Official Benghazi Topic Till The Year 2018+

You do need a refueling for a 1000-mile 1-way trip unless you mean prior to its return which could not have been done over the Mediterranean. Even if I stipulate to a 1-hour waiting period plus minimum 250MPH, that is about 5 hours. Keep in mind that they didn't know they had X amount of hours even though i claim the Obama administration was watching in real time and knew everything that was going on to commit such an action. If we had them on alert and they were told all the people whom they would be protecting were of an unknown medical status, it'd be a different story. I won't debate military logistics further than that because I don't know anything about the subject lol...

You don't need a refueling for a 1000-mile 1-way trip unless you mean prior to its return whichcould be done over the Mediterranean. Even if I stipulate to a 1-hour waiting period plus minimum 250MPH, that is about 5 hours. Keep in mind that they didn't know they had X amount of hours. If we had them in mid-flight and they were told all the people whom they would be protecting were already dead, it'd be a different story. I won't debate military logistics further than that because I don't know much more about them, and because I know that those turn into less nerdy Kirk vs. Picard endless debates lol...

To kill the bad guys? A back to back guns only strafing run would have destroyed everything on the street without coming close to hitting the embassy. But they would have to have already been on station. Like I said, a scramble flight from Italy just isn't realistic.

It wouldn't have even been a questionable order to declare everyone on the street at 1 AM during an attack to be a hostile.

So you all can stop bandying about misguided attempts at factual analysis....

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

I know some people like to use sources that aren't fact checked... mainly because it reinforces their presupposed notions of party culpability and reality.

So, from a site that exists to check facts, the facts.

Enjoy.

I spent 10-15 mins typing out stuff to Tenshibaby and my web browser crashed so your getting the the abridged version

there over all less human's dead having obama president then john mccain who still wants to be in iraq and attack syria end up setting off iran (john mccain words not mind) or mitt romney you end up selling the poor and dismantling health care and still end up in syria.

Now till the min president obama or president hillary clinton 2016 to 2024 start talking about why we must attack Iran! i know who the "lesser evil" is.

PS i do hope your a troll Tenshibaby or you need to start being more realistic.

To kill the bad guys? A back to back guns only strafing run would have destroyed everything on the street without coming close to hitting the embassy. But they would have to have already been on station. Like I said, a scramble flight from Italy just isn't realistic.

Did I really just read a post about having a 'strafing run' in the streets of a foriegn country?

*** some of you americans have something in your heads, seriously.

There WERE WMD's. I know you fools think it has been decided fact that there were none, but there WERE.

WikiLeaks is one source of evidence:
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base. …

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

From the Houston Chronicle, a liberal paper:
So….We found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered. No one on the right is surprised by this. We all knew Saddam had them. I suppose we could gloat until the cows come home and say “I told ya so,” but really, the left that called Bush a liar, just needs to apologize and then we need to move forward and GET IT DONE IN IRAQ.

If the Democratic leadership has any dignity left, they will begin helping us do that right now and stop fighting us to score political points. Don’t try and justify this somehow. This is solid proof that Saddam Hussein was lying (NOT BUSH) when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it proves the weapons inspectors did not uncover these munitions. We gave Saddam ample opportunity to get rid of these and surrender and HE REFUSED. He knew the consequences.

I saw Al Sharpton on Bill O’ Reilly last night and he said that if this is true, then he will apologize to Bush. If he can do it, the rest of the Democrats can.

My advice to Democrats? Step up to the plate and show some integrity. THAT will get you elected more than any showboating and justifying.

Well, crikey! Sorry we can't be as civilized as the Syrians. It wouldn't be tolerant or respectful for us to disrupt their "spontaneous protest", right?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

You are... so.... I mean this is laughable.

Chemial weapons are not WMDs...they are chemial weapons. We went in looking for nukes, we found no nukes, but we found chemical weapons he was using previously. This is not the same thing as "*** yea,there are WMDs" its "*** yea! we caught him breaking a treaty on weapons banned by said treaty!"

Again, we did not find WMDS,because chemical weapons are not WMDs.