Bush is a hero

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161952 May 11, 2013
Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you, Nuts? Sending fighter planes All the way from Italy, just to save a few lives? That would be a Terrible waste of jet fuel. Before you start griping about the two hundred plane, one hundred and fifty million dollar convoy to India a few years ago, That Trip Was Necessary! After all, whats the use of being president, if you can't be a little extravagant once in awhile?
Heck, michelle's aluminum foil dress for the oscars cost more than the jet fuel to and from Bengazi. She Did too recycle it! OK, OK. She got two dollars and eight cents for it, and not the buck sixty two I reported earlier. Never mind that it cost seventy thousand dollars, even with the presidential discount. Funny, though. the prez discount is kind like the military discount. They jack up the price by eight hundred percent, then shave of six percent. Could be worse, I guess. They could just give a five percent discount.
fashion note. michelle would have looked better if she had covered the 'Reynolds Wrap' logo.
Of course Bad Bob is nuts. The Clearwater guy is also bonkers. More so than the guy with idiotsomethingorother in his name.

I'd say you're non compos mentis too.

You say opinions, Catcher says diagnoses.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161956 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think you are stupid, bob, and don't believe you when you try to play dumb.
The question ... the question comes back to your insistence that I'm upset because Obama and/or Hillary is being questioned, that everything I say is an attempt to blindly defend Obama or Clinton or (insert target here).
The questions being asked of Obama and Clinton by most of their opponents are of the 'when did you quit beating your wife' variety, not a Howard Baker-esque "What did the President/Secretary know and when did he/she know it?"
That don't cut it with me, whether the President or Cabinet official is from my party or not.
Oh really! Here's your 1st sentence from #161916 5 hrs ago:

WWW wrote: "Are you really this stupid, bob?" (Rhetorical)

As to your tactical theory of a rescue/possible ambush, the US military typically goes in with OVERWHELMING force, as evidenced in Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even the SEaL team mission to capture or kill OBL. There's NOTHING to suggest a rescue mission from Europe would've been any different.

And from SWAT to LEOs here at home, the same strategy applies, so any mumbling about being drawn into a trap by other insurgents is
fairly weak (IMO).

Now, yes I DID say you were miffed over the Benghazi hearings, but I have STOPPED saying you are "blindly defending Obama", mainly because you complained that it "impeded meaningful discussions",(paraphrased ). I have NO control over what other posters believe.

Circling around, I can tell ya that barely graduating from HS is hardly "trying to act dumb". As I've said b4, there's political junkies like you, Hip & a few others, and there's smoke & mirrors.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161958 May 11, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really this stupid?
Rhetorical question - I know you are. You are one of the people I believe to be more interested in beating Obama with dead Americans than you are the casualties themselves.
I'm wondering how you KNOW the U.S. had assets in range sufficient to effect a rescue. I'm wondering how you KNOW that the decision not to deploy was political rather than tactical.
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
What I'm wondering is if you've got something to prove that it happened.
And you question others stupidity, how could anyone in Washington know how long the attacks would go on... util after the fact? Who is the only person that can commit U.S. troops to fight in a foreign nation WITHOUT a declaration of war? barry had no way of knowing if the al-quaeda attack would last for 7 hours, and not 24, and as such, obama didn't know if any assests he could have sent would not have gotten there in time. Face it chump, your hero let those Americans hang out to dry... because his administration didn't want to admit al-quaeda was strong enough to take out our ambassador, and run both the USA and the UK out of western Libya. Only barry could have ordered in the troops needed to save those Americans... he chose not to do so, and went to bed so he could be fresh for his Las Vegas fund raiser the next day.

And yes, obama deserves to be beat on... any pResident that could allow that to happen to Americans that his administration had assigned to that area, doesn't deserve anyone's respect, let alone mine. Even the WH stenographers in the lame-stream media are beginning to see that something's foul about the adminisration's handling of the Benghazi affair. Why don't you pull your head out of your butt, and start using your common sense? Something stinks in every phase of the Benghazi attacks... from it's pre-attack security measures, or the lack thereof, the support given during the attacks, or the lack thereof, and the false statements that the obama administration told the public.

The funny thing, some stupid people still believe obama's administration didn't blow it... now that's stupid!

