“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?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161982 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.
This is what is maddening - the extent of self-serving speculation and misinformation. You are pressing ahead with the idea that there was a chance to save these four. Did you not hear? Even Hicks, the so-called "whistle-blower", stated that the rescue deployment was already too late - the attack was over.

You all keep talking about "low-information voters", yet that very thing is on parade throughout this discussion.

There is absolutely no conceivable reason that the military would not have responded if there was anything to be gained. But what's the point showing up to a party after everyone's gone home?

One enduring question for me, which I don't hear addressed by anyone, right, left, mainstream, or comedy channel:

Forty (40) personnel >were< evacuated from the chaos.

No hay to be made out of that, I guess.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161983 May 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>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?
No one knew it would have been futile, and it is the mindset of the military that you go in despite the danger if even one american life is at risk. They didn't know how this would unfold and yes those parents would feel better if they knew someone tried to save their loved ones. That is a no-brainer.
You sure change colors often, are you going for devil's advocate.? Pick a lane.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161984 May 12, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Hi, I think he meant the liberals at PSA-public service announcement, and the fact that he prayed someone today might call dhs- which could mean Homeland security .. Hope that helps.:)

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161985 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.
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.

I'm not holding my breath, mind you - I have no death wish.

I'm not surprised that you've retreated behind old faithful (in the tank yada yada yada). That's certainly a lot easier than having to deal with any yucky off-message stuff like what I've actually posted.

I don't want to talk about Benghazi because of posts like this one, where you misrepresent what I've said (never said anything about great insights - just offered my opinion based on what I know and experienced in the service), hide behind old faithful, and trot out some pseudo-platitudes about how we always go in.

We don't always go in. The United States military does not play 'charge of the light brigade' or go over the top WWI style marching in the face of machine guns. There's always somebody who wants to, there's always somebody who swears than can or could have done it, but sometimes they get stopped because somebody up the chain of command isn't convinced they can do it.

Sometimes those decisions are made prudently; sometimes there is an overabundance of caution; I suppose sometimes the decisions can be influenced by politics.

I don't know how the decision was made here. I don't have enough information to either defend or criticize the decision - and neither do you, unless you've got cards you ain't playing yet.

In the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence that the decision to stop the rescue was political, I can't see any reason to assume it was. If you don't understand the difference between that and 'being in the tank', it's a personal choice and nothing more.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161986 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No one knew it would have been futile, and it is the mindset of the military that you go in despite the danger if even one american life is at risk. They didn't know how this would unfold and yes those parents would feel better if they knew someone tried to save their loved ones. That is a no-brainer.
You sure change colors often, are you going for devil's advocate.? Pick a lane.
I would not have felt 'better' about it, if my military son had been thrown at a situation which was un-savable, and lost his life in the process. And as Hip mentioned, 40 lives were saved after the fact - no one talks about them - but you rattle on that 4 Americans died in an Embassy attack, and advocate wasting more American lives in service to American solidarity.

The 68+ folks killed in embassy attacks, under the leadership of "The Hero" in the title of this thread, aren't the subject of your outrage...I suppose because they weren't "AMERICAN" lives.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161987 May 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I would not have felt 'better' about it, if my military son had been thrown at a situation which was un-savable, and lost his life in the process. And as Hip mentioned, 40 lives were saved after the fact - no one talks about them - but you rattle on that 4 Americans died in an Embassy attack, and advocate wasting more American lives in service to American solidarity.
The 68+ folks killed in embassy attacks, under the leadership of "The Hero" in the title of this thread, aren't the subject of your outrage...I suppose because they weren't "AMERICAN" lives.
Your son would have said "it's what we do." Nobody knows if it was Unsavable. Would you not run into a burning house to save someone?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161988 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.
I'm not holding my breath, mind you - I have no death wish.
I'm not surprised that you've retreated behind old faithful (in the tank yada yada yada). That's certainly a lot easier than having to deal with any yucky off-message stuff like what I've actually posted.
I don't want to talk about Benghazi because of posts like this one, where you misrepresent what I've said (never said anything about great insights - just offered my opinion based on what I know and experienced in the service), hide behind old faithful, and trot out some pseudo-platitudes about how we always go in.
We don't always go in. The United States military does not play 'charge of the light brigade' or go over the top WWI style marching in the face of machine guns. There's always somebody who wants to, there's always somebody who swears than can or could have done it, but sometimes they get stopped because somebody up the chain of command isn't convinced they can do it.
Sometimes those decisions are made prudently; sometimes there is an overabundance of caution; I suppose sometimes the decisions can be influenced by politics.
I don't know how the decision was made here. I don't have enough information to either defend or criticize the decision - and neither do you, unless you've got cards you ain't playing yet.
In the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence that the decision to stop the rescue was political, I can't see any reason to assume it was. If you don't understand the difference between that and 'being in the tank', it's a personal choice and nothing more.
Not suspicions willie. e-mails say this is what was said, basicly "save face" now Hillary or Obama may not have said it, but then the fact that they did not object to it, does that not either prove consent or incompetence? How you can say that things are not their fault because they didn't say it is unbelievable. You can't be that stupid.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#161989 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Not suspicions willie. e-mails say this is what was said, basicly "save face" now Hillary or Obama may not have said it, but then the fact that they did not object to it, does that not either prove consent or incompetence? How you can say that things are not their fault because they didn't say it is unbelievable. You can't be that stupid.
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:

"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."

