If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Republicans have a "cartoonish impression" of US military capability. OH SNAP   (rawstory.com) divider line 596
    More: Interesting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Benghazi, Special Forced, Bob Schieffer  
•       •       •

6896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



596 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 01:26:15 AM  
I've been out of the thread for a while...has Johnny gotten around to telling us about his ginormous cock yet?
 
2013-05-13 01:26:43 AM  

MustangFive: Angry looking rant removed.


Dude (or SFC, whichever you prefer), calm down. Not all us Fobbits think we're the greatest thing to grace the Army. Yes, I choose to take the less dangerous job (Mostly 'cause I was and am a fatass who doesn't like running), but I would like to think that my small contribution helped your troops achieve something a little safer then if I hadn't been there. We might not be out there kicking doors, but we're still doing good work.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:58 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.

Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


No, folks continue to imply that serving in an air unit near Wurzburg was a bit less than a combat heavy role. Cripes, I was in Wertheim in the early 80s, and probably saw more live fire, and I was 11 at the time. (On a serious note: farmers out there did tend to send buckshot if you crossed their fields and picked from them. And at the time, there were still a few odd bunkers with unexploded munitions. I got a serious chewing out for not reporting the one that we kept as a "fort" despite the boxes of potato mashers in the far end.) Your arrogance was suggesting that the "grunts" in combat roles, which you didn't share in, were lesser than your own bad-ass REMF self...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-05-13 01:27:54 AM  

SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?


We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.
 
2013-05-13 01:28:30 AM  
 
2013-05-13 01:29:02 AM  

SunsetLament: The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


Wow, there's so much wrong with that it's hard to figure out where to begin.

First, "economy's been dog-shiat" is a less than accurate portrayal of a weak recovery from a swirling-the-bowl type depression Obama inherited.

Second, "at least I killed Bin Laden"? I'm torn here between thumping you over the nose with a rolled up newspaper for your weak attempt to minimize what a BFD that was and is to a lot of people and being marginally happy that you finally recognize that there is some credit due there.

"and took care of terrorism" meaning what? Ended it? Forever? You can't be that naive, right?

And then "the country Obama chose to destabilize"? You imagine the place was stable before that call was made? Now, I know you're trolling.

"...were told no"? Now, you're mad that more lives weren't tossed into the mix (and possibly lost) by going in unprepared and practically unarmed? And if they had been ordered in and gotten themselves killed needlessly that would be the "scandal" you'd be in here bleating about here, no doubt.

If you are just trolling then you are truly a dope.

/Albeit marginally successful in that ya got me.

If you actually believe that narrative then you are beyond help, indeed
 
2013-05-13 01:32:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.


Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane.  There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).
 
2013-05-13 01:35:21 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?

We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.


How long did the second one last and how long after the first attack started did the second one end?

DIFFICULTY: These are also known facts.
 
2013-05-13 01:40:39 AM  

SunsetLament: ongbok:

I don't know how any of that makes him look like an incompetent dope when there weren't any military assets that could get there in time. Every military expert says the same thing.


That's just factually inaccurate.  There was US military personnel in Tripoli and that's a two hour plane flight; that's how Doherty and Woods got to the annex in the first place.  A decision was made not to send military.  You're not even on the right liberal talking points anymore; the current set of talking points is that they couldn't be sent because there wasn't enough time to plan and prepare ... of course, the CIA was able to get reinforcements there from Tripoli (Doherty and Woods and five other guys), but hey that's the stupid argument they are currently going with.


How many times can you be proven wrong, and yet bring out the same debunked talking points that are still wrong?
 
2013-05-13 01:47:17 AM  

SunsetLament: Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.

Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane.  There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).


You do realize that the plane this team was going to ride in was just going to the Benghazi airport to pick up the remaining people on the ground there and leave, right? And it was flying out of Tripoli about an hour after Woods and Doherty had already died.
 
2013-05-13 01:47:20 AM  

19 Kilo: demaL-demaL-yeH: 19 Kilo: That fine crunchy (hah!) upthread pointed out a couple more recent ones.  For someone who's pretending to have served, you'd think you'd be a little more up on combat actions.

I'd break track with you any day, bro.*

/*As long as I don't have to put it back together or pull those big, nasty plates out of the way.

Skirts.  The armor around the hull/roadwheels/track is called skirts.

/Tanks are totes manly tho.


Sorry. Howitzers don't wear skirts.
/It's a kilt!
//Not really. Howitzers don't wear skirts.
 
2013-05-13 01:49:39 AM  

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?

We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.

How long did the second one last and how long after the first attack started did the second one end?

