Benghazi - Because fuck you, that's why.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10264543_10152098728301581_814970870172218418_n.jp g

But wait...there's more!

1. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (The Tribune)

2. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (BBC)

3. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of ‘Bali Bombings.’ No fatalities.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.
You said it, Huffington Post.

4. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Fox News)

5. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.”
REALITY: NINE AMERICAN DEFENSE CONTRACTORS KILLED.
After numerous State Department warnings, and Saudi Arabia investigating al Qaeda for a potential planned attack, three defense compounds were assaulted with car bombs and armed attackers. Nine defense contractors were killed.
Bush immediately called the attack part of the “war on terror,” and two of the attackers that survived the raid were killed by Saudi police forces. You know, just like Benghazi. (CNN)

6. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (BBC)

7. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Guardian)

8. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name ‘David Foy.’ This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)”
REALITY: ONE U.S. DIPLOMAT KILLED.
Finally, something that’s like Benghazi! Except that the Ambassador wasn’t missing, he was killed instantly. There wasn’t an 8-hour-long siege, an AWOL president and Secretary of State, or service personnel hung out to dry with no rescue attempt. It wasn’t a recent warzone, and there weren’t requests for additional security turned down. Oh, and no one falsely blamed a video for causing a non-existent protest. Except for those caveats, just like Benghazi.

9. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (CNN)

10. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.
You said it, Huffington Post.

11. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (CNN)

12. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Reuters)

13. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.

“September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.

“Attackers used vehicle bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons to mount a coordinated assault on the U.S. Embassy here Wednesday, leaving 10 guards and civilians dead outside the main gate but failing to breach the walled compound. No Americans were killed.” (Washington Post); (CSM)
(Even if there was misreportage, no embassy officials were killed or missing, and those who were killed were done so in a matter of minutes.)
So of all the Americans killed, only one was a diplomat, and he was killed almost instantly. Nine others were defense contractors.

[Latrinsorm]

No fatalities.” REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.So wait... if none of the no fatalities were American, does that imply that there were American fatalities?

Also, why do you have a graphic with 10 instances and then debunk 13?

I give the effort a B, the execution a C-.

[cwolff]

So wait... if none of the no fatalities were American, does that imply that there were American fatalities?

Also, why do you have a graphic with 10 instances and then debunk 13?

I give the effort a B, the execution a C-.

Americans were killed. It's totally ok though because they were just defense contractors.


“May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.”
REALITY: NINE AMERICAN DEFENSE CONTRACTORS KILLED.


So of all the Americans killed, only one was a diplomat, and he was killed almost instantly. Nine others were defense contractors.

I don't get the conclusions from this Ninja. Bush lost one diplomat, nine contractors and a U.S. civilian. That's 11 Americans killed in embassy attacks. How does this impact Benghazi investigations, the politics of the "scandal" and the news coverage?

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Americans were killed. It's totally ok though because they were just defense contractors.





I don't get the conclusions from this Ninja. Bush lost one diplomat, nine contractors and a U.S. civilian. That's 11 Americans killed in embassy attacks. How does this impact Benghazi investigations, the politics of the "scandal" and the news coverage?

Because the powers that be watched for hours while this happened, did nothing about it at all, and then lied to the American people about the reason for the attack.

[Methais]

I wonder how many soldiers were told to stand down and not help in any of those attacks, and how many were killed by going in to help anyway, against orders to do nothing?

I also wonder how many of those attacks were blamed on videos on the internet.

[Tgo01]

Yeah isn't this what the whole "made up" scandal is about; the fact that Obama didn't give this embassy more security because he didn't want to give the impression the US was racist and didn't trust the country? Also that more help wasn't sent over there right away? Also that Obama initially lied about it again because he didn't want to give the impression that the US didn't trust the country?

I don't think the issue is that the embassy was attacked; unfortunately that's the world we live in, it happens. But I think Obama is the first US president to just sit there and say "Naww! It wasn't an 'attack' per se, it was a protest that got out of hand."

I think one of the worst embassy attacks in US history was while Clinton was president and I don't think there was a lot of outrage over how the aftermath was handled.

Now of course Democrats sit here and say "Well DUH! Clinton was white, Obama is black! The answer is obvious!"

But smart people say "Wait...isn't it possible it's something other than the president's skin...?"

Then there's Latrin wondering what does the fox say.

[cwolff]

What did we learn in the first 7 Benghazi hearings? What questions still need to be answered?

There was a lot of outrage when I said that Bush and his white house were all war criminals. What level of criminality did Obama and his WH reach regarding Benghazi?

[Tgo01]

What did we learn in the first 7 Benghazi hearings? What questions still need to be answered?

There was a lot of outrage when I said that Bush and his white house were all war criminals. What level of criminality did Obama and his WH reach regarding Benghazi?

I didn't say Obama was a war criminal. I just said he's an asshole.

[Methais]

I didn't say Obama was a war criminal. I just said he's an asshole.

No. You said Obama is a war criminal. The fact that you didn't actually say it is irrelevant because cwolff has spoken.

I wouldn't mind knowing who cwolff's main account is...

[cwolff]

I didn't say Obama was a war criminal. I just said he's an asshole.

I know you're not speaking for anyone else, but who is a criminal regarding Benghazi? Why are we investigating it for the 7th or 8th time?

[Warriorbird]

It's just a rile up the base stunt. The far more effective attack on Hillary is actually our lack of progress during the Obama administration.

Unfortunately for the Republicans she'll just counter that she would have done stuff differently (and she probably would have.) This'll lead to more ACA/Benghazi saber waving.

[Tgo01]

I know you're not speaking for anyone else, but who is a criminal regarding Benghazi? Why are we investigating it for the 7th or 8th time?

Anything worth investigating is worth investigating a lot.

[cwolff]

Because the powers that be watched for hours while this happened, did nothing about it at all, and then lied to the American people about the reason for the attack.

The whole thing took place in about 4 hours and we had a QRF arrive in 45 minutes. Maybe you've got a point about the tape excuse and the campaign. Then again maybe not. I can't see how this deserves so much attention.

[Warriorbird]

The whole thing took place in about 4 hours and we had a QRF arrive in 45 minutes. Maybe you've got a point about the tape excuse and the campaign. Then again maybe not. I can't see how this deserves so much attention.

He wants to take part in Operation American Spring and look like an idiot on national tv, obviously.

[Methais]

It's just a rile up the base stunt. The far more effective attack on Hillary is actually our lack of progress during the Obama administration.

Unfortunately for the Republicans she'll just counter that she would have done stuff differently (and she probably would have.) This'll lead to more ACA/Benghazi saber waving.

You mean do things differently like not blame it on a YouTube video?

[Warriorbird]

You mean do things differently like not blame it on a YouTube video?

I'm sure she'll suggest she wanted more security for all embassies. It's easy to throw Obama under the bus after the fact. You guys seem to forget that Hillary has a lot of capacity as a campaigner.

[Tgo01]

I can't see how this deserves so much attention.

Maybe because of Obama's poor (read, lying) handling of the situation.

Maybe if after it happened had Obama gone on national TV and said it was a cowardly terrorist attack and that he was going to personally bomb some country that had nothing to do with the attack then maybe we wouldn't be hearing about this on a daily basis.

It's like if someone drove their car through your garage door and instead of saying "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested" you said something like "Well...it's no big deal, I mean, shit happens, right? I blame some random Youtube video personally" then a few days later you said "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested!" it makes you wonder, right? RIGHT?!

Like gee, maybe that guy had a meth lab in his garage so he's trying to downplay everything so everyone will just forget about it and move on.

What I'm saying is Obama has a meth lab in the White House garage. That's what we should be investigating.

[Warriorbird]

Maybe because of Obama's poor (read, lying) handling of the situation.

Maybe if after it happened had Obama gone on national TV and said it was a cowardly terrorist attack and that he was going to personally bomb some country that had nothing to do with the attack then maybe we wouldn't be hearing about this on a daily basis.

It's like if someone drove their car through your garage door and instead of saying "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested" you said something like "Well...it's no big deal, I mean, shit happens, right? I blame some random Youtube video personally" then a few days later you said "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested!" it makes you wonder, right? RIGHT?!

Like gee, maybe that guy had a meth lab in his garage so he's trying to downplay everything so everyone will just forget about it and move on.

What I'm saying is Obama has a meth lab in the White House garage. That's what we should be investigating.

Eh. No Republican would be happy no matter what he did. The party of "OMG, DON'T GO TO SYRIA!" and "OMG, WHY DIDN'T HE GO TO SYRIA!"

[Tgo01]

Eh. No Republican would be happy no matter what he did.

Which spirit guide did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

[JackWhisper]

Okay, I'm totally lost, but all I want to know is....


Who do I talk to to get some of that kick ass White House crystal, baby?! Yeah!

[Tgo01]

Who do I talk to to get some of that kick ass White House crystal, baby?! Yeah!

You probably have to sign up for health insurance through Obamacare, just like Obamacare brand heroin. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/drug-dealers-unveil-brand-of-heroin-named-obamacare/)

[Warriorbird]

Which spirit guide did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

I have a pulse. It's not too difficult.

[Methais]

Maybe because of Obama's poor (read, lying) handling of the situation.

Maybe if after it happened had Obama gone on national TV and said it was a cowardly terrorist attack and that he was going to personally bomb some country that had nothing to do with the attack then maybe we wouldn't be hearing about this on a daily basis.

It's like if someone drove their car through your garage door and instead of saying "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested" you said something like "Well...it's no big deal, I mean, shit happens, right? I blame some random Youtube video personally" then a few days later you said "What the fuck?! I want that maniac arrested!" it makes you wonder, right? RIGHT?!

Like gee, maybe that guy had a meth lab in his garage so he's trying to downplay everything so everyone will just forget about it and move on.

What I'm saying is Obama has a meth lab in the White House garage. That's what we should be investigating.

That would explain why Obama looks so skinny and malnourished.

Or maybe it's because Michelle is all like...


http://youtu.be/NOesuPiHnLY

[~Rocktar~]

Which spirit guide did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

The great spirit Ripple, or perhaps Mad Dog 2020?

[Warriorbird]

The great spirit Ripple, or perhaps Mad Dog 2020?

It's funny. This friendly crowd definitely makes me think they would've been really receptive to approving of Obama about anything.

[waywardgs]

The meth discussion got me thinking about that faces of meth thing. Someone should do a faces of the presidency. They all look like they've been through hell after their terms.

[cwolff]

The meth discussion got me thinking about that faces of meth thing. Someone should do a faces of the presidency. They all look like they've been through hell after their terms.

I found this one.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1Te_K8fD9bGMS64dH6VmG8JtCRrsoz qm6_K5P4H57oogAS62LFNUiMJne

[Jarvan]

What did we learn in the first 7 Benghazi hearings? What questions still need to be answered?

There was a lot of outrage when I said that Bush and his white house were all war criminals. What level of criminality did Obama and his WH reach regarding Benghazi?

We haven't heard the answers.. as to why the White House decided that the attack was a random outbreak of violence during a protest.. you know.. a protest where people carry rocket launchers, grenades, ak's and mortars. Happens ALL the time.

