The guy got more due process than Roger Stone. And only received slightly less severe sentencing recommendations....

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.
This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

There was wrongdoing in Benghazi. We have a dead ambassador to prove it. Somebody screwed up majorly. Any investigation that fails to discover who was the responsible party is a failed investigation.

And not because of any "stand down" order. In fact, had I been on-scene commander, there would have been a "stand down" order because i would have given it. Anything else in that situation is a suicide mission. And good commanders know that you don't risk lives and limbs on missions that have zero chance of success.

No, the problem was locked in way before then. The first question is exactly WTF was so important that we send an ambassador into hostile territory without a significant military force close at hand in case things to sideways. The second question is exactly why was there no military force close enough to take action in the event of a situation like what happened.

I can share a least part of an answer to the second. We don't have the capability to do that any more. In my day we would have had an amphibious ship--LSD, LPD, LST, any of them--standing offshore with a company of Marines ready to land immediately at any sign of trouble. The presence of that ship in international waters but within visual range would have acted as a huge deterrent against things like what happened. The reason we don't do that any more is because we don't have those ships any more. The Navy has conglomerated its amphibious forces into a small number of overpriced platforms with no real concept of operations for putting the troops ashore. At the time of Benghazi, the closest amphibs were the USS NEW YORK (LPD-21) in the Bab el Mandeb strait at the bottom of the Red Sea, and USS FORT McHENRY (LSD-43) off the west coast of Africa, SW of Gibraltar. We had 4 destroyers in the Med at the time--USS LABOON (DDG-58) in Soudha Bay, Crete, 350 miles away (12 hours at max speed), and further away USS FORREST SHERMAN (DDG-98) between Crete and Turkey, and USS USS JASON DUNHAM (DDG-109) and USS COLE (DDG-67) east of Cyprus. None of the destroyers could have put a significant number of boots on the ground. We had Air Force jets that could have flown over and made a lot of noise, but accomplished little else.

It was totally inexcusable to expose a US ambassador to that level of danger without a response force handy. Whoever is responsible for that stupid decision deserves to do time.

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

Keep spewing talking points for simpletons...

(02-15-2020 11:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.
This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

There was wrongdoing in Benghazi. We have a dead ambassador to prove it. Somebody screwed up majorly. Any investigation that fails to discover who was the responsible party is a failed investigation.

And not because of any "stand down" order. In fact, had I been on-scene commander, there would have been a "stand down" order because i would have given it. Anything else in that situation is a suicide mission. And good commanders know that you don't risk lives and limbs on missions that have zero chance of success.

No, the problem was locked in way before then. The first question is exactly WTF was so important that we send an ambassador into hostile territory without a significant military force close at hand in case things to sideways. The second question is exactly why was there no military force close enough to take action in the event of a situation like what happened.

I can share a least part of an answer to the second. We don't have the capability to do that any more. In my day we would have had an amphibious ship--LSD, LPD, LST, any of them--standing offshore with a company of Marines ready to land immediately at any sign of trouble. The presence of that ship in international waters but within visual range would have acted as a huge deterrent against things like what happened. The reason we don't do that any more is because we don't have those ships any more. The Navy has conglomerated its amphibious forces into a small number of overpriced platforms with no real concept of operations for putting the troops ashore. At the time of Benghazi, the closest amphibs were the USS NEW YORK (LPD-21) in the Bab el Mandeb strait at the bottom of the Red Sea, and USS FORT McHENRY (LSD-43) off the west coast of Africa, SW of Gibraltar. We had 4 destroyers in the Med at the time--USS LABOON (DDG-58) in Soudha Bay, Crete, 350 miles away (12 hours at max speed), and further away USS FORREST SHERMAN (DDG-98) between Crete and Turkey, and USS USS JASON DUNHAM (DDG-109) and USS COLE (DDG-67) east of Cyprus. None of the destroyers could have put a significant number of boots on the ground. We had Air Force jets that could have flown over and made a lot of noise, but accomplished little else.

It was totally inexcusable to expose a US ambassador to that level of danger without a response force handy. Whoever is responsible for that stupid decision deserves to do time.

Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But yet no one was charged let alone convicted. We are not perfect as our nation and our military have taken some blows from time to time. It is why we have the for God’s sake. On that day we got our asses handed to us because mistakes were made. None of which criminal negligence. Mistakes were made leading up to 9/11. Under the hindsight is 20/20 reasoning Bush’s administration should have been under the same if not more scrutiny.

(02-16-2020 10:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

Keep spewing talking points for simpletons...

Facts matter

(02-16-2020 01:43 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 10:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

Keep spewing talking points for simpletons...

