![]() |
Quote:
No, it's mostly about fairness and facts and common sense. Isn't it POSSIBLE that the facts might point to errors made by Obama or Hilary? Are they infallible? Why do you assume that all criticism of Obama is nohting more than political b.s.? "Answer this where was support going to land to engage?" Good question. First, depending on the type of aircraft, it doesn't need to land, in order to engage the enemy in this type of fight, correct? Some types of aircraft are designed to support ground troops, from the air, in close-combat situations. Were any of those aircraft within 12 hours of Benghazi? I don't know. But if there weren't any, that points to horrific planning at the top. If there were any, why the hell weren't they deployed? Second, there is an airport in Benghazi where aircraft carrying troops could have landed. I know this for certain, because Glen Doherty, one of the 2 former SEALs killed in Benghazi, was not in Benghazi at the start of the attack. He was in Tripoli. When the fight stared, he got himself on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi, then got himself to the annex, in time to join the fight. Therefore, we know for an absolute certainty, that a plane carrying troops could have landed in Benghazi, and that those troops could get to the annex to engage. Because it happened. "if a soldier gets killed in Afghanistan at the start of an attack it's diffrent if they get killed 12 hrs into a fight" Absolutely correct. You can't stop every soldier from getting killed in every situation. But it's less reasonable that guys are fighting for 12 hours, repeatedly asking for help, and none comes. You see no difference, in terms of what's preventable, between the first guy who gets killed in the first second of a surprise attack, and someone who gets killed 12 hours later? Twelve hours? It's hard for me to fathom, in a time of war in a known danger zone, why a small number of Americans are badly out-numbered for 12 hours, unless they have no way of calling for help. That's not what happened here. People in Benghazi were in direct contact with the White House situation room, all throughout those 12 hours. It's in the book. "Our aircraft can time warp from mission to mission and never miss" I don't think I said that. What I said is, we have an obligation to try. We did nothing, as far as I can tell. In 12 hours, notihng got there, except for 1 heroic SEAL from Tripoli. Seems like you are the one for whom it's all about Obama, meaning, you won't allow any criticism whatsoever. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So how did we get caught with our pants around our ankles for 12 hours? 12 hours. I don't get it. I genuinely don't know what's indicative or greater incompetence - not having anything within 12 hours of a known danger spot where you know you have peopple, or if we had assets but chose not to send them. Those are the only two choices, there is no third option, and in either case, someone screwqed up, and superb Americans are dead because of it. That doesn't mena it was Hilary's fault, she doesn't make every decision. Also, it's awfully convenienet that in every public statement, she claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video (therefore no one can blame her). Yet in every proivate communication, she said she knew it had nothing to do with the video. Spence will say that every time she flip-flopped, she was merely reacting to the latest intelligence, which said "forget what we told you an hour ago, now we know it was because..." It could be that. Or it could be she's lying. We know she's a serial liar. Has she ever offered evidence to support her claim that she wa salways relying on the latest intelligence, instead of saying whatever was politically expedient at the time? Now she's claiming that th efamilies of the dead are lying, when they claim she blamed the video. At what point does she start to lose credibility? After how many lies, exactly? |
I knew that Jim vs. Wayne would be great fun :jump:
|
Quote:
I would love nothing more than to see Bernie as the candidate. I see no indication that it's mathematically possible. Iowa and New Hampshire have a long history of going for fringe candidates (both parties) who quickly flame out. And if NH goes for Bernie,m they need a new motto for their license plates, because "live free or die" doesn't describe a state that voted twice for Weird Harold and then went for a socialist. |
Quote:
Try to respond to what I am saying, not nonsecial jibberish that you claim I'm saying, which isn't even close to anything I said. |
Quote:
Time will tell, but my grey thinking has Sanders winning. In fact I felt this before he even announced his presidency. Show me another candidate that is not a corporate shill or a pathological liar. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
As the Secretary of Defense said... "I'm not aware of any such effort at all. As a matter of fact, after meeting with the president, I immediately went back and we made decisions to deploy forces, to put them in place to be able to go in and provide help to those involved, and we in fact put forces in place. The problem was that [the] attack ended quickly and because of time and distance we never had a chance to get there. This is a tragic event. It's tragic in a number of ways. But most importantly, it's tragic because it's now become a political football that unfortunately, I think, doesn't do service to all of those that were committed to trying to protect lives." |
Quote:
I worked at Travelers, Aetna, and The Hartford. Huge businesses. Tens of thousands of good jobs. On top o fthat, they were good corporate citizens who donated big $$ to local communities, gave employees time off to donate time to charities like Habitat For Humanity, and encouraged charitable giving by matching contributions taht we made to charities. These companies will pay for employees to get additional college degrees. Evil? Hardly. Are Cruz and Rubio known liars? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
When Bush was president, Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism. Funny how the liberal view on dissent changed in January of 2009. As I have said, just because people at State died, doesn't necessarily mean Hilary did anytihng wrong. Her flip-flopping on th evideo? How naive do you have to be, to believe that every time she switched, she was reacting to the latest intel? Spence, I asked you multiple times, to provide some evidence that every time she changed her mind, it was in response to the latest intel, rather than covering her azz. You never posted anything. Not once. Ever. Siure, it's possible that every time she changed her tune, she was merely directed to do so by the last intelligence report she received. But boy, it sure worked out conveniently for her, that every time she made a public statement, the laste intel wa sthat it was the video (and therefore not her fault), and every time she made a private statement (to her daughter, the king of Egypt, etc) she said it was a terrorist attack. Finally, she is clainming that teh families of the dead are lying aboiut hwat they were told. All of them. Exactly how many lies does she have to tell, before you stop believing her every word? |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Last I heard there was no issue with an ice cream company being too big to fail, being a huge polluter of the environment, a threat to people's retirement funds, able to profit from a foreign war, etc... It might make you fat. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Even the Republican led House Armed Services Committee found no response options that would have changed the outcome. And from SecDef Robert Gates: "And frankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare 'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances." |
Quote:
So our defense secretary would never send a single aircraft in support of ground troops, anyplace where surface-to-air missiles exist. That's what I'm supposed to believe? Can you sharethat link, please? I'd like to share that with some folks I know. I also see that you aren't addressing Hilary's flip-flopping on the video. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
maybe get his own flavors...Bernie Brickle and Sanders Swirl |
|
Quote:
I read his comments in a news article, exactly as you posted them. He seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a quick reaction force that he would ever agree to send in. We had an unarmed, predator drone over the annex during much of the 12 hour fight, sending real-time video to the white house. Plus we had radio contact with multiple people on the scene. If that's not sufficient eyes on the ground to send in aircraft, then I can't fathom an active-battle scenario that is, I just can't. If Gates' hangup is that he wouldn't send in a single aircraft, then fine, send two. Who said it had to be one? Has anyone ever itemized exactly what assets were within a 12 hour flight time of Benghazi? That I'd like to see. It has to be a long list, because that's a huge radius. |
another Hillary boot licker who is lying to not make her look bad.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...mTK?li=BBnbcA1 |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com