We still don't know where Obama was, because his own people say he wasn't in the situation room like he claimed. Also.. if he told his people to "Do anything possible to help those people" then where is the written order. Why wasn't anything done? None of this has been answered, all that has been answered is "What does it matter at this point". But Hilary.

[Methais]

We haven't heard the answers.. as to why the White House decided that the attack was a random outbreak of violence during a protest.. you know.. a protest where people carry rocket launchers, grenades, ak's and mortars. Happens ALL the time.

We still don't know where Obama was, because his own people say he wasn't in the situation room like he claimed. Also.. if he told his people to "Do anything possible to help those people" then where is the written order. Why wasn't anything done? None of this has been answered, all that has been answered is "What does it matter at this point". But Hilary.

Why do you hate women and minorities so much?

[Parkbandit]

Can we all just agree that the bullshit story about a video was nothing but political cover for Obama who was running for re-election?

I called that on 9-12-12 when I first heard the story about a "spontaneous demonstration" that got out of hand. I mean, come on.. you would have to be the biggest Obama water carrier to actually believe that concocted story.

[cwolff]

We haven't heard the answers.. as to why the White House decided that the attack was a random outbreak of violence during a protest.. you know.. a protest where people carry rocket launchers, grenades, ak's and mortars. Happens ALL the time.

We still don't know where Obama was, because his own people say he wasn't in the situation room like he claimed. Also.. if he told his people to "Do anything possible to help those people" then where is the written order. Why wasn't anything done? None of this has been answered, all that has been answered is "What does it matter at this point". But Hilary.

There's a picture of him in the White house talking to the national security director. It's not like he was drunk in the bowling alley or something. This whole story line revolves around conspiracy and Hollywood style military capabilities. You know we had people in Benghazi who responded and evacuated people from the Embassy. They also engaged in firefights outside and inside the embassy.

[cwolff]

Can we all just agree that the bullshit story about a video was nothing but political cover for Obama who was running for re-election?

I called that on 9-12-12 when I first heard the story about a "spontaneous demonstration" that got out of hand. I mean, come on.. you would have to be the biggest Obama water carrier to actually believe that concocted story.

Ya we can all agree on that.

[Jarvan]

There's a picture of him in the White house talking to the national security director. It's not like he was drunk in the bowling alley or something. This whole story line revolves around conspiracy and Hollywood style military capabilities. You know we had people in Benghazi who responded and evacuated people from the Embassy. They also engaged in firefights outside and inside the embassy.

A picture is meaningless. Obama said he was ~IN~ the situation room while it was happening and gave certain orders.

Turns out he was not. And so far, those orders can't be found/were never acted upon. If Obama ordered the military to do something to help, and the military did nothing.. which is what they claim... then either Obama lied about giving those orders, or his military refused to follow them. You would think that is fairly important.

Also.. it's been what.. 20 months? And Congress still hasn't been able to interview any of the survivors of the Attack.. least as far as I know.

[caelric]

I can't see how this deserves so much attention.

Can you honestly say that if this exact same event played out, but it was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice, that you would not be screaming impeachment and investigations and such?

Given your propensity for claims of war crimes WRT the Bush administration, pretty sure I know what your honest answer is. What you will claim, is, of course, most likely different.

[Parkbandit]

Can you honestly say that if this exact same event played out, but it was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice, that you would not be screaming impeachment and investigations and such?

Given your propensity for claims of war crimes WRT the Bush administration, pretty sure I know what your honest answer is. What you will claim, is, of course, most likely different.

They are only war criminals if Backwolff disagrees with them... as evidenced of the Democrats that voted for the Iraq War, but are somehow absolved of all responsibility.

[cwolff]

Can you honestly say that if this exact same event played out, but it was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice, that you would not be screaming impeachment and investigations and such?

Given your propensity for claims of war crimes WRT the Bush administration, pretty sure I know what your honest answer is. What you will claim, is, of course, most likely different.

I'm baffled by this post. Did Ninja not point out, at the very first post in this thread, that we lost 1 diplomat and 10 Americans to embassy attacks during Bush's administration? I never heard anyone want to investigate him for that.

The fact that you want to compare Iraq and Benghazi is pretty vulgar. Talk about shitting on our dead by politicizing their sacrifice. You may want only to accost me because you think I'm some liberal or just don't like me but don't be so fucking stupid about it. Pick your battles better.

[cwolff]

They are only war criminals if Backwolff disagrees with them... as evidenced of the Democrats that voted for the Iraq War, but are somehow absolved of all responsibility.

We haven't even addressed that PB. BTW, you still owe me references to some of the shit you tried to accuse me of saying about the culpability of troops who saw combat vs. troops who didn't. I notice that when I challenged you to provide proof you quit talking that B.S. You will say absolutely ANYTHING, with no regard to accuracy, in order to attack your favorite PC targets. It's a terrible feature of your personality.

[caelric]

I'm baffled by this post. Did Ninja not point out, at the very first post in this thread, that we lost 1 diplomat and 10 Americans to embassy attacks during Bush's administration? I never heard anyone want to investigate him for that.

The fact that you want to compare Iraq and Benghazi is pretty vulgar. Talk about shitting on our dead by politicizing their sacrifice. You may want only to accost me because you think I'm some liberal or just don't like me but don't be so fucking stupid about it. Pick your battles better.

Sorry, fucktard, not shitting on any dead. Happen to know quite a few of them myself. I don't like you not because you are a liberal, but because you are a two faced idiot.

[cwolff]

Sorry, fucktard, not shitting on any dead. Happen to know quite a few of them myself. I don't like you not because you are a liberal, but because you are a two faced idiot.

What's two faced about it? We lost 4400 troops in Iraq. We don't even have a count on how many contractors we lost. They didn't even merit an accounting. Now the right wants to have investigation after investigation on Benghazi which was a 4 hour small firefight that lost 4 Americans and you call me two faced? Your metrics are way off.

I think the cognitive dissonance is because the Iraq fuck up is on such a large scale that it's hard to wrap our minds around it. It's the War version of Too Big to Fail or Too Big to Jail. It's much easier to bury your head in the sand about that one and then feign outrage over Benghazi.

If you are unable to see how the right is politicizing Benghazi post ACA success and pre mid-terms then you're just a lost little man. As a career military person turning something like Benghazi into a pre mid-term fund raiser should drive you mad.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71otcR0NXTL._SX522_.jpg

Check it out. They made a pillow for you so that you can bury your head in the proverbial sand about the Iraq war.

[Parkbandit]

We haven't even addressed that PB. BTW, you still owe me references to some of the shit you tried to accuse me of saying about the culpability of troops who saw combat vs. troops who didn't. I notice that when I challenged you to provide proof you quit talking that B.S. You will say absolutely ANYTHING, with no regard to accuracy, in order to attack your favorite PC targets. It's a terrible feature of your personality.

Go through the thread again. There are some very big words in there, which is probably where you went wrong.

If you still require me to dumb it down for you again, I can. I have the time.

[Parkbandit]

If you are unable to see how the right is politicizing Benghazi post ACA success and pre mid-terms then you're just a lost little man. As a career military person turning something like Benghazi into a pre mid-term fund raiser should drive you mad.


Wait.. didn't you finally admit that the cover up of Bengazi was political cover for Obama running for re-election?

That's probably where Caelric's "two face idiot" comment to you hits reality.

[cwolff]

Go through the thread again. There are some very big words in there, which is probably where you went wrong.

If you still require me to dumb it down for you again, I can. I have the time.

I know what I wrote. I know what you wrote. I know that when I challenged you to prove the shit you were supposedly quoting me on, you went quiet. Even now the best response you can muster are some playground level insults.

You leveled some very serious and disgusting accusations at me PB with nothing to substantiate them. Prove it or apologize.

[Parkbandit]

I know what I wrote. I know what you wrote. I know that when I challenged you to prove the shit you were supposedly quoting me on, you went quiet. Even now the best response you can muster are some playground level insults.

You leveled some very serious and disgusting accusations at me PB with nothing to substantiate them. Prove it or apologize.

So you DO require me to dumb it down for you.

Shocker.

Ok little fella, give me a link. I'm here to help.

English: HOW DOS IT WERK!!??

[Methais]

I'm baffled by this post. Did Ninja not point out, at the very first post in this thread, that we lost 1 diplomat and 10 Americans to embassy attacks during Bush's administration? I never heard anyone want to investigate him for that.

The fact that you want to compare Iraq and Benghazi is pretty vulgar. Talk about shitting on our dead by politicizing their sacrifice. You may want only to accost me because you think I'm some liberal or just don't like me but don't be so fucking stupid about it. Pick your battles better.

Pretty sure it's the fact that there was no cover up attempt with those other attacks, for one.

You already know this though, along with the rest that's already been spelled out for you which you refuse to acknowledge outside of the confines of your little liberal mind, so there's no need to break down the details that everyone including you already knows.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty sure it's the fact that there was no cover up attempt with those other attacks, for one.

You already know this though, along with the rest that's already been spelled out for you which you refuse to acknowledge outside of the confines of your little liberal mind, so there's no need to break down the details that everyone already knows.

The attacks happened. We learned about them. We hardly live in Putin's Russia... unless you actually are Wrathbringer and think taxes are violence.

[cwolff]

Wait.. didn't you finally admit that the cover up of Bengazi was political cover for Obama running for re-election?

That's probably where Caelric's "two face idiot" comment to you hits reality.

That could be. I did say that Obama downplayed it for political reasons. It took what, 2 weeks before they admitted it was an actual terrorist attack.

We've had at least 7 investigations, criticisms have been leveled and changes have been made. I think we've even had more than 7 investigations but some were classified and done behind closed doors. The two-faced criticism of Benghazi is that the GOP is pushing this for purely political purposes.

[Methais]

The attacks happened. We learned about them. We hardly live in Putin's Russia... unless you actually are Wrathbringer and think taxes are violence.

And then Obama looked the country in the face and told us all it was over a YouTube video.

And so far, nothing else has been answered.

Is "what difference does it make?" sufficient enough for you?

[Parkbandit]

That could be. I did say that Obama downplayed it for political reasons. It took what, 2 weeks before they admitted it was an actual terrorist attack.

We've had at least 7 investigations, criticisms have been leveled and changes have been made. I think we've even had more than 7 investigations but some were classified and done behind closed doors. The two-faced criticism of Benghazi is that the GOP is pushing this for purely political purposes.

So.. you are ok that a President covered up the assassination of our Ambassador because he had an election to win.. but the investigation into this cover up is just pure politics?

You are an absolute delight.. and I for one hope you never, ever leave this forum. Even if you have to re-invent yourself again.. just promise me you will never leave us.

[Parkbandit]

The attacks happened. We learned about them. We hardly live in Putin's Russia... unless you actually are Wrathbringer and think taxes are violence.

"Let's just move on.. nothing to see here people..."

[Methais]

That could be. I did say that Obama downplayed it for political reasons. It took what, 2 weeks before they admitted it was an actual terrorist attack.

We've had at least 7 investigations, criticisms have been leveled and changes have been made. I think we've even had more than 7 investigations but some were classified and done behind closed doors. The two-faced criticism of Benghazi is that the GOP is pushing this for purely political purposes.

Blaming a YouTube video when he knew otherwise is downplaying?

Pretty sure a flat out lie like that qualifies as a bit more than just downplaying.