DIFFICULTY: These are also known facts.


Here is the timeline:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

The first attack started around 9:42 PM. Everyone was evacuated from the consulate by 11:30 PM. They were evacuated to the local hospital. A team from Tripoli arrived in Benghazi around 1:30 AM. The attack that killed the 2 Navy SEALs started at 5:15 AM. Not a single person who testified, or a single witness said anything about a sustained firefight for 7 hours. Stop lying.
 
2013-05-13 01:56:05 AM  

SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).


So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.
 
2013-05-13 01:58:47 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).

So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.


All made of Chuck Norris.
 
2013-05-13 02:00:12 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).

So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.


It sounds worse than that. It sounds like a horrifying, unchecked, self-appointed world police force.

So more like marionettes than cartoons.
 
2013-05-13 02:03:00 AM  

Sgt Otter: Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.

What's wrong, test scores not high enough for aviation?

You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.


I picked aviation because it had the shortest AIT and let me sit in the air conditioning all day.
 
2013-05-13 02:04:53 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Sgt Otter: You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.

The test score requirements for my MOS were certainly higher than yours.


I can assure you my test scores are higher than yours.

/Democrat currently deployed.
 
2013-05-13 02:05:51 AM  

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..
 
2013-05-13 02:08:01 AM  
Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.
 
2013-05-13 02:10:53 AM  

pornopose: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..


Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.
 
2013-05-13 02:12:06 AM  

DeArmondVI: Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.


Only if the sandwiches have arugula!
 
2013-05-13 02:14:22 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: DeArmondVI: Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.

Only if the sandwiches have arugula!


But mega-ton bombed when combined with paper-clipped dijon mustard!
 
2013-05-13 02:23:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.


Hey now. Some of us in the National Guard are very professional and do our jobs well.

\Aviation guy who respects infantry guys.
 
2013-05-13 02:32:53 AM  

GhostFish: So more like marionettes than cartoons.


F*ck yeah!
 
2013-05-13 02:35:53 AM  

pornopose: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..



"But would more money have prevented the attacks?  Apparently not, at least according to one senior State Department official who would certainly seem to know.  In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"  Lamb responded, "No, sir."  Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."
 
2013-05-13 02:46:14 AM  
Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.
 
2013-05-13 02:51:19 AM  

SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security


What's she doing these days?
 
2013-05-13 02:57:24 AM  

SunsetLament: Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-13 03:06:24 AM  

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.


Face it, by the time they arrivedat the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would havebeen killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would of gave hem the go ahead.
 
2013-05-13 03:07:02 AM  

SunsetLament: The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway


Sticking with the FOXNEWS/Bachmann version, eh?
 
2013-05-13 03:10:22 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.

Face it, by the time they arrived at the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would have been killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would have gave them the go ahead.

I will use proper grammar and spelling one of these days, I just know it.

 
2013-05-13 03:26:05 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.

Face it, by the time they arrivedat the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would havebeen killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would of gave hem the go ahead.


Yeah, the whole "just sidearms" remark is bullshiat too.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  Hicks testified that the medic on Gibson's team was carrying an automatic rifle on his shoulder when he was having the "Why the fark aren't you getting on the plane?" discussion with Gibson.  And, as has been explained, ad nauseam, the embassy in Tripoli would have had an armory (for the Marines stationed there) and Gibson's team was in Tripoli training the Libyan army (the same Libyan army supplying the plane they were about to go on to get to Benghazi).  Any suggestion that these four were going to walk into Benghazi with a Glock in one hand and their dicks in the other is just liberal obfuscation.
 
2013-05-13 03:28:54 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security

What's she doing these days?


Last I heard, she was suspended with pay for incompetence.  But that was back in December.

Still doesn't change the fact that she was the one making the call on what security to authorize (or deny) regarding the Benghazi consulate and, further, that she said her decision to deny the security request from Stevens had nothing to do with funding issues or a lack of money.
 
2013-05-13 03:39:01 AM  

SunsetLament: the embassy in Tripoli would have had an armory (for the Marines stationed there)


Cite?
For the Marines, not the weapons.
 
2013-05-13 03:43:01 AM  

SunsetLament: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security

What's she doing these days?

Last I heard, she was suspended with pay for incompetence.  But that was back in December.

Still doesn't change the fact that she was the one making the call on what security to authorize (or deny) regarding the Benghazi consulate and, further, that she said her decision to deny the security request from Stevens had nothing to do with funding issues or a lack of money.


Oh, well then...
 