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161959 May 12, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really! Here's your 1st sentence from #161916 5 hrs ago:
WWW wrote: "Are you really this stupid, bob?" (Rhetorical)
As to your tactical theory of a rescue/possible ambush, the US military typically goes in with OVERWHELMING force, as evidenced in Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even the SEaL team mission to capture or kill OBL. There's NOTHING to suggest a rescue mission from Europe would've been any different.
And from SWAT to LEOs here at home, the same strategy applies, so any mumbling about being drawn into a trap by other insurgents is
fairly weak (IMO).
Now, yes I DID say you were miffed over the Benghazi hearings, but I have STOPPED saying you are "blindly defending Obama", mainly because you complained that it "impeded meaningful discussions",(paraphrased ). I have NO control over what other posters believe.
Circling around, I can tell ya that barely graduating from HS is hardly "trying to act dumb". As I've said b4, there's political junkies like you, Hip & a few others, and there's smoke & mirrors.
Come on, bob. There's nothing weak about anything I've said, because it's the sort of stuff that commanders HAVE to consider unless they are fools willing to needlessly sacrifice.

You can't compare the mission to kill bin Laden (let alone going to war), with the sort of off the cuff, by the seat of your pants rescue mission that would have been required at Benghazi. The planning for everything you've described above took months, although the bin Laden raid it was weeks.

We had no months. We had no weeks. We didn't even have hours to mount that sort of operation.

BTW, unless you know something I don't, jets can't effect the rescue of four hostages. In fact, absent the ability to communicate between the hostages ... you might have been using a sledge hammer to drive thumbtacks.

The United States has a lot of power, bob, but simply having it isn't enough. It has to be where you need it, in the form you need it, when you need it. You show me that we had what we needed when and where we needed it, and we can talk.

So far, you haven't done that.

Now, you want to ask why the hell we had an ambassador in a country as chaotic as Libya, well - me too. You want to ask why we depend on local security - me too, but that's where you get into the unsexy not suitable for sound byte on national or even local tv back in the district stuff.

Getting Obama, getting Clinton - that makes for GREAT sound bytes. It's much sexier than policy wonk stuff, and has a ready audience.

I am NOT saying that political considerations weren't the reason, or part of the reason, the decision not to attempt a rescue was made.

I don't know - but I'm going to need more than a deep seated distrust of Obama (or government in general) to assume it was.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161960 May 12, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
And you question others stupidity, how could anyone in Washington know how long the attacks would go on... util after the fact? Who is the only person that can commit U.S. troops to fight in a foreign nation WITHOUT a declaration of war? barry had no way of knowing if the al-quaeda attack would last for 7 hours, and not 24, and as such, obama didn't know if any assests he could have sent would not have gotten there in time. Face it chump, your hero let those Americans hang out to dry... because his administration didn't want to admit al-quaeda was strong enough to take out our ambassador, and run both the USA and the UK out of western Libya. Only barry could have ordered in the troops needed to save those Americans... he chose not to do so, and went to bed so he could be fresh for his Las Vegas fund raiser the next day.
And yes, obama deserves to be beat on... any pResident that could allow that to happen to Americans that his administration had assigned to that area, doesn't deserve anyone's respect, let alone mine. Even the WH stenographers in the lame-stream media are beginning to see that something's foul about the adminisration's handling of the Benghazi affair. Why don't you pull your head out of your butt, and start using your common sense? Something stinks in every phase of the Benghazi attacks... from it's pre-attack security measures, or the lack thereof, the support given during the attacks, or the lack thereof, and the false statements that the obama administration told the public.
The funny thing, some stupid people still believe obama's administration didn't blow it... now that's stupid!
There's no question as to your stupidity, bobin. As far as I'm concerned, that's an established fact.

As to the rest - stroke on, little man. Stroke on.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161961 May 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Right. What you want is an unbiased investigation....which hasn't yet been performed on any major, or minor, terrorist attack in this country, for 4 decades. Hell, we couldn't even get an unbiased investigation into the assassination of JFK.
What makes ANY of you think it's going to be any different this time?
I never saw a more biased investigation than Watergate, and President Nixon. Democrats were relentless in their efforts to tie Nixon into the coverup, with Republicans claiming the coverup investigation was just politically motivated... until the WH tapes were released.

Just because there's only one party pushing for facts, doesn't mean that there hasn't been any wrong doing, as we found out with President Nixon. We don't have much taping going on anymore, but we do have emails. I wonder what the investigators will find out if the obama WH is ever forced to release the emails... like when Nixon had to release his tapes.