So you don't think they're still pushing on Benghazi because so far they've gotten no answers at all, and are going to keep pushing until they do?

No, surely that couldn't possibly be the case, and we should just take Obama's word that everything is cool, despite him already being exposed about lying about shit from the start.

[cwolff]

So.. you are ok that a President covered up the assassination of our Ambassador because he had an election to win.. but the investigation into this cover up is just pure politics?

You are an absolute delight.. and I for one hope you never, ever leave this forum. Even if you have to re-invent yourself again.. just promise me you will never leave us.

I'm not even going to respond to you anymore PB. I've been trying to talk to you and with you for a year now and it's just not a possibility. I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

[Warriorbird]

"Let's just move on.. nothing to see here people..."

You're the base. It works on you.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not even going to respond to you anymore PB. I've been trying to talk to you and with you for a year now and it's just not a possibility. I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

So you looked back at the thread you accused me of insulting you and realized I didn't.. then you realized how much of a flaming hypocrite you are being here.

Too funny... and too easy.

[Parkbandit]

You're the base. It works on you.

lolwut?

[Methais]

So you looked back at the thread you accused me of insulting you and realized I didn't.. then you realized how much of a flaming hypocrite you are being here.

Too funny... and too easy.

Hey man, he's like ignoring you and stuff.

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1104/liberal-debates-liberals-socialists-progressives-sad-patheti-political-poster-1302150039.jpg

[Warriorbird]

lolwut?

Definitely your mentality level, so this is effective at stirring you up.

[Parkbandit]

Definitely your mentality level, so this is effective at stirring you up.

I've been "stirred up" since 9/12/12 when I first heard about this and called it out for being an obvious cover up.

So, you are of the mind that this was all just an innocent reaction to Intelligence and not political cover for a re-election campaign?

[Warriorbird]

I've been "stirred up" since 9/12/12 when I first heard about this and called it out for being an obvious cover up.

So, you are of the mind that this was all just an innocent reaction to Intelligence and not political cover for a re-election campaign?

And you were completely unbothered by the politically doctored intelligence related to Iraq. You've mocked being bothered by it repeatedly. Welcome to the opposite side of the coin.

[Parkbandit]

And you were completely unbothered by the politically doctored intelligence related to Iraq. You've mocked being bothered by it repeatedly. Welcome to the opposite side of the coin.

I noticed that the "doctored" intelligence was that way previously to the Bush Adminstration... as evidenced by President Clinton's speeches and quotes regarding Iraq's WMD status.

Or.. do you believe the Evil Genius Bush was using a Jedi Mind Trick of some sort?

Stop being silly.

[Warriorbird]

I noticed that the "doctored" intelligence was that way previously to the Bush Adminstration... as evidenced by President Clinton's speeches and quotes regarding Iraq's WMD status.

Or.. do you believe the Evil Genius Bush was using a Jedi Mind Trick of some sort?

Stop being silly.

As has been repeated ad nauseum to your silly quote list, the Office of Special Plans was associated with the Bush administration. Accepting Curveball was a product of the Bush Administration. You haven't even read anything about it, just posted the same list of quotes you probably copied from the Drudge Report, over and over. And no, the only bit that bothered me is they used that to get us to fight Iraq as opposed to taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan when he fled there. You've repeatedly mocked that too. Now spin is somehow the end of the world to you. It's hilarious.

To note once again: Obama wanted us to strike Pakistan instead of Iraq. It's one of the reasons I supported him over Hillary. Turns out he was right. Hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

As has been repeated ad nauseum to your silly quote list, the Office of Special Plans was associated with the Bush administration. Accepting Curveball was a product of the Bush Administration. You haven't even read anything about it, just posted the same list of quotes you probably copied from the Drudge Report, over and over. And no, the only bit that bothered me is they used that to get us to fight Iraq as opposed to taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan when he fled there. You've repeatedly mocked that too. Now spin is somehow the end of the world to you. It's hilarious.

To note once again: Obama wanted us to strike Pakistan instead of Iraq. It's one of the reasons I supported him over Hillary. Turns out he was right. Hilarious.

So, it is your contention that the widespread belief that Iraq had WMDs prior to Bush getting into office is completely different than the widespread belief that Iraq had WMD after 9-11-01?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

[Parkbandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLw3YC5MTU

[Parkbandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

In before ZOMGFAUXN3WZ!

[Warriorbird]

So, it is your contention that the widespread belief that Iraq had WMDs prior to Bush getting into office is completely different than the widespread belief that Iraq had WMD after 9-11-01?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Serious yawn. It is my contention that Bush had a politicial office for "vetting" intelligence and that political office vetted Curveball. That action prevented us from handling business in Pakistan. The rest is just you derping out.

[Parkbandit]

So, President Clinton was lying here... because Bush was tricking him!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

[Methais]

.. do you believe the Evil Genius Bush was using a Jedi Mind Trick of some sort?

Stop being silly.

Well we certainly know that Obama doesn't use Jedi mind tricks.


http://youtu.be/hejtWJ02528

[Warriorbird]

So, President Clinton was lying here... because Bush was tricking him!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

Clinton and his wife have not a single thing to do with my argument. You never read any of it so you don't get that though.

[Tgo01]

Well we certainly know that Obama doesn't use Jedi mind tricks.


http://youtu.be/hejtWJ02528

Jedi mind meld? Holy shit! Did Obama just lose the Star Trek fanboys support AND The Star Wars fanboys support all with one sentence?

[Parkbandit]

Clinton and his wife have not a single thing to do with my argument. You never read any of it so you don't get that though.

Your argument is that Bush created the Intelligence that Iraq had WMD as an excuse to go to war.

I'm illustrating that this argument is destroyed by the Clinton's speeches and quotes prior to 9-11-01 where they said they had intelligence that Iraq had WMDs.

Unless you are of the belief that Bill Clinton did the same thing as George Bush.. cooked the Intelligence in order to wage war with Iraq?

[Warriorbird]

Your argument is that Bush created the Intelligence that Iraq had WMD as an excuse to go to war.

I'm illustrating that this argument is destroyed by the Clinton's speeches and quotes prior to 9-11-01 where they said they had intelligence that Iraq had WMDs.

Unless you are of the belief that Bill Clinton did the same thing as George Bush.. cooked the Intelligence in order to wage war with Iraq?

You would like my argument to be that. My argument is that Bush used a political office to vet intelligence from an unstable source and this lead to us going to the wrong place. It always was. You're just not even informed enough to debate it so you go to something you got from Drudge or an email forward that's actually for a different argument which you'd win with a different Democrat.

[Parkbandit]

You would like my argument to be that. My argument is that Bush used a political office to vet intelligence from an unstable source and this lead to us going to the wrong place. It always was.

So, again.. the intelligence prior to 9-11-01 that said Iraq had WMD was good... but the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD after 9-11-01 was bad?

Useful idiot is useful.


You're just not even informed enough to debate it

Hilarious, given this thread and your ineptness to date.


so you go to something you got from Drudge or an email forward that's actually for a different argument which you'd win with a different Democrat.

DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE!!!

Word of the week for you? We should start tracking these WOTW... they are hilarious.

The clips were from youtube.. I thought that was obvious with the links.

:shrug:

[Jarvan]

As has been repeated ad nauseum to your silly quote list, the Office of Special Plans was associated with the Bush administration. Accepting Curveball was a product of the Bush Administration. You haven't even read anything about it, just posted the same list of quotes you probably copied from the Drudge Report, over and over. And no, the only bit that bothered me is they used that to get us to fight Iraq as opposed to taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan when he fled there. You've repeatedly mocked that too. Now spin is somehow the end of the world to you. It's hilarious.

To note once again: Obama wanted us to strike Pakistan instead of Iraq. It's one of the reasons I supported him over Hillary. Turns out he was right. Hilarious.

Obama was a nobody in 2002. He was a nothing. He could say anything he wanted

[Warriorbird]

Obama was a nobody in 2002. He was a nothing. He could say anything he wanted

Not quite nobody


In May 2002, Obama commissioned a poll to assess his prospects in a 2004 U.S. Senate race; he created a campaign committee, began raising funds, and lined up political media consultant David Axelrod by August 2002. Obama formally announced his candidacy in January 2003.[60]

Obama was an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq.[61] On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[62] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally,[63] and spoke out against the war.[64] He addressed another anti-war rally in March 2003 and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.[65]


So, again.. the intelligence prior to 9-11-01 that said Iraq had WMD was good... but the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD after 9-11-01 was bad?

Useful idiot is useful.



Hilarious, given this thread and your ineptness to date.



DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE!!!

Word of the week for you? We should start tracking these WOTW... they are hilarious.

The clips were from youtube.. I thought that was obvious with the links.

:shrug:

There was no vetted intelligence pre 2001 or we would have gone to boost Democratic chances. Clinton would do anything for election results as Republicans so often tell us. Wag the Dog was written/made about the Clinton administration. Bush used a political office to vet the intelligence. It wasn't done right. It has nothing to do with the Clintons, and I (and Obama), on record, agreed with the opposition at the time, favoring Pakistan too. OSP lead to us going to the wrong place.

[cwolff]

The ultimate way to judge this he said, she said, shoulda, woulda debate is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. Neither did Bush 41.

You can parse the speeches and attempt to shift the blame but that's childish. Iraq not only happened on Bush's watch, he caused it and he and his white house were sufficiently educated on the WMD to make a decision. We see now that they made the wrong decision and it has cost us dearly.

[Parkbandit]

There was no vetted intelligence pre 2001 or we would have gone to boost Democratic chances. Clinton would do anything for election results as Republicans so often tell us. Wag the Dog was written/made about the Clinton administration. Bush used a political office to vet the intelligence. It wasn't done right. It has nothing to do with the Clintons, and I (and Obama), on record, agreed with the opposition at the time, favoring Pakistan too. OSP lead to us going to the wrong place.

So, your assertion is that most people believed Iraq had WMD prior to 9-11-01, but because it wasn't vetted by a political office.. it didn't mean anything. But Bush somehow knew they didn't have WMD and created the Intelligence to make people still believe that Iraq had WMD?

[Parkbandit]

The ultimate way to judge this he said, she said, shoulda, woulda debate is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. Neither did Bush 41.

You can parse the speeches and attempt to shift the blame but that's childish. Iraq not only happened on Bush's watch, he caused it and he and his white house were sufficiently educated on the WMD to make a decision. We see now that they made the wrong decision and it has cost us dearly.

It's only "childish" because it ruins your childish narrative.

So you still haven't clarified some very basic questions.

You said Bush and his administration are war criminals, but you haven't addressed the Democrats that voted for the Iraq War. Are they war criminals as well.. or do they get a free pass because they had a (D) behind their names?

[Tgo01]

The ultimate way to judge this he said, she said, shoulda, woulda debate is that Clinton did not invade Iraq.

True. He just signed a bill into law basically stating the US wanted Saddam out and wanted the country to move towards democratic elections. Clinton also funded opposition fighters against Saddam and oh yeah, Clinton attacked Iraq for about a week.

But he never invaded Iraq so he gets a pass. What is with Democrats thinking it's only bad if we put "boots on the ground"?

