So you're trolling Phredd?  We all know this is a non-story; everyone would have done anything to prevent this if not for the humanity then for the sake of their political aspirations.  Only a fool would accuse otherwise.

Last edited by Emmeran (2014-05-19 21:10:52)

Nope, no problem - good choice of Troll Bait.

fnord wrote:

I want Cheney, Bush, Condi, and the rest of the gang shot or hung after convictions by a War Crimes Tribunal!

Hanging is specified for treason. Broadcast it world-wide at 1080p live from the Mall in Washington, D.C. with full military ceremonial. If they think that's harsh, they can reflect that they were the ones who put us all into the position where that is the only way to restore our national honor. The Marine Corps Band can play either the Rogue's March or Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus, I don't care which.

I am highly amused by it as they (conservatives) gave Bush & Cheney the go free card on all the multiple fuck ups but now they are ***SHOCKED I SAY**** UPSET OH MY*****.  All else follows.  Wankery all around.

By all means investigate it.  If someone is to blame, then deal with it.  Of course that didn't happen for for Bush or Cheney, but hey.

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

By all means investigate it.  If someone is to blame, then deal with it.  Of course that didn't happen for for Bush or Cheney, but hey.

Well, except for that time the House voted to impeach Bush and referred the proceedings to the Judiciary Committee.  That and all the countless other investigations, inquiries, and other motions to impeach.  Yeah, except for those.

Come on Phred, it isn't as if Congress had a special prosecutor empaneled to dig into a small investment that Bush had lost money on 20 years before who then went on to depose every woman he had ever slept with and then actually DID impeach him for lying about a blowjob so his wife wouldn't have found out about it. Democrats would never have done such a thing. For one thing, no sane woman would ever fuck W.

Last edited by Tall Paul (2014-05-20 21:55:31)

Emmeran wrote:

Phreddy that is why this topic is so offensive, both sides are responsible and yet there are asshole politicians out there trying to use this tragedy for their own personal gain. ... should never try to twist a tragedy to advance your own political  career; this shit sucks and it makes me furious.

Agreed, it's pretty low to stoop.

Emmeran wrote:

I simply cannot stand hearing anymore about how a non-military person fucked up the first four hours of a response to a perfectly orchestrated ambush

125-150 gunman, 7 known people in the compound at the time.  Only 2 of our people died.

As to the local CIA "annex", you can't use your actual field ops to guard an embassy, that's like wearing a sign saying "I'm attached to the embassy as a political officer"... nor are they a military response force.  Also, that was 32 to probably 150+ and they only took 2 casualties.

Politically, it's rather embarrassing to have an ambassador offed, but let's keep some perspective.

Does anyone here honestly believe that the GOP or the Tea Party caused this by demanding a cut in funding for embassy security?  For gawd's sake, the Obamas spent an estimated $16-20 million on one vacation.  Yet he and Hillary couldn't find the money to fly in a platoon of Marines in to protect an ambassador who was begging for security on the anniversary of 9/11?  You people are drunk on the kool aid. 

Is this issue being pounded by the GOP for political purposes?  You bet.  Is it a direct reflection on Hillary's ability to perform as President and Commander-In-Chief?  Absolutely.

phreddy wrote:

couldn't find the money to fly in a platoon of Marines in to protect an ambassador who was begging for security on the anniversary of 9/11?

Speaking of drunk on Kool-Aid.  Fly them in from where and make it in time to do anything more than bag up the bodies?

Let's apply the rule of logistics here:

1.  The Marines are in their barracks (at best), not setting on the tarmac in full combat load-out.
2.  The transport planes are tied down, not fueled up and idling.
3.  Flight time from the nearest embarked unit was greater than 5 hours (which is longer than the entire incident took), helicopters are slow.
4.  Flight time from the nearest garrison unit was greater than 5 hours (geography is what it is).
5.  Fog of war rules apply and cannot be argued with.

Nobody could have gotten there in time so unless you claim that you and the other ultra-rights knew this was going to happen ahead of time then it couldn't have been prevented, but since you obviously knew but did nothing to stop it that makes you guilty of treason.

Pick a side brother cuz the opposition threw a flea-flicker hail-mary pass and scored on us, that kind of shit fucking happens whether you want it too or not.  Anyone claiming it shouldn't have gone down the way it did should have moved to stop it themselves.

I certainly don't want Clinton in.  Her ties to Monsanto are a bit much.

phreddy wrote:

the Obamas spent an estimated $16-20 million on one vacation.

OK, I'll play the incredibly irrelevant game... here's a stale link.

As to the topic at hand...

At 3:40 PM the attack commenced.  At 4:15 the attackers gain access.  About 15 minutes later Sean Smith is discovered dead.  At 4:45 "embassy attaches" from the "mission annex" attempt to retake the main building and are repulsed.  At 5:20, the main area is secured. It's not until 8:30 that it's reported that Ambassador Stevens was taken to the hospital and had died.

It's pretty likely that he died by 5.  Sending in the marines takes more than 80 minutes.

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

Speaking of drunk on Kool-Aid.  Fly them in from where and make it in time to do anything more than bag up the bodies?

So, you're saying you and your commanders knew how long every firefight was going to last while you were serving in the Marines?  They could pick and choose which ones to respond to with air support and artillery because they could predict that the men were going to be overrun before the cavalry arrived, so no sense in wasting chopper fuel and artillery shells.  Is that what you're trying to say?

No dude, I think that's what you're trying to say.

Military commanders can make mistakes, but Obama didn't make a mistake, he deliberately tried to downplay and cover up this incident so it would not reflect badly on his reelection chances.

That's subjective speculation, not objective reality.  You have no idea of what backroom meetings took place with regards to this issue or The President's ultimate motivations.

In other news, even if you're right, "Meet the New Boss - Same as the Old Boss".

phreddy wrote:

Even though the evidence is there, we don't know the details.  Hence, the appointment of a special investigative committee.

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps we do need a special investigative committee to look into the fact that the whole this was a right wing setup job up to and including the murder of an ambassador to enable the right wing to obtain a political advantage during the upcoming election cycle.  After all there is a whole lot of money is at stake and people have done far worse things to take control of a powerful nation.

Emmeran wrote:

After all there is a whole lot of money is at stake and people have done far worse things to take control of a powerful nation.

And while we're on the subject: Bush Communications Director Admits They Set “Trap” For Obama That “Feels Pretty Good”

Bartlett feels pretty good. Isn’t that terrific? Here we are, dealing with the worst economy in decades, the worst deficits in history, crippling debt to competitors like China — all brought to America under President Bush’s brand of leadership and economic wisdom, and Bartlett feels pretty good about it. Heck, he’s bragging about it!