More on BHO & Benghazi

[rushmc 18]

RonD1120

Limbaugh Comments on Status of Obama Impeachment
05/22/13

Rush Limbaugh says it is just a dream to think Obama will ever be impeached. He thinks that because Obama is the first black President, nobody will be willing to step forward with impeachment.

Obama's approval rating is still at 50% despite the scandals.

LIMBAUGH:

“We can’t impeach Obama, it isn’t gonna happen ... but we can impeach the Democratic Party and get it out of town by voting them out.”

“As far as the public is concerned, Obama’s not in trouble,”


Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130522001-limbaugh-status-impeach.html#g0ocDP5FAfyaheOK.99

I think what we see here backs that up

And, I agree
Obama will only be weakened by this
Never removed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[toolbox 0]

Lets see now! I support gay rights to the benefits of marriage.
I support legalization of all drugs. I support people being able to eat as much of anything they want,or to smoke,not to exercise,and to be as unfit as they want.
I believe people should be able to live however they like as long as they do not directly harm anyone else.
These before mentioned views do not seem to be very consrvative at all to me.
I guesse my negative views towards the nanny state liberal agenda and my pro-gun rights views would make someone leaning left want to demonize me as right wing.
It seems that of the right and the left,the left seems to be the least tolerant of opposition to their ideology and are quick to insult and attack all who refuse to drink their koolaid.
I did not trust the Bush administration and trust the Obama administration even less.
I used to feel that the right wingers were the worst,but the lefties have quickly changed my mind.

[rehmwa 2]

toolbox

Lets see now! I support gay rights to the benefits of marriage.
I support legalization of all drugs. I support people being able to eat as much of anything they want,or to smoke,not to exercise,and to be as unfit as they want.
I believe people should be able to live however they like as long as they do not directly harm anyone else.
These before mentioned views do not seem to be very (socially) conservative at all to me.
I guess my negative views towards the nanny state liberal agenda and my pro-gun rights views would make someone leaning left want to demonize me as right wing.
It seems that of the right and the left,the left seems to be the least tolerant of opposition to their ideology and are quick to insult and attack all who refuse to drink their koolaid.
I did not trust the Bush administration and trust the Obama administration even less.
I used to feel that the right wingers were the worst,but the lefties have quickly changed my mind.

that's a very common set of beliefs top to bottom if you also include not having to pay for those choices that you advocate for individuals to have the freedom to make

but don't worry - those on the far right will look at it a note the differences and kind of ignore you and try to figure out how to force their social/religious agenda into the fairly libertarian view

those on the left will accuse you of lying about the social issues that you 'claim' to align to - and being a closet racist and sexist since you haven't bought fully into the party line and only chose a viewpoint of social acceptance, but not government domination over the individual

it's sickening - I'm completely (and sometimes unfairly) turned off by anyone that starts to wander into blind partisanship. It starts with some reasonable discussions, but that never lasts long before they go over into the deep end

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

toolbox

Lets see now! I support gay rights to the benefits of marriage.
I support legalization of all drugs. I support people being able to eat as much of anything they want,or to smoke,not to exercise,and to be as unfit as they want.
I believe people should be able to live however they like as long as they do not directly harm anyone else.
These before mentioned views do not seem to be very consrvative at all to me.
I guesse my negative views towards the nanny state liberal agenda and my pro-gun rights views would make someone leaning left want to demonize me as right wing.
It seems that of the right and the left,the left seems to be the least tolerant of opposition to their ideology and are quick to insult and attack all who refuse to drink their koolaid.
I did not trust the Bush administration and trust the Obama administration even less.
I used to feel that the right wingers were the worst,but the lefties have quickly changed my mind.

Sounds libertarian to me. Welcome to the club. All we want is to be left alone. Lots of other people seem to hate that.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[toolbox 0]

Thank you!

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I support legalization of all drugs. I support people being able to eat as much of anything they want,or to smoke,not to exercise,and to be as unfit as they want.
I believe people should be able to live however they like as long as they do not directly harm anyone else.

Except some of those things do harm others directly. Obesity increases health care needs. Many obese cannot afford those health care needs. So either you do not provide them, or "society" pays for them, one way or the other.

Drug use has the same impact. Smoking has the same impact.

All the above impairments also lead to higher absenteism, which eventually leads to reduced productivity. This eventually hampers the economy, which directly impacts society.

This libertarian, lessez faire attitude sounds so wonderful, doesn't it. It sounds as wonderful as system that would provide equally for everybody, so nobody would have to deal with hunger or poverty. It also sounds as wonderful as a completely free market that corrects based on the will and needs of society.

All are nice and utopian. The "sweet spot" is probably somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately we have all become so polarized that we can only recognize the middle as the spot we are standing on.

[RonD1120 58]

Why was our ambassador in a remote location away from the consulate?

Why was he out there on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? A time when we knew to expect trouble in general throughout the Middle East.

Why was military assistance denied when requests for help were sent?

Why was an immediate cover up perpetuated basing the attack on a bogus YouTube movie?

Just some of the questions I would like to see answered. Obesity and substance use disorder are insignificant issues to me in this arena.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rickjump1 0]

Here's an interesting take from an Air Force (retired) pilot.
QUOTE:
Betrayal in Benghazi

Phil "Hands" Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.


Among America's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a "lap dog" press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.
The recent testimonies of the three "whistle blowers" have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention "that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference" mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.



This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed "experts" the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don't just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.



Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him "Greg, we are under attack!" (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing "Emergency Response Plan."

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to "stand down". By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various "Command and Control Agencies" and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really "was not available" what about this:



When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.



Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act" screw them. It is high time that our "leadership" get their priorities straight and put America's interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with "72 virgins" and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to "tug" on Superman's cape.

Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm's way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood "What difference did it make?", or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that "One of the military tenants is that you don't commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation." Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone, and he didn't understand the tactical situation?



YGBSM!

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the Untied States of America deserve leadership that really does "have their back" when the chips are down. END

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[RonD1120 58]

rickjump1

Here's an interesting take from an Air Force (retired) pilot.
QUOTE:
Betrayal in Benghazi

Phil "Hands" Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.


Among America's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a "lap dog" press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.
The recent testimonies of the three "whistle blowers" have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention "that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference" mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.



This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed "experts" the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don't just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.



Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him "Greg, we are under attack!" (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing "Emergency Response Plan."

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to "stand down". By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various "Command and Control Agencies" and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really "was not available" what about this:



When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.



Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act" screw them. It is high time that our "leadership" get their priorities straight and put America's interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with "72 virgins" and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to "tug" on Superman's cape.

Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm's way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood "What difference did it make?", or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that "One of the military tenants is that you don't commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation." Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone, and he didn't understand the tactical situation?



YGBSM!

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the Untied States of America deserve leadership that really does "have their back" when the chips are down. END

POTUS/BHO has no honor. His WH administration certainly lacks honor. The former SOS never had honor. And, unfortunately, many O8 - O10's at the Pentagon lack the intestinal fortitude to set career politics aside and stand up.

We can only hope that enough Congressmen can see political advantage to pursue justice. I still have some modicum of that hope.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,621]

RonD1120

We can only hope that enough Congressmen can see political advantage to pursue justice. I still have some modicum of that hope.

Unlikely, since a majority of them are Republicans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rickjump1 0]

The General Officers Corps must be rotten to the core (yes, it rhymes). This despicable joke of military justice being carried out at Fort Hood, is a prime example of how far they have let things go.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

You (or your cite) thinks that a pair of F16s are effective against a mob (terrorist group) launching a planned attack against an embassy. Never mind that strafing the crowd outside would be an act of war on the nation involved?
It's too crude a weapon for the situation.

[rickjump1 0]

kelpdiver

You (or your cite) thinks that a pair of F16s are effective against a mob (terrorist group) launching a planned attack against an embassy. de woNever mind that strafing the crowd outsiuld be an act of war on the nation involved?
It's too crude a weapon for the situation.

You underestimate the US AIr Force. In Vietnam, they could put conventional bombs so close to friendlies that our C rations got hot. Now they have the laser- guided stuff. "Never mind that strafing the crowd outside would be an act of war on the nation involved?" For that situation, you are correct: never mind.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

rickjump1

It's too crude a weapon for the situation.

You underestimate the US AIr Force. In Vietnam, they could put conventional bombs so close to friendlies that our C rations got hot. Now they have the laser- guided stuff. "Never mind that strafing the crowd outside would be an act of war on the nation involved?" For that situation, you are correct: never mind.

Occasionally they missed, no? Sometimes too close, sometimes too far. But these were air strikes that were called in from the ground, and any friendlies that were in the same place as the bad guys were SOL.

I see problems with both- does the embassy have people that can call in the targets. And how many civilians that were merely on the street would be killed?

[popsjumper 2]

Benghazi is old news and soon to be forgotten. It's been supplanted by other news that will soon be forgotten. 'Mericans are like that, yeah, they are.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

You underestimate the US AIr Force. In Vietnam, they could put conventional bombs so close to friendlies that our C rations got hot.

That's nothing. In Iraq they put bombs so close to friendlies that they blew up allied convoys.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rickjump1 0]

I would guess that most drones, like the one giving live video feed during the attack, carry a laser target designator that can give "crude" bombs pinpoint accuracy. The two ex-seal contract hands on the ground were perfectly capable of calling in an air strike. Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

Quote

You underestimate the US AIr Force. In Vietnam, they could put conventional bombs so close to friendlies that our C rations got hot.

That's nothing. In Iraq they put bombs so close to friendlies that they blew up allied convoys.

Oops. It happens. Hope you weren't in the convoy.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

rickjump1

Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

Let's hope Americans' right to assembly never deteriorates that far.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the Libyan, or any other government, that we have the right to target civilians so trivially.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

I wish there was a way of figuring out why so many people around the world dislike the US.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Remster 24]

jakee

Quote

Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

I wish there was a way of figuring out why so many people around the world dislike the US.

The were enemy combatants... No, I guess not... Oh oh oh!!! I know!! lets call them Enemy Bystanders. mmm... Not negative enough... Got it! Enemy Loiterers. Win.

Remster

[rickjump1 0]

kelpdiver

*** Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

Let's hope Americans' right to assembly never deteriorates that far.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the Libyan, or any other government, that we have the right to target civilians so trivially.

"At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM." Note: He also mentioned that things started happening around 10:00 PM. Lots of time for the White House to react and lots of time for "innocent bystanders" to leave.

Do you must think that the attackers were exercising their "right to peaceful assembly?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

Quote

Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

I wish there was a way of figuring out why so many people around the world dislike the US.

Some of our British cousins have never forgiven our dads for drinking their pubs dry during WWII.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

rickjump1

"At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM." Note: He also mentioned that things started happening around 10:00 PM. Lots of time for the White House to react and lots of time for "innocent bystanders" to leave.

Do you must think that the attackers were exercising their "right to peaceful assembly?

It's their country, outside the embassy walls. Not sure what sort of rights they have. I just know that we lack the proper standing to make such a determination of people in their own nation. Would the F16s first broadcast a warning before unloading munitions on foreign soil? (Do they even have speakers?)

[billvon 2,380]

>Any civilian on the street at the time of the attack would be a willing participant and a target.

The only rights you are entitled to are those you are willing to extend to others.