[Warriorbird]

So, your assertion is that most people believed Iraq had WMD prior to 9-11-01, but because it wasn't vetted by a political office.. it didn't mean anything. But Bush somehow knew they didn't have WMD and created the Intelligence to make people still believe that Iraq had WMD?

You're still too inept to get there. There were suggestions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We didn't have the appropriate confirmation or Clinton would've invaded to boost election chances (and was totally shameless enough to do that.)

Bush used a political office to confirm intelligence from a single source. They totally failed to do it appropriately but said they had, thus leading to us invading Iraq, which some members of the office had wanted to do for a long time but Clinton refused to do without better confirmation. We should have gone into Pakistan after Al Qaeda and didn't.

Even though you won't read it again, here's the appropriate link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Added note: RE: "Drudge" you presumably sourced your old quote list somewhere. I don't see you doing that much work.

[Parkbandit]

You're still too inept to get there. There were suggestions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We didn't have the appropriate confirmation or Clinton would've invaded to boost election chances (and was totally shameless enough to do that.)

"Suggestions?" Did you see the videos I posted?

Those were far from "suggestions". They were stated as facts by many people, including President Bill Clinton. It's only a "suggestion" in your mind to absolve your fellow Democrats of anything bad.



Bush used a political office to confirm intelligence from a single source. They totally failed to do it appropriately but said they had, thus leading to us invading Iraq,

So most people in power believed Iraq had WMDs prior to 9-11-01.. but they were only suggestions. Bush knew they didn't have WMDs somehow (he's probably the smartest President ever) but tricked everyone into believing they did after 9-11-01?


which some members of the office had wanted to do for a long time but Clinton refused to do without better confirmation.

Well, this is the same Bill Clinton that had Bin Laden dead to rights and refused to give the order.. so there's that...


We should have gone into Pakistan after Al Qaeda and didn't.

I don't disagree.



Even though you won't read it again, here's the appropriate link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

I've read it.. I just don't buy your notion that everyone prior to 9-11-01 who believed Iraq had WMDs are innocent pawns while Bush is some evil genius who tricked everyone into going to war.

[cwolff]

True. He just signed a bill into law basically stating the US wanted Saddam out and wanted the country to move towards democratic elections. Clinton also funded opposition fighters against Saddam and oh yeah, Clinton attacked Iraq for about a week.

But he never invaded Iraq so he gets a pass. What is with Democrats thinking it's only bad if we put "boots on the ground"?

More diversion.

I don't get why you do this shit Tg. It's retarded but I guess you enjoy it.

[Tgo01]

More diversion.

I don't get why you do this shit Tg. It's retarded but I guess you enjoy it.

More diversions? Are you serious, dawg?

This whole discussion is a diversion from Obama's failures with Benghazi but you're going to sit here and accuse me of diversion? Get off my PC!

[Warriorbird]

"Suggestions?" Did you see the videos I posted?

Those were far from "suggestions". They were stated as facts by many people, including President Bill Clinton. It's only a "suggestion" in your mind to absolve your fellow Democrats of anything bad.



So most people in power believed Iraq had WMDs prior to 9-11-01.. but they were only suggestions. Bush knew they didn't have WMDs somehow (he's probably the smartest President ever) but tricked everyone into believing they did after 9-11-01?



Well, this is the same Bill Clinton that had Bin Laden dead to rights and refused to give the order.. so there's that...



I don't disagree.



I've read it.. I just don't buy your notion that everyone prior to 9-11-01 who believed Iraq had WMDs are innocent pawns while Bush is some evil genius who tricked everyone into going to war.

It's really cool where you fill in stuff I haven't said to try to make your argument better. Let's sum up in a non Tsa'ah matter.

If Clinton had confirmation about Iraq he would have gone in. As you mention he liked to have to have that. He didn't.

Bush/Cheney wanted to go into Iraq for the political benefit that Clinton never got and due to strategic oil interests. They got an Office together to ignore the intelligence community (and their pesky demands for confirmation) and give them a go ahead. Then they did it, neglecting the appropriate follow up of the Afghanistan War which was Pakistan. The same people in the office had been big on America invading Iraq for many years (since the first war). Bush 1 and Clinton didn't do it. Clinton saw the political benefit but didn't see enough intelligence confirmation to go all the way. Bush 1 saw it as a total fucking mess if you removed Saddam.

Years later you hear about a President using spin in foreign policy "OMG WORST THING EVAR!"

Added note: The other link in the chain which you probably won't read either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[cwolff]

More diversions? Are you serious, dawg?

This whole discussion is a diversion from Obama's failures with Benghazi but you're going to sit here and accuse me of diversion? Get off my PC!

Christ you're still diverting. You said something stupid when you tried to equate Bill Clinton with George Bush as being responsible for the Iraq invasion. Just own it instead of changing the subject.

[Tgo01]

Christ you're still diverting. You said something stupid when you tried to equate Bill Clinton with George Bush as being responsible for the Iraq invasion. Just own it instead of changing the subject.

I did nothing of the sort. You said the only defining difference between Clinton and Bush was that Bush invaded Iraq. You totally ignored the fact that Clinton signed into law which basically stated the US wanted Saddam out of power. You ignored that Clinton supported opposition forces in Iraq. You ignored the fact that Clinton literally attacked Iraq for almost a week.

In the strictest sense of the word, yes, Clinton didn't "invade" Iraq but I'm going to use one of WB's favorite phrases, you're being disingenuous by saying such a thing in the context of this discussion.

[Warriorbird]

I did nothing of the sort. You said the only defining difference between Clinton and Bush was that Bush invaded Iraq. You totally ignored the fact that Clinton signed into law which basically stated the US wanted Saddam out of power. You ignored that Clinton supported opposition forces in Iraq. You ignored the fact that Clinton literally attacked Iraq for almost a week.

In the strictest sense of the word, yes, Clinton didn't "invade" Iraq but I'm going to use one of WB's favorite phrases, you're being disingenuous by saying such a thing.

And you can note me saying I think Clinton would've liked to. He was receptive to PNAC. He took actions. He just wanted more confirmation than was available at the time.

[cwolff]

I did nothing of the sort. You said the only defining difference between Clinton and Bush was that Bush invaded Iraq. You totally ignored the fact that Clinton signed into law which basically stated the US wanted Saddam out of power. You ignored that Clinton supported opposition forces in Iraq. You ignored the fact that Clinton literally attacked Iraq for almost a week.

In the strictest sense of the word, yes, Clinton didn't "invade" Iraq but I'm going to use one of WB's favorite phrases, you're being disingenuous by saying such a thing in the context of this discussion.

I did not ignore that and you are making a wild assumption to think that I did.

My point, my only point, is this: Bill Clinton, for whatever reason, did not invade Iraq. The proof is in the pudding. He just didn't do it. Bush did. You guys are trying to share the blame for the fucked up Iraq invasion by saying Clinton had the same intel, Clinton took some military action against Iraq, Clinton didn't like Hussein, Clinton wanted democartic elections in Iraq and this is all completely irrelevant.

Bush pulled the trigger not Clinton.

[Parkbandit]

It's really cool where you fill in stuff I haven't said to try to make your argument better. Let's sum up in a non Tsa'ah matter.

Wow, this multiple quoting really bothers you. Good to know. It gives you something to repeat again and again.. so here, I'll make sure I do it more often.


If Clinton had confirmation about Iraq he would have gone in. As you mention he liked to have to have that. He didn't.

You know this how exactly? He stated in multiple speeches that Iraq had WMDs. He ordered air strikes because they had WMDs. But because he "didn't go in", he was only suggesting that Iraq had WMDs?

You are serious now?

Scary part is: You are teaching impressionable kids with your own brand of stupid.


Bush/Cheney wanted to go into Iraq for the political benefit that Clinton never got and due to strategic oil interests.

LOL. Yes.. and don't forget Bush for trying to get back at Hussein for targeting his dad and the other good one was Cheney so he could reap profits from Haliburton. No way they wanted to attack Iraq because of WMDs, because they couldn't profit / get revenge from that.


They got an Office together to ignore the intelligence community (and their pesky demands for confirmation) and give them a go ahead. Then they did it, neglecting the appropriate follow up of the Afghanistan War which was Pakistan. The same people in the office had been big on America invading Iraq for many years (since the first war). Bush 1 and Clinton didn't do it. Clinton saw the political benefit but didn't see enough intelligence confirmation to go all the way. Bush 1 saw it as a total fucking mess if you removed Saddam.

I'm not arguing the merits of going into Iraq or not.. I'm merely illustrating the stupidity that it would take to honestly believe that the multiple powerful people who stated as fact that Iraq had WMDs prior to Bush getting into office... but somehow they were only suggesting it.. and Bush was the real person responsible for creating the Intelligence that Iraq had WMDs after 9-11-01.

My favorite line so far was that Clinton was only "suggesting" that Iraq had WMDs... that water is heavy as hell.. go ahead and rest a little.



Years later you hear about a President using spin in foreign policy "OMG WORST THING EVAR!"

Who said it was the worst thing ever? And I don't consider a coverup of an assassination as political "spin"... but hey, we're getting places. At least you FINALLY admit that this video was merely spin to help a reelection campaign. 18 months.. I saw it the same day I heard about the story. Some people are much slower than others though...


Added note: The other link in the chain which you probably won't read either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

YOU PROBABLY GOT THAT LINK FROM MSNBC! MSNBC! MSNBC!

[Warriorbird]

Wow, this multiple quoting really bothers you. Good to know. It gives you something to repeat again and again.. so here, I'll make sure I do it more often.


You're just trying to find something that sticks.


I'm not arguing the merits of going into Iraq or not.. I'm merely illustrating the stupidity that it would take to honestly believe that the multiple powerful people who stated as fact that Iraq had WMDs prior to Bush getting into office... but somehow they were only suggesting it.. and Bush was the real person responsible for creating the Intelligence that Iraq had WMDs after 9-11-01.

My favorite line so far was that Clinton was only "suggesting" that Iraq had WMDs... that water is heavy as hell.. go ahead and rest a little.

If only it weren't actually what happened. Clinton wouldn't have hesitated to go to war if he had confirmation. He said so, PNAC/OSP members said so (and yelled at him about it on record). It's just how it was. Bush/Cheney were more receptive and put the PNAC members into their administration.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212225110/www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm

[Parkbandit]

You're just trying to find something that sticks.

What?


If only it weren't actually what happened. Clinton wouldn't have hesitated to go to war if he had confirmation. He said so, PNAC/OSP members said so (and yelled at him about it on record). It's just how it was. Bush/Cheney were more receptive and put the PNAC members into their administration.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212225110/www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm

So, it was widely believed by people in power that Iraq had WMDs before and after 9-11-01... right?

Or are you still believing that Clinton and other Democrats were only "suggesting" they had them?

[Tgo01]

I did not ignore that

As evidenced by you bringing it up.


My point, my only point, is this: Bill Clinton, for whatever reason, did not invade Iraq. The proof is in the pudding. He just didn't do it. Bush did. You guys are trying to share the blame for the fucked up Iraq invasion by saying Clinton had the same intel, Clinton took some military action against Iraq, Clinton didn't like Hussein, Clinton wanted democartic elections in Iraq and this is all completely irrelevant.

Really? So what a previous administration does is irrelevant to the new administration?