Facts matter

Indeed they do, you should try presenting some. For you to characterize the Benghazi debacle as a military mistake is not only factually incorrect, it shows that you either A) are a simpleton who believes whatever your handlers tell you to believe, B) you have an agenda to disseminate false propaganda, or C) A & B together.

(02-16-2020 01:58 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 01:43 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 10:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

Keep spewing talking points for simpletons...

Facts matter

Indeed they do, you should try presenting some. For you to characterize the Benghazi debacle as a military mistake is not only factually incorrect, it shows that you either A) are a simpleton who believes whatever your handlers tell you to believe, B) you have an agenda to disseminate false propaganda, or C) A & B together.

Show me then an a government document that states your case. No some website article

(02-16-2020 01:42 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But yet no one was charged let alone convicted.

And that's the problem. If people knew that screwing up would land their asses in jail, maybe the wouldn't screw up so often.

Quote:We are not perfect as our nation and our military have taken some blows from time to time. It is why we have the for God’s sake. On that day we got our asses handed to us because mistakes were made. None of which criminal negligence.

Again, that's the problem. Doing something that stupid should be criminal negligence.

Quote:Mistakes were made leading up to 9/11. Under the hindsight is 20/20 reasoning Bush’s administration should have been under the same if not more scrutiny.

The first thing that should have happened--but didn't--after 9/11 was that the guy in the Phoenix FBI who sat on the reports from the flying school should have been indicted for 3,000 counts of murder. After that, find fault wherever and take corrective action. We didn't need a patRIOT act and all the civil rights violations that came with it. We needed to fry people who didn't do their jobs.

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.

This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

Is it really an investigation if those "investigations" didnt even look at the communications between the Secretary of State and the ambassador? You know, something that was physically impossible because Hillary and the state department failed to preserve copies of Hillary's emails, and Hillary had stored them on a private server that had been hacked by just about everyone on the planet.

(02-16-2020 01:42 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 11:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:33 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And nobody has denied any of that. I just would have preferred the administration gave us the real reason and stuck with it...instead of saying about 5 different things, lying about most of them. Why is that so ******* hard for them? I thought trump was not a politician? He sure spends an inordinate amount of time trying to put forth a political explanation for everything he does.

I might have preferred that as well. But so what, what difference does it make whether you or I or the democrat leadership or any of us know what the reason is? Exactly what would we do with such knowledge? I don't see any reason why you or I have any need to know what was the real reason.
This idea that the administration owes each of us an explanation why actions are taken in a wartime combat situation is incredibly stupid and highly detrimental to national security. I'm just glad the SOB is dead, just like I was when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama.

Yet there were how many hearings and investigations over Benghazi that revealed no wrong doing?

There was wrongdoing in Benghazi. We have a dead ambassador to prove it. Somebody screwed up majorly. Any investigation that fails to discover who was the responsible party is a failed investigation.

And not because of any "stand down" order. In fact, had I been on-scene commander, there would have been a "stand down" order because i would have given it. Anything else in that situation is a suicide mission. And good commanders know that you don't risk lives and limbs on missions that have zero chance of success.

No, the problem was locked in way before then. The first question is exactly WTF was so important that we send an ambassador into hostile territory without a significant military force close at hand in case things to sideways. The second question is exactly why was there no military force close enough to take action in the event of a situation like what happened.

I can share a least part of an answer to the second. We don't have the capability to do that any more. In my day we would have had an amphibious ship--LSD, LPD, LST, any of them--standing offshore with a company of Marines ready to land immediately at any sign of trouble. The presence of that ship in international waters but within visual range would have acted as a huge deterrent against things like what happened. The reason we don't do that any more is because we don't have those ships any more. The Navy has conglomerated its amphibious forces into a small number of overpriced platforms with no real concept of operations for putting the troops ashore. At the time of Benghazi, the closest amphibs were the USS NEW YORK (LPD-21) in the Bab el Mandeb strait at the bottom of the Red Sea, and USS FORT McHENRY (LSD-43) off the west coast of Africa, SW of Gibraltar. We had 4 destroyers in the Med at the time--USS LABOON (DDG-58) in Soudha Bay, Crete, 350 miles away (12 hours at max speed), and further away USS FORREST SHERMAN (DDG-98) between Crete and Turkey, and USS USS JASON DUNHAM (DDG-109) and USS COLE (DDG-67) east of Cyprus. None of the destroyers could have put a significant number of boots on the ground. We had Air Force jets that could have flown over and made a lot of noise, but accomplished little else.