That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.

I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.

Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.

Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161990 May 12, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.
I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.
Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.
Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-
Good of you to finish your post with a nice little mention of the "gay community."

I'd rather see you feeling depression instead of anger.

You know, depression is anger without enthusiasm.

You are enthusiastically angry.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161991 May 12, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.
I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.
Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.
Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-
Your points are good especially about the Libyan gov't. We keep saying we want peaceful muslims to stand up to the violence. here libyans tried to help the ambassador and yet were assigned the blame for a spontaneous demonstration. They (Hillary, Obama et al,) were not concerned about how the Libyans fault. Believe me if they have to throw a gay person under the bus they will, if it helps their political careers. Wish I could say lol but it's just so pathetic.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161992 May 12, 2013
felt not fault

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161993 May 12, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good of you to finish your post with a nice little mention of the "gay community."
I'd rather see you feeling depression instead of anger.
You know, depression is anger without enthusiasm.
You are enthusiastically angry.
No Catcher, depression is anger turned inward.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#161994 May 12, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>This is what is maddening - the extent of self-serving speculation and misinformation. You are pressing ahead with the idea that there was a chance to save these four. Did you not hear? Even Hicks, the so-called "whistle-blower", stated that the rescue deployment was already too late - the attack was over.
You all keep talking about "low-information voters", yet that very thing is on parade throughout this discussion.
There is absolutely no conceivable reason that the military would not have responded if there was anything to be gained. But what's the point showing up to a party after everyone's gone home?
One enduring question for me, which I don't hear addressed by anyone, right, left, mainstream, or comedy channel:
Forty (40) personnel >were< evacuated from the chaos.
No hay to be made out of that, I guess.
So called whistle-blower. What is on parade here is people that are so vested in Obama that nothing matters anymore. In other forum quite a few are discussing how some people are redefining words. Can't stand a person or what he stands for? Just put so called in. Hell Willie has done it many times when a Islamic terrorist acts and he calls it a "so called bomber". Just dismiss what is really going on and blame the nearest person on the right. Wait, you do that nonstop.:)

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#161995 May 12, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good of you to finish your post with a nice little mention of the "gay community."
I'd rather see you feeling depression instead of anger.
You know, depression is anger without enthusiasm.
You are enthusiastically angry.
Just make it up as you go. I doubt anyone here dwells on the homosexuals, nor is there any depression. An inconvenient truth for you is Obama showed the world his word is as worthless as our former gov. Charlie Crist. A few years ago is ideas on marriage were a bit different. And here is a fun fact. So was then rep gov Crist. No shock he is now all for homosexual marriage as he plans to run as a dem soon. You have to laugh here with Crist. When the writing was on the wall and people knew he would flip parties he said he never would. He did that just that a month latter, first to npa now he is a proud dem. Its good for laughs man.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161996 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No Catcher, depression is anger turned inward.
OK, I'll support a little of that for Lyndi--her anger is turned outward, and very well focused.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather she was happy, but I don't think there's much hope for that.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161997 May 12, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
What is on parade here is people that are so vested in Obama that nothing matters anymore.)
What is on parade here is people who are so vested in bashing Obama that nothing matters any more.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161998 May 12, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Just make it up as you go. I doubt anyone here dwells on the homosexuals, nor is there any depression. An inconvenient truth for you is Obama showed the world his word is as worthless as our former gov. Charlie Crist. A few years ago is ideas on marriage were a bit different. And here is a fun fact. So was then rep gov Crist. No shock he is now all for homosexual marriage as he plans to run as a dem soon. You have to laugh here with Crist. When the writing was on the wall and people knew he would flip parties he said he never would. He did that just that a month latter, first to npa now he is a proud dem. Its good for laughs man.
If nobody dwells on the homosexuals, tell me why Lyndi ends a lengthy post with a cute little jab at the homosexuals.

Huh?

Tell me.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161999 May 12, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll support a little of that for Lyndi--her anger is turned outward, and very well focused.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather she was happy, but I don't think there's much hope for that.
Silly, there is such a thing as righteous anger, something healthy people have. You've never experienced it? That may be because you don't have anything that important to you. Lyndi's anger if that is what it is, is definitely righteous.
Take my word for it. Depression is anger turned inward on yourself, because you can't be angry with who you need to be angry with, due to fear usually.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#162000 May 12, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
So called whistle-blower. What is on parade here is people that are so vested in Obama that nothing matters anymore. In other forum quite a few are discussing how some people are redefining words. Can't stand a person or what he stands for? Just put so called in. Hell Willie has done it many times when a Islamic terrorist acts and he calls it a "so called bomber". Just dismiss what is really going on and blame the nearest person on the right. Wait, you do that nonstop.:)
Then Willie would get along well with VP Biden who referred to the Boston Marathon bombers as a couple of "knock-off jihadists." It's called minimization which is nothing more than trivializing behavior and is used as a manipulation tactic.
==
"Knock-off jihadists" Um, okay Uncle Joe. They knocked off a few limbs and they knocked off a few people and one of them while doing a fine imitatation of a "jihadist," actually got knocked off himself.

You just can't make this stuff up!



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) 10 min Bongo 793,145
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 30 min Pegasus 267,248
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr Rathore 38,042
Does science disprove biblical teachings??? 1 hr Ninja of Reason 5
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 567,239
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr samanthar 97,403
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr lovewithin 39,640
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr lil whispers 607,025
More from around the web