Well then! I guess the economy going to shit and unemployment reaching record levels was all Obama's doing then :D

Glad to see you admit it finally.

[Warriorbird]

What?



So, it was widely believed by people in power that Iraq had WMDs before and after 9-11-01... right?

Or are you still believing that Clinton and other Democrats were only "suggesting" they had them?

Believing a thing is different than having actionable intelligence... which is precisely the problem with what Bush did.

[cwolff]

As evidenced by you bringing it up.

Really? So what a previous administration does is irrelevant to the new administration?

Well then! I guess the economy going to shit and unemployment reaching record levels was all Obama's doing then :D

Glad to see you admit it finally.

Tg, you got to grow up man.

[Tgo01]

Tg, you got to grow up man.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=9257&dateline=1391471838

The face of irony.

[Methais]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=9257&dateline=1391471838

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/3727/249105-mantis_diggaa_castlevaniaa.jpg

[Tgo01]

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/3727/249105-mantis_diggaa_castlevaniaa.jpg

I haven't played Castlevania since the first one on NES :(

[waywardgs]

Hahaha there are still people who are willing to defend bush for the Iraq war? Lol. Too funny.

[Thondalar]

Hahaha there are still people who are willing to defend bush for the Iraq war? Lol. Too funny.

I defend him completely. This is another one of those scenarios where people ignore facts that don't fit their political agenda. Bush-haters conveniently ignore the fact that 19 other countries had troops in Iraq. They ignore the fact that Iraqi scientists later admitted to lying to the UN security council about the Iraqi weapons program because they wanted Hussein removed from power. They ignore the fact that Iraq had already attacked our allies in the region before, and was threatening to again. They ignore the fact that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating with UN disarmament and inspections. The fact that Hussein was just a bad dude was a bonus.

[Warriorbird]

I defend him completely. This is another one of those scenarios where people ignore facts that don't fit their political agenda. Bush-haters conveniently ignore the fact that 19 other countries had troops in Iraq. They ignore the fact that Iraqi scientists later admitted to lying to the UN security council about the Iraqi weapons program because they wanted Hussein removed from power. They ignore the fact that Iraq had already attacked our allies in the region before, and was threatening to again. They ignore the fact that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating with UN disarmament and inspections. The fact that Hussein was just a bad dude was a bonus.

Bin Laden got a nice peaceful interlude with his wives. Very important.

[Methais]

I haven't played Castlevania since the first one on NES :(

You should examine your life and then feel bad about it.



The fact that Hussein was just a bad dude was a bonus.

http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/BadDudes_(12).png

LEMME GUESS TGO YOU NEVER PLAYED THIS EITHER HUH?!?!?!?!??@?@(:":@:@;/@$'owcicak

[Warriorbird]

http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/BadDudes_(12).png

LEMME GUESS TGO YOU NEVER PLAYED THIS EITHER HUH?!?!?!?!??@?@(:":@:@;/@$'owcicak

Bad Dudes was brilliant. I think I ought to let my students play more 8 bit games, given Kaldonis's recent post. They're life changers.

[waywardgs]

I defend him completely. This is another one of those scenarios where people ignore facts that don't fit their political agenda. Bush-haters conveniently ignore the fact that 19 other countries had troops in Iraq. They ignore the fact that Iraqi scientists later admitted to lying to the UN security council about the Iraqi weapons program because they wanted Hussein removed from power. They ignore the fact that Iraq had already attacked our allies in the region before, and was threatening to again. They ignore the fact that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating with UN disarmament and inspections. The fact that Hussein was just a bad dude was a bonus.

I thought in general the libertarian take on policing the world was... We shouldn't police the world. No?

[Methais]

Bad Dudes was brilliant. I think I ought to let my students play more 8 bit games, given Kaldonis's recent post. They're life changers.

Yes. Especially its deep storyline.

http://gamecola.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/baddude_arcade.jpg
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/BadDudes_(16).png

EDIT: Wait a minute...is that Duke Nukem? Or Brian Bosworth?

[Tgo01]

http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/BadDudes_(12).png

LEMME GUESS TGO YOU NEVER PLAYED THIS EITHER HUH?!?!?!?!??@?@(:":@:@;/@$'owcicak

You take that back! I kicked ass at that game. I was indeed one bad dude.

[waywardgs]

Yes.

http://gamecola.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/baddude_arcade.jpg
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/BadDudes_(16).png

Hmm... Might be time to fire up the ol' emulator.

[Methais]

You take that back! I kicked ass at that game. I was indeed one bad dude.

http://www.memegene.net/media/created/kzk0dl.jpg

[Thondalar]

I thought in general the libertarian take on policing the world was... We shouldn't police the world. No?

A good many of my brethren are total isolationists..."fringe" Libertarians are some scary people. While I'm all for reducing the number of our troops in foreign countries, I'm also logical enough to understand that A) we have obligations to our global allies, and B) we have a responsibility to our nation as a whole to protect our global interests. Sometimes this comes back to bite us in the ass, like arming those nice Al-Qaeda guys to help them fight off the Communist plague. Nobody is omniscient, and my sanity requires me to assume we're honestly trying to doing the right thing. My personal focus tends to be domestic.

[caelric]

Funny, cwollf, you still haven't answered the question of whether you can honestly say that if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice had taken the exact same actions in the whole Benghazi affair, that you would not be screaming impeachment.

Don't worry, I know what your answer is, depsite all your evading the question. Typical of people of your ilk. And by that ilk, I don't mean liberals or democrats, I mean fucktards.

[cwolff]

Funny, cwollf, you still haven't answered the question of whether you can honestly say that if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice had taken the exact same actions in the whole Benghazi affair, that you would not be screaming impeachment.

Don't worry, I know what your answer is, depsite all your evading the question. Typical of people of your ilk. And by that ilk, I don't mean liberals or democrats, I mean fucktards.

No, I wouldn't be screaming impeachment.

edit: I edited this because I want to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt.

[Methais]

...because you've got me labeled as a lib then you're going to be talking about this with yourself or others.

How are you able to declare yourself an independent in that other thread while simultaneously declaring yourself as anti-republican?

And you also never told is what the c in cwolff stands for. JUST WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE HIDING?!??!??????!?!!????!!!((

[Atlanteax]

Does cwollff not understand that the Iraq war was about Westernizing the Middle East, from the inside-out (Iraq is at the geographic center). Oil security (for Western consumption) was a bonus.

[Delcry]

Funny, cwollf, you still haven't answered the question of whether you can honestly say that if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice had taken the exact same actions in the whole Benghazi affair, that you would not be screaming impeachment.

Don't worry, I know what your answer is, depsite all your evading the question. Typical of people of your ilk. And by that ilk, I don't mean liberals or democrats, I mean fucktards.

The problem with the Republicans of today is that they simply do not respect the Office. You never saw Democrats do this during the Bush years.

Support our President.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

The problem with the Republicans of today is that they simply do not respect the Office. You never saw Democrats do this during the Bush years.

Support our President.

Your sarcasm might be too advanced for some people.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1393513_10204094819080570_7873837396677769671_n.jp g

[Johnny Five]

Your sarcasm might be too advanced for some people.

I find myself watching your sig over and over.

[Parkbandit]

I find myself watching your sig over and over.

That video is hilarious.. in a very sad sort of way.

[cwolff]

Interesting perspective. To be fair, there really isn't much outrage at all, from anyone. I think we're getting used to it.

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10308119_720902731306273_3318737206189920169_n.jpg

[Tgo01]

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10308119_720902731306273_3318737206189920169_n.jpg

Fallacy of relative privation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation)

[Thondalar]

Interesting perspective. To be fair, there really isn't much outrage at all, from anyone. I think we're getting used to it.

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10308119_720902731306273_3318737206189920169_n.jpg

Talk about an emotional response. For one, the statistics in that little thingy there are completely wrong. Even if you count every time a gun went off in a school since Benghazi, it's only 73. This includes suicides, police firing their gun at suspects, gang-related incidents at football games, college parties at on-campus housing getting out of hand, etc. etc. etc. Removing suicides, only 25 children (under 18) have been shot and killed while at school, and 20 of those were in a single incident. You're going to spin this as me not caring about these kids getting killed, and that's fine. Sane people will realize I'm just calling out those phony numbers. For two, what the fuck does that have to do with Benghazi?

[Back]

My feelings on Bengazi? Sorry to hear about it. Wish we could have prevented it. History now. Lets move on.

[Thondalar]

My feelings on Bengazi? Sorry to hear about it. Wish we could have prevented it. History now. Lets move on.

Because your team fucked up. Of course you want to move on.

[Tgo01]

History now. Lets move on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

[Warriorbird]

Fallacy of relative privation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation)

Given all your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque lately I'm not sure you can drop those, even barring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

[Tgo01]

Given all your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque lately I'm not sure you can drop those

Examples?

Also I find it quite ironic to point out the tu quoque fallacy to me in regards to me supposedly engaging in the tu quoque fallacy :p


even barring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

...examples?

[Back]

Because your team fucked up. Of course you want to move on.

Those are my own opinions on it. I've read about it, listened to the other side, tried to understand it, and at the end of the day, yeah, it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately. It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward.

[Warriorbird]

Examples?

Also I find it quite ironic to point out the tu quoque fallacy to me in regards to me supposedly engaging in the tu quoque fallacy :p



...examples?

Every time you post a fallacy you're doing the Psychologist's.

For the other, every time you declared "But Democrats do this!"

[cwolff]

Talk about an emotional response. For one, the statistics in that little thingy there are completely wrong. Even if you count every time a gun went off in a school since Benghazi, it's only 73. This includes suicides, police firing their gun at suspects, gang-related incidents at football games, college parties at on-campus housing getting out of hand, etc. etc. etc. Removing suicides, only 25 children (under 18) have been shot and killed while at school, and 20 of those were in a single incident. You're going to spin this as me not caring about these kids getting killed, and that's fine. Sane people will realize I'm just calling out those phony numbers. For two, what the fuck does that have to do with Benghazi?

It's definitely a propaganda piece and I have no idea where they get their numbers. I found it thought provoking and it does put some perspective on the politicization of Benghazi. It's definitely not about the deaths. People get killed all the time. Sometimes we care sometimes we don't. Most of the time we just pay it lip service and keep on with business as usual.

[Back]

Bengazi for republicans is the equivalent of Iraq for democrats.

Neither of them seem willing to let either go.

[Thondalar]

Not sure how this got posted twice, apologies.

[Tgo01]

For the other, every time you declared "But Democrats do this!"

I usually only say that when someone accuses/implies that only Republicans engage in a certain type of behavior. That's not really a fallacy, that's just correcting people.

[Thondalar]

Those are my own opinions on it. I've read about it, listened to the other side, tried to understand it, and at the end of the day, yeah, it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately.

You know full good and well if it had happened under a Republican president with a Republican cabinet you'd be marching on Washington.


It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward.

Hahahahahahaha. They're a bunch of self-important busybodies that love nothing more than to drone on at stupid hearings. This isn't the 1800's when they used to meet a couple times a year to discuss the country's issues, they have to work for their 6-figure salary and special healthcare/retirement packages.

[Warriorbird]

I usually only say that when someone accuses/implies that only Republicans engage in a certain type of behavior. That's not really a fallacy, that's just correcting people.