2013-05-13 03:46:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Radioactive Ass: BSABSVR: It's not a football play where Obama makes a call, and terrorists make a call, and they both run at the same time and see who executes better, nor is there anything that requires terrorists to put their mortar shells away for 12 months if they see increased security in Tripoli. If the ultimate goal is "destroy American Embassy in Libya", they wait until the security levels decrease. If the ultimate goal is do something on 9/11, they (for example) drop a bomb in the streets and hope that the security detail starts shooting civilians up.

Sure. But when it's the 4th down in the last quarter with 5 seconds to go and the team with the ball is behind by 1 point (to use your football analogy) you keep an eye out for the team with the ball to try and win. You don't treat it like you've already won and walk off of the field.

Philip Francis Queeg: To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene. List every deployment needed

That was never my criteria. Never said it was. That's your requirement and it actually is cartoonish.

well then tell us exactly what response time you think should  been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?


Every square foot of the planet needs to be under house arrest just like in Boston during the FBI's last false flag operation, otherwise Fartbongo hates America.

PROVE ME WRONG!
 
2013-05-13 04:01:35 AM  
isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".
 
2013-05-13 04:08:24 AM  

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


That is weird. I wonder what causes it.
 
2013-05-13 04:11:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.


Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.
 
2013-05-13 04:11:44 AM  

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


I was just thinking how weird it was that one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it is so desperately trying to make you believe a version of events that simply cannot be true, does not jibe with reality in any way, shape or form; has been debunked by real experts from virtually every angle over and over again; and yet this name is suddenly shaitting all over threads day after day and literally jumping on the furniture and swinging from chandeliers insisting you believe its version of events because only IT knows the One True Version of Reality because some guy it heard on TV swears it's true and if you don't believe it you're just a libby lib in denial.

Like if only it says it often enough the meanies with their inconvenient timelines and realistic deployment schedules will suddenly agree.
 
2013-05-13 04:16:35 AM  

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


Show some respect. He crossed the 38th Penzoil (after his lunch hour, of course) to raise the flag at the Battle of Crankshaft. More than six sets of coveralls were stained that day, and Molly Hatchet played "Flirting with Disaster" twice in a row on the shop radio, even though Rock Block Weekend clearly stipulates artists play at least 3 different songs.

"Sweet land of lib-er-ty....."
 
2013-05-13 04:16:46 AM  

powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.


I didn't mean it as such, except as a slap in the face to someone around here who was touting his valorous service in an airbase in the wilds of West Germany as if it was tantamount to having CARs all over his wall.
 
2013-05-13 04:32:04 AM  

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


In fairness, the one nice thing about the Ignore feature, is that it drives up the number of accounts, as folks burn through them with an increasingly short half life. Folks figure, if the account is a burner, they'd best get the most out their time and effort...
 
2013-05-13 04:37:27 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?


Well damn, PJ, don't you ask the tough questions!
 
2013-05-13 04:46:34 AM  

Gyrfalcon: powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.

I didn't mean it as such, except as a slap in the face to someone around here who was touting his valorous service in an airbase in the wilds of West Germany as if it was tantamount to having CARs all over his wall.


You have to remember that there is a large majority in the military who were not the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with, transcending all branches and specialties. So, these idiots, like Johnny and Radioactive Ass....while I don't consider them worthy of listening to...I try not to discredit their service (if in fact they actually served).

On my sub...you know the jokes they play....one idiot sailor had been sent on a task to find some fallopian tubing. Everyone he asked said they didn't know where it was kept. I told him to talk to the doc. Never found out if it helped him any.
 
2013-05-13 05:06:58 AM  

powhound: On my sub...you know the jokes they play....one idiot sailor had been sent on a task to find some fallopian tubing. Everyone he asked said they didn't know where it was kept. I told him to talk to the doc. Never found out if it helped him any.


Later on, that idiot decides to try the same prank on the new person. But the new person is a female and doesn't fall for it and makes the idiot look like an even bigger idiot.
 
2013-05-13 05:19:03 AM  
And this might happen in the Down Periscope Navy!
 
2013-05-13 06:07:04 AM  
Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.
 
2013-05-13 06:14:13 AM  

StinkyFiddlewinks: Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?


I have it on good word from a Teabagger that GWB never went AWOL. He was recruited as an American James Bond to infiltrate the Soviet Union and help set in motion its fall. Dude speaks over 30 languages and has an IQ over 250. He only acts like a complete moran to throw everyone off the trail. Like I said, source is a Teabagger.
 
2013-05-13 07:04:41 AM  

spcMike: I can assure you my test scores are higher than yours.


Nah
 
Displayed 50 of 596 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report