I wonder how long it will take before barry starts squealing "national security".

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161964 May 12, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Btw I'm guessing all the regs here really do care about the 4 dead Americans, despite your post saying otherwise.
I care that we have an administration that will toss American lives under the bus so easily, so as not to harm themselves politically. We have a lot more than four Americans serving in hazardous lands, and I'd like to know we will protect them if needed, and not abandon them if it seems to be politically embarrassing.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161965 May 12, 2013
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>Look hillary Clinton admitted US created and even Financed Alqueda to power... What does that tell you?
Wake up time all!
I don't think hillary is with us anymore, after what she did to spill the beans.
I agree...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161968 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Think about what you're saying here. You'd have sent them in no matter what, even with zero chance of success. What you're guaranteeing is at least the possibility that the four dead Americans becomes more - potentially many more.
That would certainly have delighted the Islamic fundamentalists, and maybe some opponents of Obama.
I don't believe for a minute it would have delighted you, but I feel pretty damned confident that you would be even more incensed if a failed rescue operation resulted in the deaths of even more Americans.
Easy answers in hindsight aren't real, lisw.
I'm sure glad FDR was President on 12/7/41, and not you. FDR had no guarantee we would win, as a matter of fact, he knew we'd just had our Pacific fleet crippled.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161970 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>As to the rest - stroke on, little man. Stroke on.
Methinks this isn't an answer to the serious questions I posted. But then, I never expected that you could, or would, answer them. barry and Bill's wife are in the same position.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#161971 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>There's no question as to your stupidity, bobin. As far as I'm concerned, that's an established fact.
I'm beginning to suspect that WIR may be one of your aliases... you share the same logic processes.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161972 May 12, 2013
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text> So, what you think about US foreign policy ?
Kind of an ambiguous question, but okay... It's always hard to make the right choice. Do we back the rebels and freedom fighters, when they may be terrorists in the end? Or do we back the oppressive regimes and alienate the people. I think we should stop backing the Chechnyans at least... I have no idea what we should do about Syria...:)

ps.. Hilary and Berenz is more of a domestic issue..

Have a nice night!

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161973 May 12, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I never saw a more biased investigation than Watergate, and President Nixon. Democrats were relentless in their efforts to tie Nixon into the coverup, with Republicans claiming the coverup investigation was just politically motivated... until the WH tapes were released.
Just because there's only one party pushing for facts, doesn't mean that there hasn't been any wrong doing, as we found out with President Nixon. We don't have much taping going on anymore, but we do have emails. I wonder what the investigators will find out if the obama WH is ever forced to release the emails... like when Nixon had to release his tapes.
I wonder how long it will take before barry starts squealing "national security".
barry won't have to. his boys might arrange a scandal on 'Voices', or 'American Idol', then baby pigshit will have a heart attack while on GMA, and the whole nation will be enthralled by the drama, and then this minor international incident will be forgotten.
barry knows america.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161974 May 12, 2013
Continued...

Are the benefits we get from using drones worth the radicalization they cause?...and forever Al-Qaeda
where we create them by arming freedom fighters' there is an Iran where our support for the dictatorship blows up in our faces. For Egypt, I do think we should stop supporting them if they ever turn on Israel again...:)
Gn.. going to sleep...

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161975 May 12, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure glad FDR was President on 12/7/41, and not you. FDR had no guarantee we would win, as a matter of fact, he knew we'd just had our Pacific fleet crippled.
This may be the dumbest post allegedly about Benghazi yet.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161976 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
The stand-down order was issued by Special Operations Command Africa, saying that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security.

Couldn't they have helped save some people, or at least stem the attack?

The flight was scheduled for take-off 45 minutes after the attack had ended >according to Hicks' own testimony<. Thus the command stand-down decision to keep personnel where they were to provide security in place.

Why was Hicks silenced and demoted?

Obviously he wasn't - he's been interviewed at least twice in State Dept investigations, the second time at his own request, and he's given testimony in Congressional hearings. That's being "silenced"? As for the "demotion" - what constitutes a demotion in your mind? He's still at the same pay grade and position, just not at the same location. Why was he transferred? Partly due to his own mgmt issues, which predated Sept. 11, and partly due to his own request, which he recounted in his own testimony,

"based on criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there, and in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We had endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed."