Recently you've dropped it as a blanket defense of Republican behavior. That is a fallacy.

[Tgo01]

Recently you've dropped it as a blanket defense of Republican behavior. That is a fallacy.

Again, examples?

[Thondalar]

It's definitely a propaganda piece and I have no idea where they get their numbers. I found it thought provoking and it does put some perspective on the politicization of Benghazi. It's definitely not about the deaths. People get killed all the time. Sometimes we care sometimes we don't. Most of the time we just pay it lip service and keep on with business as usual.

Well, that answers my first point. What about the second? If your thoughts are provoked by a comparison of two completely unrelated things, I don't know what to tell you.

[Jarvan]

Those are my own opinions on it. I've read about it, listened to the other side, tried to understand it, and at the end of the day, yeah, it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately. It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward.

So can we use this line whenever there is a mass shooting and someone wants to ban some type of gun that they think will maybe kinda stop them in the future?

Example... Sandy Hook.. Yeah.. it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately. It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward..

[cwolff]

Well, that answers my first point. What about the second? If your thoughts are provoked by a comparison of two completely unrelated things, I don't know what to tell you.

It speaks directly to the phony outrage about the 4 deaths in Libya. I think the creator of that meme is highlighting this well.

[cwolff]

So can we use this line whenever there is a mass shooting and someone wants to ban some type of gun that they think will maybe kinda stop them in the future?

Example... Sandy Hook.. Yeah.. it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately. It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward..

That's true but I'd suggest not getting bogged down in the details. The things that we do something about are the things we actually care about. We can talk all we want about different issues like school shootings or education in general but if we don't do anything then we're making a clear statement that it's just not really a priority.

[Warriorbird]

Again, examples?


True. He just signed a bill into law basically stating the US wanted Saddam out and wanted the country to move towards democratic elections. Clinton also funded opposition fighters against Saddam and oh yeah, Clinton attacked Iraq for about a week.

But he never invaded Iraq so he gets a pass. What is with Democrats thinking it's only bad if we put "boots on the ground"?

That entire line of discussion.

[Thondalar]

It speaks directly to the phony outrage about the 4 deaths in Libya. I think the creator of that meme is highlighting this well.

It appalls me that you're not outraged by it. Americans were left to die when the powers that be had enough warning to formulate some sort of response that could have prevented it. There are other problems with how it was handled, before and after, but that's my main issue, and the one that I cannot forgive. My outrage is not at all phony. The creator of that meme is a troll.

[Tgo01]

It speaks directly to the phony outrage about the 4 deaths in Libya. I think the creator of that meme is highlighting this well.

Fallacy of relative privation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation)


That entire line of discussion.

WB, I don't know how to tell you this, but you're not very good at pointing out logical fallacies :/

Leave this stuff to the pros.

[Warriorbird]

WB, I don't know how to tell you this, but you're not very good at pointing out logical fallacies :/

Leave this stuff to the pros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

[cwolff]

It appalls me that you're not outraged by it. Americans were left to die when the powers that be had enough warning to formulate some sort of response that could have prevented it. There are other problems with how it was handled, before and after, but that's my main issue, and the one that I cannot forgive. My outrage is not at all phony. The creator of that meme is a troll.

They weren't left to die and many people were rescued. These guys were doing dangerous work in a dangerous part of the World. People are going to die and we can't stop it all. Outrage has no place in this debate for me. It's a phony emotion and you're letting the powers that be pull your strings.

[Tgo01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

I accept your apology.

[cwolff]

Fallacy of relative privation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation).

You're using that fallacy incorrectly. The author is not saying that Benghazi doesn't matter because we have bigger problems. Keep trying though. One of these days you might get one right. I doubt it though because you're only posting fallacies as a reaction to me doing it so you're not too objective.

[Back]

So can we use this line whenever there is a mass shooting and someone wants to ban some type of gun that they think will maybe kinda stop them in the future?

Example... Sandy Hook.. Yeah.. it's tragic, no one disputes that. Tragic things happen, unfortunately. It just seems like our Congress could be talking about more important things like our economy, energy independence, forwarding science and healthcare, education, and the general overall health of our county moving forward..

You can't compare the two.

And you are a horrible ugly person for even trying.

[Warriorbird]

I accept your apology.

Now you've moved on to just error.

[Tgo01]

The author is not saying that Benghazi doesn't matter because we have bigger problems.

Except, like, that's not what the fallacy is.

[cwolff]

Except, like, that's not what the fallacy is.

The point of the meme is to point out GOP politicization of Benghazi and hypocrisy while simultaneously yet indirectly advancing their gun control ambitions. They're not making a case to protect Obama or divert attention from their guilt.

You're about 1/2 right on this one.

[Thondalar]

They weren't left to die and many people were rescued. These guys were doing dangerous work in a dangerous part of the World. People are going to die and we can't stop it all. Outrage has no place in this debate for me. It's a phony emotion and you're letting the powers that be pull your strings.

And you're minimizing it because it doesn't fit your narrow-minded political agenda.

I'm definitely saving a lot of these things you're saying for use in the future, though.

[cwolff]

And you're minimizing it because it doesn't fit your narrow-minded political agenda.

I'm definitely saving a lot of these things you're saying for use in the future, though.

How so? Should I tear my clothes and pull out my hair? It sucks and it's terrible. And it's only 4 people. I think you're failing to keep this in perspective or purposelly reacting this as if it happened in a vacuum. We have people dying in service to this country all the time. We just lost 4400 in Iraq. Over reacting to this begs the question, "why don't you give a shit about the other deaths?"

[Tgo01]

And it's only 4 people.

So what's the magic number when we should care?

[Thondalar]

How so? Should I tear my clothes and pull out my hair? It sucks and it's terrible. And it's only 4 people. I think you're failing to keep this in perspective or purposelly reacting this as if it happened in a vacuum. We have people dying in service to this country all the time. We just lost 4400 in Iraq. Over reacting to this begs the question, "why don't you give a shit about the other deaths?"

Again, you're totally...completely missing the point. It's not that 4 Americans died overseas. It's about the absolute clusterfuck that allowed it to happen, and the handling of it afterward. IMO, Hillary Clinton should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.

[cwolff]

So what's the magic number when we should care?

You're a one trick pony.

[Tgo01]

You're a one trick pony.

What? You said it was "only" 4 people and that people die in this country all the time and no one gives a shit. So what's the magic number of people that need to die before we can make a big deal about it?

[cwolff]

Again, you're totally...completely missing the point. It's not that 4 Americans died overseas. It's about the absolute clusterfuck that allowed it to happen, and the handling of it afterward. IMO, Hillary Clinton should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.

Negligent homicide? Seriously?

[Back]

It's about the absolute clusterfuck that allowed it to happen, and the handling of it afterward. IMO, Hillary Clinton should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.

Saying that the administration ALLOWED it to happen it a strong accusation. Just like saying Hillary should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.

You honestly don't think that the people involved didn't want this to happen? Are you suggesting they wanted it to happen? ALLOWED it to happen?

That's fucking nuts.

[cwolff]

Saying that the administration ALLOWED it to happen it a strong accusation. Just like saying Hillary should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.

You honestly don't think that the people involved didn't want this to happen? Are you suggesting they wanted it to happen? ALLOWED it to happen?

That's fucking nuts.

"You go to war with the Army you have."

[Gelston]

"You go to war with the Army you have."

I don't see anything wrong with Rummy's statement. It is extremely true. I'm sure we'd rather postpone all engagements until we have powerarmored space marines with railguns that can take out an enemy from 10 miles away, but we can't.

[waywardgs]

I don't see anything wrong with Rummy's statement. It is extremely true. I'm sure we'd rather postpone all engagements until we have powerarmored space marines with railguns that can take out an enemy from 10 miles away, but we can't.

Sure, but he was talking about why our infantry didn't have basic body armor. Families shouldn't have to send their kids safety equipment the military should be providing. Particularly when they're dropping billions on the latest missiles and planes and 15k wrenches.

[Gelston]

Sure, but he was talking about why our infantry didn't have basic body armor. Families shouldn't have to send their kids safety equipment the military should be providing. Particularly when they're dropping billions on the latest missiles and planes and 15k wrenches.

I don't know anyone who didn't have basic body armor in 2003. Or vehicles weren't armored, but that is because they were made to replace the jeep.

[cwolff]

I don't see anything wrong with Rummy's statement. It is extremely true. I'm sure we'd rather postpone all engagements until we have powerarmored space marines with railguns that can take out an enemy from 10 miles away, but we can't.

No, I don't either. There is or was some question about preparedness and the rush to war in Iraq. That could be debated I'm sure. Similarly, I'm not freaked out about the deaths in Benghazi. It's a shame that Stevens and his security were killed. They were very brave and Stevens was doing good work there and I don't make light of their sacrifice. As for being appalled, I'm appalled that we're letting this be such a political tool when 5 years prior we were so stoic. It really bothers me that people are trying to pretend like they care about Benghazi because 4 guys got killed but they don't give a shit about Iraq. That's my opinion at least.

[Tgo01]

Sure, but he was talking about why our infantry didn't have basic body armor.

It was in response to why military vehicles didn't have better armor and Rumsfeld claimed they were upgrading the vehicles as fast as possible.

[waywardgs]

It was in response to why military vehicles didn't have better armor and Rumsfeld claimed they were upgrading the vehicles as fast as possible.

"up-armored" humvees, yeah, but I also thought there was some issue with body armor, no? I remember reading stories about parents sending their kids vests...

[Gelston]

"up-armored" humvees, yeah, but I also thought there was some issue with body armor, no? I remember reading stories about parents sending their kids vests...

That was probably sensationalized. I don't know ANYONE that didn't have vests. The only thing I saw that was short was the SAPIs, but that was for units that weren't deployed.

[cwolff]

That was probably sensationalized. I don't know ANYONE that didn't have vests. The only thing I saw that was short was the SAPIs, but that was for units that weren't deployed.

What about Army and Guard units?

[Tgo01]

"up-armored" humvees, yeah, but I also thought there was some issue with body armor, no? I remember reading stories about parents sending their kids vests...

According to this link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/04/hillary-clinton/50000-started-war-without-body-armor/) 50,000 soldiers didn't receive armor at the start of the war because they weren't on the front lines and it was thought they didn't need them. They quickly found out they did need them so they ordered more but it took like 6 months for soldiers to actually receive them. So by 2004 every soldier had body armor.

The thing is people heard these stories so some soldiers decided to buy their own armor before being deployed in Iraq and apparently this trend continued for a year or two even though by then every soldier was being provided with armor.

[Taernath]

That was probably sensationalized. I don't know ANYONE that didn't have vests. The only thing I saw that was short was the SAPIs, but that was for units that weren't deployed.

Vests were a little hard to come by early on, and even then it was mostly just Vietnam-era flak vests with maybe a steel plate. I really don't know what that stuff is rated, but it's not as good as anything with a SAPI. There was a big push to get Dragon Skin accepted before SAPI became common which I think is what waywardgs is referring to. I'm talking about Army btw, I have no idea what it was like for the other branches.

