hskerprid Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Hate to say it but Walksalone is spot on. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 From a military standpoint, Obama's a sh*tty president, Bush was a sh*tty president, and Clinton was a sh*tty president. From a military standpoint, how would you rank those 3? Obama has done is the leader in the clubhouse, because he's actually f'ed things up the least... Bush and Clinton were are tied for being the sh*ttiest. Bush was a tactical moron and Clinton used our military inappropriately... +1 but I'm a little surprised that you think that Bush and Clinton are tied for worst . . . Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 From a military standpoint, Obama's a sh*tty president, Bush was a sh*tty president, and Clinton was a sh*tty president. From a military standpoint, how would you rank those 3? Obama has done is the leader in the clubhouse, because he's actually f'ed things up the least... Bush and Clinton were are tied for being the sh*ttiest. Bush was a tactical moron and Clinton used our military inappropriately... +1 but I'm a little surprised that you think that Bush and Clinton are tied for worst . . . So why wouldn't they be? Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 So why wouldn't they be? Number of deaths. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 So why wouldn't they be? Number of deaths. Fair enough... But Clinton used the U.S. military to suck the world's dick's, and at the expense of u.s. service members, that you're ok with? So what happened at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole where nothing was done, doesn't mean as much? Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 But Clinton used the U.S. military to suck the world's dick's, and at the expense of u.s. service members, that you're ok with? No, I'm not OK with it. I agree that Clinton used the military poorly. He wasted a lot of US live for little (IMO) gain. So what happened at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole where nothing was done, doesn't mean as much? If "nothing being done" means that we didn't retaliate with ground invasions of a couple countries . . . well . . . yes, actually. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 But Clinton used the U.S. military to suck the world's dick's, and at the expense of u.s. service members, that you're ok with? No, I'm not OK with it. I agree that Clinton used the military poorly. He wasted a lot of US live for little (IMO) gain. That he did, and I agree with you it wasn't on the scale of G.W., that doesn't make it any less wrong... So what happened at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole where nothing was done, doesn't mean as much? If "nothing being done" means that we didn't retaliate with ground invasions of a couple countries . . . well . . . yes, actually. I don't want a ground invasion, thats like using a flamethrower to kill a gnat, which is tactically not smart... This is why you have Seals, Rangers, Green Berets. You get intel on who did this, you recon, and then you eliminate with extreme prejudice... Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 NYT with a lengthy investigative piece: Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam. http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?smid=tw-bna#/?chapt=0 Link to comment
Junior Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 NYT with a lengthy investigative piece: Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam. http://www.nytimes.c...w-bna#/?chapt=0 Dammit Carl, four Americans are dead. Obama lied and people died! Sadly, the people who need to read and understand this article will refuse to. I'm looking at you Darrell Issa. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 NYT with a lengthy investigative piece: Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam. http://www.nytimes.c...w-bna#/?chapt=0 Dammit Carl, four Americans are dead. Obama lied and people died! Sadly, the people who need to read and understand this article will refuse to. I'm looking at you Darrell Issa. I figured that it was just the New York Slimes covering for Hillary. (Also, I believe that Issa knows and understands what happened . . . but is trying to drum up a fake scandal anyways. That's certainly his M.O.) Link to comment
Junior Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 I figured that it was just the New York Slimes covering for Hillary. (Also, I believe that Issa knows and understands what happens . . . but is trying to drum up a fake scandal anyways. That's certainly his M.O.) This is certainly true. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Issa is still @#$$ing that chicken. When the Fact Checker gave Four Pinocchios to Issa for claiming that Clinton signed a cable denying security for Benghazi, we said: “He would be on stronger ground if he didn’t claim that she wrote this or signed it, but that it was fishy and he was seeking more information.” Hill suggests that Issa’s reference to “suspicions” that Clinton told Panetta to “stand down,” as well as his series of questions, represent that sort of caveat. It is correct that Issa poses a series of questions, but his repeated use of the phrase “stand down” and his personalizing of the alleged actions (“Secretary Clinton;” “Leon”) leave a distinct impression that either Clinton or Obama delivered some sort of instruction to Panetta to not act as forcefully as possible. He even incorrectly asserts that not a single order was given to use any DOD asset. One could argue the response was slow, bungled or poorly handled. But Issa is crossing a line when he suggests there was no response — or a deliberate effort to hinder it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/21/issas-suspicions-that-hillary-clinton-told-panetta-to-stand-down-on-benghazi/ Link to comment
darkhorse85 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 But Clinton used the U.S. military to suck the world's dick's, and at the expense of u.s. service members, that you're ok with? No, I'm not OK with it. I agree that Clinton used the military poorly. He wasted a lot of US live for little (IMO) gain. That he did, and I agree with you it wasn't on the scale of G.W., that doesn't make it any less wrong... So what happened at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole where nothing was done, doesn't mean as much? If "nothing being done" means that we didn't retaliate with ground invasions of a couple countries . . . well . . . yes, actually. I don't want a ground invasion, thats like using a flamethrower to kill a gnat, which is tactically not smart... This is why you have Seals, Rangers, Green Berets. You get intel on who did this, you recon, and then you eliminate with extreme prejudice... That's not really their job. That's the job of SOD, core collectors, and some other assets without names or titles. You don't just send out a military recon element to track down the sources in situations like this. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is why you have Seals, Rangers, Green Berets. You get intel on who did this, you recon, and then you eliminate with extreme prejudice... That's not really their job. That's the job of SOD, core collectors, and some other assets without names or titles. You don't just send out a military recon element to track down the sources in situations like this. Exactly what I meant... You get good intel, make sure it's not going to be some "Blackhawk Down" type of sh*t, then utilize the appropriate assets, and take care of business... Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is why you have Seals, Rangers, Green Berets. You get intel on who did this, you recon, and then you eliminate with extreme prejudice... That's not really their job. That's the job of SOD, core collectors, and some other assets without names or titles. You don't just send out a military recon element to track down the sources in situations like this. Exactly what I meant... You get good intel, make sure it's not going to be some "Blackhawk Down" type of sh*t, then utilize the appropriate assets, and take care of business... After you gather the intel, you do. Link to comment
Recommended Posts