It was totally inexcusable to expose a US ambassador to that level of danger without a response force handy. Whoever is responsible for that stupid decision deserves to do time.

Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But yet no one was charged let alone convicted. We are not perfect as our nation and our military have taken some blows from time to time. It is why we have the for God’s sake. On that day we got our asses handed to us because mistakes were made.

Sounds like a great reason never to vote for a democrat ever again.

Quote:None of which criminal negligence. Mistakes were made leading up to 9/11. Under the hindsight is 20/20 reasoning Bush’s administration should have been under the same if not more scrutiny.

And Bill Clinton shoul dhave been held accountable. Bill had a kill shot on Osama Bin Ladin, and he said no. Just like How Pete Buttigeig and every other democrat has said he would not have killed Solemeini.


Great thing about Trump is that we arent having to experience any of those "mistakes" to where we are getting our asses handed to us.


PS: How many times did Hillary make the military change uniforms before finally telling them to stand down and abandon the ambassador to torture and murder? Well, at least we cant blame Obama. He jumped on a plane to a Vegas fundraiser. Amdassador Stevens was out of sight, and out of mind.

(02-16-2020 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Is it really an investigation if those "investigations" didnt even look at the communications between the Secretary of State and the ambassador? You know, something that was physically impossible because Hillary and the state department failed to preserve copies of Hillary's emails, and Hillary had stored them on a private server that had been hacked by just about everyone on the planet.

Perhaps WE should have just hacked her server, too.

And by the way, any investigation into as colossal a screw-up as Benghazi that doesn't end up putting somebody away for a long time is a botched investigation. Same for 9/11.

(02-16-2020 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Is it really an investigation if those "investigations" didnt even look at the communications between the Secretary of State and the ambassador? You know, something that was physically impossible because Hillary and the state department failed to preserve copies of Hillary's emails, and Hillary had stored them on a private server that had been hacked by just about everyone on the planet.

Perhaps WE should have just hacked her server, too.

And by the way, any investigation into as colossal a screw-up as Benghazi that doesn't end up putting somebody away for a long time is a botched investigation. Same for 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick should have been first to the gallows.

(02-16-2020 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Is it really an investigation if those "investigations" didnt even look at the communications between the Secretary of State and the ambassador? You know, something that was physically impossible because Hillary and the state department failed to preserve copies of Hillary's emails, and Hillary had stored them on a private server that had been hacked by just about everyone on the planet.

Perhaps WE should have just hacked her server, too.
And by the way, any investigation into as colossal a screw-up as Benghazi that doesn't end up putting somebody away for a long time is a botched investigation. Same for 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick should have been first to the gallows.

I have always thought that if I were a congress critter on some committee where she appeared in a hearing as a witness, I would have wanted to start my questioning with this, "Ms. Gorelick, you promulgated a restriction on communication between agencies that had the effect of preventing the information sharing that might have prevented 9/11, and from there you went to Fannie Mae where you participated in the mortgage disaster that helped bring about the 2008 financial collapse. Have you ever considered that the two biggest catastrophes of the 21st century so far might have been avoided had your parents simply had the good sense to abort you?"

Come to think of it, that's probably why I'm not on such a committee or even in congress.

And before somebody asks me to say what I really think, that is what I really think.

(02-16-2020 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Is it really an investigation if those "investigations" didnt even look at the communications between the Secretary of State and the ambassador? You know, something that was physically impossible because Hillary and the state department failed to preserve copies of Hillary's emails, and Hillary had stored them on a private server that had been hacked by just about everyone on the planet.

Perhaps WE should have just hacked her server, too.
And by the way, any investigation into as colossal a screw-up as Benghazi that doesn't end up putting somebody away for a long time is a botched investigation. Same for 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick should have been first to the gallows.

I have always thought that if I were a congress critter on some committee where she appeared in a hearing as a witness, I would have wanted to start my questioning with this, "Ms. Gorelick, you promulgated a restriction on communication between agencies that had the effect of preventing the information sharing that might have prevented 9/11, and from there you went to Fannie Mae where you participated in the mortgage disaster that helped bring about the 2008 financial collapse. Have you ever considered that the two biggest catastrophes of the 21st century so far might have been avoided had your parents simply had the good sense to abort you?"

Come to think of it, that's probably why I'm not on such a committee or even in congress.

And before somebody asks me to say what I really think, that is what I really think.

Is that you Mike Baxter (from the series "Last Man Standing")? LOL

My wife says I'm exactly like Mike and in talking to my oldest son he has the same traits. One time I was telling my wife that I could make friends very easily and she countered that I lose them easily too. Bwahahahahaha.