the issues? Nope, not AFAIK. But if they did, perhaps there's something there you don't quite understand, eh layman?"

No one cares about a stand-down order. If that's the worse offense, then clearly there are other pertinent details we don't know about, common in war. Unless we're just crazily assuming the Obama administration would have preferred Libyan embassy officials to perish in flames.
Click to expand...
The Pentagon responded to this yesterday. They stated they had already dispatched some Special Forces, but that the remainder -- the ones told to stand down from the C-130 -- were needed in Tripoli to defend the embassy. Presumably, given that we were already attacked in Benghazi, there were concerns the embassy might also be a target. The Pentagon also stated those remaining SF were a defensive team, not an offensive strike force, and that the closest fighter jets were five hours away in Italy.
 
First said:
You're confused, you must have forgotten to answer this, so I'll repost for your convenience: "Can you reference an authority that delineates the conditions on the ground in Tripoli? No? Has any credible official said that distance and speed were the issues? Nope, not AFAIK. But if they did, perhaps there's something there you don't quite understand, eh layman?"

No one cares about a stand-down order. If that's the worse offense, then clearly there are other pertinent details we don't know about, common in war. Unless we're just crazily assuming the Obama administration would have preferred Libyan embassy officials to perish in flames.
Click to expand...

naw.

Obama just wanted to blame a youtube video rather then actually terrorists. Blame America first.
 
marincounty said:
Yes, Democrats are not as organized as Republicans and do not act in lockstep.
Do you remember all of the Democratic hearings about the failures in intelligence that led to the unnecessary war in Iraq? I don't either.
I've got a new slogan for you: Bush lied, thousands died. Obama lied, four people died. 🙂
Click to expand...

On the one hand we have a bi-partisan commission report that found that Bush did not lie and instead misrepresented opinion as fact. Which I am not downplaying.

On the other hand, we have a report that at a minimum Susan Rice lied, without a clear picture on whether or not it was at Obama's direction.

But yet Bush=bad and Obama=good.

Give me a fucking break. They're the same, only difference is one is white and one is half-white. Which Soundforbjt will tell you means he is all white. Or a white African.
 
TerryMathews said:
On the one hand we have a bi-partisan commission report that found that Bush did not lie and instead misrepresented opinion as fact. Which I am not downplaying.

On the other hand, we have a report that at a minimum Susan Rice lied, without a clear picture on whether or not it was at Obama's direction.

But yet Bush=bad and Obama=good.

Give me a fucking break. They're the same, only difference is one is white and one is half-white. Which Soundforbjt will tell you means he is all white. Or a white African.
Click to expand...

Actually the report didn't say she lied, in fact it said she repeated the intelligence communities talking points almost verbatim.

Sorry no lies found.


All of this was debunked in the previous Benghazi conspiracy thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top