So, where's the demotion?

The alleged Hicks "demotion and silencing" is emblematic of what it is ludicrous about all these protests of a "cover-up". Ever since last September, conspiracy mongers have pin-balled from one budding scandalous "reveal" to another, desperately trying to turn a tragedy into political fodder. Before Petraeus' testimony, we were told the lid was gongabout to be blown off. Didn't happen. Had to move on. Before Clinton's testimony, the lid was again about to be "blown off". Again, nothing. Darn! Now, we have the so-called "silenced whistle-blowers" >giving testimony in State Dept investigation and Congressional hearings<. Good Gawd!

As each point since Sept has been addressed, scandal-groupies leap shamelessly to the next, hoping against hope something sufficiently nasty will materialize from the "Sturm und Drang" (Storm and Stress), all the while building speculation upon speculation, baldly ignoring controverting info, and pronouncing long-winded conclusions built entirely on those speculations.

America may be watching American Idol,(tho' apparently not so much since it's ratings have reportedly plummeted) but this above is why those that do pay attention are just alternately sickened and bored with the political gotcha-game swirling over the bodies of four dead Americans.

As I've said, Americans have been subjected to this political flummery since Jan 09 directed at this President, with one "conspiracy" after another, interspersed with scandal after alleged scandal. Here's my own speculation - America's sickness and boredom with these unending shrill wolf-sightings played a minor but significant part in the President's re-election.

Well-played, RNC.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161977 May 12, 2013
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you ask the libs that have the psa See something say something. They are so busy with running from crisis to crisis it's a wonder more people aren't disturbed and nervous. Not over anything important mind you. Some time back when I was out of work and took a day labor job we broke for lunch. Before I ate I gave thanks, boy that caused the guy next to me to wig out. He'll today he might call dhs lol.
Can anyone direct me to an on-line translator for this? Besides the obligatory "Poor Persecuted Pious Me" reference, I can't make heads or tails of the rest.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161978 May 12, 2013
Speaking of "misinformed", concering the so-called "edited" Libya talking points:

Researching the above response gave me a chance to review Gen. Petraeus's testimony from last November (which is a loong time ago for "well-informed" scandal-watchers, I know).

The changes to this memo were questioned way back in November. Obviously the House And Senate Intelligence Committees had the original >in-hand< for comparison. Get that? They saw the original way back then. At that time, Gen' Petraeus acknowledged the changes, and said they were done to avoid "alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them". He said that his office didn't make the changes, but he signed off on them.

Beyond that, if anyone here has actually bothered to read the memo as released, it does, in fact, state that "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." So, sorry, but obviously the admin didn't change the memo to avoid mention of terrorists.

Did you read that? The edit was in the intelligence decision not to specifically name any particular group. Pretty standard stuff in law enforcement while an investigation is ongoing. Not being privy to the byzantine world of intelligence in tracking terrorists, I have no problem averring that they had their reasons to redact the specific names. Gen. Petraeus obviously agreed.

On top of that, the President, as has been discussed here (but forgotten?) spoke of terrorism the next morning at a presser in the Rose Garden, and again in an interview the next day.

The admin, from the beginning, was not denying that terrorists were likely involved, but stressed that, as it says in the disputed memo,“This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."

Should we find it odd that they only now, six months later, the memo becomes a part of the ongoing "cover-up" theme for this small but shrill crowd of "well-informed" people?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161979 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.
Think about what you're saying here. You'd have sent them in no matter what, even with zero chance of success. What you're guaranteeing is at least the possibility that the four dead Americans becomes more - potentially many more.
That would certainly have delighted the Islamic fundamentalists, and maybe some opponents of Obama.
I don't believe for a minute it would have delighted you, but I feel pretty damned confident that you would be even more incensed if a failed rescue operation resulted in the deaths of even more Americans.
Easy answers in hindsight aren't real, lisw.
You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161980 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.
So you believe more than four Americans should have been killed, in a futile attempt to save the four, for the sake of gung-ho and hoo-raw?

The parents and families of the four would have felt better about that, I suppose?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min It aint necessari... 864,212
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min USA Born 599,523
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 min andet1987 6,293
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 1 min Junket 221,987
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 30 min The swamiji 7,490
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Mr Wiggley 1,961
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr janeebee 6,422
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,898
More from around the web