[Gelston]

Vests were a little hard to come by early on, and even then it was mostly just Vietnam-era flak vests with maybe a steel plate. I really don't know what that stuff is rated, but it's not as good as anything with a SAPI. There was a big push to get Dragon Skin accepted before SAPI became common which I think is what waywardgs is referring to. I'm talking about Army btw, I have no idea what it was like for the other branches.

Dragonskin was determined to be pretty bad for extreme weather. In extreme heat (ie, Middle East) the glue weakened and the scales would slide apart. In extreme cold, the glue also got messed up.

What we did in the Marines with SAPIs, everyone was issued a vest but no SAPIs. When you were about to deploy, you then got the SAPIs. When you returned, you turned them back in.

The vietnam era vests you are referring to are actually not vietnam era. Those were the kevlar vests used in Desert storm.
This one:
http://olive-drab.com/images/body_armor_pasgt.jpg

[Taernath]

What we did in the Marines with SAPIs, everyone was issued a vest but no SAPIs. When you were about to deploy, you then got the SAPIs. When you returned, you turned them back in. The vietnam era vests you are referring to are actually not vietnam era. Those were the kevlar vests used in Desert storm.

The Army handled SAPIs that way too. In 2008ish there was some kind of defect that required a replacement, so for that entire deployment we carried 2 total sets of SAPIs in our duffle bags. I never could bring home that sweet polyester/asbestos blanket I got in a local market. And yeah, you're right about the vest. I was exaggerating a bit.

[Jarvan]

You can't compare the two.

And you are a horrible ugly person for even trying.

Tragic things happen Back. Congress wasted a lot of time after Sandy Hook. Time they could have used to do more important things.

Not my fault you don't like your own words.

[Jarvan]

How so? Should I tear my clothes and pull out my hair? It sucks and it's terrible. And it's only 4 people. I think you're failing to keep this in perspective or purposelly reacting this as if it happened in a vacuum. We have people dying in service to this country all the time. We just lost 4400 in Iraq. Over reacting to this begs the question, "why don't you give a shit about the other deaths?"

Cwolff, I think you should write that on a homemade card, and send it to each family of those "only 4 people" just so they know.

I can see it now.. "Dear Ms So and So. Benghazi happened.. it sucks, and it's terrible. And it's only 4 people. So it's not important enough to care about".

[Jarvan]

"up-armored" humvees, yeah, but I also thought there was some issue with body armor, no? I remember reading stories about parents sending their kids vests...

I know some families that sent their sons BETTER vests, but all the people I know that served over there were given standard gear at the least.

And yes, there is better vests the the military vests.

And if your son was over in Iraq and you could scrape together 10k for better protection, wouldn't you?

[Delcry]

They weren't left to die and many people were rescued. These guys were doing dangerous work in a dangerous part of the World. People are going to die and we can't stop it all. Outrage has no place in this debate for me. It's a phony emotion and you're letting the powers that be pull your strings.

I agree. What did you want Obama to do? He was in the middle of the most important election cycle of our lives and he had to put that before a measly 4 deaths. 313 million people are more important than 4 people.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

[Johnny Five]

I agree. What did you want Obama to do? He was in the middle of the most important election cycle of our lives and he had to put that before a measly 4 deaths. 313 million people are more important than 4 people.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Please die.

[waywardgs]

I know some families that sent their sons BETTER vests, but all the people I know that served over there were given standard gear at the least.

And yes, there is better vests the the military vests.

And if your son was over in Iraq and you could scrape together 10k for better protection, wouldn't you?

Sure I would. I also think that if the military can drop a trillion dollars on a shitty failure of a plane they can afford to wrap our soldiers in good armor. No excuse for sending Americans to the battlefield without proper gear. At least mcp, know what I mean!?

[Delcry]

Please die.

Sounds like the neocon healthcare program.

[waywardgs]

Sounds like the neocon healthcare program.

Ok, mildly amusing.

[Johnny Five]

Sounds like the neocon healthcare program.

No, this option was chosen by your democratic death panel and they decided you are too stupid for it to be a cost effective treatment.

[Wrathbringer]

Sure I would. I also think that if the military can drop a trillion dollars on a shitty failure of a plane they can afford to wrap our soldiers in good armor. No excuse for sending Americans to the battlefield without proper gear. At least mcp, know what I mean!?

Soldiers are cheap, ignorant, unintelligent and as such, easily replaceable. Planes aren't. Even the bombs they carry are smart. Besides, we'd have to stop warring for at least a year to retool our gear and we're obviously incapable of that at this point. Onward with the welfare/warfare machine!

[Whirlin]

Planes also can't be recovered by the enemy and reused as easily as something like body armor could.

[cwolff]

Planes also can't be recovered by the enemy and reused as easily as something like body armor could.

I'm not so sure about that. The chinese took apart that EP-3E a few years ago and sent it back in buckets. They also have a drone that looks almost exactly like a predator. They may have hacked for that one though. Iran is copying our drone that we lost. I'm sure there are more examples of technology getting to the enemy through shot down aircraft. It happens less frequently but the battlefield impact has the potential to be so much greater.

[waywardgs]

Soldiers are cheap, ignorant, unintelligent and as such, easily replaceable. Planes aren't. Even the bombs they carry are smart. Besides, we'd have to stop warring for at least a year to retool our gear and we're obviously incapable of that at this point. Onward with the welfare/warfare machine!

Depressingly accurate representation.

[Whirlin]

I'm not so sure about that. The chinese took apart that EP-3E a few years ago and sent it back in buckets. They also have a drone that looks almost exactly like a predator. They may have hacked for that one though. Iran is copying our drone that we lost. I'm sure there are more examples of technology getting to the enemy through shot down aircraft. It happens less frequently but the battlefield impact has the potential to be so much greater.

As easily...

It doesn't take a few year years and hundreds of engineers to figure out how to put on some body armor.

[cwolff]

As easily...

It doesn't take a few year years and hundreds of engineers to figure out how to put on some body armor.

Sure that's true. The impact is so much greater though. 1 set of body armor will wear out and be destroyed by being used. 1 shot down jet will be copied and used against targets many times over. That's all I'm saying. Just because the enemy can pick up body armor from a dead body isn't a very good reason IMO that we give our troops shitty gear.

[cwolff]

Wonder if this has legs and why it's necessary. We've already snatched people from Libya and it sure seems like the President can kills terrorists wherever he feels like.


Rep. Duncan Hunter of California submitted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would authorize the “use of force against those responsible for the attack against United States personnel in Benghazi, Libya.” The amendment will likely come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this week. Source (http://prospect.org/article/dangerous-amendment-amounting-declaration-war-track-house-vote)

[Gelston]

I would have thought the use of force was already authorized? Little redundant isn't it?

From that link "It is also unnecessary; under the War Powers Act the president, if necessary, can launch an offensive for up to 60 days without congressional authorization. "

[cwolff]

I would have thought the use of force was already authorized? Little redundant isn't it?

From that link "It is also unnecessary; under the War Powers Act the president, if necessary, can launch an offensive for up to 60 days without congressional authorization. "

It does seem that way. I wonder what his motivation is. Maybe he's just grandstanding for the media. Generating some headlines and a paper trail for future campaigns.

[Atlanteax]

Or it is to provide Obama some political cover with his left constituency to commit violent acts (the left are generally pacifists).

[Latrinsorm]

Again, you're totally...completely missing the point. It's not that 4 Americans died overseas. It's about the absolute clusterfuck that allowed it to happen, and the handling of it afterward. IMO, Hillary Clinton should be arrested for criminally negligent homicide.If a mishandled overseas operation that resulted in 4 Americans dead is bad, then a mishandled overseas operation that resulted in 4 thousand Americans dead must be worse. (Please note how the motive of the operation is irrelevant in each case: you don't accuse Sec'y Clinton of murder, but negligence.) Yet you and people of your ilk express more concern about Benghazi than Iraq. That does not. Make. Sense.
As easily...

It doesn't take a few year years and hundreds of engineers to figure out how to put on some body armor.You forget that the Chinese can't read Whirlin's Guide to Putting on Some Body Armor.

[Jarvan]

You forget that the Chinese can't read Whirlin's Guide to Putting on Some Body Armor.

Whirlin originally wrote it in Chinese, like every other instruction manual on the planet, then translated it to English.

[cwolff]

Or it is to provide Obama some political cover with his left constituency to commit violent acts (the left are generally pacifists).

That's one hell of a trick. Obama got this republican to write him some legislation.


Here's what Hunter says about what he's doing:


“As important as it is to gain absolute clarity on the Benghazi attacks through ongoing oversight, it is no less important for the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to possess the necessary authority to strike targets directly linked to the attacks,” said Rep. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. “Having the authority is by no means a requirement to use it. But with four dead Americans, the President must not be restricted from holding individuals and organizations responsible. And if the President believes this authority is unnecessary, then he has an obligation to come forward and explain why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is wrong or why he would avoid action in the event of an opportunity.”

Rep. Hunter wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in February. A response was provided stating that use of force authority does not currently exist.

[Atlanteax]

That's one hell of a trick. Obama got this republican to write him some legislation.

Here's what Hunter says about what he's doing:

Bingo, political cover.

[Tgo01]

That's one hell of a trick. Obama got this republican to write him some legislation.

Well Obama is a Republican so why not?

[Jarvan]

Well Obama is a Republican so why not?

Yeah, isn't it funny, so many liberals and dems love him, yet he is a republican and not doing anything the dems want. I am surprised you don't hear impeachment from the left.

[Jarvan]

While you were making a troll post both Kesha Rogers and Dennis Kucinich have suggested it should happen. Rogers over Obamacare, Kucinich over continuing Iraq/Afghanistan and the NSA. (Note, Kucinich's second suggestion was while out of power and working for Fox).

Dennis may just be gearing up for another run at the whitehouse. Of course if he was on FOX, then you know he isn't a real Dem anyway, right?

[Warriorbird]

Dennis may just be gearing up for another run at the whitehouse. Of course if he was on FOX, then you know he isn't a real Dem anyway, right?

I'd vote for him over Hillary.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Yeah, isn't it funny, so many liberals and dems love him, yet he is a republican and not doing anything the dems want. I am surprised you don't hear impeachment from the left.

It would destroy their constant use of the racism narrative. Duh.

[Methais]

I can't wait to see all the racism coming from the left if someone like Allen West decides to run.

[Tgo01]

I can't wait to see all the racism coming from the left if someone like Allen West decides to run.

"You bringing up racism means YOU are racist!" -- cwolff

cwolff really has that argument wrapped up in a nice little bow I've noticed. You mentioned race? You're racist. You don't agree with Democrats? You're racist. You don't agree with cwolff? You're racist.

[Warriorbird]

I can't wait to see all the racism coming from the left if someone like Allen West decides to run.

Personally I prefer to attack Allan West on the fact that he's the modern Joe McCarthy.

[Methais]

Personally I prefer to attack Allan West on the fact that he's the modern Joe McCarthy.

I prefer to attack Obama on the fact that he's a total retard, but that still doesn't stop people from playing the race card.

THIS JUST IN:
http://freebeacon.com/blog/exclusive-breaking-analysis-obama-still-cant-throw-a-baseball/

[Tgo01]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/exclusive-breaking-analysis-obama-still-cant-throw-a-baseball/

http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/pathpath-copy.jpg

That is one of the most awesome things ever.

