His extensive military and diplomatic experience gained by going over a pile of Tom Clancy novels in a series of skips and short hops.
Rather, my extensive historical knowledge. The first time Defense claimed lack of intelligence, my ears perked up, because I’d really never heard of that being a reason to hold back rushing to embattled Americans’ defense.
And I stand by that. It’s just not done. Guess what is done, all the time? Interagency fingerpointing and excuse making.
But I’m sure with your extensive knowledge of interagency politics, you’re positive that couldn’t have been the motivation.
I am not half so sure of anything as you are sure of damn near everything.
I’m not sure of anything other than that there’s shenanigans going on. It’s my opponents here who are sure that everything is on the up and up. Yep, we should just trust whatever these guys say, because there’s no way they would lie to cover up a huge screwup.
Two SoDs and Generals on one side.
And a constantly wrong neckbeard idiot that thought the polls were skewed on the other side.
Which way do you think the seesaw is leaning again?
Well, when you elevate my status so as to make it seem like this controversy is between me and the military, you simultaneously give me an honor I don’t deserve while making it obvious that none of should even be discussing this at all.
You don’t deserve any honor at all, I agree.
I’m not elevating your status, imbecile, I’m demonstrating that a know-nothing delusional fool like you, challenging sitting generals and bi-partisan SoDs, is laughable.
And you are challenging sitting Congressmen with far more academic and government experience credentials than you. And while I tend to take a dim view of the value of their academic and government experience when it comes to regulating the rest of us, they do know politics. They know a whitewash when they see it because most of them are experts at it.
No, twat, I’m not. Those sitting congresspersons don’t know anything. They are asking questions over and over for effect. They don’t have any facts to bring to the game.
No, they want to blacken Obama’s record and nix Hillary for 2016. That you are too stupid and gullible to know this is obvious.
There are facts and there are amateur horseshit daydreams. You have the latter.
How do the two compare?
adaher, using the the “Doolittle raid” as justification is disingenuous. Once the president Roosevelt gave the order to do it, it still took months to plan and execute. The events in Benghazi occurred in less then a day.
I have a splendid idea:
Why don’t you write a letter to Ambassador J. Christopher Steven’s family telling them how, if you were president, he’d still be alive?
If the President ordered them saved, the military should have either done it or explained that it couldn’t be done. They did neither, although I suspect the failing was Panetta’s. He probably just figured the President said what he needed to say politically and that he could safely ignore that order.
Yeah, that’s probably it. You should keep repeating that, because it’s totally credible.
If only you’d been in charge none of this would have happened, since you know exactly what should have happened at every stage.
Now you’re just being stupid. I’m giving the most benign theory of why the President’s orders weren’t carried out. All the other alternatives are far worse. But you just hadn’t thought that through, huh?
That’s only true if you start from the viewpoint that there must have been a failure. Which you obviously do.
Consider that perhaps the military did their best and the best was ultimately not sufficient given the timeframe, location and other variables pertaining to the attack. Now see Robert Gates’ comment about people having a cartoony view of what the military can realistically do. Now see your posts. Now reconsider who’s being stupid.
Then again, they should have told the President they couldn’t pull it off. However, there’s no evidence that the military ever received orders to act. That would imply Panetta as the person who didn’t relay the order.
You keep asking for an example of when the U.S. military didn’t rush in to save the day. I think a list has already been posted; the list of embassy attacks that happened under George W. Bush’s watch (and for which none of this investigative zeal ever materialized). I browsed through news reports on some of them, and can’t find any mention of the military coming to their aid.
If I understand your argument correctly, Americans were under fire and that’s all we need to know to send in the troops, right?
If they don’t have sufficient intel, how are they supposed to know whether they can pull it off or not?
Because…Rambo!
What we *should have *done was send Serenity to hover over Ambassador Stevens and the others, and threaten the insurgents through the external loudspeaker. What are the odds that the insurgents would realize that a Firefly-class transport doesn’t have armament?
Hijack: did you ever play Cards Against Humanity, which is the rated R / bordering on X-rated version of Apples to Apples (a card game where you have to match adjectives to nouns in a funny and/or appropriate way).
Whenever there is an open-ended question like "Why didn’t I turn in my homework? _______ ", the best card to match is always the card that just says, in this text: “BATMAN!!!”