[Tisket]

http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/pathpath-copy.jpg

That is one of the most awesome things ever.

Apparently Obama never watched The West Wing.

Put those White House corridors to use!

[Jarvan]

http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/pathpath-copy.jpg

That is one of the most awesome things ever.

I can understand not being able to pitch a perfect strike.. but dear god, man up and learn how to at least throw after 5 years.

[Methais]

http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/ObamaCantThrow-540x359.jpg
http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/ObamaCantThrow321.jpg
http://s1.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/AP1004050358311.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoF6dUQIUAAX1NH.jpg



I want to see Obama throw a football next. And swing a golf club, since he's done plenty of golfing.

Maybe even a tennis racket.

[waywardgs]

This just in: presidents aren't pitchers!!

[Methais]

This just in: presidents aren't pitchers!!

I don't think anyone is expecting him to throw a Roger Clemens fastball. I think just getting the ball across the plate would be good enough. Even little league kids can do that with no trouble. 60.5 feet isn't far at all when you're throwing a baseball.

Next time you have a baseball, throw it with your offhand, and watch how closely it resembles Obama throwing with his main hand.

Then think about how gay you just looked.

[waywardgs]

Maybe Obama is trying to hide that he's a dirty, evil lefty? Or righty? Wait... Is he left handed?

[Methais]

Maybe Obama is trying to hide that he's a dirty, evil lefty? Or righty? Wait... Is he left handed?

Based on his throwing of a baseball and how similar it looks to most people throwing one with their off hand, he probably is right handed and has been lying about it this whole time.

HE JUST CAN'T HELP HIMSELF AND IS ALLERGIC TO TELLING THE TRUTH!!!7!

[waywardgs]

If so that's good news! We all know the great satan would be left handed; if he's faking it and is actually right handed, he can't be the ultimate incarnation of evil! Phew.

[Methais]

Hey wait a minute...I'm left handed.

THAT MUST MEAN I'M BLACK!


http://youtu.be/bW7Op86ox9g

[Jarvan]

This just in: presidents aren't pitchers!!

Presidents really are not anything. Still, if you are going to do something on tv and in front of tens of thousands of people... learn how to actually do it.

[Methais]

Presidents really are not anything. Still, if you are going to do something on tv and in front of tens of thousands of people... learn how to actually do it.

Like be a president?

[Johnny Five]

hahaha, all these pics left me with a great feeling this morning.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think anyone is expecting him to throw a Roger Clemens fastball. I think just getting the ball across the plate would be good enough. Even little league kids can do that with no trouble. 60.5 feet isn't far at all when you're throwing a baseball.

Next time you have a baseball, throw it with your offhand, and watch how closely it resembles Obama throwing with his main hand.

Then think about how gay you just looked.60 feet is pretty far for an old guy to throw without warming up, unless he's really psyched about not using that arm for anything for a couple days. I distinctly remember President Bush warming up before the 9/11 first pitch, and obviously if you're the President you can probably insist upon it, but it's probably not the end of the world if you can't throw a decent ceremonial first pitch.

[Johnny Five]

60 feet is pretty far for an old guy to throw without warming up, unless he's really psyched about not using that arm for anything for a couple days. I distinctly remember President Bush warming up before the 9/11 first pitch, and obviously if you're the President you can probably insist upon it, but it's probably not the end of the world if you can't throw a decent ceremonial first pitch.

ROFL, are you serious? How do you think the first and third basemen warm up? Have you ever played softball/baseball? When you are warming up you are AT LEAST 60 feet away from each other. And Obama is 52, he's not 80 with bad shoulders.

[Latrinsorm]

As a matter of fact, I played softball yesterday (and have for years). Even in a podunk rec league, 52 is really pushing it. We're the oldest team in the league and we don't have anyone that old. We have in the past, but it's no gimme.

And you eventually get to 60 feet while warming up, but you don't start at 60 feet, which is the point of comparison.

Since you bring it up, how many 50 year olds have you seen warming up?

[Johnny Five]

As a matter of fact, I played softball yesterday (and have for years). Even in a podunk rec league, 52 is really pushing it. We're the oldest team in the league and we don't have anyone that old. We have in the past, but it's no gimme.

And you eventually get to 60 feet while warming up, but you don't start at 60 feet, which is the point of comparison.

Since you bring it up, how many 50 year olds have you seen warming up?

In my last league there was 3 men over the age of 50. All three of them played outfield. We all warmed up well over 60 feet when we started. My father is over 70 and he could throw a baseball 60 feet without an issue. Also you are telling me he can shoot a 20-22oz basketball 20+ feet but he can't throw a 5.25 ounce baseball 60 feet? :(

[Parkbandit]

ROFL, are you serious? How do you think the first and third basemen warm up? Have you ever played softball/baseball? When you are warming up you are AT LEAST 60 feet away from each other. And Obama is 52, he's not 80 with bad shoulders.

Obama could have warmed up for a week... and he would still throw like a girl.

In before "OMG PB WAR ON WOMANZ!"

[Jarvan]

Like be a president?

If you have read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, you would already know the President doesn't run things, he is just the distraction for those that do.

[Latrinsorm]

In my last league there was 3 men over the age of 50. All three of them played outfield. We all warmed up well over 60 feet when we started. My father is over 70 and he could throw a baseball 60 feet without an issue. Also you are telling me he can shoot a 20-22oz basketball 20+ feet but he can't throw a 5.25 ounce baseball 60 feet? :(They warm up in basketball too, layup lines and whatnot. I am confident that if we were to pace off the distance of the first warmup throws they would be significantly less than 60 feet, and the throws themselves would be significantly less velocitous.

[Methais]

If you have read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, you would already know the President doesn't run things, he is just the distraction for those that do.

But the president is usually at least good at giving off the illusion that he's in charge.

Obama can't even do that. He's always just like, "I found out about it on the news, and by golly I sure am outraged and stuff!"

Also, Latrin is either full of shit or his team places last every year.

60 feet is seriously nothing for a baseball throw unless you're either under the age of 7, or have a disability.

The fact that Obama can't throw a baseball 60 feet isn't because he needs to warm up or his arm isn't strong enough. It's because he literally doesn't know how to throw it. To most men it comes naturally. But Obama is a woman with a penis.

Let me refer you back to exhibit B (for bitch):

http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/ObamaCantThrow321.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Also, Latrin is either full of shit or his team places last every year....not every year...
60 feet is seriously nothing for a baseball throw unless you're either under the age of 7, or have a disability.You're about 30, right? Come back in 20 years and tell us how easy it is.
The fact that Obama can't throw a baseball 60 feet isn't because he needs to warm up or his arm isn't strong enough. It's because he literally doesn't know how to throw it. To most men it comes naturally. But Obama is a woman with a penis.This is another topic, but I've found that it has very little to do with nature. I ran a softball team in a college with a high international population, and various errors in form were common with people who were not taught as children (male and female). Ask your parents if they have video of you learning to throw, I think you will be unpleasantly surprised.

I also think the picture you use is a bad example. He's clearly not on an MLB field, the context is unclear. With all the examples of him making poor throws with clear context, it's odd that you would use this one.

[leifastagsweed]

Hey wait a minute...I'm left handed.

I thought left-handed people were supposed to be smarter?

[Methais]

...not every year...You're about 30, right? Come back in 20 years and tell us how easy it is.This is another topic, but I've found that it has very little to do with nature. I ran a softball team in a college with a high international population, and various errors in form were common with people who were not taught as children (male and female). Ask your parents if they have video of you learning to throw, I think you will be unpleasantly surprised.

I also think the picture you use is a bad example. He's clearly not on an MLB field, the context is unclear. With all the examples of him making poor throws with clear context, it's odd that you would use this one.


http://youtu.be/xBpdu5X_0xc

[Latrinsorm]

So... you're agreeing with me, right? Those were all pretty sad except JFK, LBJ, and Bush. JFK was under 50, Bush warmed up first, LBJ is an outlier (there's one in every crowd). I was most disappointed in Ike.

[Methais]

http://blogs.archives.gov/prologue/wp-content/uploads/16_GB_Barbara-Bush.jpg
http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/ObamaCantThrow-540x359.jpg

Just saying.

[Latrinsorm]

What, you're just saying that Obama has better fashion sense because he's BLACK??

[Methais]

Are you saying a Braves jacket is unfashionable at a baseball game?

Why do you hate Native Americans?

[Ker_Thwap]

Hey, I'm 50 and I can still throw 68-70 mph in one those guess your speed booths at the carnival. Of course after about 20 pitches, my shoulder would be aching. But yeah, it's all about being taught at a young age, it has nothing to do with having a penis.

[Latrinsorm]

Are you saying a Braves jacket is unfashionable at a baseball game?

Why do you hate Native Americans?I feel like I'm missing a joke here, but that's a Rangers jacket. (Bush, Rangers, you follow?) And that jacket with those shoes is a fashion disaster.

[Methais]

I feel like I'm missing a joke here, but that's a Rangers jacket. (Bush, Rangers, you follow?) And that jacket with those shoes is a fashion disaster.

I just took a quick look at the font and was thinking Braves.

Regardless, you can't even see Obama's shoes, nor is he wearing a jacket!

[Warriorbird]

Hey, I'm 50 and I can still throw 68-70 mph in one those guess your speed booths at the carnival. Of course after about 20 pitches, my shoulder would be aching. But yeah, it's all about being taught at a young age, it has nothing to do with having a penis.

You'd probably have more trouble at something that wasn't your sport though.

[Ker_Thwap]

You'd probably have more trouble at something that wasn't your sport though.

Basketball is my kryptonite. The only hoop in the neighborhood was owned by a fat kid, who wouldn't let anyone else use it.

[Warriorbird]

Basketball is my kryptonite. The only hoop in the neighborhood was owned by a fat kid, who wouldn't let anyone else use it.

Looks like baseball is that for Obama.

[Latrinsorm]

I just took a quick look at the font and was thinking Braves.

Regardless, you can't even see Obama's shoes, nor is he wearing a jacket!The only people who wear jackets in baseball are pitchers running the bases, i.e. losers. To paraphrase Sir Paul Milford, "When pursued by Rangers goth, hide in't gents 'til it clears off." Think about it.

[Methais]

The only people who wear jackets in baseball are pitchers running the bases, i.e. losers. To paraphrase Sir Paul Milford, "When pursued by Rangers goth, hide in't gents 'til it clears off." Think about it.

http://funnyphotodump.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/wat-if-i-told-you-wat.jpg

[Tgo01]

Even this cat throws a baseball better than Obama!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSM7L6b1Dgg

And this cat saved a 4 year old boy from a dog. And even with his injuries the boy in the video throws the ball better than Obama.

What I'm saying is this cat should be president and the four year old should be VP.

[Methais]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/5/21/5738684/laziest-foul-ball-catch-red-sox-blue-jays

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4489237/Lazy-foul-ball.gif

[Tgo01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Tt8_9gz88

[Back]

I like the title of this thread. It really explains everything.

[Parkbandit]

Someone threw a worse pitch than Obama!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEcf7sraymA

[Methais]

Someone threw a worse pitch than Obama!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEcf7sraymA

http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2010/243/d/5/that__s_gangsta__by_sweav-d2xpv1s.jpg